Processing Program [Digital Cameras]

Prev: curanzia versicherung, berufsunfähigkeits versicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung für selbständige, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
Next: Why only 4.6MP?

From: Savageduck on 24 Feb 2010 17:59

On 2010-02-24 13:27:01 -0800, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> said:

> Savageduck wrote:
> ( previous post snipped-follow thread )
>
>>> I had already assumed I would need that.
>>>
>>>> Also start keyboarding as you go. It's worth it.
>>
>>
>> Just remember LR2 is current, LR3 is still in Beta, and LR2 will do
>> just fine for some time.
>
> I realize that. However, if I know in advance that my equipment is,
> essentially, obsolete, it would make more sense to adjust my plan
> accordingly. After all, I was able to use my old Power Mac 5400 for
> several years after the introduction of Mac OS X. No third party
> software was compatible with the older hardware, and when I needed
> some, it was time to upgrade. That system, however, lasted me 13+
> years. I bought this one less than six years ago.
>
>> The PPC Mac is going to lose full support in the near future. A move to
>> an Intel Mac might not be a bad idea. I currently do most of my work on
>> a MacBook Pro, but I also have a G4 iMac (the goose neck), & a
>> PowerBook G4.
>> There is a tangible performance difference between the Intel machine
>> and the G4 & G5 PPC machines. You will be happy.
>
> I also have a MacBook, but my tower is a G5 1.8 dual, which I figured
> would last me for at least ten years, maybe a bit more, if my
> particular needs didn't expand drastically. I added another 1.5 gigs
> of RAM to give me what I thought would be that cushion. Unfortunately,
> I wasn't planning on replacing this tower anytime soon, however, if the
> lack of computability of photoediting programs is an indication, I'm
> sure other third party software will follow.
>
>> ...and if you are going to spring for LR2, you might as well add PS
>> Elements 8 to the shopping list.
>
> I'm probably going to spring for a new tower first and then purchase
> the programs. While I saved up for the possibility I might have to
> spend a couple of hundred dollars on a photoediting program, I didn't
> count on spending a couple of thousand. With that in mind, Lightroom 2
> may be the best answer, as I know the upgrade can be purchased
> separately when I buy the new computer to go to Lightroom 3. If the
> upgrade is still available.
>
> Anyway, is Elements 8 necessary with Lightroom? If so, why?

You will be able to do 90% of your adjustments, crops, White Balance,
camera profile, etc. with LR2, however there are going to be some times
you will need the bit extra Elements 8, or CS will give you.

For example there are no layers to work with in LR, the work around is
to create a virtual copy of the file you have made LR adjustments on.
Otherwise you can get as far as you can with the LR edit and make
further edits in any other photo editor, be it Elements, CS, or
whatever to take advantage of what those programs have to offer over LR.

The great thing with LR adjustments is they are non-destructive, and
the virtual copies are just that. You can always revert to the original.

There is so much more to LR than just cataloging and basic adjustments.

Since you are a Mac user, I would suggest going to the iTunes store and
check on these free Podcasts for Lightroom, Photoshop and Elements;

Lightroom for Digital Photographers
Lightroom Killer Tips
Photoshop for Digital Photographers
Photoshop Killer Tips
Photoshop User TV
Understanding Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Photoshop Elements Killer Tips

and then there is D-Town TV which is a free Scott Kelby Podcast on photography.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Alan Lichtenstein on 24 Feb 2010 18:04

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2010-02-24 13:27:01 -0800, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>> ( previous post snipped-follow thread )
>>
>>>> I had already assumed I would need that.
>>>>
>>>>> Also start keyboarding as you go. It's worth it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just remember LR2 is current, LR3 is still in Beta, and LR2 will do
>>> just fine for some time.
>>
>>
>> I realize that. However, if I know in advance that my equipment is,
>> essentially, obsolete, it would make more sense to adjust my plan
>> accordingly. After all, I was able to use my old Power Mac 5400 for
>> several years after the introduction of Mac OS X. No third party
>> software was compatible with the older hardware, and when I needed
>> some, it was time to upgrade. That system, however, lasted me 13+
>> years. I bought this one less than six years ago.
>>
>>> The PPC Mac is going to lose full support in the near future. A move
>>> to an Intel Mac might not be a bad idea. I currently do most of my
>>> work on a MacBook Pro, but I also have a G4 iMac (the goose neck), &
>>> a PowerBook G4.
>>> There is a tangible performance difference between the Intel machine
>>> and the G4 & G5 PPC machines. You will be happy.
>>
>>
>> I also have a MacBook, but my tower is a G5 1.8 dual, which I figured
>> would last me for at least ten years, maybe a bit more, if my
>> particular needs didn't expand drastically. I added another 1.5 gigs
>> of RAM to give me what I thought would be that cushion.
>> Unfortunately, I wasn't planning on replacing this tower anytime soon,
>> however, if the lack of computability of photoediting programs is an
>> indication, I'm sure other third party software will follow.
>>
>>> ...and if you are going to spring for LR2, you might as well add PS
>>> Elements 8 to the shopping list.
>>
>>
>> I'm probably going to spring for a new tower first and then purchase
>> the programs. While I saved up for the possibility I might have to
>> spend a couple of hundred dollars on a photoediting program, I didn't
>> count on spending a couple of thousand. With that in mind, Lightroom
>> 2 may be the best answer, as I know the upgrade can be purchased
>> separately when I buy the new computer to go to Lightroom 3. If the
>> upgrade is still available.
>>
>> Anyway, is Elements 8 necessary with Lightroom? If so, why?
>
>
> You will be able to do 90% of your adjustments, crops, White Balance,
> camera profile, etc. with LR2, however there are going to be some times
> you will need the bit extra Elements 8, or CS will give you.
>
> For example there are no layers to work with in LR, the work around is
> to create a virtual copy of the file you have made LR adjustments on.
> Otherwise you can get as far as you can with the LR edit and make
> further edits in any other photo editor, be it Elements, CS, or whatever
> to take advantage of what those programs have to offer over LR.
>
>
> The great thing with LR adjustments is they are non-destructive, and the
> virtual copies are just that. You can always revert to the original.
>
> There is so much more to LR than just cataloging and basic adjustments.
>
> Since you are a Mac user, I would suggest going to the iTunes store and
> check on these free Podcasts for Lightroom, Photoshop and Elements;
>
> Lightroom for Digital Photographers
> Lightroom Killer Tips
> Photoshop for Digital Photographers
> Photoshop Killer Tips
> Photoshop User TV
> Understanding Adobe Photoshop
> Adobe Photoshop Elements Killer Tips
>
> and then there is D-Town TV which is a free Scott Kelby Podcast on
> photography.
>
>
>
Thanks. that's good advice.

From: LOL! on 24 Feb 2010 18:12

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:31:59 -0500, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com>
wrote:

>nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <4b8540a0$0$22530$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Alan Lichtenstein
>> <arl(a)erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My question is therefore, if those are my goals, and I may eventually
>>>wind up upgrading to one of the Photoshop CS programs, will I be at a
>>>disadvantage if I purchase Aperature rather than Lightroom. I do not
>>>think at this juncture, given what I have I would benefit by obtaining
>>>Elements.
>>
>>
>> that's a subjective decision. some people prefer the user interface of
>> aperture, others prefer lightroom. there are also some feature
>> differences, however, lightroom 3 is due soon so that's a bit of a
>> moving target right now.
>>
>> lightroom, being an adobe product, integrates far better with photoshop
>> than aperture does. they both share the same raw processing engine
>> (camera raw) and in the event an image needs additional processing, an
>> image can be round-tripped to photoshop for additional work without any
>> interim files.
>>
>> aperture, being an apple product, integrates with other apple
>> applications and the system itself. unfortunately, apple's track record
>> with supporting new cameras is very slow, so if you buy a new camera,
>> it might be a while until it's supported, if at all.
>>
>> i'd suggest watching the various tutorial videos for both products and
>> see what can be done, then try out the free demo versions. as i said,
>> there's a bit of a learning curve since they're both very powerful
>> applications, but with a little perseverance you should be able to
>> decide which one you prefer,
>
>You point out very good points. And you're right; at the end of the
>day, it's a subjective decision based on objective factors. but between
>you and everyone else, I believe I have sufficient 'advice' to make my
>decision. And I thank you, and all the rest of the responders for your
>time in putting up with my ignorance. I think I'll continue to lurk
>awhile and pick everyone's brains. Already I see in this thread
>fundamental philosophical differences which have colored some of the
>responses. Regrettably, I see that my innocent request for advice
>somehow degenerated into some flaming attempts, for which I am truly
>sorry. I didn't mean to be the cause of such vehemence.
>
>And that apology would apply to you personally as well, as I see that
>because of your responses to me, you became embroiled in some of those.
> On a more personal level, I recall some exchanges a number of years
>back with someone with your handle, in which I was less than kind. If
>you are that person, my personal apologies to you as well for those
>past. You have been more than kind to me.
>
>I've still got a lot to learn about actually taking better photographs
>using the camera that I have, and the one I probably will upgrade to
>shortly.

Unfortunately, because you're new, you don't realize that "nospam" is one
of the biggest pretend-photographer role-playing trolls in this newsgroup.
He only regurgitates what he reads online. He doesn't even use these
programs nor even own a camera. Proved many times over in the past.

Enjoy his advice. :-)

LOL!

From: Elliott Roper on 24 Feb 2010 18:19

In article <4b8546cc$0$22516$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Alan Lichtenstein
<arl(a)erols.com> wrote:

<snip>
> You point out very good points. And you're right; at the end of the
> day, it's a subjective decision based on objective factors. but between
> you and everyone else, I believe I have sufficient 'advice' to make my
> decision. And I thank you, and all the rest of the responders for your
> time in putting up with my ignorance. I think I'll continue to lurk
> awhile and pick everyone's brains.
<snip>
Forgive me if I come into this late, but since it looks like you feel
that some of the advice you are getting is a bit at right angles to
your needs, and since I'm just a few months further down the road you
are embarking on, I'll offer a different slant.

Aperture and Lightroom are totally different products to Photoshop and
Gimp. If your needs are to 'develop' RAWs and care for a growing
collection of images, then one of the first two is what you need.
Photoshop in all its forms is exactly what you don't need. Gimp I know
far less about, but it too is an image manipulator, not an image
collection manager.

I'm running Aperture with a 400GB library containing > 20,000 masters.
I have the full Adobe CS3 suite, which I bought for InDesign. Yet out
of all those images, less then 100 have been through Photoshop for any
purpose. The most useful thing I do with photos in Photoshop is stitch
panos together. I tried it for HDR on exposure bracketed shots, but the
result of an hour's work was seldom better than highlights and shadows
on a single RAW image in Aperture, which takes all of 20 seconds.

I think Aperture is a bargain compared to the loot you have probably
laid out for your camera and all its toys. If your hobby is going to
give you pleasure, choose a management product that is a joy to use.
Adobe Creative Suite is a festering cesspool of UI disaster. You work
out how to use it if your income depends on it, but it is not something
you would use for fun (except for panos - they are so-oo cool).

I have not used Lightroom in anger. It looks nicer than Adobe Bridge,
but that is /faint/ praise. And a lot of people rate it alongside
Aperture.

If you are really scratching for cash, and you have confidence in OS X
and the Finder looking after all your images and backups and don't see
the point in non-destructive changes to your precious master images,
may I suggest something I have not seen mentioned in this thread.

PC users look away now.

GraphicConverter from lemkesoft.de
Its browser does reasonable search, bare bones ranking and labelling,
slideshows, web sites, contact pages and much more. It does OK, not
great but OK image processing - levels, curves, gamma, crop and rotate.
Lots of filters for sharpen and blur. RAW processing is built on
whatever camera support is in OS X, just like iPhoto. The user
interface and menus are more than a little baffling, but usually what
you want is in there somewhere. It is shareware. Its author, Thorsten
Lemke, is fabulously quick to fix errors and frequent upgrades are
usually free. Registration is $35 or �30. Even if you don't do photos,
it is an indispensable Macintosh gem. I have been a satisfied user for
many many years.

Yet I use Aperture for my photos. Elegance, backups, elegant RAW
processing, stacks and compare. And of course, really good management
of my image collection. Now with Aperture 3, I get excellent processing
presets and brushes for selectively applying adjustments.

Before you shell out for Aperture, be aware it is a prodigious resource
hog. A late model iMac, a Pro with a good graphics card, or a beefy
beefy MacBook Pro is what you need. As much memory as you can cram in,
and untold cubic meters of disk space. I have about 1.5TB (Library and
2 vaults) of my total 6TB of spinning storage dedicated to Aperture,
and it is not getting smaller. Aperture 3 is the first program ever to
cause a page out since I put 8GB on my system! It is one of the few
that cause all four cores to run at 100% and still not be out of
control.

Also, if you like to drive everything from the keyboard, you are in for
a frustrating time as you learn which shortcuts work in which context.

Oh, dear. That post got a bit long winded. I hope you find it useful.

