Software recommendations please?

FourRingCircus

FourRingCircus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,949
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I need help!!! :wideyed:

I'm certainly NOT a computer newbie (having started with ZX81's in 1981!) but I've never gone in for much in the way of image processing. The main point to note here is that I still DON'T want to be processing my images until the original has been abused beyond recognition. However, what I seek is a package which can help me organise and (especially) view RAW CR2 images as thumbnails.

I'm shooting wildlife (birds) mainly with the 5Dmkiii and my viewing, organisation & 'processing' is done through FastStone. The processing is limited to small amounts of sharpening and highlighting/contrast adjustments and to be honest, I don't want to be doing anything more than this. I typically spend all day at a PC and don't want my hobby to involve the same. I'd be lucky if I currently spend more than one minute working on a 'keeper' in FastStone. Despite being effectively a free package, this is not the prime reason for its use. I find it does most of what I want, allowing me to organise and process, but it's no good when it comes to (quickly) viewing a selection of CR2 files. All I see are thumbnails with icons for CR2's. If I double click the icon, I can view the whole file, but at 25Mb or so per file, it can take a long time to look at hundreds of RAW images.

On top of this, I'm finding that for some unknown reason, the EXIF data is being stripped from ALL my 5Diii files when they are converted to jpeg in FastStone. However, my 7D files retain their EXIF information - even though I do exactly the same actions with either file in the software.

So, I'm seeking some wisdom here from the vast pool of experience in TP.:wave:

I don't care if it's software to be paid for, I just need to know what to look at in terms of a program that will:

  • Present CR2's as viewable thumbnails without having to actually open them - ideally something which can even quickly open a small (300x200) window by hovering on the CR2 thumb for a reasonable keep/bin examination.
  • Employ full file management facilities in terms of retrieval and storage of image files
  • Allow basic PP to a similar level as FastStone
I don't mind if the package has significantly more advanced features for PP, providing the basic levels are there and can be accessed without a holding a degree in the software itself. I want to stick a memory card into my pc slot, open 'this' software, immediately view the CR2's as thumbs, open a 'keeper', do a small amount of PP and save as a jpeg - all within a time-frame of about a minute.

Asking too much??:thinking:
 
Try a trial copy of Lightroom, could be just what you need.
 
Another vote for Lightroom.

If it's speed of viewing, sorting, etc. you're after, have a look at Photomechanic. No PP facilities, but ye gods, the speed you can view files is incredible. In an ideal world, Adobe would buy their technology and incorporate it into Lightroom and Photoshop.
 
Windows 8.1 natively renders my RAW files as thumbnails in its explorer windows ... despite what others have said, John, it seems to me that Lightroom would be massive overkill for your stated needs ...
 
Another vote for Lightroom.

I use a combination of LR5 and CS, but unless you want to get deeper into the processing side, then Lightroom is more than adequate.

Dave
 
Thanks for the replies thus far. I should have said that I'm being a bit of a Luddite these days and I'm still on XP-Pro. I appreciate Rog's point about overkill, but I'd rather than than go the other way.

To all the recommendee's here, can you confirm that these products are doing anything like what I really want in terms of the thumbnail view etc?
 
FourRingCircus said:
Asking too much??:thinking:
Click to expand...

I think you may be.

I use Faststone and Lightroom (and other things probably not relevant to this discussion).

I think Lightroom will do much of what you want. However, before you can do anything with images in Lightroom you have to import them into Lightroom. This involves Lightroom accessing the images and creating entries in its catalogue for each of them, and one or possibly more thumbnails of each of them. This takes time, especially if you want to work directly off of a memory card, as in your "I want to stick a memory card into my pc slot, open 'this' software, immediately view the CR2's as thumbs, open a 'keeper', do a small amount of PP and save as a jpeg - all within a time-frame of about a minute." This is not a runner with Lightroom.

If you can bear to wait while images get transferred to your PC and Lightroom does its preparations (you can go away and so something else, and arrange for it to play a wav file of your choice when it has finished) then Lightroom will give you (IMO excellent) facilities for managing images and for editing them. You have to take a little time to get your head around how it does things, but once you have done that it is (in my experience) very quick and intuitive to use.

