PDA

View Full Version : Photography software


RK@UST
10-21-2007, 10:08 AM
Just bought a Canon 30D.
First experience with SLR's
Need to get some good photography software.
What do you use ?

bigmac
10-21-2007, 10:30 AM
I only shoot RAW, never JPEG, so I use Nikon Capture NX for basic RAW editing because it's better than the RAW editing features of Photoshop IMHO. For cropping, uprezzing, layering, and color managegment, I use Photoshop CS3.

If you're talking basic editing of JPEG images, Photoshop Elements (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopelwin/) at $99 is, without a doubt, the best bargain in the image editing arena. I can't imagine they don't have it in stock at your local Best Buy.

Farmer Ted
10-21-2007, 10:48 AM
I'm happy with Photoshop Elements

I recently purchased Corel Draw X3 and to say that I'm struggling with it would be an understatement.

I don't know if I'm at a disadvantage since I started with an Adobe product or I just won't find the time to sit down and learn Corel

If you're interested in saving a few $$ and have a child in school or are in school yourself check out Academic Superstore for a substantial discount.

Leroy
10-21-2007, 02:12 PM
Picassa http://picasa.google.com/download/thanks.html is pretty good for free. I'm amazed at how much better you can make the picture with RAW.

Ryan
10-21-2007, 03:30 PM
Photoshop Elements 5.0 - pretty inexpensive on websites and ebay. Overpriced at retail IMO.

bigmac
10-21-2007, 03:52 PM
Photoshop Elements 5.0 - pretty inexpensive on websites and ebay. Overpriced at retail IMO.


:D :D


.

kvalve
10-21-2007, 04:25 PM
Picasa for storing and PS for editing. PS has a bit of a learning curve however unless you're using the auto features.

Ryan
10-21-2007, 05:07 PM
:D :D


.

Obvious, I know. 8p But I'm used to seeing software run online at 80-100% retail pricing. I continually found it at 30% of retail - bundled with the video software anyway.

G-man
10-21-2007, 05:47 PM
X2 on the Nikon Capture, I need to learn more about it. Photoshop for everyday changes, raw files are the way to go

phecksel
10-21-2007, 08:31 PM
shoot raw, CS3 or Elements 5.

Learn unsharpmask, resize, crop, and curves.

phecksel
10-21-2007, 08:32 PM
I only shoot RAW, never JPEG, so I use Nikon Capture NX for basic RAW editing because it's better than the RAW editing features of Photoshop IMHO. For cropping, uprezzing, layering, and color managegment, I use Photoshop CS3.

If you're talking basic editing of JPEG images, Photoshop Elements (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopelwin/) at $99 is, without a doubt, the best bargain in the image editing arena. I can't imagine they don't have it in stock at your local Best Buy.
bigmac, I picked up an amazing deal on a Sigma 70-200. Still shaking my head! So far loving it, talk about fast focus...

bigmac
10-21-2007, 09:06 PM
bigmac, I picked up an amazing deal on a Sigma 70-200. Still shaking my head! So far loving it, talk about fast focus...


Glad you like it. That's a very useful zoom range to have.

RK@UST
10-21-2007, 09:43 PM
bigmac, I picked up an amazing deal on a Sigma 70-200. Still shaking my head! So far loving it, talk about fast focus...
2.8 ?????.......

phecksel
10-22-2007, 11:58 AM
2.8 ?????.......
yes, 2.8 it is

stuartmcnair
10-22-2007, 12:31 PM
and Adobe Bridge...works great

bigmac
10-22-2007, 01:04 PM
and Adobe Bridge...works great

I thought Adobe Bridge was a major stinker in CS2 - buggy, crashed, etc. It is better as a media manager in CS3, but I don't care for Photoshop's RAW file management - it's not nearly as good as Capture NX IMHO, so my use of Photoshop is limited to cropping, layering etc. As to Bridge, I don't have the volume of images to manage to make that much of a value to me. My current workflow is opening images in capture NX, processing them to a folder which I can then open in Bridge.

