Processing Program
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: curanzia versicherung, berufsunfähigkeits versicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung für selbständige, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
Next: Why only 4.6MP?
From: ray on 25 Feb 2010 20:21 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:52 -0500, tony cooper wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:35:40 -0600, Allen <allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote: > >>> 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 > > I have yet to see/use an intuitive software program. Something that is > intuitive is something that anticipates what you want to do and directs > you to or takes you to the next step. Image processing software doesn't > do that. > > You open a file and the image just sits there until you tell the program > what to do. The program doesn't sense that you want to lighten the > image, increase the contrast, crop it, re-size it, or anything else. > Whatever your next step is, it will be a series of steps, and you will > have to decide what those steps will be. Haven't tried ufraw recently, have you? > > Adobe's Elements, and Adobe's Lightroom, have a feature that - while it > isn't intuitive - at least makes it easy for the new user to learn what > steps are required to improve an image: a visible adjustment panel with > sliders. (In Quick Fix mode in Elements and Develop mode in Lightroom) > The new user can fiddle around with the sliders and see the effect of > each slider on the image. There's a "reset" button in each that returns > the image to the original state if the slider adjustments made hurt, > rather than help, the image. > > Elements also has "Auto" clicks that generally are sufficient for most > routine editing. The user will generally find that the "Auto" clicks, > and some tweaking with the Levels sliders, is enough with a properly > taken photograph. The "Auto" clicks are the only thing that might be > called "intuitive". > > The above doesn't cover image manipulation (changing something in the > photo), but this is done with tools like the Healing Brush and the Clone > Stamp Tool and this can be learned following on-line tutorials. > > If the OP purchases Lightroom, the OP will find that a book is going be > required. Not just useful...required. Software doesn't come with > manuals or instruction books anymore. The OP will find he'll need to > purchase either one of Scott Kelby's books or one of Martin Evening's > books. (Which to buy will spur yet another debate in the newsgroup > because some like Kelby's style and some like Evening's style) > > The OP will then find that the cost of a book - $40 to $45 new - is as > much as the Elements program itself. > > A book isn't really required with Elements. Working along with the > Quick Fix sliders, and then moving into the Full Edit mode with what has > been learned fiddling around with the sliders in Quick Fix, should get > most people by. Some look-ups on on-line tutorials will be helpful. > > The ideal entry system, in my opinion, is purchasing Elements for > editing and Lightroom for image keywording/storage/retrieval. The > Lightroom Develop module (which is their editing module) is sufficient > as a stand-alone for the editing function, but it's a steep learning > curve.
From: tony cooper on 25 Feb 2010 20:37 On 26 Feb 2010 01:21:43 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:52 -0500, tony cooper wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:35:40 -0600, Allen <allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote: >> >>>> 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 >> >> I have yet to see/use an intuitive software program. Something that is >> intuitive is something that anticipates what you want to do and directs >> you to or takes you to the next step. Image processing software doesn't >> do that. >> >> You open a file and the image just sits there until you tell the program >> what to do. The program doesn't sense that you want to lighten the >> image, increase the contrast, crop it, re-size it, or anything else. >> Whatever your next step is, it will be a series of steps, and you will >> have to decide what those steps will be. > >Haven't tried ufraw recently, have you? Never. Why should I? I shoot RAW and upload into either Lightroom or Bridge converting my NEF file to a .dng. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nospam on 25 Feb 2010 20:44 In article <7uom17Fb4lU26(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > > You open a file and the image just sits there until you tell the program > > what to do. The program doesn't sense that you want to lighten the > > image, increase the contrast, crop it, re-size it, or anything else. > > Whatever your next step is, it will be a series of steps, and you will > > have to decide what those steps will be. > > Haven't tried ufraw recently, have you? when did ufraw get mind reading functionality?
From: ray on 25 Feb 2010 21:23 On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:44:23 -0500, nospam wrote: > In article <7uom17Fb4lU26(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> > wrote: > >> > You open a file and the image just sits there until you tell the >> > program what to do. The program doesn't sense that you want to >> > lighten the image, increase the contrast, crop it, re-size it, or >> > anything else. Whatever your next step is, it will be a series of >> > steps, and you will have to decide what those steps will be. >> >> Haven't tried ufraw recently, have you? > > when did ufraw get mind reading functionality? Long time ago. It does default exposure correction when you read the file - and yes it's quite simple to reset if you don't like it.
From: ray on 25 Feb 2010 21:24
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:37:29 -0500, tony cooper wrote: > On 26 Feb 2010 01:21:43 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:22:52 -0500, tony cooper wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:35:40 -0600, Allen <allent(a)austin.rr.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> I have yet to see/use an intuitive software program. Something that >>> is intuitive is something that anticipates what you want to do and >>> directs you to or takes you to the next step. Image processing >>> software doesn't do that. >>> >>> You open a file and the image just sits there until you tell the >>> program what to do. The program doesn't sense that you want to >>> lighten the image, increase the contrast, crop it, re-size it, or >>> anything else. Whatever your next step is, it will be a series of >>> steps, and you will have to decide what those steps will be. >> >>Haven't tried ufraw recently, have you? > > Never. Why should I? I shoot RAW and upload into either Lightroom or > Bridge converting my NEF file to a .dng. Well, I don't know - possibly because it has features you were complaining about not having - like default corrections applied when you read the file in. |