Hmm...... Reading back over your OP I see that the only thing Faststone doesn't do for you is that "it's no good when it comes to (quickly) viewing a selection of CR2 files." If that is the problem, on reflection I don't think Lightroom is the solution, which would appear to be finding something that lets you do a very quick first look, and then you may as well use Faststone as now for the edits you want to do and organising your images.

I happen to think that Lightroom is far superior to Faststone in its editing facilities, even for simple edits, in terms of speed, ease of use and quality of results, but if you are content with Faststone none of that would be a consideration. I also used to use Faststone for selecting the images to process (in CS2 as it happens) from daily shoots of 600 - 1,000+ images (close-ups/macros, with very high failure rates, and careful comparisons needed between the non-failures). I now use Lightroom for this as I can get my selection done faster and more easily. Here too, if Faststone is fine for your needs then this too would be irrelevant.
 
A screenshot of LR interface with the develope tools and sliders on the right hand side.

 
I had Zoombrower with both my canon cameras and open all downloads with it. It lets me see thumbnail view and open in a larger size for viewing, then work on them in Elements.

Trevor
 
if you want a freebie, view CR2's as thumbnails, do some very very basic processing, (resizing, save in any format etc..) Irfanview has been a long-standing free application that I use alongside Photoshop.
 
Lightroom should do all you want but you have to load all your photos to it and keyword them.

It should help to pass the winter nights and when done, you will be able to call up any particular photos.
 
I use lightroom and I really like it but I think from what you said you don't need it!

If the only thing that annoy you is not to be able to see thumbnails of raw file then there is a easy and free solution offered by windows (for windows 7).

Just have a look at this link it's very easy to install and then you can preview raw file as a normal jpeg.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows7/how-do-i-view-raw-pictures

I beleive this should do the job for you and carry on using fastone if you like it and are use to it!

If you want to try something else
Carlh said:
if you want a freebie, view CR2's as thumbnails, do some very very basic processing, (resizing, save in any format etc..) Irfanview has been a long-standing free application that I use alongside Photoshop.
Click to expand...
I agree with the above, Irfanview is a good freebie although I haven't used it in years...
If you don't spend more than a minute editing your picture I wouldn't spend 100£ in lightroom..
 
Last edited:
You could install something like Arcsoft thumbnail viewer 1.0 here

or the paid version 2.0 here

or use this

all these should let you see thumbnails of your images in Fastone

I would have thought Lightroom would have satisfied your every need, but it may be overkill for you.

QImage might be worth a look but it's got its own unique interface and its really designed for printing but has a lot of other features under the hood.
 
Hi John
You can see thumbnails of the RAW files as soon as Lightroom picks up the card.
You then have the option of unchecking all the obvious duds, double clicking to review at full size if you want to and then importing.
When importing you can set a few basics like a preset amount of sharpening, the location of a second drive for back-up and the option not to import duplicates.
Hope that helps

cheers, cw
 
Mikesphotaes said:
Lightroom should do all you want but you have to load all your photos to it and keyword them.
Click to expand...
That's misleading - yes it's obligatory to 'import' images to the LR catalogue, but keywords in LR are optional.
 
Well, thank-you all for your input. I've spent much of the evening looking seriously at a couple of products and all I can say is that I'm dumbfounded by what's available from these software applications! Despite being initially excited by 'Photo Mechanic', I've now discounted this as it seems to be primarilly aimed at the pro tog.

When it comes to Lightroom, the penny has suddenly dropped - IF the marketing is to be believed..... My hobby has grown over the past couple of years and I'm lucky enough to have a good selection of some serious equipment. However, despite some of my best efforts, the results have (very) regularly been too poor to showcase on TP. Don't get me wrong, I've had a few very decent captures, but the vast bulk tend to hit the bin as they just can't live-up to the standards shown regularly on here. Well, perhaps the issue isn't simply my poor photography...... Here's what Adobe promise:

From this..............To this....
ps-smart-sharpen-207x116.jpg


Or perhaps this......to this
ps-camera-shake-reduction-207x116.jpg


Please don't tell me that I'm chasing about with cameras & lenses trying to attain a standard which is freely available by image manipulation at a bloody pc screen.:runaway:

Have I just been naive, looking on TP at fabulous shots of impossibly well exposed, pin-sharp red kites and such like, when the original image has perhaps been somewhat less impressive? Is Lightoom the 'tool' I've been missing all along? Most of the shots I send to the bin are a lot better than those shown on the left side above. If digital photography is all about digital manipulation, perhaps I should resurect my EOS100 or T70. Have I started this thread in all innocence to find something which will help me organise my files and like a fool, happened across something that is being used wholesale by others to keep me wondering what on earth I'm doing wrong in the field?
 