Anyway, Photoshop is a pretty high end (read "expensive") professional processing tool - I think it's aimed more at the pro who is doing a lot of processing and has a pretty demanding workflow. At $650, I would never recommend it as a purchase for someone's first dSLR experience.

VirtualWi
10-22-2007, 01:27 PM
Anyway, Photoshop is a pretty high end (read "expensive") professional processing tool - I think it's aimed more at the pro who is doing a lot of processing and has a pretty demanding workflow. At $650, I would never recommend it as a purchase for someone's first dSLR experience.

I second that ;) I take about 150 photos a day and never needed anything better than what Picasa gives me for free. It all depends on what you shoot (I only shoot Real Estate), but if it's your first DSLR, don't waste the money. I could have got you into a nice Nikon D50 for half the price ;)

flyingskibiker
10-22-2007, 02:49 PM
I have the 30D, as well. I shoot in RAW, edit/convert w/ Digital Photo Professional (comes with camera), and do final editing in PS CS. I have about 800 photos to go through from a few airshows and events last month... 8p DPP has enough features to do most of the stuff one would want to do. PS has just about everything else...

Leroy
10-22-2007, 05:35 PM
After playing with Picassa for couple days it really is amazing what that simple program can do.

stuartmcnair
10-22-2007, 05:42 PM
after a football game I could have 300 to 400 shots...for an every now and then picture I would switch to JPEG or RAW+JPEG...depending on the light but for sports I have to use RAW...

I might have to start working that Nikon thought process out of you though. :)

Watching the Red Sox game last night my wife looked up when they were showing all the photogs there and said "ooohhh...nice lenses". (They were all white)

bigmac
10-22-2007, 06:32 PM
I might have to start working that Nikon thought process out of you though. :)

Watching the Red Sox game last night my wife looked up when they were showing all the photogs there and said "ooohhh...nice lenses". (They were all white)


:rolleyes:



.

VirtualWi
10-22-2007, 08:02 PM
after a football game I could have 300 to 400 shots...for an every now and then picture I would switch to JPEG or RAW+JPEG...depending on the light but for sports I have to use RAW...

I might have to start working that Nikon thought process out of you though. :)

Watching the Red Sox game last night my wife looked up when they were showing all the photogs there and said "ooohhh...nice lenses". (They were all white)

I like your wife already ;) Nothing turns me on more than a bunch of huge camera lenses, myself. I was teasing about Nikon vs. Canon - I just like to kid my brother who purchased his first DSLR for $2,800 and doesn't know how to turn if off of "Auto"...so I joke about the fact that he could have donated the rest to me and purchased a really inexpensive (not cheap) Nikon and he wouldn't know the difference. But he is into spending lots of $$ on crap - two Shelby Mustangs and three new SUVs (family of 5???). Ughhh...and he doesn't even have a Mastercraft!!

stuartmcnair
10-23-2007, 12:19 PM
give all the amateurs something they can use...

Kidding! I kid, I kid!

Unfortunately, Nikon does not have near the developmental money that Canon does. Mainly due to Canon's absolute dominance in the point and shoot arena. All that money allows them to really pump up R&D on the big stuff.

Nikon has good consumer dslr's but their pro models are way behind the Canon models.

VirtualWi
10-23-2007, 01:47 PM
give all the amateurs something they can use...

Kidding! I kid, I kid!

Unfortunately, Nikon does not have near the developmental money that Canon does. Mainly due to Canon's absolute dominance in the point and shoot arena. All that money allows them to really pump up R&D on the big stuff.

Nikon has good consumer dslr's but their pro models are way behind the Canon models.

agree ;) 8p :D

bigmac
10-23-2007, 04:02 PM
give all the amateurs something they can use...

Kidding! I kid, I kid!

Unfortunately, Nikon does not have near the developmental money that Canon does. Mainly due to Canon's absolute dominance in the point and shoot arena. All that money allows them to really pump up R&D on the big stuff.

