Help with Editing Software

[Shadowman]

John,

Concerts are something I do frequently and is largely about pre-planning.

Know the venue

Know the promoter

Know the band

Cover off all those three things and whilst you might be time restricted in some cases, all you have to worry about is the lighting and getting the expressions captured. I have even been lucky enough to be allowed to set up a couple of remote flashes on stage to assist. As long as you don't go mad, no one even notices, it just looks to be part of the show.

And that includes doing big well known international names. So I suppose the time spent in developing those connections must be set against hours in front of the screen cloning out heads!

Once went to a photo exhibition, where one guy I know, proudly told me, before the judging, how he had spent hours cloning out overhead wires and poles to create what he thought was the perfect picture.

The judge took one look at it and said,

'I know that location. Its not authentic, you have cloned out all the wires and poles to give it an early twentieth century look, but your subject vehicle was only built five years ago!'

'Next!'

Nice, I like the photo judge message near the end of your response. We have to remember these are someone else's memories also.

Regarding the concert gigs, outdoor venues right now, I would love to try and tackle some of the indoor venues, low light settings have given me some experience.

[Shadowman]

There is a technique where 2 shots are taken where the un wanted objects are moving and then painted out from both images leaving the background behind from the other. I tried it on a mosque interior. Didn't wait long enough so had some ones foot left in and also the light levels changed in another area due to the people moving. It can be tuned out though.

John
-

John,

Thanks for the information.

[Manfred M]

John - this is one of the "planned" for PP images shots.

There are always tourists wandering around Parliament Hil, and I wanted to create the perception that there were none, so as an experiment (the shots were all hand-held) I took around 7 or 8 shots, waiting for people to move to a differnent spot. I brought the shots into Photoshop as separate layers and erased the people wandering about.

There were around 40 -60 in total (about 20 are in the image, but they are near the building and hard to see). I also did some of the shots with a 3 stop grad and some without; that way I got some interesting clouds and still had the natural colour of the building I could work in.

[Shadowman]

John - this is one of the "planned" for PP images shots.

There are always tourists wandering around Parliament Hil, and I wanted to create the perception that there were none, so as an experiment (the shots were all hand-held) I took around 7 or 8 shots, waiting for people to move to a differnent spot. I brought the shots into Photoshop as separate layers and erased the people wandering about.

There were around 40 -60 in total (about 20 are in the image, but they are near the building and hard to see). I also did some of the shots with a 3 stop grad and some without; that way I got some interesting clouds and still had the natural colour of the building I could work in.

Nicely done, it would be a rarity to visit a locale such as this, in this type of lighting; without having a few dozen tourists milling about. Nice edit.

[loosecanon]

At £33 Photoshop elements is a bargain (From Amazon) - relatively easy to use - and very powerful. One can download a trial version and a little search will find you a detailed manual for PSE. The interface is designed to be simple.

[stevefrazier]

At £33 Photoshop elements is a bargain (From Amazon) - relatively easy to use - and very powerful. One can download a trial version and a little search will find you a detailed manual for PSE. The interface is designed to be simple.

Adobe currently has a $9.99/month special offer for their Creative Cloud, which includes both Photoshop and Lightroom. At the time of this writing, it is good until at March 31, 2014, but Adobe has been extending their offer… so check to see if it still available at https://creative.adobe.com/plans/off...shop+lightroom. I had already purchased and installed Lightroom a couple of years go ago for $150… and knew that Photoshop was selling for around $800. Because I already had it, I didn’t need Lightroom. But I couldn’t resist the packaged offer and I haven’t looked back since.

[jcuknz]

For a relatively simple programme I suggest you look at 'Paint.Net' a free download. Since it has layers it can also do moderately
tricky stuff and Manfred building would be in its capabilities if you wanted to get that complicated.
A more sophisticated programme which can be used simply or complicated as you wish I would rate Paint Shop Pro second only to Photoshop and there is no need to get the latest version as you will find 'x3' will do what 'x6' does in most cases and is half the price on Amazon. Though now I have it x6 does have a very handy tool in 'intelligent selection' which usually makes life a lot simpler and quicker.