Last edited:
Lightroom is a just a tool not any magic.

These exemple of improvment are hard to beleive.
Most good shot come out good from the box, but because a raw file is a raw file there's always a bit of sharpening and some tiny little twick to be done.

A crap picture stay a crap picture and I don't beleive these exemple to be true!
 
FourRingCircus said:
Please don't tell me that I'm chasing about with cameras & lenses trying to attain a standard which is freely available by image manipulation at a bloody pc screen.:runaway:
Click to expand...

No, it isn't freely available by using some clever software on your PC. It is true that you can make huge differences to some OOC images with just one or a few moves with suitable software, in a matter of seconds. Examples that come to mind are changing the light balance and closing up gaps at either end of the histogram; some of the people I help with their photography have been astonished when I showed them examples of what can be done. But they are carefully chosen examples - it only works for some images. And for an image to end up looking really good it has to start out with enough information of the right type, a nice composition somewhere within it, and no irretrievable flaws, to enable a good looking result to be coaxed from it, no matter what software you use. And capturing images which are sufficient in these respects can require a fair degree of skill, knowledge, technique, nous etc etc.

FourRingCircus said:
Have I just been naive, looking on TP at fabulous shots of impossibly well exposed, pin-sharp red kites and such like, when the original image has perhaps been somewhat less impressive? Is Lightoom the 'tool' I've been missing all along? Most of the shots I send to the bin are a lot better than those shown on the left side above. If digital photography is all about digital manipulation, perhaps I should resurect my EOS100 or T70. Have I started this thread in all innocence to find something which will help me organise my files and like a fool, happened across something that is being used wholesale by others to keep me wondering what on earth I'm doing wrong in the field?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you have been naive in the sense and to the extent you suggest here. Nonetheless, although the marketing material should treated with extreme suspicion (with regard to special cases being chosen to show products at their best), post processing may be capable of delivering more than you have previously realised. And a product such as Lightroom may be able to deliver more, more easily, more intuitively, and quicker than a product such as Faststone. IMO, in the case of these two particular products, that is definitely how it looks to me, having tried similar things with both. But don't get hung up on Lightroom in particular. It is popular here. I use it too. But there are other products which may be less expensive and/or better suited to your particular objectives, skills, knowledge, manual dexterity, preferred working methods, way of thinking and seeing, subject matter etc etc. It takes time to work out what works best for you, with an inevitable, and in my case at least, pretty lengthy and still ongoing, amount of trial and error, experiment, frustration and delight.

As to images coming out of the camera somewhat less impressive, yes they can (and in my case often do). But if it is true, as I believe it is, that most images, even ones that are relatively good out of the camera, can be improved* with suitable post processing, then by definition out of camera images are generally going to look somewhat less impressive than what they look like after (suitable) processing. And yes, the differences can be huge (as when an image's "as shot" white balance is miles out, or when an image looks so dark out of the camera that it seems pointless to try to do anything with it but actually contains all the information you need to make it look just fine). You have to learn to probe your images to find out what they can reveal, and how they can be made to look; to learn to coax their possibilities out into the open.** It may seem miraculous sometimes, but there are no miracles involved, just transformations of available but initially invisible or suboptimally balanced information. And if the required information isn't there in the first place, or is too grossly unbalanced, no software is going to help you make a gem out of an image.

* what "improved" means is often a matter of judgement and taste. i.e. "improved", as in made to look more like you would like it to look.