Nikon has good consumer dslr's but their pro models are way behind the Canon models.

Sorry, that's just total bull****. Even the most biased-but-knowledgable photographer wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement. No offense meant.

stuartmcnair
10-23-2007, 05:26 PM
Nikon absolutely dominated the field in film but they were slow to adjust. Canon did a good job of developing the point and shoot market.

Still very good cameras, just a little behind. Far better than anything Sony or anyone else is putting out.

bigmac
10-23-2007, 05:38 PM
One must be careful about confusing marketing with product quality. Malibu sells more boats than MasterCraft.

bigmac
10-23-2007, 05:40 PM
Nikon absolutely dominated the field in film but they were slow to adjust.


:D :D Nikon invented the digital SLR. But after that...yes, their marketing department apparently decided to take a nap.

G-man
10-23-2007, 05:43 PM
Humm I remember Kodak was the one that got this started. Then they wondered why film and processing income went down.

stuartmcnair
10-23-2007, 05:49 PM
Nikon made that camera for kodak

stuartmcnair
10-23-2007, 05:50 PM
Nikon did invent it...we had them from day one...microdrives and all. I remember picking it up and shooting with it the first time...totally rocked...now I look back and think "what a piece of crap" :)

east tx skier
10-23-2007, 05:51 PM
:D :D Nikon invented the digital SLR. But after that...yes, their marketing department apparently decided to take a nap.

Nikon SVC (still video camera), right? Now if I'm not mistaken, the Kodak DCS-100 was the first commercially produced DSLR. Interestingly, it used a modified Nikon body.

No dog in the hunt. Pefectly happy with the Minolta DSLR. With Photoshop CS3, I will endeavor to shoot more in raw format.

phecksel
10-23-2007, 10:31 PM
Nikon has good consumer dslr's but their pro models are way behind the Canon models.
hmm, D3...D300?

phecksel
10-23-2007, 10:36 PM
I thought Adobe Bridge was a major stinker in CS2 - buggy, crashed, etc. It is better as a media manager in CS3, but I don't care for Photoshop's RAW file management - it's not nearly as good as Capture NX IMHO, so my use of Photoshop is limited to cropping, layering etc. As to Bridge, I don't have the volume of images to manage to make that much of a value to me. My current workflow is opening images in capture NX, processing them to a folder which I can then open in Bridge.

Anyway, Photoshop is a pretty high end (read "expensive") professional processing tool - I think it's aimed more at the pro who is doing a lot of processing and has a pretty demanding workflow. At $650, I would never recommend it as a purchase for someone's first dSLR experience.

I tried and abandoned NX. I found NC to be much easier to use. Liked the selective tool in NX tho. I do 99% of my processing in NC, and will slip over to Elements for additional work that NC won't handle.

G-man
10-24-2007, 09:22 AM
Nikon made that camera for kodak

Kodak got a body from nikon and modified it. I believe it was kodak that did the CCD and the software. Kodak did all the marketing for the camera then Nikon and others came out with their cameras a couple years later. They started marketing scanning your slides and negs to cds. I did some still photography for a video promo on the cd's shot on Lake Powell at Rainbow arch. I can tell you there is hardly anyone on the lake in February.

bigmac
10-24-2007, 10:05 AM
hmm, D3...D300?

Nikon's dSLR lineup matches or exceeds Canon's in every category with the exception of the $8000 (street price) 1Ds MkIII 21-megapixel full-frame camera. I can hardly blame Nikon for not wanting to expend resources on a camera concept and price that encompasses about 1% of the dSLR market. Each of the other cameras in each market category matches or exceeds Canon's equivalent. The D2Xs is as good or better than the 1D MkII, the D3 will be as good or better than the 1D MkIII will be. It's a very fluid market, with one company continually leapfrogging the other since Nikon opened up the dSLR category with the D1 in 1999.

No question in my mind that Canon has had the smarter marketing plan, and their deep pockets from selling copiers has really helped their resource allocation. Seeding the photojournalist ranks with deeply discounted cameras and lenses was smart, but obvious. Not obvious enough for Nikon to see, however. Nikon is a really odd company. Brilliant engineering, really strange marketing concepts, and that latter fact relative to their introduction of new models and market emphasis has been puzzling and frustrating to Nikon die-hards, especially in the professional ranks - guys like Thom Hogan. His scathing observations on Nikon's management has not won him any friends at Nikon HQ, but the rank and file Nikon users certainly tend to agree with him, based on reading the ongoing postings in the forums at DPReview.com.

Anyway, no question that they both make good cameras. For my part, I would have no problem dumping all my Nikon lenses and camera and switching to Canon if I had a reason to do so, but I can't envision a possible reason why I would. Certainly not for camera quality, certainly not for image quality, and I like the Nikon ergonomics a lot better. I don't care about the sea of white lenses at various sporting events any more than a Dodge winning the Daytona 500 makes me want to buy a Chrysler product - those guys choose their equipment for totally different reasons than us amateurs.

3event
10-24-2007, 11:48 AM
I lost the Canon-Nikon argument with bro-in-law last month, he bought a new D-60 after trying out my RebelXT. Could have had a lot to do with my lack of depth in debate, so I'm enjoying the discussion here.

Back on software, I have access to an aging Mac with Photoshop V7.0 loaded. Is that version current enough to still be useful? Any ideas where I can locate tutorials for old versions? I'm a complete Photoshop noob, so otherwise I will have to use newer info and try to weed out features and changes that don't apply.

VirtualWi
10-24-2007, 12:06 PM
BigMac - well-put. Thanks for the great explanation ;)

east tx skier
10-24-2007, 12:08 PM
PS 7.0 is still useful for a lot of things. We were using it until we recently acquired CS3. I'm hoping CS3 will have more compatibility with the minolta raw data files.

bigmac
10-24-2007, 01:17 PM
The era of digital photography has seen a huge change in the way cameras are developed and marketed. It used to be that the image quality was entirely related to the quality of the film used. The camera itself was merely a matter of convenience - something to put the film in. The metering accuracy, features, lenses, and ergonomics were what made people decide on the brand of camera body they chose, and it's the reason Nikon was the leader back in the film days - they did those things better than the others.

Now, it's about the image sensor. The technical quality of the total electronic package is everything, and we're still on the steep part of that technology curve as the major sensor mfgr's like Sony/Nikon, Canon, and Fuji keep trying to move their products forward. Eventually IMHO, we'll get to the point where sensor resolution, noise, power consumption and cost will be at parity. Maybe that will be when it matches the resolution and dynamic range of the human eye, or maybe when it exceeds the capability of a lens (an affordable lens) to resolve the image. We aren't there yet, but we're getting there. When we hit that point, where all sensors are pretty much equal and further advances become only marginally incremental, cameras will be back to features just like they were in the film days. It's not totally dissimilar to computer technology, where we see faster and more capable processors, except that as processor technology advances, we see more and more demand for processing power in the increasingly sophisticated software we run. With photography, there's an endpoint for sensor capability, since our photographic subjects aren't getting more complicated, and what's the point of marketing a camera with a sensor that's more capable than the human eye?

stuartmcnair
10-24-2007, 03:55 PM
and at some point I do think all will be equal...that's one of the reasons marketing comes into play.

But you do have to admit, a 21 megapixel DSLR is pretty cool. And although it is a tiny fraction of the market, that technology works its way down eventually.

The one thing that won't change though is you still have to know how to use the thing. I compare my shots on a 6.4 MP 10D to some of the shots I see published in the paper where they were using far superior equipment and the image isn't as nice.

bigmac
10-24-2007, 04:07 PM
and at some point I do think all will be equal...that's one of the reasons marketing comes into play.

But you do have to admit, a 21 megapixel DSLR is pretty cool. And although it is a tiny fraction of the market, that technology works its way down eventually.

