Processing advice
Discussion
Hi PH Collective. Looking for some advice about processing photographs. I have a basic DSLR ( Nikon D5100 ) and after years of fully auto, I've started to experiment with full manual mode etc, in particular, night shots of stars ( recently moved to West coast of Scotland so light polution pretty low ) and also waterfalls ( milky effect ). I always shoot jpeg, but am looking at changing to RAW, as I am told it makes for better processing. My question is this .....what processing program would suit my photography best ??
I'm not a fan of "changing" the taken image, at the moment all I ever do is level my horizons and crop ! So my brief would be a program that is simple to use ( I'm a bit thick ) excels at the basics, works on an oldish laptop. I've heard of people getting good results using "Lightroom", and also "Photoshop". Are there any more I should consider ??
Many thanks in advance :-)
I'm not a fan of "changing" the taken image, at the moment all I ever do is level my horizons and crop ! So my brief would be a program that is simple to use ( I'm a bit thick ) excels at the basics, works on an oldish laptop. I've heard of people getting good results using "Lightroom", and also "Photoshop". Are there any more I should consider ??
Many thanks in advance :-)
I've got Lightroom and it has transformed the way I see and create my photographs. I had photoshop for years before but found it complicated. Lightroom is relatively easy and you can transform a photo in seconds by using sliders to adjust many aspects of it.....it is amazing the difference it can make.
I enjoy the processing almost as much as I enjoy taking the photo's.....not that I claim to be very good at it.
I can't recommend Lightroom enough.
I enjoy the processing almost as much as I enjoy taking the photo's.....not that I claim to be very good at it.
I can't recommend Lightroom enough.
delboy735 said:
I'm not a fan of "changing" the taken image, at the moment all I ever do is level my horizons and crop
The camera doesnt see like how we do, and raw files are totally unprocessed, so we need to process them to make it look right.Lightroom is the goto standard in photo editing. Its pretty easy to learn and can do basic stuff very quickly and easily.
Load files into library, go to develop module, adjust white balance, contrast, white/black/shadow/hilite levels, tweak horizon and crop and you can be done.
it also lets you get into more detailed things like graduated filters and adjustment brushes when you feel you want to.
Photoshop is undoubtedly the very best photo editing software on the market but it costs an arm and a leg and is cloud based and monthly subscription only.
Lightroom is regarded by many as the best for making basic adjustments to photographs. I have to say that I'm tempted to download the standalone Lightroom version via Amazon which costs just over £100. Unfortunately the most recent versions are cloud versions only with a monthly subscription which I refuse to pay. Adobe are becoming more and more arrogant with their pricing policies so I avoid like the plague.
Alternatively take a look at Google Picasa software which I've been using for over 10 years now for basic editing, and note that it is none destructive of the original photos (please note there is no need to upload to their cloud based system if you don't want to), and once it has scanned all your hard drives it will display all your photos in date order in a simple flat file format no matter how many layers of folders your photos are buried. All subsequent new photos imported into Picasa are placed in folders in date order (which you can rename if you wish). Photos can then be emailed, printed or exported at differing file sizes.
Picasa runs on my old iMac but is also available for download for Windows computers running XP, Vista and Windows 7. And before you ask, it can handle a massive number of photos, I have over 4000 folders with many more photos inside.
Bottom line is that yes I'm thoroughly impressed with it and would recommend it to a friend
Link is: https://picasa.google.co.uk/
Lightroom is regarded by many as the best for making basic adjustments to photographs. I have to say that I'm tempted to download the standalone Lightroom version via Amazon which costs just over £100. Unfortunately the most recent versions are cloud versions only with a monthly subscription which I refuse to pay. Adobe are becoming more and more arrogant with their pricing policies so I avoid like the plague.
Alternatively take a look at Google Picasa software which I've been using for over 10 years now for basic editing, and note that it is none destructive of the original photos (please note there is no need to upload to their cloud based system if you don't want to), and once it has scanned all your hard drives it will display all your photos in date order in a simple flat file format no matter how many layers of folders your photos are buried. All subsequent new photos imported into Picasa are placed in folders in date order (which you can rename if you wish). Photos can then be emailed, printed or exported at differing file sizes.
Picasa runs on my old iMac but is also available for download for Windows computers running XP, Vista and Windows 7. And before you ask, it can handle a massive number of photos, I have over 4000 folders with many more photos inside.