** in terms of initially invisible information that can be coaxed out of an image, shooting RAW provides more flexibility in this regard. And it isn't just a matter of brightening up dark areas so you can see what is hidden within the darkness, or drawing down highlights to bring up features within initially featureless bright areas. There are subtleties of light distribution within an image, at larger and smaller scales, of colours and textures, which can be brought out with suitable post processing (on an image containing suitable information in the first place). I find Lightroom particularly good at this sort of thing, and very intuitive and quick to use in these areas. But not so good at some other things, like output sharpening, cloning and warping, for which I use CS2.
 
Last edited:
Nick - Thank-you sincerely for taking the time to write such a constructive and informed response. It's perhaps worth pointing out that I always shoot in RAW and I understand the difference between this and jpeg. However, despite knowing my way round a computer as well as I know my genitals(!), the specific topic of PP is one I've deliberately avoided for a number of reasons - primarilly self-improvement (how can you learn to take better shots if you can just make them at a desk after the fact) and secondly, a sincere lack of desire to be sitting at that damn desk/screen! My FastStone culture was born purely from a desire to view CR2's. I soon found some basic PP functions in sharpening and lighting adjustments, but that's as far as the PP has gone for me. I sharpen to 6 or 7 out of 100, then I highlight, contrast, shaddow and saturate typically in the +/- 5-15 from 100 range. I've also recently discovered the clone/heal functions, but I really don't want to get into that as I consider it 'cheating'. It also took me too long to make clone/heal work and I didn't feel good about the end result (removing twigs near a bird). As one who fully understands that you get nothing for nothing, I can only begin to imagine the capabilities of a paid-for program from Adobe. Having visited the Adobe website only after viewing replies posted here, I have now gone back to the birds forum and I'm starting to question (privately) just how many of these 'superb captures' have actually been 'captured' at all. Unfortunatley, I've noticed a culture of silence about what's been done to produce the images being presented, as only a handful of people actually talk (briefly) about PP in terms of (e.g.) 'layers' and other things I just don't understand. This is demonstrated by me coming here to ask questions rather than on the bird forum where I tend to reside. So, extrapolating this, can we suggest that only a handful of people are using this software? Given the replies above, I think not. My wife told me earlier this evening that she has seen me bin some great images which she reckoned could have been 'processed' by someone more knowledgable in the 'dark-arts' than myself . Am I simply deluding myself that they shouldn't need to be given this treatment? Should I sell the cameras/lenses and take-up golf instead? You can't use a computer to make a golf-ball land on the green rather than the rough after you've played the shot! :naughty:
 
Last edited:
FourRingCircus said:
Here's what Adobe promise:

From this..............To this....
ps-smart-sharpen-207x116.jpg


Or perhaps this......to this
ps-camera-shake-reduction-207x116.jpg
Click to expand...

Just for info, neither of those two sets of images are a result of Lightroom, rather Adobe Photoshop - the latest CC version. The top is the new 'smart sharpen' feature and the second is the 'camera shake reduction' feature, neither of which is available in Lightroom.

Simply put, Photoshop is about 'changing' an image, removing elements, selectively enhancing other parts, putting two or more images into one - changes that affect the structure of the image.

Lightroom is about 'developing' an image, more akin to the dark room process of old and is closer to your Faststone experience.

That said, you can do an awful lot with Lightroom if you choose to do so and boundaries have blurred between the two offerings of late allowing more localised enhancements within lightroom, but nothing really too far beyond what an experienced dark room tech could do with masks, cutouts, chemicals etc. At least that's the spirt of the program as I see it. Like everything, it can be pushed to extremes, but it's always an individual choice.

FourRingCircus said:
Nick - Thank-you sincerely for taking the time to write such a constructive and informed response. It's perhaps worth pointing out that I always shoot in RAW and I understand the difference between this and jpeg. However, despite knowing my way round a computer as well as I know my genitals(!), the specific topic of PP is one I've deliberately avoided for a number of reasons - primarilly self-improvement (how can you learn to take better shots if you can just make them at a desk after the fact) and secondly, a sincere lack of desire to be sitting at that damn desk/screen! My FastStone culture was born purely from a desire to view CR2's. I soon found some basic PP functions in sharpening and lighting adjustments, but that's as far as the PP has gone for me. I sharpen to 6 or 7 out of 100, then I highlight, contrast, shaddow and saturate typically in the +/- 5-15 from 100 range. I've also recently discovered the clone/heal functions, but I really don't want to get into that as I consider it 'cheating'. It also took me too long to make clone/heal work and I didn't feel good about the end result (removing twigs near a bird). As one who fully understands that you get nothing for nothing, I can only begin to imagine the capabilities of a paid-for program from Adobe. Having visited the Adobe website only after viewing replies posted here, I have now gone back to the birds forum and I'm starting to question (privately) just how many of these 'superb captures' have actually been 'captured' at all. Unfortunatley, I've noticed a culture of silence about what's been done to produce the images being presented, as only a handful of people actually talk (briefly) about PP in terms of (e.g.) 'layers' and other things I just don't understand. This is demonstrated by me coming here to ask questions rather than on the bird forum where I tend to reside. So, extrapolating this, can we suggest that only a handful of people are using this software? Given the replies above, I think not. My wife told me earlier this evening that she has seen me bin some great images which she reckoned could have been 'processed' by someone more knowledgable in the 'dark-arts' than myself . Am I simply deluding myself that they shouldn't need to be given this treatment? Should I sell the cameras/lenses and take-up golf instead? You can't use a computer to make a golf-ball land on the green rather than the rough after you've played the shot! :naughty:
Click to expand...

It's an individual view at the end of the day, but for me, if I use lightroom to tweak the exposure, highlights, shadows, pop in a small amount of sharpening, crop, tweak the White Balance etc, I'm really just developing the photo, and if that produces something acceptable to me, great, I'm a happy bunny. That's a photo I took and it's a good capture. I'm here around 60% of the time I guess.

If I take it a bit further, perhaps use one of the more advanced tools to correct perspective distortion from a wide angle shot, add a graduated filter to lower the exposure on the sky etc, and it looks great. I'm still happy, that's a photo I took, it needed tweaking a bit to accommodate for the physical limitations of the scene / equipment, but I'm still a happy bunny. I end up here around 30% of the time.

Take it further still, perhaps on some shots I may play around with split toning, adjust the balance of individual colours to replicate a muted look, perhaps to replicate a favourite film type of old because I like the balance of red and blues and so on, and it looks good. I'm still happy, it's an image I created base on a photo I took. This is my 'landing spot' perhaps 8% of the time.

Finally, taking it into extremes, I want to replace the sky, remove a person, remove a visually distracting object and so on - then it's over to photoshop and I'll edit away - rare, but fun. Again, I'd view this more of a creation than a photo, but if it works, guess what? I'm still happy! This would be my final 2%!

I think there's a place for all approaches.

*edited to fix messed up quoting.
 
Last edited:
Hi John
I can understand your concern regarding the degree of influence that Lightroom and other PP software may have on the finished image.
May I remind you of the adage that you can't polish a turd;)
Personally I very much like Lightroom. It takes me very little time to make basic adjustments to each batch and then a few tweaks here and there.
Broadly speaking Lightroom allows me to decide what information is kept and what is discarded, but it generally won't create anything that wasn't in the original RAW file.
I guess the main exception is the ability to clone out unwanted details. Certainly that is the only time I make the camera lie and with the sort of photography I do I am happy to remove the odd stick/blade of grass. You don't want to do that and if that's one of your measures of success then it is.
But if the original image is poor it goes in the bin.
I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that at one end of the spectrum you shoot jpegs and allow the camera to decide and at the other you create visual art.
As digital photographers we all sit somewhere in there, you just have to decide where you're most comfortable.
I think Nick's take on this is similar to mine :plus1: but at the end of the day it's obviously up to you.

Good luck!!
cheers, cw
 
droj said:
That's misleading - yes it's obligatory to 'import' images to the LR catalogue, but keywords in LR are optional.
Click to expand...

If, as the OP wants to, you want to use LR as a database, it is certainly not misleading!
 
