Must-have / most-used / favorite processes ?

frons

What are your most-used and/or must-have processes? I just went digital recently and I've got a few hundred RAW images now that probably need to be sweetened. Even after reading a lot of threads here, I don't even know what I don't know about post processing and want to make an informed choice about the software tools that you use to make your images look their best. No trade secrets needed, just good advice.

Recommendations on books or links to threads I have missed would be greatly appreciated, too. To narrow things down, I shoot mostly outdoor and closeup/macro, and am a Nikon and Mac user.

ShepsMom

I use Photoshop, i've tried Light Room and didn't care for it, or may be just being Photoshop user seems like forever, i don't have a use for LR.

I don't know if that's the answer you're looking for ?

filmphoto

frons wrote:

I've got a few hundred RAW images now that probably need to be sweetened.

No you haven't. You've probably got 10 or 20 that actually need to be sweetened, 'cos the rest you will never look at again!

rutt

Check out this sticky thread at the top of this forum. It's not quite up to date anymore, but it's still a great list.

The ones I use all the time:

1. Making them pop
2. Sharpening
3. #1 portrait problem
4. Portraits

MLangton

Can all of this be done on PS Elements, or do I need to spring for the full version CS4??? Big difference in $$$ Ill spend it if I need to though.

Thanks!

Thunder Rabbit

Howdy.

For someone new to digital photography, I would recommend Lightroom over Photoshop or Elements every time. This topic comes up regularly and is well covered in other threads in this forum. You might do a search or browse this forum for threads that treat the topic.

Here are some pertinent quotes from one of them.

Austinstrobist wrote:

For the pro photogs out there that use LR, do you also use PS consistently as well or do you find that you can do the majority of your PP in LR?

I am asking this because I have started using LR and while there are several changes you can make within the program am I missing a world of possibilities by not having PS?

Me wrote:

Lr2 is a thoroughly capable standalone system.

But, it is a different animal than Ps. Lr2 is a Ferrari. Fast and streamlined. Built for a specific purpose. Ps is a Snap On tool truck. There are more tools in it than even most experienced photographers need. But they're there if you need them. Quite a few of them are more for graphic designers. 3D tools and such. Of course, you can blur the line between graphic design and photography as much as you want. And it never hurts to have a Snap On tool truck handy, just in case.

Depending on the type of photography you do, exactly how much use you get out of Ps will vary. Right now, less than 10% of my photos need something I can't do in Lr2. But I use Ps every day as a graphic designer.

I would say Ps offers a universe of possiblities not available in Lr2. But the interface is not particularly beginner friendly. You will have to invest a lot of time to learn how to open up that universe of possibilities.

Pathfinder wrote:

I tend to agree with ThunderRabbit.

I suspect a majority of portrait, and people photographers can find all the tools they need in Lightroom2 ( or Aperture which some do use ) over 90+% of the time.

Photoshop will be used in addition to Lightroom by a different subset of photographers and/or artists or graphic designers who desire a more exploratory interaction with their images than an industrial output capability.

I would think sports shooters strongly prefer LR to Photoshop as well, where time is at a premium.

Anonymouscuban wrote:

I am not a pro but I use both LR2 and CS3. I use LR2 95% and CS3 as a plugin for only those photos that I need to do a lot of messing around. I am amazed of what all can be done in LR2, especially since reading Scott Kelby's book.

The local adjustment brush and gradient tool is awesome. So is the fact that I can make all my adjustments directly in the RAW editor and my originals are not touched. And don't get me started on it's database features.

Also, please note that Ps does not edit RAW images. It edits copies of RAW images. RAW files must first be copied to a Ps file format by a RAW engine. Adobe Camera Raw is the RAW engine that comes with Ps. The same one that comes with Lr, but with a different interface.

Don't get me started on the Lr database features, either. Oops, I already have. I'll try and keep it short. When you compare the speed of the indexed databases in Lr and Ps, there is no comparison. Ps doesn't have an indexed database. Ps Bridge is a file browser. Lr can arrange, group, and find images or groups of images with astonishing speed. It can search all your images, regardless of which folder they are in. Bridge looks in one folder at a time. And you have to tell it which folder. There are threads and other sources that go into this in greater detail, but the moral of the story is that when it comes to image management capabilies, Lr is fast and easy, Ps, not so much.

Don't get me wrong, I love Ps. But Lr and Ps are different tools. And in this case Lr (or Aperture, maybe), might be the better tool for the job. And a lot cheaper. I got Lr 2 for $98 online with a student discount (I have a kid in kindergarten).

Hope this helps.

rutt

Photoshop is a long and steep learning curve, but it doesn't have the limitations of LightRoom and others. It can do almost anything you could want to your images. LightRoom, can do first order corrections wich will make most images look OK. To make difficult images look good or to get the last 10% from important images, you have to go farther. Ditto if you want unlimited creative freedom. It's your decision whether to set off on the path to learning how.

BTW, there's a lot about LightRoom I find pretty confusing. So I think it also has a learning curve...

frons

Thanks for all the replies. I guess the original question was a bit broad, but the sticky thread I missed (thanks, rutt) does answer my question somewhat. Shooting Nikon, I am considering Capture NX2 (for the best RAW conversion), even though I think I'll have to buy a separate application to do what it doesn't. Since I am not a working pro, Photoshop is really out of my budget and the learning curve is a bit steep. Looks like I need to check out the LightRoom trial.

And filmphoto is right; once I get a bit critical, I won't have nearly as many keepers to work on.:D