Photoshop..or not?

uggy

uggy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been interested in photography for years, but have never progressed beyond a happy snapper to be honest. Looking at all the fabulous images here on this site I feel that I am a bit out of my depth. I know nothing about editing my photos. Do folk still take what I would call straight photos now, or are they pretty much always tweaked a bit? Would you recommend using photoshop or something like it that will be relatively user friendly and not expensive so that I can have a play, or not?
 
Hi after years in film and darkrooms I have just started on the digital route and bought Adobe Elements as a starter it does virtually everything I want and is interesting, analagous to the darkroom. If you go onto the Adobe web site you can down load a copy for 31 day trial and it's only £60 ish anyway. There is so much you can do with it I would definitely reccomend some pp software.
 
If you want something easy & free & quite good Picasa3 is a free download.
For a bit more control and more features Paint.Net and Gimp are both free downloads although you do have to learn how to use them to get the best from them.
After that Elements is probably the best paid for program to get at first. You may never want to get anything else, it all depends on how much you want to do.
 
You could just shoot in JPG to keep all your editing to a bare minimum.
 
I find the (free) open source application GIMP to be sufficient for most editing I do. Though in fairness I do nothing out side of Lightroom very much which is basic exposure/saturation adjustments for the most part.

It has most the features of Photoshop for 0% of the cost. Tutorials are abundant on the web but not as much as with Photoshop.

If you find that once you start using it you need/want features only in PS your much better armed to see if the cost of either full PS or elements is justified for what you want to do.
 
Just as venturing into D&P with film opens up a new world so does processing your own digital work.
Once you get into it there you will not look back.
Get as near the final product with the camera then make any adjustments to improve the result with processing software.
 
I use Paint Shop Pro X2 and it's considerably more user friendly than Photoshop, and shares a lot of the features. Its not quite as powerful as photoshop, but is far better than GIMP.

I still take plenty of photos straght from the camera, and don't shoot RAW as I would then have to process every single image regardless, I'm quite happy to let the camera do that.

I use PSP mainly for resizing, straightening and cropping, sometimes image correction is necessary because of difficult lighting or whatever but generally I don't go mad on images.
 
My camera's set to RAW+jpg, and usually I'm quite happy with the jpg but have the RAW should I decide to do more PP or get (heaven forbid!) creative :)
The jpg's may get the odd minor tweak; a bit of cropping and sometimes cloning-out bits I had no choice but to include. Getting it right in camera is my primary aim, though.
I use GIMP which I find easily as good as any other. I have the G'Mic and FX-Foundry plugins which greatly extend GIMP's capabilities. The 'not as powerful' argument is only partially valid for convoluted specialist stuff, and I often translate this as 'it doesn't have a press here to do it all button' ;)
Being a Linux user, GIMP was a natural choice for me ages ago and I've got used to it's foibles and quirks.
I liken PP to the old wet-darkroom. Some people like and excel at the techniques, others just want to fix a bit here and there. I'm in the latter camp.
 
You don't have to do any post processing, and a lot of folks never do - especially those professionals who need stuff done fast and sent by wire. You can do a lot of basic adjustments to the image by using the picture styles pre-sets, plus noise reduction and other in-camera features etc. This is basically pre-processing, in that you decide what you want before the image is taken, and the camera does it for you.

Canons also come with a free software bundles called Digital Photo Professional, which is a Raw processor and does a lot of other things too. It's very good, and you should already have it on disc. You can also download a free upgrade to the latest version on-line. One of the best features of DPP is the lens aberrations corrections facility which picks up all the lens settings automatically and corrects vignetting and chromatic aberation and distortion with one mouse click (you may need the latest version to get all Canon lenses).

In addition, PhotoShop Elements is rightly popular but the one that I like the look of (here's hoping Santa delivers :D ) is Adobe LightRoom. It is designed specifically for photographers, whereas Elements is basically a stripped down version of PhotoShop which is really a graphic design package.

Lightroom is £200 though, and DPP may be all you need.
 
Since you are a Canon shooter, start by using the included DPP software fully. The newest version supports quite a lot of functions like shadow/highlight, horizon adjust, cropping, USM to name just a few (you can download and upgrade to the latest version for free).