FourRingCircus said:
Nick - Thank-you sincerely for taking the time to write such a constructive and informed response. It's perhaps worth pointing out that I always shoot in RAW and I understand the difference between this and jpeg. However, despite knowing my way round a computer as well as I know my genitals(!), the specific topic of PP is one I've deliberately avoided for a number of reasons - primarilly self-improvement (how can you learn to take better shots if you can just make them at a desk after the fact) and secondly, a sincere lack of desire to be sitting at that damn desk/screen! My FastStone culture was born purely from a desire to view CR2's. I soon found some basic PP functions in sharpening and lighting adjustments, but that's as far as the PP has gone for me. I sharpen to 6 or 7 out of 100, then I highlight, contrast, shaddow and saturate typically in the +/- 5-15 from 100 range. I've also recently discovered the clone/heal functions, but I really don't want to get into that as I consider it 'cheating'. It also took me too long to make clone/heal work and I didn't feel good about the end result (removing twigs near a bird). As one who fully understands that you get nothing for nothing, I can only begin to imagine the capabilities of a paid-for program from Adobe. Having visited the Adobe website only after viewing replies posted here, I have now gone back to the birds forum and I'm starting to question (privately) just how many of these 'superb captures' have actually been 'captured' at all. Unfortunatley, I've noticed a culture of silence about what's been done to produce the images being presented, as only a handful of people actually talk (briefly) about PP in terms of (e.g.) 'layers' and other things I just don't understand. This is demonstrated by me coming here to ask questions rather than on the bird forum where I tend to reside. So, extrapolating this, can we suggest that only a handful of people are using this software? Given the replies above, I think not. My wife told me earlier this evening that she has seen me bin some great images which she reckoned could have been 'processed' by someone more knowledgable in the 'dark-arts' than myself . Am I simply deluding myself that they shouldn't need to be given this treatment? Should I sell the cameras/lenses and take-up golf instead? You can't use a computer to make a golf-ball land on the green rather than the rough after you've played the shot! :naughty:
Click to expand...


I would think very few images posted on this site have had no PP.

That doesn't mean you have to sit in front of your computer all night.

LR does batch processing very easily.
 
Thanks again to all who took the trouble to be so helpful. Looks to me like a case of, if you can't beat them...... join them. Also, regardless of the power of the software, I'll still be able to control the extenct to which that power is used.... (famous last words of an emerging despot!) With any luck, I'll find some settings which are a virtual 'catch all' and batch process.
 
Digikam can do those things. And it's free, so worth a try.
  • Import from camera
  • Organise with thumbnails. CR2/Raw thumbnails too.
  • Advanced search, face recognition, tags/keywords
  • Editing suite. including Raw development
  • Connects to Panorama/HDR/Raw or any other software
  • Direct upload to online services.
You can do it all from within Digikam
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
Digikam can do those things. And it's free, so worth a try.
  • Import from camera
  • Organise with thumbnails. CR2/Raw thumbnails too.
  • Advanced search, face recognition, tags/keywords
  • Editing suite. including Raw development
  • Connects to Panorama/HDR/Raw or any other software
  • Direct upload to online services.
You can do it all from within Digikam
Click to expand...

I've been using DigiKam since about 2008, and it's a great image handling tool - probably has the best fine sharpening tool I've ever used for web work (refocus) and it's much easier and faster to use for looking at thumbnails etc than LR. Until recently it's been my go-to image processing software.

However, and it's a big however, it doesn't have the ability to bring out the best in a raw file the way Lightroom does. I've tried a number of different image processing apps including Cyberlink Photodirector and Corel Paintshop pro, Raw Therapee and a couple of others. I can get close to producing a similar quality of image with some of them to what Lightroom can do, sometimes, but LR seems to produce more pleasing images more of the time. To me, it's very much a digital darkroom, and if you can see a potential for a great image in your raw file then you can generally release that image with LR. Just as you could in a darkroom, you can fix some faults, correct some errors or failings of your equipment, but you can't create a new or different image. It's not perfect, and I find it relatively slow to get PP images back out (export takes an AGE) and when rescaling an image, what you saw when manipulating isn't necessarily what you get in terms of sharpness etc afterward. It also seems resource hungry, and gets very slow if you start doing work with brushes and image correction.

