An odd question...

[Disastrous]

Evening all,

I've just ordered a canon 60D for work purposes (which are mainly video) and a couple of (video optimised) lenses to go with it. It's primary duty will be filming video but it hasn't escaped my attention that ill have a pretty nice DSLR still camera to boot...

I'm fairly novice to still photography, having messed about a bit with 35mm SLRs in the past but I'd say that my skills are definitely undeveloped, so my question I suppose, is what do I need on the computing and software side??

I use a MacBook Pro for video editing so I'm pretty sure it will run any photo software easily enough. But what software??

I've got iPhoto, but what is Lightbix, and do I want it? I had it in my head that Photoshop elements would probably be fine to start with but I'm a bit baffled by all the other options and would like some pointers (even links to good websites or articles) that will let me know what's what with digital still photography?

Can anyone advise?

Thanks!

[stu1984]

I have a 60D and use Adobe Lightroom 4 for my photo editing. Really pleased with both the camera and the software. Have not explored the video capabilities of the camera yet though and I believe you can also do video editing in Lightroom 4. Sorry to probably add further confusion into the mix but this is the only software I have first hand experience in using

[Disastrous]

Not at all - I see the two disciplines as pretty distinct to be honest.

I use Final Cut Pro for all my video editing and would be sticking with that. I had seen Lightroom and wondered what the difference between that, Aperture, PS Elements etc was. It just seems as shame to have all that kit and not explore the still capabilities of it as well, so thought I'd get cracking!

Will look into Lightroom in more detail...

ETA - Is Lightroom different from Lightbox or have I just made up Lightbox completely, and I actually mean Lightroom??

Edited by Disastrous on Tuesday 2nd April 22:28

[Simpo Two]

Photoshop is image manipluation software which, if you shoot JPG, should be all you need.

Lightroom is RAW processing and cataloguing software.

Lightbox is a thing you put slides on.

Lightbix is a low fat version of Weetabix.

[Disastrous]

Simpo Two said:

Photoshop is image manipluation software which, if you shoot JPG, should be all you need.

Lightroom is RAW processing and cataloguing software.

Low-calorie breakfasts aside (I want a Weetabix now!!!), I think this gets to the heart of the matter.

I am aware of RAW in a sort of dimly aware, that's what still photogs use, kind of way, but I've never shot them before. That said, I'm prepared to do things the "right way" as I'm pretty au fait with video and imagine I'll probably want the sort of level of manipulation I'm used to out of my software. I think I'd get annoyed if I did things the "beginner" way and then once I'd built up some knowledge, felt I wanted to change how I did things, if that makes sense?

Or am I arse about face, and actually, shooting in JPEG is fine and I should just get on with it?

To give you an idea of my intended usage (which is probably more helpful), I would see myself doing the following:

1) Lots of landscape/nature shots - I like travelling and the outdoors and will spend time taking multiples of the same shot to get something I'm happy with, so perhaps the ability to catalogue and A/B compare shots would be good?

2) Almost no studio work at all - I won't be doing lots of portraits or anything like that

3) A bit of travel/street photography

I'd like to be able to turn out polished results though, in terms of that one holiday photo that just stands out, or mountainscape you want to print, so I guess I want a degree of manipulation as well?

Which software does that sound like? iPhoto is a bit basic, I think, and PS full-fat probably a bit too much??

[Lobster43]

IPhoto Is very basic and is really only a viewer with limited editing capability.

I use Aperture for RAW editing and cataloging, which I believe is very similar to Lightroom.
If you use a MAC, it will make iPhoto redundant.

[markmullen]

You'll get Canon Digital Photo Professional with the camera to do raw conversions.

3rd party raw converters are a personal choice, whilst I know a vast majority of photographers use Lightroom I couldn't get on with it and use Capture One Pro, others use Apple's Aperture and others Adobe's Camera Raw which is the raw converter that comes with Photoshop (and technically the engine behind Lightroom).

I'd recommend downloading the demos of the different packages and see which makes most sense to you, YouTube is full of tutorials to get you going.

[Simpo Two]

The desire to 'do it properly' is great but photography is a big and long learning curve and you probably have more important things to learn first. You can do a lot with JPGs - not quite as much as with RAWs - but more than enough to keep you happy for a while I think. Remember that file types and software and digital yada are really secondary to the main event - taking a decent photograph.

Once you get your image in the digital can, PS Elements will keep you busy from there.

If you want both sides covered, set your camera to shoot RAW+JPG. That way you can get on and enjoy photography using JPGs, and resort to the RAW version if you get the cover of Country Life.

[RobDickinson]

Photoshop comes with bridge (library management) and adobe camera raw raw converter.

Overall a lot more complex and powerful than lightroom but trickier to use

[Flibble]

I use ACR, but I believe in CS6 it is functionally exactly the same as Lightroom 4 so it depends how much editing stuff you want to be able to do.

[Disastrous]

Simpo Two said:

The desire to 'do it properly' is great but photography is a big and long learning curve and you probably have more important things to learn first. You can do a lot with JPGs - not quite as much as with RAWs - but more than enough to keep you happy for a while I think. Remember that file types and software and digital yada are really secondary to the main event - taking a decent photograph.

Once you get your image in the digital can, PS Elements will keep you busy from there.

If you want both sides covered, set your camera to shoot RAW+JPG. That way you can get on and enjoy photography using JPGs, and resort to the RAW version if you get the cover of Country Life.

That's helpful, thanks. I'm gunning for National Geographic though

I appreciate I have a lot to learn about the art of taking a photo and my thinking was to get the pictures in as untreated a format as possible, to aid this process. I can't see me doing much in the way of editing out things in the background or whatever as it seems a bit...I dunno...but who knows? Maybe I'll get right into that side of things.

Ok, so far I'm certain full-fat PS is too much. IPhoto is not enough and PS Elements is looking tempting. I am an Apple man though, which was what made me automatically head towards Aperture, as I figured I'd 'get it' quite quickly.

Thanks for the advice guys-big help narrowing down what's out there...

[RobDickinson]

Theres some basic stuff in photoshop that isnt too hard but its a tiny part of the overall package and IMO its a steep learning curve.

Especially when you can do most of everything you ever want to do in lightroom or elements.

As for capturing the image in its natural untouched aspect, great but remember the camera is at the moment quite good at producing decent jpg from raw, getting as good as the camera takes a little effort (tho not huge with lightroom etc.) and that something like canons DPP can always give you a jpg exactly like the camera would have done.

I hate going back to very old shots and finding they are jpg only! You cna shoot both raw+jog, it hits storage space and perfomance a little tho.