Photoshop is a behemoth in every way - eye wateringly expensive and is the Porsche of all editing tools. But do you need that level of editing capabilities? If you shoot RAW, Lightroom is a good tool to get a nice conversion workflow.

My suggestion would be to invest in Elements and use it in conjunction with DPP (convert RAW in DPP and perform further editing in Elements). Or invest in Lightroom and use that as a one stop editing tool - it is a very powerful tool. You can download trial versions of all these, including Photoshop, and purchase the one you like best :)

Cheers
HighPriest
 
I have struggled with my attempts at using photoshop or even elements, so have used ACDSee products over the last few years, and find them very easy and intuative.
I believe there is a free trial as with so many programs, so well worth a look in my opinion.
 
HoppyUK said:
You don't have to do any post processing, and a lot of folks never do - especially those professionals who need stuff done fast and sent by wire. You can do a lot of basic adjustments to the image by using the picture styles pre-sets, plus noise reduction and other in-camera features etc. This is basically pre-processing, in that you decide what you want before the image is taken, and the camera does it for you.

Canons also come with a free software bundles called Digital Photo Professional, which is a Raw processor and does a lot of other things too. It's very good, and you should already have it on disc. You can also download a free upgrade to the latest version on-line. One of the best features of DPP is the lens aberrations corrections facility which picks up all the lens settings automatically and corrects vignetting and chromatic aberation and distortion with one mouse click (you may need the latest version to get all Canon lenses).

In addition, PhotoShop Elements is rightly popular but the one that I like the look of (here's hoping Santa delivers :D ) is Adobe LightRoom. It is designed specifically for photographers, whereas Elements is basically a stripped down version of PhotoShop which is really a graphic design package.

Lightroom is £200 though, and DPP may be all you need.
Click to expand...

Very interested in what you say there, Richard.
I am a PSE user with no knowledge whatsoever of Lightroom. If I thought that I could gain some advantage by using Lightroom I'd buy it.
Any chance that you could mention some specifics that make Lightroom an improvement.
 
Photoshop is just way to dear, they wonder why so many people use a copy. If they made it affordable to mr average they surely would sell more. We all know that this is the best, if not hard and time consuming to master. Question being can you edit to this standard with any other program and reach the same affect.
 
arclight said:
Very interested in what you say there, Richard.
I am a PSE user with no knowledge whatsoever of Lightroom. If I thought that I could gain some advantage by using Lightroom I'd buy it.
Any chance that you could mention some specifics that make Lightroom an improvement.
Click to expand...

I haven't got it yet Dougie. But based on the advice and recommendation of those on here that have tried various programmes and really know about these things and whose opinion I respect, that's good enough for me :thumbs:

TBH, I think the biggest difference between most of these programmes and the end result, is the user ;)
 
and of course, theres loads of tutorial videos on youtube, to help you use whatever version of photoshop you choose.
i use CS3.
even if you dont want to get "creative" just simple things like cropping, and tweaking contrast/brightness can make a big difference to your end results.
 
HoppyUK said:
You don't have to do any post processing, and a lot of folks never do - especially those professionals who need stuff done fast and sent by wire...
Click to expand...

True to a certain extent, but I know for a fact (because I worked there for a while) that at AP, the picture editors (there are more than one) 'tweak' any image that goes 'on the board' whether you've PP'd it or not. Even if it's just levels and a crop, all images still get 'photoshopped' to a certain extent.
Most agency phots, knowing this, don't bother for certain types of work such as sports and day-to-day press work.
They will however, spend more editing time on editorial imagery which is destined for a specific client or publication.
 
And here is me, thinking I was strange, preferring 'Elements' . . . :thumbs: I use v.7, all though have v.8 on the computer . . . not so keen on change . . . maybe I am a little strange:lol:

I have briefly tried light room, but could not get to grips with it :thinking: . . . I shoot RAW+JPG, because, originally, I liked the 'out of the camera' approach, it took a lot of persuasion for me to even move from JPG to the '+' option. However I now have the best of both worlds, 'snapshot, no fuss' in JPG . . . if the camera gets it wrong or I want something different, I can use the RAW version.