LR is good enough that I've actually bought a copy - I'm normally a fan of free software. I'll likely run LR alongside DigiKam (in the middle of setting up Windows 8 specifically to use LR at home) using DigiKam to preview images before import and to polish resized images for web work. I also have about 500GB of images in DigiKam on Linux already. :)
 
I set up Raw Therapee as the standard Raw processor in Digikam, instead on the one that comes with it. Digikam lets you plug the tools of your choice. I tried lots of different raw processors. All of them good. But Raw Therapee just seemed to work better for me and the raw files from my camera. I can imagine other people having other preferences though, depending on their cameras raw and how they prefer to work.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
To me, it's very much a digital darkroom, and if you can see a potential for a great image in your raw file then you can generally release that image with LR. Just as you could in a darkroom, you can fix some faults, correct some errors or failings of your equipment, but you can't create a new or different image.
Click to expand...

Nice summary, and very much how I feel about Lightroom.

ancient_mariner said:
when rescaling an image, what you saw when manipulating isn't necessarily what you get in terms of sharpness etc afterward.
Click to expand...

I send images across to CS2 from Lightroom for resizing and output sharpening so I can see the effect of the output sharpening and keep control over what I finally end up with.
 
FourRingCircus said:
I'd be lucky if I currently spend more than one minute working on a 'keeper' in FastStone. Despite being effectively a free package, this is not the prime reason for its use. I find it does most of what I want, allowing me to organise and process, but it's no good when it comes to (quickly) viewing a selection of CR2 files. All I see are thumbnails with icons for CR2's. If I double click the icon, I can view the whole file, but at 25Mb or so per file, it can take a long time to look at hundreds of RAW images.
Click to expand...

First off - when you edit a CR2 file with FastStone you're not actually editing the raw data. Each raw file contains an embedded jpeg image - processed from the raw data using the in-camera settings. It is this image that you see and edit when you load a CR2 in FastStone. View a CR2 and press 'A', then wait for the raw data to load.

To view thumnails you need the Microsoft Camera Codec pack.
 
As an alternative, have a look at CHASYSDRAW. I downloaded it and had a play, but thanks to a very generous member on here I have an Abobe product instead.

Chasysdraw does seem to have a lot of features and handles RAW, so might be worth a look.
 
Well sorry to bring the thread back to this. But thinking back to the start of this thread when John said:
FourRingCircus said:
Please don't tell me that I'm chasing about with cameras & lenses trying to attain a standard which is freely available by image manipulation at a bloody pc screen.:runaway:
Click to expand...

I was looking at a lightroom tutorial and just found this by Serge Rameli:
"how to change a boring into amzing sunset LR3"

Also I find this thread on the forum:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/the-pp-game.347318/page-107#post-6074818
With a lot of exemple of very average photo which end up being really stunning!

I probably was a bit naive too. Everyone know how much top model photographies are modified to make themlook thiner, healthier, younger,.... The same has to apply to photography.

Is the futur of the photography is sitting down in front of the computer?
 
Last edited:
Lemaildetom said:
Is the futur of the photography is sitting down in front of the computer?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm just going to be a Luddite (again). Photography gets me away from a computer screen and lets me enjoy nature at the same time. I took this shot at the weekend (1000mm 1/250s F8 handheld!) and aside from some very basic FastStone adjustments to highlights and contrast, it's as I saw it. Sure, I could have probably 'brought-out' a lot more underwing detail etc, but computers are a drag! So long as I'm happy, I suppose I should stop comparing with others:

12258486664_f1cfbd7210_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Irfanview is really good for looking at thumbnails, though it doesn't seem to handle raw.
 
Hi John
I know what you mean about escaping to enjoy nature - It's one of the main reasons that I do it myself!
The great thing about photography is that there are no rules, so sometimes it's difficult to know if you're doing it right.
What I'm trying to say is that if you are happy with what you are doing then you are doing it right - so just enjoy it.
cheers, cw
 
FourRingCircus said:
Unfortunately, that also requires Windows7/Vista/8, none of which I'm prepared to go to from XP-Pro.
Click to expand...
Plus, of course, if you want to use Lightroom, the current version (LR5) will also only run under W7 or later.
One day, inevitably, software updates catch up with us all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top