Summary: GraphicConverter till you get a big Intel Mac, then Aperture.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

From: Joel Connor on 24 Feb 2010 18:22

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:01:06 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2010-02-24 07:05:39 -0800, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> said:
>
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <4b843d93$0$31286$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Alan Lichtenstein
>>> <arl(a)erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I would prefer a better asset management program than what I have. I
>>>> also understand that both of these programs have a rudimentary ability
>>>> to deal with HDR, which intrigues me, despite the fact that my learning
>>>> curve at this time does not permit me take advantage of that. Perhaps
>>>> someday.
>>>>
>>>> since in my case, the increased expense is not a problem, would you
>>>> recommend either of those programs or elements? I would prefer not to
>>>> purchase something only to have to make frequent upgrades. While I
>>>> understand that upgrading is part of the process, if one could be
>>>> eliminated early on, it would be preferable.
>>>>
>>>> Could I manage either of those programs in a learning curve?
>>>>
>>>> Your opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>> you can think of lightroom and aperture (in particular) as iphoto on
>>> steroids. for most people, lightroom and aperture are excellent
>>> solutions, and do the important tasks. photoshop is great for fancy
>>> retouching, editing, etc., i.e., more specialized tasks.
>>> personally i prefer aperture because apple's support for supporting new
>>> cameras is not as quick as adobe, but if your camera is already
>>> supported, then that's not a big issue. also, lightroom integrates far
>>> better with photoshop than aperture does, but if you don't have
>>> photoshop that is also not a major issue. on the other hand, aperture
>>> integrates better with other ilife apps. aperture 3 just came out and
>>> lightroom 3 is due soon (there's a public beta but it doesn't have all
>>> of the features the final version will).
>>>
>>> there are free trials of all of these apps, so you can try them out and
>>> see, however, there is a bit of a learning curve with all of them, so
>>> it will take a little bit of effort to really get an idea of what they
>>> can really do. there are a number of tutorial and demo videos to give
>>> you an idea of what can be done.
>>>
>>> i know that there are hdr plugins, but i don't do much hdr so i don't
>>> have much info on that.
>>
>> first of all, I appreciate your response. I see from some of the
>> responses, that my ignorance in not spelling out at the onset my short
>> and long range plans, prompted the responses. My feeling at the
>> present is that I want a program that is better than iPhoto, in that it
>> offers more of what I want to do, but understanding that eventually I
>> will outgrow it. But I don't want to outgrow it rapidly. so the
>> program would need some features that I will have to grow into, but
>> eventually grow out of. From both your responses as well as few
>> others, I think that either Lightroom or Aperature is the way to go,
>> with Photomaxix down the line, and perhaps a more serious editor, down
>> the line.
>>
>> My question is therefore, if those are my goals, and I may eventually
>> wind up upgrading to one of the Photoshop CS programs, will I be at a
>> disadvantage if I purchase Aperature rather than Lightroom. I do not
>> think at this juncture, given what I have I would benefit by obtaining
>> Elements.
>>
>> Since you seem to be an Apple enthusiast, as am I, that question is germane.
>
>Alan,
>You seem to have got most of the information to make your decision. I
>would just repeat what others and I have said, that regardless of
>Aperture being an Apple product which would work well with my
>collection of Macs, I use Lightroom + CS4.
>If a version of CS is something you are considering in the future,
>working with PS Elements now will make the learning curve for that
>transition much easier. Elements 8 comes with a reasonable media
>management hub, which is better than iPhoto, but not on the same level
>as Bridge (part of CS), Lightroom, or Aperture.
>I would make PS Elements 8 your first choice. Then move on to Lightroom
>and later CS4(or maybe by the time you are ready CS5.)
>Photomatix Pro is a stand alone program, and any HDR image you create
>can be edited and adjusted after HDR processing with PS Elements. Once
>you add Lightroom and/or CS to your tool box you will have the plugin
>for those programs. http://www.hdrsoft.com/ They have a trial version
>as well.
>
>Good luck, and don't let the newsgroup bickering bother you.

I suggest you show everyone again the abysmal HDR image you tried once and
once only and failed at completely. You don't even know how to use HDR
techniques let alone understand the process behind them, in order to make
any valid assessment on which program is up to the task. Much better
programs were suggested for this than what you tried to learn to use and
never figured out, but because of idiots like you regurgitating bad advice
who don't even know how to use the programs you have, now another poor fool
is going to create images as bad as your own. What fine insanity,
perpetuated stupidity, and ignorance that you all cause. Wait, maybe I
should thank you. This is why my images sell and yours do not. As long as
you spew and spew again your stupidity any new photographers will still be
nothing but lowly snapshooters like yourself. I'll never have any
competition!