A feel a little silly, but...

DarkFaerie

I have just gotten back into photography and I don't have any post processing software other than what came with my camera. It does the basics like sharpening, red-eye removal, brightness, etc., but thats about it. Is it even necessary to get something else?

here is a link to my photos if anyone has any suggestions as to software or even what to do to the pictures I would really appreciate it.

darkfaeriedesigns.smugmug.com

quark

If you are shoping for software and dont already know the adobe suite you should consider Gimp. It is free and has many of the same features you will pick up from photoshop. Picassa from google is also good if you are a windows person, but it has limitations.

Pupator

quark wrote:

If you are shoping for software and dont already know the adobe suite you should consider Gimp. It is free and has many of the same features you will pick up from photoshop. Picassa from google is also good if you are a windows person, but it has limitations.

Picasa is good if you only need to make global corrections (changes that affect the whole image). If you want to make corrections to just parts of an image (cloning out power lines or zits, sharpening hair but not face) you'll need to get something like the GIMP or Photoshop.

I recommend Corel's Paint Shop Pro. Very, very useful program with powerful features for a much lower cost than Photoshop.

bokbaard

A bit late I know.
But I prefer GIMP and Paint Shop Pro X2 over photoshop too, mostly because gimp does it all for me (with a slight learning curve) and PSP is just downright fairer priced than Adobe's products. Also, many of the plugins you get for PS is also compatible with PSP

Regards

pyrtek

bokbaard wrote:

PSP is just downright fairer priced than Adobe's products.

If you mean "lower" priced, then it would be difficult to argue, but "fairer"?
How are Adobe's prices "unfair"?

DarkFaerie

thank you
Thank you all for your input, I still haven't decided on anything, but I do appreciate the help.

MarkR

DarkFaerie wrote:

I have just gotten back into photography and I don't have any post processing software other than what came with my camera. It does the basics like sharpening, red-eye removal, brightness, etc., but thats about it. Is it even necessary to get something else?

here is a link to my photos if anyone has any suggestions as to software or even what to do to the pictures I would really appreciate it.

darkfaeriedesigns.smugmug.com

1st, no it is not "necessary" to get something else, if you're happy with what you have and the results you are getting.

What you need to ask yourself is, what do I need the software for? RAW conversion? Raster editing? Image browsing? Databasing/Indexing? All, some, or none of the above?

Once you decide that, it'll be a lot easier to narrow your choices is post-processing software. Or you might find that you are perfectly happy with what you have.

pathfinder

Darkfaerie,


We have already had a poll here on this forum regarding what software our readers use


Of the 71 people voting, 41 ( 58% ) are using either Adobe Photoshop or Adobe Lightroom. I think this poll says it better than I can....

jnsuffolk

Simple math. Everybody charges more than their product is worth. Its the american way. lol

pyrtek wrote:

If you mean "lower" priced, then it would be difficult to argue, but "fairer"?
How are Adobe's prices "unfair"?

pyrtek

jnsuffolk wrote:

Everybody charges more than their product is worth.

A product is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it. People are willing
to pay $600 for Photoshop, so that's how it's priced. In any case, there's nothing
"unfair" about it.

webwizard

It's the "concept of perceived value." People generally believe that the higher the price for an item, the more valuable it is. Obviously, that doesn't apply to everyone, which is why PS has competitors.

You may choose PS for other reasons but a certain number of sales are based on the fact that "so many have bought it that it simply must be worth it."

Would perceived value still work if Adobe tripled its price? Probably not although there would still be some who would buy it. There is always a price point beyond which perceived value fails and cannot sustain a desired sales dollar voulme. The trick for Adobe is to maximize that price while sustaining the demand for the product.

TBT

pyrtek wrote:

A product is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it. People are willing
to pay $600 for Photoshop, so that's how it's priced. In any case, there's nothing
"unfair" about it.

I guess it could be considered "unfair" if Adobe charged everone the same price for it's products.

But since everyone pays the same price for Photoshop and other adobe products, it must be fair even though the price could be considered high.

Regarding the pole: There is not enough input really to make any purchasing decisions. 1% of the world uses picasa? Photo mechanic does not make the list?