Processing Program
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: curanzia versicherung, berufsunfähigkeits versicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung für selbständige, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
Next: Why only 4.6MP?
From: NameHere on 24 Feb 2010 18:27 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:45:06 -0500, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >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? Because we all already know that you're nothing but a pretend-photographer role-playing troll who doesn't even own a camera much less used either program. That's why.
From: Savageduck on 24 Feb 2010 18:44 On 2010-02-24 15:19:27 -0800, Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> said: > 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. Just a few things, I agree, that for the Mac user, GraphicConverter is a good, powerful and versatile editor, bundled with most Macs, therefore for the most part free, unless you need to update. It should serve most needs, however it has its quirks. Bridge in CS4 is a completely different animal to the painful version found in CS2 & CS3, I upgraded from CS2. It is actually a pleasure to use now and in someways because of the CS4 integration better than LR2 for some functions. As an Apple user starting back with an Apple ][e and six others since then, Aperture initially seemed a logical way to go, but after weighing my needs, and being a PS7 user at the time, I swallowed the Adobe pill, and all in all I only have minor issues. Those mainly relate to my climb up the learning curve. Adobe has its issues, but I find Lightroom + CS4 does all I want and need. Others may differ, but It remains a case of using whatever works for you. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 24 Feb 2010 18:49 On 2010-02-24 15:22:47 -0800, Joel Connor <myemail(a)myserver.com> said: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:01:06 -0800, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > -- > Good luck, and don't let the newsgroup bickering bother you. > > ........... I'll never have any competition! ....and you continue your egocentric, psychotic, nym-shifting, abusive trolling. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: John McWilliams on 24 Feb 2010 19:39 Savageduck wrote: > On 2010-02-24 15:19:27 -0800, Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> said: > >> 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 â¬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. > > Just a few things, I agree, that for the Mac user, GraphicConverter is a > good, powerful and versatile editor, bundled with most Macs, therefore > for the most part free, unless you need to update. It should serve most > needs, however it has its quirks. > > Bridge in CS4 is a completely different animal to the painful version > found in CS2 & CS3, I upgraded from CS2. It is actually a pleasure to > use now and in someways because of the CS4 integration better than LR2 > for some functions. > > As an Apple user starting back with an Apple ][e and six others since > then, Aperture initially seemed a logical way to go, but after weighing > my needs, and being a PS7 user at the time, I swallowed the Adobe pill, > and all in all I only have minor issues. Those mainly relate to my climb > up the learning curve. > Adobe has its issues, but I find Lightroom + CS4 does all I want and > need. Others may differ, but It remains a case of using whatever works > for you. I'm pretty much with the Duck on this. Mac for 20 years plus; GraphicConverter is a fabulous program for the price, but PSE is easier to use, as is PS, for me at least. And I am a Lightroom early adopter. -- john mcwilliams
From: LOL! on 24 Feb 2010 20:01
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:49:59 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-24 15:22:47 -0800, Joel Connor <myemail(a)myserver.com> said: > >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:01:06 -0800, Savageduck >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> -- > >> Good luck, and don't let the newsgroup bickering bother you. > >> >> ........... I'll never have any competition! > >...and you continue your egocentric, psychotic, nym-shifting, abusive trolling. Aww... c'mon. Show us your one attempt at producing really bad HDR images again with one of the far less capable programs that you and all your other snapshooter cretins online always trollishly suggest to others. We could use the laugh again. But don't upload the one you tried to fix after we had all pointed out the tilted mountains, trees, and clouds, or the pink granite mountains and pink clouds lit by noon light. Where you corrected only half of all that was wrong with it. We didn't even get into the terrible tone-mapping job you did. It was difficult enough explaining your moronic basic-editing beginner's mistake that you couldn't even correct properly after it was explained to you. Upload your original attempt before anyone showed you what you did horribly wrong. I think everyone should be able to see what kind of "HDR Expert" you really are so everyone can better assess you lame-assed snapshooter of a troll's advice. LOL! |