I find the RAW conversion in Elements very simple to use, and far superior to some of the courser re working of JPG in Elements (:thinking: seems courser to me:shrug:). 'Elements RAW' might even be a simplified 'Lightroom'? . . . What ever, its excellent for my simple mind to get round, the best of both worlds. The only down side, twin images are obviously memory hungry. I dont find this a problem, I'm still using the 4GB cards I bought years ago, my D90 gives me 200 shots per SD card, I have rarely needed to use a second card in a session . . . :shrug:

CJS
 
Last edited:
arclight said:
Very interested in what you say there, Richard.
I am a PSE user with no knowledge whatsoever of Lightroom. If I thought that I could gain some advantage by using Lightroom I'd buy it.
Any chance that you could mention some specifics that make Lightroom an improvement.
Click to expand...

The best way to get an Idea of if Lightroom is for you or not, is to download the 30 day free trial and give it a go. If you like it, you can buy a copy from where evers doing the cheapest deal (it most likely WON'T be adobe directly!) and use the registration number on the pack to turn the trial into a full version. If you don't like it, you've lost nothing but a little time and a chunk of disk space for a month :shrug:

Personally, I think it's a great program, I find it useful for keeping track of my back-catalogue of shots, the tagging helps me pick out all the shots taken on (say) a particular camera or film type, as well as being my first filter when it comes to PP. It's good for colour balancing etc, you can get the first shot correct, then copy the settings to all the shots taken in that light on that session in one hit - it may not be perfect, but it generally gets you 95% there, and leaves small individual tweaks that take a few seconds, rather than a few minutes per shot. This mounts up over 200-300 images :lol:

For me, it doesn't actually replace Photoshop, but it means I can keep Photoshop for the more awkward stuff, and the general day-to-day process is simplified and speeded up. Probably nothing I couldn't do in Bridge and CS5 with a few actions, but for the money, it's great value.
 
TheBigYin said:
The best way to get an Idea of if Lightroom is for you or not, is to download the 30 day free trial and give it a go. If you like it, you can buy a copy from where evers doing the cheapest deal (it most likely WON'T be adobe directly!) and use the registration number on the pack to turn the trial into a full version. If you don't like it, you've lost nothing but a little time and a chunk of disk space for a month :shrug:

Personally, I think it's a great program, I find it useful for keeping track of my back-catalogue of shots, the tagging helps me pick out all the shots taken on (say) a particular camera or film type, as well as being my first filter when it comes to PP. It's good for colour balancing etc, you can get the first shot correct, then copy the settings to all the shots taken in that light on that session in one hit - it may not be perfect, but it generally gets you 95% there, and leaves small individual tweaks that take a few seconds, rather than a few minutes per shot. This mounts up over 200-300 images :lol:

For me, it doesn't actually replace Photoshop, but it means I can keep Photoshop for the more awkward stuff, and the general day-to-day process is simplified and speeded up. Probably nothing I couldn't do in Bridge and CS5 with a few actions, but for the money, it's great value.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark - I have been researching it and have come across quite a few folk saying that about it.
I am not a prolific shooter therefore the lighting conditions tend to be unique for every shot which may negate batch processing.
Lightroom seems to have strong organising features. So does PSE and I never use that part of it. I manage fine with my own organising.
Horses for courses, I suppose.
Cheers,
Dougie
 
Shooting just jpeg, just use GIMP for basic stuff like light/darken, saturation/sharpening.
Shooting jpeg & RAW, use Photoshop Elements it's Brill :thumbs:
Fairly cheap on ebay, mine cost 40 quid and worth the money over free programs anyday !
 
arclight said:
Thanks Mark - I have been researching it and have come across quite a few folk saying that about it.
I am not a prolific shooter therefore the lighting conditions tend to be unique for every shot which may negate batch processing.
Lightroom seems to have strong organising features. So does PSE and I never use that part of it. I manage fine with my own organising.
Horses for courses, I suppose.
Cheers,
Dougie
Click to expand...

One of the big reasons I'll use batch processing is for colour correction on film shots - I shoot quite a bit on film still, and process my own film stock, then scan them into the computer. To ensure sensible colour correction (i'm realistic enough to know that I'm not going to be as reliable as a proper automated lab system :shrug:) I take a Gretag Macbeth colour chart with me, and shoot a frame at the start of each roll with the chart in view. If I then shoot the second half of the roll in a different lighting setup, I re-shoot the card. I can then process and scan the roll, and use the colour charts to ensure that I get correct colour balance - much easier than faffing around with warm up/cool down filters on the camera :) Batch processing allows me to correct the shot with the chart, then apply that setting to all the shots in the same shoot - might only be 1-2 frames, or could be most of the roll.

As I said, it doesn't replace CS5 for me, because if I do anything fancy with layers etc. then I'll export out to CS5 and return to Lightroom afterwards. It's a good program, and certainly worth a look at the download, but it's not for everyone.
 
uggy said:
I've been interested in photography for years, but have never progressed beyond a happy snapper to be honest. Looking at all the fabulous images here on this site I feel that I am a bit out of my depth. I know nothing about editing my photos. Do folk still take what I would call straight photos now, or are they pretty much always tweaked a bit? Would you recommend using photoshop or something like it that will be relatively user friendly and not expensive so that I can have a play, or not?
Click to expand...

Your post reminds me of pre digital days when after joining a camera club I wondered why my b&w straight prints that I got back from Ilford processing were never as good as the others that were entered in competitons, I soon learnt that I needed a darkroom to compete,and a friend helped me set one up and learnt me. Most people could not afford or did not have the space for a darkroom those days.

It's no different these days , except its more of a level playing field now with digital, and most of those WOW or even lesser photos have been through the digital darkroom to some extent or another and you do not realise how much till you start to do it yourself. But its not for everyone and only you can decide if its for you.:)

From part of a Elements 9 tutorial I am putting together for another site and as a example of how much difference editing can make, a grey miserable day nothing shot at Scarborough Harbour.

On the left as shot on the right after it had been through Elements raw converter and had a few tweeks using adjustment layers.

1129176293_RrKwS-L.jpg
 
My approach is slightly different.

Way back I used to shoot transparencies (slides) and what came out of the camera was what you got, no messing. So they had to be right.

As I only shoot JPG I still use this approach, if it's beyond redemption it get deleted.

If any 'minimal' PP is required I use Microsoft Photo Premium 10 (PP for idiots) it came free with XP.

Keep it simple :shrug: my philosophy.

D in W
 
I've been using Photoshop for work for ten years (Graphic design, web graphics) and I know my way around it pretty well, yet I very rarely use it for processing images, unless I'm after a special effect - blending, stacking, cutout etc.

I've been using Capture One for the past two years to process RAW files and it's fast and feature packed. They have a thirty day trial. It's not the cheapest, but it gives you all the tools you need and more.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Another vote for Photoshop Elements 9
Click to expand...

Hi Gary,

I've got CS2 but just found out that on Elements 9, it has Layer Masks and Content Aware Fill, so gonna get that instead of CS5 which to be honest I wouldn't even understand 95% of it, never mind use it.

Dave. (Hairywombat)
 
There are hundreds of brilliant photos on this site.I am speaking as a beginner to DSLR.However, I know what I like, and to my mind some photos seem to be way over processed from the original shot,or I am in the presence of genius.
 
uggy said:
Do folk still take what I would call straight photos now, or are they pretty much always tweaked a bit? Would you recommend using photoshop or something like it that will be relatively user friendly and not expensive so that I can have a play, or not?
Click to expand...

Lots of people take straight photos but nearly all are tweaked if they are to go on display in some way. Think of women getting ready to go out for the night - they all put some makeup on - some more than others - processing is a bit like that ;-)

Photoshop is overkill for most users - you may well use less than 5% of its features yet you'll have to pay 100% for this.

Photoshop Elements is a sound compromise - and if you have a connection with education or NHS then there are discounts available.

If you want to try Photoshop on the cheap - Gimpshop is free and does a lot of what Photoshop does. http://www.gimpshop.com/

Hope this helps.
 
I shoot RAW and find that Canon's DPP does all that I need, you can download the latest version from their website which has more than the version that would be included with the 400D. I would experiment with that first as a no cost option and see how you get on before spending cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top