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 24 Feb 2010 13:39 In message <7ul5kfFb4lU21(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> writes >On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:14:38 +0000, Chris H wrote: > >> In message <240220101145066458%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam >> <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes >>>In article <7ul2ptFb4lU19(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>> And again, OP is not a pro - a rank amateur. Amateurs and pros don't >>>> need the same tools. >>> >>>that's why there's photoshop elements and the full photoshop. >>> >>>> > In this instance PSE is a better choice than GIMP. Only the >>>> > religious would say otherwise. >>>> >>>> That's very possible - what, exactly, do you have against letting OP >>>> try them both and see what's best in his situation? >>> >>>what do you have against advice from those who have tried both and found >>>that the gimp is not worth the bother? >> >> I note that a lot of those suggesting PSE, like myself, have tried GIMP >> and found it wanting..... >> >> Those pushing GIMP just seem anti PS for religious reasons. > >I'm not 'anti' anything. I'd just like for the OP to TRY GIMP before he >lays out the cash - what are you afraid of? Nothing. I did that (tried GIMP) and as others have said: a complete waste of time. I am surprised that anyone is still suggesting it as a credible option. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Allen on 24 Feb 2010 14:35 On 2/24/2010 12:39 PM, Chris H wrote: > In message<7ul5kfFb4lU21(a)mid.individual.net>, ray<ray(a)zianet.com> > writes >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:14:38 +0000, Chris H wrote: >> >>> In message<240220101145066458%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam >>> <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> writes >>>> In article<7ul2ptFb4lU19(a)mid.individual.net>, ray<ray(a)zianet.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> And again, OP is not a pro - a rank amateur. Amateurs and pros don't >>>>> need the same tools. >>>> >>>> that's why there's photoshop elements and the full photoshop. >>>> >>>>>> In this instance PSE is a better choice than GIMP. Only the >>>>>> religious would say otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> That's very possible - what, exactly, do you have against letting OP >>>>> try them both and see what's best in his situation? >>>> >>>> what do you have against advice from those who have tried both and found >>>> that the gimp is not worth the bother? >>> >>> I note that a lot of those suggesting PSE, like myself, have tried GIMP >>> and found it wanting..... >>> >>> Those pushing GIMP just seem anti PS for religious reasons. >> >> I'm not 'anti' anything. I'd just like for the OP to TRY GIMP before he >> lays out the cash - what are you afraid of? > > Nothing. I did that (tried GIMP) and as others have said: a complete > waste of time. I am surprised that anyone is still suggesting it as a > credible option. > > I tried it a couple of times, but (if it hasn't been improved) it seemed that the creator had set out to make it as non-intuitive as possible. Allen
From: Alan Lichtenstein on 24 Feb 2010 14:42 Savageduck 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. > Thank you for your response. However, I think my decision has already been made for me. After perusing the posts this morning, I went to my local Apple store to simply make a few technical inquires regarding Aperture. In the course of those inquiries, I discovered that I cannot use the most recent version of Aperture, as Apple is no longer supporting pre-intel hardware. Aperature 3 requires the intel-based Mac. Having purchased a pre-intel Power Mac G5, not more than two years before the change from Motorola chips to Intel chips, what I was told was that my machine is now obsolete. Since I do not plan on purchasing a new computer in the near future, that restricts my choices. While I do have a newer MacBook with the new Intel chip, I didn't plan on making that my stand alone computer. So it looks like I'll go with Lightroom, as a better alternative to iPhoto, which is what I wanted. By the time I become somewhat proficient, both in taking photographs as well as becoming somewhat competent with editing, unless Apple comes out with a blockbuster program, I'll probably be using the Adobe software. As far as HDR is concerned, that's far down the road for me, and I know that Photomatix is a stand alone program. I just thought I'd ask. But it doesn't hurt to think down the road and do some planning with some idea of a road map in mind.
From: OG on 24 Feb 2010 14:56 "Alan Lichtenstein" <arl(a)erols.com> wrote in message news:4b83cff0$0$22519$607ed4bc(a)cv.net... > 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? I don't know whether it's my age or what, but the only HDR I like is the HDR that is almost totally imperceptible, and I'd have thought that learning to perform sensitive post processing without HDR would be a far more valuable skill to develop. I'm no way claiming any expertise in this, I rarely do much more than a bit of contrast tweaking and the like (either using the very limited toolset in Picasa, or using an old version of PaintShop Pro) but I shudder when I see some of the landscapes that have been so-called 'improved' through HDR. As an afterthought, if you think you might be interested in producing panoramas, Microsoft has a very effective program called ICE, Image Composite Editor that has a very straightforward interface and works very well as an introductory program.
From: Chris H on 24 Feb 2010 14:59
In message <4b858182$0$22510$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> writes >Savageduck wrote: >Thank you for your response. However, I think my decision has already >been made for me. After perusing the posts this morning, I went to my >local Apple store to simply make a few technical inquires regarding >Aperture. In the course of those inquiries, I discovered that I cannot >use the most recent version of Aperture, as Apple is no longer >supporting pre-intel hardware. Aperature 3 requires the intel-based >Mac. Having purchased a pre-intel Power Mac G5, not more than two >years before the change from Motorola chips to Intel chips, what I was >told was that my machine is now obsolete. I have the same problem with a PPC G5 Mac. V2* of Lightroom supports PPC MAC V3 will not. So get hold of a copy of Lightroom V2 before the V3 is released. Though Adobe has released an upgrade to V2 whilst the Beta V3 has been available. >Since I do not plan on purchasing a new computer in the near future, >that restricts my choices. While I do have a newer MacBook with the >new Intel chip, I didn't plan on making that my stand alone computer. >So it looks like I'll go with Lightroom, as a better alternative to >iPhoto, which is what I wanted. By the time I become somewhat >proficient, both in taking photographs as well as becoming somewhat >competent with editing, unless Apple comes out with a blockbuster >program, I'll probably be using the Adobe software. I think you will stay with Lightroom. Remember it is a cataloguing program first and foremost. As you get more proficient at taking and editing pictures you will still need Lightroom to control your photos. I have over 9,000 images in mine and I intend to scan in the slides and negatives from past decades as I get the chance (got a good slide scanner) When you want to do more you will find PSE and PS a natural fit for more extensive editing and Lightroom will of course catalogue the PSD files as well as the RAW images. The most important thing to do is get a large FireWire external disk or NAS storage box. Then when you import to Lightroom It will give you the option of backing up. Get in to this habit. Then you will always have a back up of the images and the catalogue. Also start keyboarding as you go. It's worth it. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |