Processing Program
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: curanzia versicherung, berufsunfähigkeits versicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung für selbständige, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
Next: Why only 4.6MP?
From: Paul Furman on 23 Feb 2010 18:26 Savageduck wrote: > Again, my recommendation is Elements + Lightroom Doesn't full PS come with Bridge, which is pretty close to Lightroom in abilities? I don't know, maybe Elements has similar? I had to watch quite a few tutorials to figure out Lightroom. Once you figure out & memorize the shortcut keystrokes & configure to suit, it's pretty slick but it's not an intuitive newbie type program.
From: nospam on 23 Feb 2010 18:29 In article <2010022315152082327-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > iPhoto is problematic in many ways. First as an editor it is > rudimentary at best, Second the filing system is bizarre and awkward to > say the least. nonsense. it's a simple app that's aimed at the masses. the editing includes the usual adjustments (colour balance, exposure, etc.) and the filing system is easy, accessing photos by content, not a particular location. there's nothing preventing anyone from using an external editor or keeping the photos in a file hierarchy if the user wants. > That is the main reason Apple had to develop Aperture as > an pseudo "Pro" app, there was no way they could sell iPhoto as > complete package against Elements or CS4. they never intended iphoto to be a pro app. iphoto and the other ilife apps are mass market consumer apps. aperture, final cut pro, etc. are pro apps, with an entirely different target market.
From: nospam on 23 Feb 2010 18:30 In article <hm1o6g$33h$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: > Doesn't full PS come with Bridge, yes > which is pretty close to Lightroom in > abilities? I don't know, maybe Elements has similar? not even remotely close. > I had to watch quite a few tutorials to figure out Lightroom. Once you > figure out & memorize the shortcut keystrokes & configure to suit, it's > pretty slick but it's not an intuitive newbie type program. true, there is a bit of a learning curve to make the most of it, but it's not as intimidating as you imply.
From: Robert Spanjaard on 23 Feb 2010 18:30 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:36:57 -0500, tony cooper wrote: >>Neither is PS Elements. If it was, there wouldn't be a need for all >>those books, support forums and tutorial videos. >> > You don't read books, go to support forums, or use tutorials because > their are issues with the program. You do those things in order to > learn how to expand your skills. Savageduck used "issues" in the context of "intuitive user interface". Not in the context of "bugs". Paul Furman just posted a fitting message: <news:hm1o6g$33h$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Better Info on 23 Feb 2010 19:16
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:11:52 -0500, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> wrote: >nospam wrote: >> In article <4b8430f1$0$22546$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Alan Lichtenstein >> <arl(a)erols.com> wrote: >> >> >>>I have iPhoto on my computer, and it does OK, but I'm looking for >>>something that does a bit more processing than what I already have. >> >> >> what do you want to do that you find it limiting? > >I was hoping for a between white balance adjustment as well as something >that would permit me to edit individual colors rather than the entire >photograph. Also, something that had someHDR merge capabilities, in a >limited way. Although I am not competent in that, I would like to begin >experimenting. > >>>Based on the discussion so far, I feel that something like GIMP may not >>>be good for me, based on my needs and the lack of support. But I thank >>>everyone who recommended it anyway. I don't mind spending a few >>>dollars, although Photoshop CS3 or 4 IS a bit much right now. >> >> >> you don't need the full photoshop. photoshop elements is around $50. > >You would not recommend, lightroom or aperture? They're a bit more >expensive, but is it worth the difference at this point? All the information and software you will need was already listed in my first post to you. In your novitiate situation I would then highly recommend Paint Shop Pro v9.01 as a good introduction to any decent editor. GIMP being perhaps, at this point, a little too confusing to someone like you. But GIMP is still a good goal before you should ever have to pay for something more advanced. Something as advanced as Photoline (far more advanced than PhotoSlop) would be a nightmare of a learning-curve to someone like you. Search for a copy of Paint Shop Pro v9.01 for under $10, or free from most people because it is no longer supported by any company and has drifted into that gray area of "almost-public-domain-freeware". Originally owned by Jasc but no longer supported by the company that bought it. But it won't import RAW files. Use freeware RAW Therapee to do your RAW import work first, then save the results from that in JPG or TIF format (the latter being a lossless file format) to then load files into PSP 9.01 to do your more artistic editing. RAW Therapee is far better in capabilities than anything that adobe has pawned off on its blind sheeple followers and worshippers. I've tested and used both, I don't make these suggestions without first-hand experience on any of the software I've recommended to others before in your circumstances. PSP 9.01 is highly intuitive. Read: easy enough for any beginner, with excellent tutorials and many support groups online. It also gives you more editing power and advanced tools than you'll ever need at this point but presented simply enough that you'll be able to understand how to use most of them without even reading the help file. Anyone who has ever learned on Paint Shop Pro has never had a problem when later stepping up to a more powerful editor. Some never feel the need to even leave using Paint Shop Pro at all. Do your original RAW tweaking in RAW Therapee and any further tools you need after that will be found in PSP v9.01. Lens correction filters, layers, adjustment layers, layer blend modes, the works. But it is simple enough and intuitive enough for even the most amateur of beginners. Start out with just the basic tools within PSP and work your way up from there at your own pace. Keep in mind too that your resulting images will never be displayed with more than an 8-bit color-depth to them, via monitor or print, so this overblown need for retaining 16-bit color-depth throughout your workflow path is mostly nonsense. Making PaintShopPro v9.01 (an 8-bit editor) more than you'll need at this stage. 16-bit editing is mostly overblown hype coming from those who believe it MUST be better because 16 is higher than 8. But more usually, because their photography skills or camera are so bad that they can never expose their images properly in the first place and need 8-bits more of lame-photographer's crutch for them to lean on, to try to recover from what they managed to ruin every time in the first place. Typical untalented or ignorant idiots. At your stage in the photography world I doubt you could even tell the difference between 7 and 8 bit color depths. Most of these self-professed inexperienced "expert" 16-bit religious geeks would also have a difficult time doing the same when put to the test. I forgot to mention another really decent but full-featured editor that is also good for the beginner. Zoner Photo Studio. Like Paint Shop Pro (9 or 10, 10 having some 16-bit editing support on main tools) it is also a good one for someone in your shoes. It's comparable to PSP in many ways (as is PhotoImpact and Serif PhotoPlus). Unfortunately, you're caught up in an adobe religious-fanatic's (psychotic's) war, hoping you'll join their church without any good reason whatsoever. Their typical behavior because they're that insecure about all their choices in life. They never think they make the right choices unless they can convince someone else to make the same mistakes they have made. Well, most of them are desperately lonely trolls too who have never even used nor owned what they recommend to others. They just use these newsgroups like their imaginary family because nobody ever wants to be around them in real life. It's easy to see why. They think that the whole world revolves around their little-girl's online popularity contests instead. If they can't find someone to agree with them online then their imaginary world comes crashing down around them. Enjoy watching their psychotic's religious war. That's what I'll be doing. This group is read 99.9% of the time for entertainment purposes only. With no real valid nor experienced information coming from 99.9% of them. Coincidentally, that's the same imaginary percentage that they claim use PhotoSlop. If only that 99.9% was also imaginary when counting how many clueless trolls infest these newsgroups. |