Processing Program
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: curanzia versicherung, berufsunfähigkeits versicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung für selbständige, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
Next: Why only 4.6MP?
From: Chris H on 23 Feb 2010 14:05 In message <hm1416$jv6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> writes >Alan Lichtenstein wrote: >> I'm a neophyte as far as digital photography is concerned, however, >>after having purchased my dSLR three years ago and finally deciding >>that I ought to learn how to use it, realized that photography can be >>very rewarding and interesting. Keeping in mind that I am still a >>neophyte, I am considering purchasing a processing program. The >>majority of salespeople in the camera store that I deal with, knowing >>that I am a neophyte, recommended either Lightroom or Aperature. Are >>there any recommendations that may help me? >> Additionally, if in your comments, you can comment on how each >>program provides for HDR that would be appreciated, although from my >>reading, it does seem that there are other programs which will do >>that well. Also, can anyone recommend a basic book on HDR, low on >>technical aspects and easy on explanations, for a beginner? >> Any advice will be appreciated. > >I'd just get Photoshop Elements. Quicker to learn than most, and will >give you several legs up should you later decide you want to use >Lightroom and/or Photoshop. And all three are cross platform, which >Aperture is not. And Elements should be almost free. It gets given away with many things these days. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Robert Spanjaard on 23 Feb 2010 14:30 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:59:26 +0000, Chris H wrote: >>Speaking about religious... >>Look at the way you respond to people advising GIMP. >> >>Alan, skip the religious rants and give GIMP a try, > > I did... hence my opinion > >>considering the amount >>of people advising it. > > Compared to the number suggesting Photoshop Elements.... If you insist on a pissing contest: two people suggest PSE (you and John), four people suggest GIMP (Better Info, ray, Bruce and Ofnuts). I'd suggest GIMP too, so that's five. Now take your religion somewhere else. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: ray on 23 Feb 2010 14:37 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:01:27 +0000, Chris H wrote: > In message <7uimivFb4lU4(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> > writes >>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:49:54 +0000, Chris H wrote: >> >>> In message <7uiaudFb4lU2(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> >>> writes >>>>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:52:34 -0500, Alan Lichtenstein wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm a neophyte as far as digital photography is concerned, however, >>>>> after having purchased my dSLR three years ago and finally deciding >>>>> that I ought to learn how to use it, realized that photography can >>>>> be very rewarding and interesting. Keeping in mind that I am still >>>>> a neophyte, I am considering purchasing a processing program. The >>>>> majority of salespeople in the camera store that I deal with, >>>>> knowing that I am a neophyte, recommended either Lightroom or >>>>> Aperature. Are there any recommendations that may help me? >>>> >>>>Why? I'd suggest you start with ufraw and GIMP ( >>> >>> Why? Neither do what Aperture or Lightroom do. Both do a lot of what >>> GIMP and Photoshop do but they are a very good catalogue program. I >>> rarely need Photoshop these days except for art photos. >>> >>> In any event Photoshop Elements is a much better option than Gimp and >>> yes, I have used GIMP.It is on this PC. Photoshop Elements is given >>> away with many things these days and does not cost much if you have to >>> pay for it. >>> >>> As the vast majority of people use photoshop (and about 99.99% of >>> pro's) So why go with something different that does less? At my local >>> Camera club they all use Photoshop. If you ask for help with GIMP you >>> won't get it. >> >>Well, for starters, OP is not a pro. > > Neither are most of the Photoshop users. But unlike GIMP professionals > do use Photoshop > >> I didn't say he would not need ps or >>something else at some point. It ridiculous to throw money at a problem >>before you know what the problem is > > I agree which is why I suggested elements which is usually free > > >>- I would have thought you'd have >>learned that from Congress by now > > What is Congress? The opposite of progress.
From: ray on 23 Feb 2010 14:39 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:08:39 -0800, Paul Furman wrote: > Chris H wrote: >> In message<8t08o5d3d59qvldioibk7ae1jcgkhue5nn(a)4ax.com>, Bruce >> <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> writes >>> On 23 Feb 2010 15:35:41 GMT, ray<ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:52:34 -0500, Alan Lichtenstein wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm a neophyte as far as digital photography is concerned, however, >>>>> after having purchased my dSLR three years ago and finally deciding >>>>> that I ought to learn how to use it, realized that photography can >>>>> be very rewarding and interesting. Keeping in mind that I am still >>>>> a neophyte, I am considering purchasing a processing program. The >>>>> majority of salespeople in the camera store that I deal with, >>>>> knowing that I am a neophyte, recommended either Lightroom or >>>>> Aperature. Are there any recommendations that may help me? >>>> >>>> Why? I'd suggest you start with ufraw and GIMP (which are available >>>> as free downloads). Find out what they will do. Learn basic >>>> manipulation techniques. Put out money if, at some later date, you >>>> need or want to do more than they conveniently do. >>> >>> >>> That's excellent advice. Far too many people spend $$$ on Photoshop >>> CS3 or CS4 and end up with a hugely complex piece of software that >>> they don't need. GIMP is a powerful package and a great way to learn >>> post-processing. >>> >>> When the OP is ready to consider purchasing a commercial package, I >>> would recommend Photoshop Elements over the CS versions. Elements has >>> everything a keen photographer needs without the very high price and >>> needless complication of Creative Suite. >> >> I would agree completely the full photshop is overkill for many and >> Elements is all you need... however if you don't want to edit the >> picture, just sort out the colours and tones etc and cropping then both >> Aperture and Light room will do that, > > But they are expensive and not exactly super easy to use. Picassa is > probably a reasonable free alternative. I don't know aperture but I use > lightroom and it's purpose is fast workflow for large numbers of pics > that need to be adjusted & cropped to match in a high pace pro > environment. Fine art prints & geeky tinkering is better done in > photoshop (elements is fine). HDR and pano stitching are better done in > dedicated programs. Gimp is sort of awkward & technical. The OP might > also look into their camera manufacturer's software. Actually, I've had some pretty good results on panoramas using the Pandora GIMP plugin.
From: nospam on 23 Feb 2010 14:46
In article <7fa31$4b842cbc$546accd9$28672(a)cache70.multikabel.net>, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: > If you insist on a pissing contest: two people suggest PSE (you and John), > four people suggest GIMP (Better Info, ray, Bruce and Ofnuts). I'd suggest > GIMP too, so that's five. here's another one for photoshop elements. > Now take your religion somewhere else. it's not religion. photoshop is vastly better than gimp. period. anyone who thinks that the gimp is in any way comparable to photoshop does not know what photoshop can do. not only is the gimp substantially slower on the same hardware but it lacks key features, such as adjustment layers and smart objects, just for starters. the main difference is that the gimp is free, but photoshop elements is often bundled for free with various products, so even that is moot. |