The one thing that won't change though is you still have to know how to use the thing. I compare my shots on a 6.4 MP 10D to some of the shots I see published in the paper where they were using far superior equipment and the image isn't as nice.

Do you think that more megapixels = better quality images?

stuartmcnair
10-24-2007, 04:24 PM
not necessarily...just as a 10 megapixel XTI can't get nearly the quality of an 8.2 MP Mark II...the sensor, lens and image processor make the image...not the dots.

I just said it was cool...but it will also mainly be a portrait camera as it is not suited for sports.

I can tell you are annoyed by me. I just take pics for magazines, websites and for fun. I'm not the greatest photog in the world but I get as good of shots as the guys who do it for a living. I've had Pentax, Nikon and Canon Cameras both film and digital. The Nikon D70 spent way too much time in the shop with memory card errors. The Canon 10D works like a champ. That's one of the main reasons I prefer Canon.

Of course, this is rapidly turning into a Ford vs Chevy argument. And yes, I have one of each. :)

RK@UST
10-24-2007, 04:46 PM
Do you think that more megapixels = better quality images?
pm at you........

bigmac
10-24-2007, 05:27 PM
not necessarily...just as a 10 megapixel XTI can't get nearly the quality of an 8.2 MP Mark II...the sensor, lens and image processor make the image...not the dots.

I just said it was cool...but it will also mainly be a portrait camera as it is not suited for sports.

I can tell you are annoyed by me. I just take pics for magazines, websites and for fun. I'm not the greatest photog in the world but I get as good of shots as the guys who do it for a living. I've had Pentax, Nikon and Canon Cameras both film and digital. The Nikon D70 spent way too much time in the shop with memory card errors. The Canon 10D works like a champ. That's one of the main reasons I prefer Canon.

Of course, this is rapidly turning into a Ford vs Chevy argument. And yes, I have one of each. :)

Heh heh....don't mind me. I'm pretty harmless.

Certainly, a bad experience with a device or vehicle can sour one...I've seen some Malibu owners that have that brand because of bad experience with their particular MasterCraft. I do weary of people's partisan view of boats/trucks/computers/cameras without thinking critically about the differences, and that does come up a lot here. No..more pixels doesn't equal more quality. I grant yo uthat the 1Ds MkIII is cool technology, if rather puzzling. The concept of crowding 22 million photosite onto a standard sensor frame at any cost using CMOS techology is interesting, if for no other reason than to wonder why. Mostly, what that does is increase noise..and I note that the Ds MkIII uses two DIGIC vlsi's, that's 148 megabits/second, to manage the noise and still work at 5 frames/second.

Anyway, I stepped in to the brand debate because it seemed to me that you weren't portraying it as Ford vs Chevy, you were implying it was Ford vs Yugo. Even on the Canon camera forums, the diehards have been pretty silent lately on quality differences between Canon and Nikon, and especially since the Nikon D3 was announced and sample images shown. Really, I'm not annoyed, I'm just trying to keep the record straight. Perhaps I went overboard. Sorry.

phecksel
10-24-2007, 09:50 PM
While I'm using Nikon, and decided against Canon, my rank amateur opinion is the current Canon's have a slight high ISO advantage. The high end glass also tends to be a touch less expensive.

But that D300, LOL.

WRT marketing, Nikon keeps stepping into it :( I'm very pleased with my D50, it was literally a sweet spot in the price/capability consumer market.

Did you see the results from the survey done in NY with Megapixels and large prints. Only one person out of a bunch of highly qualified photo people correctly identified the correct low/med/high pixels posters.

stuartmcnair
10-25-2007, 03:30 PM
Like I have said before. The lenses are what makes the photo. I see people buy these real nice camera bodies all the time and then buy that plastic 70-300 zoom. A $1200 camera body with a $150 lens. I have a much bigger investment in lenses than in bodies.

Bigmac should appreciate this, one of the photographers that shoots for us uses Nikons for portrait work and Canons for sports. He likes them for different reasons and his money depends on it so I value his opinion on that.

So when should I get after Bigmac on the whole Mac vs. PC for imagng?

:)

bigmac
10-25-2007, 04:56 PM
Like I have said before. The lenses are what makes the photo. I see people buy these real nice camera bodies all the time and then buy that plastic 70-300 zoom. A $1200 camera body with a $150 lens. I have a much bigger investment in lenses than in bodies.

Bigmac should appreciate this, one of the photographers that shoots for us uses Nikons for portrait work and Canons for sports. He likes them for different reasons and his money depends on it so I value his opinion on that.

So when should I get after Bigmac on the whole Mac vs. PC for imagng?

:)

I have CS3 for both PC and Mac. I prefer the Mac because of speed and stability, but either is good.

Canon's have more on-board noise processing than Nikons (the Canon DIGIC II/III chip). Some say the images look kind of "plasticky" because of overprocessing, but I don't think I really see that. Also, CMOS tends to be less noisy than CCD. The result is that a sports photographer can bump the ISO for faster shutter speeds at a given f-stop without suffering a lot of processor noise. Nikon has taken a page from that book and now uses CMOS, and have instituted a DIGIC-equivalent VLSI processor called Exspeed.

Having said that, sports vs studio really is probably less about the camera and more about the lens. Canon has courted the high end sports PJ with fast, image-stabilized big telephotos. At $8000 per lens, it's kind of a narrow market, but if you make your living covering sports in dim arenas, you need all the best tools no matter what the cost.

rlivingood
10-25-2007, 06:03 PM
I have used many different camera from the early 70s film shooting specific films depending on light to the newer digitals. I have rented and used both Nikon and Canon. During the US festival back in the 80s I changed to using Canon only after seeing numerous other cameras flake out due to the water canons and swampy humid conditions. The Canons are built well and well sealed against the conditions.

Currently I have a Canon 1ds MII, 16-35 L 2.8, 20-70 L 2.8, 70-200 L 2.8 and a few primes including the 85 1.2. I am very happy with the glass and picture processing on Canon.

I frequent and contribute to sites like:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp
http://www.fredmiranda.com/
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php
plus others.

I also like:
http://www.dpreview.com/

Depending on who or what I am shooting helps me decide on what format I use. When using RAW and JPEG together a 4 gb card fills up in about 150 shots and that starts taking lots of disk space not to mention backup space on another storage device.

I shoot RAW only when I plan on trying to keep art quality or exceptional composion photos. Otherwise I shoot RAW + JPEG or for some events even JPEG M only. I use Photoshop CS2 and Bridge. I use Bridge to quickly scan my imported RAW files to delete all but the best ones. I use Porfolio for my picture managment. I typically shoot about 8000 pictures a year for friends, family, and clients.

Using RAW definetly has it's advantages when you want to get the best dynamic range. Digital photography is even more sensitive to drange than slide positive film so you need to hit the exposure as close as possible and RAW offers you more room than JPEG. Also, RAW doesn't require you to use white balance correctly since you can post process it. BTW, I use a Smartshooter.com Balancesmarter in the field and Kodak 18 grey in the studio.

The biggest drawback from RAW if you intend to print or display is the post processing. I use a XP 64 bit pro 8 core AMD system that speeds the process up, but when I had only a 2 processor system boy that took time. Additinally if you want to email photos converting them to small 5 Mb or smaller size adds to your overall workflow efforts.

Also make sure you color balance your workflow. I suggest x-rite i1photo. Get yourself Colorchecker chart if you do any Studio work.

Rod

phecksel
10-25-2007, 10:06 PM
rod,

excellent message! I would have killed for that 1.2 tonight. 85 1.8 and still using 1/25 shutter. Not exactly sharp photography.

If I really want to get that shot perfect, presetting WB saves some PP pain, even with RAW. Nothing beats nailing WB and exposure.