post processing

In article ,
YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:

I wouldn't recomment the Gimp even to Tony
I dont recomment the Gimp either, merely signaling that for
post-processing photos, it can do as much as PS CS, a lot cheaper but
not simpler !

the gimp doesn't come anywhere close to what cs can do, including the
decade old cs itself, nevermind the current version, cs6.

the gimp even does less than what photoshop elements can do, and what
little it does do usually requires more steps and is slower once those
steps are done.

Adobe really wants people to use the open DNG format, but few manufacturers
do, and Nikon and Canon probably never will.
And Fuji use some crazy proprietary format that is not easy to use from
an non-proprietary raw software. Something to consider when buying a
camera.

all raw formats are proprietary in one way or another. however, most of
them have been reverse engineered.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:31:34 +0000, Nige Danton wrote:

There have been some stunning before and after post processing photos
posted here in recent times. I've got zero experience of post processing
other than a bit of exposure adjustment and sharpening using Mac OSX
(Lion)
built-in software. The photos posted here have been remarkable and I'd
like to learn how to do something similar.

So, where do I start? Presumably I'll need some software - whats the
recommendation?

If it matters I'm shooting with a Nikon D7000 and an 18-105 lens. I
shoot in RAW and jpg.

Thanks for any help.

I'm certaily no professional photographer, but my first step is always to
open the raw file in ufraw (yes, there is a MAC version). It is amazing
what you can do right there. I have rescued some photos I thought were
totally lost. It will go guesses as to correcting exposure, white
balance, etc. which you can tweak a bit more on your own. Since the price
is right, I'd really suggest you give it a whirl.

In article , ray carter
wrote:

I'm certaily no professional photographer, but my first step is always to
open the raw file in ufraw (yes, there is a MAC version). It is amazing
what you can do right there.

not compared to what can be done in camera raw, it isn't.

I have rescued some photos I thought were
totally lost. It will go guesses as to correcting exposure, white
balance, etc. which you can tweak a bit more on your own. Since the price
is right, I'd really suggest you give it a whirl.

what you also fail to realize is that it doesn't do anything that can't
already be done on a mac with built in software.

I use mostly Paint Shop Pro, which is a low-cost program, not requiring
a recurring subscription payment, and the excellent Kolor Autopano Pro
for combining multiple images. Image management is with PIE (Picture
Information Extractor). Free software I use includes JPEGcrop (lossless
cropping) and GeoSetter for geo-tagging.

I very rarely take RAW, preferring to get the exposure right in the
camera. I run on Windows, so some of these packages may not be available
for your OS.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 2014-03-13 17:29:14 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:54:07 -0400, nospam
wrote:

photoshop is an extremely capable image editing app but it lacks some
of the stuff lightroom has.

Other than the cataloging/library features they are very similar
animals even down to using the same RAW processing engine.
Once you consider PS comes with Bridge, you just have a slightly
different workflow to learn to gain similar benefits from either LR or
PS.

And vice-versa. LR lacks some things PS has. The better system is
having both LR and either CS or Elements.

For most photography oriented folks LR is all that is needed. Once you
add in a need for major cutting & pasting, then PSE or CS6/CC should be
added. Also, if you are doing any compositing, PSE won't cut it, then
the LR5 + PS CS6/CC workflow option is the way to go.

RAW processing with the version of ACR packaged with PSE is well short
of the features found in LR5 and PS CS6/CC.

depending on what you want to do, that
might matter or it might not. also, a non-destructive workflow is quite
a bit harder with photoshop because it's not designed for it. it's
possible but it takes a lot of effort.

It takes some care, but not effort. "It's possible" suggests that
it's very difficult, and it's not at all very difficult.

photoshop elements is a terrific way to get started and it's about
$50-60. it's more than enough to keep you busy learning for a while. in
the event you outgrow it, then you can get photoshop cs/cc.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Elements includes Layers, and has for several versions. Missing from
Elements is the ability to use a Layer Mask, but Layers is there.

Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins.

some of them. not all. photoshop supports a wide variety of plug-ins.

Lightroom is no more over-the top for editing than CS or Elements.
Some might say it's less complicated, but that's not a definable
statement since it depends entirely on to what extent editing will be
done on an image.

As powerfull as PS CS is the Gimp ; the learning curve is step or worse.
But at last, it is free.

The learning curve for Gimp is no different than the learning curve
for CS, Elements, or Lightroom for basic editing. It is a bit more
difficult to learn only because there are fewer tutorials, and some of
the tutorials are not as well done as the ones for the Adobe products.

it's more difficult because it was designed by geeks who don't know
much about ui/ux design. photoshop was desgined by photographers and
graphic artists *for* photographers and graphic artists, and it's been
refined over the years.

Adobe really wants people to use the open DNG format, but few manufacturers
do, and Nikon and Canon probably never will.

I don't know what you mean there by "few manufacturers do". Do what?

support dng in the camera, which very few cameras do. nikon/canon never
will.

Adobe's Bridge will automatically convert .NEF files to .dng files
during import if you tick the box, but Adobe products process .NEF
files.

that's after the fact.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

depending on what you want to do, that
might matter or it might not. also, a non-destructive workflow is quite
a bit harder with photoshop because it's not designed for it. it's
possible but it takes a lot of effort.

It takes some care, but not effort. "It's possible" suggests that
it's very difficult, and it's not at all very difficult.

it's effort.

contrary to your belief, a non-destructive workflow does not mean save
a copy of the original. far from it.

a non-destructive workflow means previous steps can be adjusted long
after the fact and to do that in photoshop requires effort. you have to
deliberately use smart filters, smart objects, adjustment layers, etc.
every time you make a change. the moment you adjust something without
doing that, it's destructive.

In article 2014031310490216201-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

photoshop is an extremely capable image editing app but it lacks some
of the stuff lightroom has.

Other than the cataloging/library features they are very similar
animals even down to using the same RAW processing engine.
Once you consider PS comes with Bridge, you just have a slightly
different workflow to learn to gain similar benefits from either LR or
PS.

bridge sucks.

And vice-versa. LR lacks some things PS has. The better system is
having both LR and either CS or Elements.

For most photography oriented folks LR is all that is needed.

agreed but it sounds like he wants to do fancier things than what
lightroom is suited for.

Once you
add in a need for major cutting & pasting, then PSE or CS6/CC should be
added. Also, if you are doing any compositing, PSE won't cut it, then
the LR5 + PS CS6/CC workflow option is the way to go.

right.

RAW processing with the version of ACR packaged with PSE is well short
of the features found in LR5 and PS CS6/CC.

eventually maybe, but it's nothing that matters right now.

On 2014-03-13 17:54:08 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014031310490216201-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

photoshop is an extremely capable image editing app but it lacks some
of the stuff lightroom has.

Other than the cataloging/library features they are very similar
animals even down to using the same RAW processing engine.
Once you consider PS comes with Bridge, you just have a slightly
different workflow to learn to gain similar benefits from either LR or
PS.

bridge sucks.

Hence LR ;-)

Actually, Bridge has improved over the years, and is an important tool
for those who use the other parts of either the Creative Suite, or the
Creative Cloud.


And vice-versa. LR lacks some things PS has. The better system is
having both LR and either CS or Elements.

For most photography oriented folks LR is all that is needed.

agreed but it sounds like he wants to do fancier things than what
lightroom is suited for.

It sounds like he wants to do fancier things than iPhoto or Preview permit.

Once you
add in a need for major cutting & pasting, then PSE or CS6/CC should be
added. Also, if you are doing any compositing, PSE won't cut it, then
the LR5 + PS CS6/CC workflow option is the way to go.

right.

RAW processing with the version of ACR packaged with PSE is well short
of the features found in LR5 and PS CS6/CC.

eventually maybe, but it's nothing that matters right now.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 3/13/2014 11:04 AM, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:
Le 13/03/14 14:50, Sandman a écrit :

I wouldn't recomment the Gimp even to Tony
I dont recomment the Gimp either, merely signaling that for
post-processing photos, it can do as much as PS CS, a lot cheaper but
not simpler !

(And there is no such thing as free software : ridden with evangelists,
or full of holes, or digging into your information...See below) You can
do some ajustements with Picasa (no local ajustements) that is free,
newbie oriented and belongs to Google and scan your HD when
installing. I
just hate that so I never went past this step of installation...

There really is no standard RAW format, at least not used by the major
manufacturers. They all have proprietary formats that has to be
reverse-engineered by people that want to read them. That's why NX2 is
the only application that can *write* to the RAW format.

It is the only one that give access (including reverse) to some niceties
you set on camera, like the level of d-lighning or preset style of
photos...

Adobe really wants people to use the open DNG format, but few
manufacturers
do, and Nikon and Canon probably never will.
And Fuji use some crazy proprietary format that is not easy to use from
an non-proprietary raw software. Something to consider when buying a
camera.

I do 90% of my postprocessing in CaptureNX, the rest is between
AdobeCS3 (I dont want to buy or rent a new version for the little
use I have) and I use Aperture -that has also postprocessing
capabilities- just as host to the Nik collection plug-ins.

Aperture has great post processing tools. I use it a lot.

Yes, but for me it is a bit redondant with what I have in NX2.
I dont do that much post-processing on CS, but when I do it is for
specific things that I find only there : and with scripts. I use it
also for graphics and preparing files with text or graphics bits.

Yet I dont know about free plug-ins that could be useful for me :
I tried some plug-ins but they where not free or not useful. Some both.
I had the Genuine Fractals plug-in (not free) but after I tried and
uninstalled the whole suite i was never able to get it back working .
What do you use as PS plug-ins ?

I use Aperture as host for Nik.
Dfine noise filter is incredibly good, and selective sharpening is easy,
and Color Efex pro allow for very fast corrections.
And I use also Aperture a little bit for sony files. But the
multiplication of files bothers me.

Noëlle Adam

If you want cheap, you can get Photoshop CS2 from Adobe, for free.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=cs2_downloads

--
PeterN