Bottom line is that yes I'm thoroughly impressed with it and would recommend it to a friend
Link is: https://picasa.google.co.uk/
Photoshop and lightroom cost me $10 a month. If thats half your body value I suggest finding a job.
Picasa is ok for a rough edit but the files it produces are very coarse, easy way to ruin your nice photos IMO, and google are dropping it very shortly anyhow. Grab it whilst its there.
Photoshop is big and complicated and you need a good understanding of what you can do and how to do it, and what order. Its total overkill for the OP.
Picasa is ok for a rough edit but the files it produces are very coarse, easy way to ruin your nice photos IMO, and google are dropping it very shortly anyhow. Grab it whilst its there.
Photoshop is big and complicated and you need a good understanding of what you can do and how to do it, and what order. Its total overkill for the OP.
OP, RobDickinson has to be one of the most knowledgeable guys on here so I highly recommend you listen to what he has to say. He posted his reply as I was typing out my reply to you!
Google is rumoured to be discontinuing support for Picasa, but it is still available to download if you wish, and unlike most programs Picasa doesn't touch the original files, so you could run this prog alongside Photoshop or Lightroom to see which you prefer using.
My main gripe with Adobe is their total arrogance towards their customer base, back in the 1990s I spent literally thousands of pounds with them with the standalone Photoshop software, then was frozen out of any upgrade path because I had missed a few pointless upgrades and Photoshop was no longer offered as a standalone product but had to be purchased in the suite, now they offer cheap subscriptions to entice more users into using their software, so how long before they hike the monthly premium to justify the extras, and what about users using older computer operating systems that are no longer supported by Adobe. With their software being cloud based they can do pretty much whatever they want!
Google is rumoured to be discontinuing support for Picasa, but it is still available to download if you wish, and unlike most programs Picasa doesn't touch the original files, so you could run this prog alongside Photoshop or Lightroom to see which you prefer using.
My main gripe with Adobe is their total arrogance towards their customer base, back in the 1990s I spent literally thousands of pounds with them with the standalone Photoshop software, then was frozen out of any upgrade path because I had missed a few pointless upgrades and Photoshop was no longer offered as a standalone product but had to be purchased in the suite, now they offer cheap subscriptions to entice more users into using their software, so how long before they hike the monthly premium to justify the extras, and what about users using older computer operating systems that are no longer supported by Adobe. With their software being cloud based they can do pretty much whatever they want!
Another voice for Lightroom here as it does just about everything you want it to in 99% of the time (for me) without resorting to pixel software such as Photoshot or Paintshop Pro. I use Pixelmator for the extremely rare occasion a photo needs more than Lightroom.
As others have said it is a full photo cataloging and management software and has some very powerful adjustment tools built in. I preferred the stand alone version which can be bought from Adobe for around £100 if you manage to find the link to it (they hide it to force you into the subscription route)
LR has plenty of support online, especially YouTube where there are numerous training videos, see serge ramelli for example as to what can be achieved very quickly with set his software.
Best of luck.
As others have said it is a full photo cataloging and management software and has some very powerful adjustment tools built in. I preferred the stand alone version which can be bought from Adobe for around £100 if you manage to find the link to it (they hide it to force you into the subscription route)
LR has plenty of support online, especially YouTube where there are numerous training videos, see serge ramelli for example as to what can be achieved very quickly with set his software.
Best of luck.
I faffed about with loads of freeware options like gimp and picasa for years. Then the Adobe cc suite came along for £8 a month. TBH I think this is great value because you are always going to have the latest version. Using lightroom was like an epiphany. Editing pictures was now a pleasure rather than a chore. There's loads of tutorials online and every photography magazine covers lightroom and photoshop techniques.
I am a very ungifted amateur but I do think my pictures have improved since getting lightroom. I very rarely use photoshop but if I do want to use it then it is there. The £8/£9 a month is the price of a couple of pints.
You can also use it for a month on a free trial (or you could when I got it) so try it out.
I am a very ungifted amateur but I do think my pictures have improved since getting lightroom. I very rarely use photoshop but if I do want to use it then it is there. The £8/£9 a month is the price of a couple of pints.
You can also use it for a month on a free trial (or you could when I got it) so try it out.
Lightroom is the way to go. You get 30 day free trial from adobe. Download it then watch this >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bECi0ZQAB34
Don't try and wing it as it is a bit quirky in its file management.
Don't try and wing it as it is a bit quirky in its file management.
Edited by GetCarter on Friday 29th April 11:07
One question on the Adobe monthly payment, which no doubt is covered elsewhere - is the software still running locally, or would I be using it remotely? I don't like the idea of subscription-based software, but I kind of see that for these companies with packages that do everything, the incentive for people to keep buying upgrades isn't there so they've got to make a living.
droopsnoot said:
One question on the Adobe monthly payment, which no doubt is covered elsewhere - is the software still running locally, or would I be using it remotely? I don't like the idea of subscription-based software, but I kind of see that for these companies with packages that do everything, the incentive for people to keep buying upgrades isn't there so they've got to make a living.
You download it and can work without internet connection (if that's what you meant)?Yes, thanks, that's what I meant. My internet isn't that great, and I wouldn't fancy the idea of trying to run it that way, so it's good that it doesn't need to be.
I'm trying to learn processing, the first issue I have is trying to figure out how to describe the difference between the photos I have, and how I'd like them to look - I can see the difference, but not really describe it, other than "better".
I'm trying to learn processing, the first issue I have is trying to figure out how to describe the difference between the photos I have, and how I'd like them to look - I can see the difference, but not really describe it, other than "better".
Another vote for Lightroom, although with the creative cloud you get Photoshop with it anyway - but I would stick to learning Lightroom first.
I actually think the Creative Cloud Photography edition is good value, I've had every version of Lightroom since it came out, but could never justify buying Photoshop. Now I can have the latest version of both, for not much more than it was costing to upgrade Lightroom each month. There also seems to be quite a few deals floating around for 20% off the Creative Cloud Photography package.
I actually think the Creative Cloud Photography edition is good value, I've had every version of Lightroom since it came out, but could never justify buying Photoshop. Now I can have the latest version of both, for not much more than it was costing to upgrade Lightroom each month. There also seems to be quite a few deals floating around for 20% off the Creative Cloud Photography package.
If you're happy enough with your jpegs, crack on. I've never really found much that comes straight out of camera that I look at and think 'nothing to add there' - even with settings turned up I generally need to add a little more exposure or contrast as well as a bump on the white balance usually the tint. But that's more a Nikon thing, they always come out a little bluer than an equiv Canon.
RAW probably isnt going to give you much other than all the data the camera saw, so there's more info in the file that can take editing a lot more What it also means is, you need to edit it more. TBH, jpeg is fine for most of what I do, it might be different for everyone else, but the majorit of my snaps I can scale up to wall size with upscaling, most really just sit on a hard drive or a facebook page.
In terms of editing, I like Lightroom's ability to catalogue and edit and take it through to print if needed. Anything that needs more I take into Photoshop, but Lightroom's where 85% of adjustment is done
The Must Use Manual - again I'm not a fan of. I think if you know exactly what you need then cool, but half the time I'm in aperture Priority and only really use complete manual mode when I'm suing off camera flash
RAW probably isnt going to give you much other than all the data the camera saw, so there's more info in the file that can take editing a lot more What it also means is, you need to edit it more. TBH, jpeg is fine for most of what I do, it might be different for everyone else, but the majorit of my snaps I can scale up to wall size with upscaling, most really just sit on a hard drive or a facebook page.
In terms of editing, I like Lightroom's ability to catalogue and edit and take it through to print if needed. Anything that needs more I take into Photoshop, but Lightroom's where 85% of adjustment is done
The Must Use Manual - again I'm not a fan of. I think if you know exactly what you need then cool, but half the time I'm in aperture Priority and only really use complete manual mode when I'm suing off camera flash
There is no reason to not shoot in raw and it will save you so much heartache when you shoot a photo you thought was amazing, only to find you've lost all the detail in the sky or shadows. And Lightroom is absolutely brilliant. It's taught me so much about many different aspects of photography. My process is to use lightroom for main editing, and photoshop for touch ups etc. I used to download them naughtily, but it's so cheap now you'd be a bit silly to not pay. Worth every penny.
If I had shot this in jpg, I never would have got the sky back when exposing for the landscape/lake. Raw is not about a quality thing, but a detail thing. Generally you won't need raw for cars or aircraft or other objects, but why take the risk on any day of shooting?
Hallstätter See by Dan J, on Flickr
If I had shot this in jpg, I never would have got the sky back when exposing for the landscape/lake. Raw is not about a quality thing, but a detail thing. Generally you won't need raw for cars or aircraft or other objects, but why take the risk on any day of shooting?
Hallstätter See by Dan J, on FlickrEdited by danllama on Saturday 30th April 16:48
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff