Processing Program
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: curanzia versicherung, berufsunfähigkeits versicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung für selbständige, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
Next: Why only 4.6MP?
From: Alan Lichtenstein on 23 Feb 2010 14:46 Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:53:00 +0000, Chris H wrote: > > >>>Any of the freeware image editors, GIMP (considered the free equal to >>>PhotoSlop in the right hands) >> >>Only by those who are delusional... before you as I have used GIMP it is >>on this PC. >> >> >>>If you eventually want to step up to the oft (wrongly) praised >>>PhotoSlop, >> >>OK so all the worlds leading photographers and graphics designers are >>wrong? >> >>Snipped the rest of the religious rant....... > > > Speaking about religious... > Look at the way you respond to people advising GIMP. > > Alan, skip the religious rants and give GIMP a try, considering the amount > of people advising it. You'll never lose more than a bit of your time. > I'm reading all the replies and based on all the replies in this thread, I fear I may not have given sufficient information. I'm pretty much a rank amateur. Based on a lot of technical points many of the replies contain, they're over my head at this point, in that they require a level of experience and expertise which I don't have at this point, although, with time, I hope I may acquire, although I understand the terms. 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. My skill level requires me to either have someone to show it to me, or a book to make reference to. Maybe I'm too much of a newbie, but I'd like to become at least an amateur. Already I see I know more about digital photography, even though that isn't really much beyond the rank basics, than most people I meet who have dSLR's. My camera store doesn't sell software( would you believe it ), so the advice I get from the people there is personal, without a profit motive. Also, although I'm looking to upgrade my camera now, the one they sold me three years ago, when I knew absolutely nothing about digital photography was indeed the correct one, in consideration of what I told them at the time. So I trust the people there. And they'll be competitive with price. 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. Hope this clarifies a bit.
From: nospam on 23 Feb 2010 14:59 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? > 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.
From: John McWilliams on 23 Feb 2010 15:01 nospam wrote: > In article <7fa31$4b842cbc$546accd9$28672(a)cache70.multikabel.net>, > Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: > >> If you insist on a pissing contest: two people suggest PSE (you and John), >> four people suggest GIMP (Better Info, ray, Bruce and Ofnuts). I'd suggest >> GIMP too, so that's five. > > here's another one for photoshop elements. And only one suggesting da Gimp is a real person. The rest are anonymous handles, some of which shift daily. -- john mcwilliams
From: John McWilliams on 23 Feb 2010 15:04 Chris H wrote: > In message <hm15j9$lku$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Paul Furman <paul- > @-edgehill.net> writes >> Fine art prints & geeky tinkering is better done in photoshop >> (elements is fine). > > Agreed. You can't do it in Lightroom What can't you do in Lightroom for fine art prints? Please don't mention softproofing, which a few feel is necessary. For that matter, how do you find geeky tinkering? Such as what? -- john mcwilliams
From: John A. on 23 Feb 2010 15:17
On 23 Feb 2010 13:44:01 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >In rec.photo.digital Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)erols.com> 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? > >Salespeople will naturally recommend something to buy. But there's a >lot of good free software out there. Try Picasa for a start. Aimed at >beginners, and what it does it does very well. I don't know if it was what is now the absolute latest version, but when I tried Picasa 3, just for its tagging & organization, it corrupted a bunch of my jpegs. Fortunately I had only tried it thus far on images for which I had RAW files as well. I'm currently looking for a good tagging organizer that uses (or can be configured to use) an external index rather than embedding tags in image files. I like DigiKam (via KDE on Windows) but the function to launch images with external programs can't seem to handle spaces in directory names (which pretty much kills it since most programs install somewhere under "Program Files".) That was with version 4.3.4 and I see they have released 4.4.0 now so I guess I'll give it another go. |