Beginners Post-processing software recommendation??

cliffy · « **on:** 2 Oct 2010, 09:51 pm »

My wife has a nikon d40 w/ the 18-200VRII lens and a 35mm 1:1.8 prime.

She has recently begun exploring the manual functions and would like to 'mess-around' with some sort of computer enhancement of the jpg images.

I don't want to pay for fullblown Photoshop. Is there an intro program that would let her experiment and is relatively easy to understand and use?

PC platform only please, we have no Macs.

Thanks for reading!

Watson · « **Reply #1 on:** 2 Oct 2010, 10:13 pm »

It's pretty hard to argue against Adobe Lightroom being the best all-around tool for serious photographers, especially on the PC. It's not as expensive as full-blown Photoshop, and it's geared towards providing tools for photographers, not a basket of arbitrary functions for general image editing. The learning curve is very reasonable.

If that's too expensive, you should consider LightZone. LightZone works a little bit more like you would work in a traditional darkroom.

In any case, the D40 supports taking RAW images, and if you're going to be doing image processing, your wife should consider taking RAW images rather than JPEG images. Both Lightroom and LightZone can do a lot more with the full set of information to work with.

Doublej · « **Reply #2 on:** 3 Oct 2010, 12:36 am »

For free Adobe competitors check out The GIMP and Paint.Net. Both available for download from File Hippo and are extremely powerful photo editors

If you want a much simpler photo editing tool try Google Picasa or Windows Live Photo Gallery. Also often camera manufacturers such as Canon have basic photo editing tools that either ship with a camera or are available for download from their websites.

Finally sometimes computers ship with photo editing tools that might be sufficient.

cliffy · « **Reply #3 on:** 3 Oct 2010, 12:50 am »

Thanks for all the suggestions!

Yet another reminder of why I love this forum

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #4 on:** 3 Oct 2010, 02:15 am »

I think much depends on what you want to do and if you're working with RAW or jpegs. For RAW images I use the software that came with my camera to adjust the exposure if need be. Having done that I use ACDSee and an old version of Adobe Elements with a few filters from Topaz Labs for noise reduction and to simulate HDR.

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #5 on:** 14 Oct 2010, 06:09 am »

I would second Picasa as being easy and free, good results.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #6 on:** 14 Oct 2010, 06:32 am »

Quote from: ooheadsoo on 14 Oct 2010, 06:09 am

I would second Picasa as being easy and free, good results.

That does look easy.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rskC6c_5L1M

adydula · « **Reply #7 on:** 14 Oct 2010, 11:55 am »

cliffy,

I do professional photography, weddings etc...and lots of landscapes, flowers and tons of my grandkids.

If your wife wnats to start messing around with manual settings etc this is fine, but you need to get her to start shooting pix in RAW file mode with the ADOBE RGB color space setting on the camera.

JPEGS do not have the dynamic range and are lossey. When you start playing with images in any editing program, the amount of data that is in the jpeg is not like that of a RAW file. I dont want to scare you or your wife or get real technical about the differences.

Many times in the learning process, taking photos, you will not be able to fix, or make better images in jpeg files that you can with a RAW file.

If a JPEG is properly exposed when you take it, fine, but if not the a RAW file can be a life saver.

That said, I use 2 programs for all my many thousand images:

1. Picasa 3 for general sorting and looking at images....more for just its speed and ease of finding images. Its not a color managed program, and if you print from it your prints may be not what you see on your pc screen etc. Picasa will show RAW files.

2. Photoshop CS3. Once I see an image in Picasa I like , or needs some manipulation...its into Photoshop for the corrections. Once the files are 'touched' up or adjusted I save them in TIFF format.
Not JPEG. TIFF is lossless and if you ever have to go back into the file and do something and open. close etc..there is no loss of any data.

Most cameras DSLR's come with software that will allow you to look at your images, both RAW and JPEGS etc...Your Nikon should have these utilities you might want to take a look at them as well.

If Photoshop is too costly take a look at Adobe Elements. Its very beginner friendly and can handle most of your post processing needs.

Also the manual part...I shoot hardly at all in manual!! Mostly is Aperature Priority mode, because I mostly worry and think about how an image looks and the Depth of Field is important, hence AP mode..

Ok the thing to remember is take lots of pix, have fun exploring its one of my loves for many years!

All the best
Alex

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #8 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 01:04 am »

Another free alternative is Fast Stone Image Viewer. It has a very unobstructive user interface, handles RAW and is easy to use.

Delta Wave · « **Reply #9 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 01:22 am »

1. She's using a Nikon D40...
2. She's shooting in JPEG...

Both are things to avoid.

tabrink · « **Reply #10 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 02:09 am »

DeltaWave wrote:
1. She's using a Nikon D40...
2. She's shooting in JPEG...

Both are things to avoid.

Wowsa. IMHO I respectfully disagree.

:
Currently shooting professionally with two D3s at events and D3x in studio and can tell you that the D40 has some of the most correct color reproduction of any current Nikon DSLR. It is wonderful little carry about and teamed with one of my 24-70's and a SB-400 flash in the bounce position makes a really fun little brilliant rig.
Your mileage may vary!

Could not agree more about JPEG. Get the best file you can and then convert as necessary.
Happy shooting,
Tom

Delta Wave · « **Reply #11 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 02:36 am »

How about an old film Rangefinder and a dark room? Learn the actual technique and theory and you'll be able to use ANY software. It's all about light manipulation through transparency, not gear, pixels or computers. Learn the correct way first and everything else will be easy.

JohnR · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 09:11 am »

Q: what is a simple program to get started with processing images from a DSLR?
A: buy a film rangefinder and set up a darkroom.

For someone getting started, personally I think JPEG is fine. Switch to RAW when (or if) you actually do run into limitations with JPEG - then you'll understand why you're using RAW.

Delta Wave · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 10:11 am »

Quote from: JohnR on 15 Oct 2010, 09:11 am

Q: what is a simple program to get started with processing images from a DSLR?
A: buy a film rangefinder and set up a darkroom.

For someone getting started, personally I think JPEG is fine. Switch to RAW when (or if) you actually do run into limitations with JPEG - then you'll understand why you're using RAW.

Photoshop isn't cheap and really why bother with anything else... why tease yourself and just spend even more in the long run? . You can set up a darkroom for almost nothing and actually learn something in the process. JPEG is the WORST digital medium to shoot in, you can only do minimal manipulation to the image before it turns into noisy crap. If you're really hell-bent, at least get Photoshop Elements. And yes, you should ONLY shoot in RAW if you want good results in both your image and manipulation of said image.

MaxCast · « **Reply #14 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 10:12 am »

How much larger (%) would the pic be in jpeg vs. RAW?
Also, does anyone know if RAW is uploaded to an off site place like Walgreens photo, would the pic be converted at their site into jpeg? If so, I imagine the upload would be long??

Delta Wave · « **Reply #15 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 10:16 am »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

JohnR · « **Reply #16 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 10:22 am »

Quote from: MaxCast on 15 Oct 2010, 10:12 am

How much larger (%) would the pic be in jpeg vs. RAW?
Also, does anyone know if RAW is uploaded to an off site place like Walgreens photo, would the pic be converted at their site into jpeg? If so, I imagine the upload would be long??

Hi Rich, it depends on the camera. Mine is a ratio of about ten but it's usually less than that, maybe 3. (RAW bigger than JPEG.)

You wouldn't upload RAW files, they need to be processed to be usable for printing, that's the whole idea.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #17 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 10:29 am »

Quote from: Delta Wave on 15 Oct 2010, 10:11 am

Photoshop isn't cheap and really why bother with anything else...

Photoshop is too way too costly and complex for the average person.

MaxCast · « **Reply #18 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 10:41 am »

Thank you all. I think I'll climb back into my jpeg hole.

this was more for my wife and when I fast forward I see the person that will actually be doing all the work and he looks like me.

woodsyi · « **Reply #19 on:** 15 Oct 2010, 12:52 pm »

You can have your cake and eat it too. Just get a bigger card (32GB maybe) and shoot in both. You will have your RAW files for a few that you want to work on but there will be JPEG for all the pictures.