quick software question.

Charlie Brown

first of all i take pretty bad photos, not horrible but also not good.

i am working on a macbook intel dual core. basic laptop. i havent upgraded memory or anything. though this is the pimpy black one.

anyway, im wondering what yall think woul dbe the best software for me to use to enhance my poorly shot photos?

i have used photoshop in the past with some success, but really it seemed a bit advanced for what i was doing. i liked it a great deal, but totally screwed up more than a few shots and had to start over again.

aperture is obviously a mac product and would work we on the system no problems but i dont have any experience with it and dont know if it is as good or detailed as PS or if it is any good at all, really.

so what say you, dgrinners, whats the best n00b photoediting software a schmuck like me can get his hands on?

Mike Lane

Charlie Brown wrote:

first of all i take pretty bad photos, not horrible but also not good.

i am working on a macbook intel dual core. basic laptop. i havent upgraded memory or anything. though this is the pimpy black one.

anyway, im wondering what yall think woul dbe the best software for me to use to enhance my poorly shot photos?

i have used photoshop in the past with some success, but really it seemed a bit advanced for what i was doing. i liked it a great deal, but totally screwed up more than a few shots and had to start over again.

aperture is obviously a mac product and would work we on the system no problems but i dont have any experience with it and dont know if it is as good or detailed as PS or if it is any good at all, really.

so what say you, dgrinners, whats the best n00b photoediting software a schmuck like me can get his hands on?

I say photoshop and two books. First, a book on how to get good images because no matter what the editor, garbage in, garbage out. Second, a book on how to make good photos better in photoshop. I think most anyone on dgrin can give you a recommendation on what books to buy.

You could instead use the GIMP since it is free and full-featured. I'm sure there are online tutorials on the GIMP too. I still recommend a photography book or 2.

Charlie Brown

Mike Lane wrote:

I say photoshop and two books. First, a book on how to get good images because no matter what the editor, garbage in, garbage out. Second, a book on how to make good photos better in photoshop. I think most anyone on dgrin can give you a recommendation on what books to buy.

You could instead use the GIMP since it is free and full-featured. I'm sure there are online tutorials on the GIMP too. I still recommend a photography book or 2.

you mean i should educate myself on how to take a proper photograph? thats nonsense. rubbish i tell you, rubbish.


actually thats a really good point. ill hit the library up this week since i need to return some books anyway.


edit. found "gimp" online.


what is this "gimp" you speak of?

Van Isle

I've been wondering the same thing myself. Right now I'm focusing on getting the best shots in camera that I can. (read read, practice practice) I'm using the Nikon Picture Project software, working in RAW, and after a few months I'm starting to realize that I need more flexibility. My plan (after the new computer) is to work with Nikon Capture NX for best RAW handling. Once I've got a grip on that and seem to be pushing it's limits for what I need to do (which for now, is simply make great photos) then I'll keep it and add photoshop to my workflow. I had PS 7 for a bit, and had no clue what to do with any of it. Start small, get comfy, build on it.

my .02

VI

W.W. Webster

Charlie Brown wrote:

im wondering what yall think woul dbe the best software for me to use to enhance my poorly shot photos?

I suggest you download and evaluate the 30 day trial version of Lightroom from Adobe, available for the first time in its finished form from 19 February after a 12 month beta period.

It may have the functions you are looking for, together with some nice image management and print/presentation tools, all in a modern, integrated package. You can check it out here.

colourbox

I second that. I was going to suggest the same as W.W. Webster.

With Lightroom (and similarly Aperture), you have a professional quality digital camera workflow from shoot to print/web.

It doesn't do everything Photoshop does, but Photoshop does way, way more than most people need and costs 3x as much. Photoshop itself does nothing to enhance Raw processing. Camera Raw, which comes with Photoshop, has that job. But herding photos through Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw to handle 100 images of a shoot is much more complex than doing it with Lightroom, which was built for that task.

This isn't the same as starting with a "consumer" paint package and later dumping it to move up to Photoshop. Because Lightroom is pro quality, if you later move on to Photoshop to learn advanced color, masking, and sharpening techniques, there is no reason to stop using Lightroom.

Charlie Brown

so is lightroom a better overall piece of software than aperture? i know its selling for less right now because it was just released.

one of the reasons i am asking is because i can get a lisensed version of aperture from the company my brother works for, for free. now as good as free software is, if its not as good as lightroom i might as well just download the free trial and start using it.

W.W. Webster

Charlie Brown wrote:

so is lightroom a better overall piece of software than aperture?

Either can fit my workflow. However, the conclusion I've reached, after using successive Lightroom betas up to 4.1 since last March (free trial) and concurrently using Aperture 1.5 - 1.5.2 since October (purchased for real money) is that I'll be buying Lightroom.

Aperture has a few clever features, but it's very clunky, unreliable, and performs like an absolute dog on my machine - the fastest Mac available I configured specifically for Aperture. In particular, the 'spot and patch' tool (which did not have an equivalent function in the Lightroom betas, but does from v1.0, and which induced me to spend my money on Aperture) causes more problems than it's worth.

On the other hand, Lightroom is elegant, 'tight', efficient and runs well on my equipment, and that's with the beta which has reputedly been optimised for improved performance with v1.0.

As a Mac user exclusively since 1986, it pains me to say so but the race isn't even close. Just my opinion, but Aperture is an utter disgrace! Based on my experience, if I had the option of Aperture for free or Lightroom at retail, I wouldn't consider Aperture for a moment. However both offer free trials (Lightroom v1.0 is available from tomorrow). I recommend you download and try both and come to your own conclusion.

BradfordBenn

The one thing I have started to realize is that if taking pictures puts a smile on your face, who cares if no one else likes them? I just enjoy taking and sharing the photos.

I personally am using Lightroom to do quick touch ups and PhotoShop for serious touch ups. I also have been looking at the over all framing of the photo and going with the idea of GIGO... garbage in = garbage out. So I am trying to get the photos better. However since digital is reusable I just snap lots of them and learn from experience.