While I always try to get it 'right in the camera' knowledge of what is possible in editing can be a great help when 'things conspire' against you .... it is also very easy to not spot things in the field which become glaringly obvious in editing .... so I think being advised to get it right in the camera is bad advice offered usually by people who do not accept editing as the companion tool to the camera. Manfred's photo is a perfect example of how editing solves the camera problem of people in the shot.

Though I have a sophisticated editor most of the time I am using just two or three tools but until one looks at the photo one doesn't know which ones will be needed. I didn't understand layers at first but today I wouldn't look at an editor without them with 'adjustment layers' to make adjustments without touching the original and ordinary layers for substitution jobs.
I would add that very rarely do I 'touch' the original but normally am saving whatever I have done as a separate file .... this is aided by almost never using the 'save' command which over-writes the original file but normally 'save as' which prompts me for the filing system and a new name for the file I am saving.

[kateveber]

Hi.
Every editing program requires a bit of learning. If you want a reasonable price, like FREE, download The Gimp. It can do almost everything that Photoshop and the more advanced and expensive programs can do.
Roy

I'm totally agree with you Roy. You can do all the things and more than that using GIMP than Photoshop. GIMP is the great replacement of Photoshop.

[Manfred M]

I'm totally agree with you Roy. You can do all the things and more than that using GIMP than Photoshop. GIMP is the great replacement of Photoshop.

Sorry; but I will have to disagree with you. Gimp is more powerful than Elements or Lightroom, but Photoshop blows Gimp out of the water with its functionality (and not just stuff that gets used once in a while).

Do far as I know (and I may be wrong):

1. Gimp is 8-bit only, rather than PS 16-bit. Lack of integrated RAW converter is a bit more awkward than needed;

2. It is much more difficult to use GIMP non-destructively. Where are the adjustment layers (use these in 100% of my workflow) and clipping masks?

3. No equivilent of Smart Objects (destructive edits required)

4. No content aware functions - probably the biggest time savers in Photoshop that I can think of (versus traditional cloning and cleanup). Again something I use in most, but not all edits.

While I do recommend Gimp to people on a budget; its learning curve is similar to Photoshop and unfortunately is always playing catchup to the well-funded Adobe product.

[ajohnw]

Sorry; but I will have to disagree with you. Gimp is more powerful than Elements or Lightroom, but Photoshop blows Gimp out of the water with its functionality (and not just stuff that gets used once in a while).

Do far as I know (and I may be wrong):

1. Gimp is 8-bit only, rather than PS 16-bit. Lack of integrated RAW converter is a bit more awkward than needed;

2. It is much more difficult to use GIMP non-destructively. Where are the adjustment layers (use these in 100% of my workflow) and clipping masks?

3. No equivilent of Smart Objects (destructive edits required)

4. No content aware functions - probably the biggest time savers in Photoshop that I can think of (versus traditional cloning and cleanup). Again something I use in most, but not all edits.

While I do recommend Gimp to people on a budget; its learning curve is similar to Photoshop and unfortunately is always playing catchup to the well-funded Adobe product.

Gimp is 32 bit floating point and has been for some time now. Functionality is difficult to compare as there are so many plugins available. It's had some facilities in that line for longer than PS. Layers by their very nature are none destructive and as far as other aspects go there is always the rather complete undo history that allows back stepping etc. The 32bit aspect is also important - info isn't lost and anything can be undone with an opposite action. Adjustment layers? I have always wondered what would happen if say a clone or heal was set on one later and painted on another.

Convenience functions in real terms are layers and operations hidden from the user done automatically underneath it all. All they mean is that some one needn't be a layer guru to use them. On aspect of this that causes me some amusement is PS tone mapping. I had wondered why they all had a certain look. Seems to be down to default setting having seen a video of some one using the underlying settings to try and avoid this but didn't entirely - the layer method gives complete control. In general any automation results in lack of flexibility.

I think that the main problem with comparisons is that few people are prepared to put in the effort needed to fully make use of the facilities available in and for a comprehensive package that they don't normally use so a variety of web myths persist.

Out of interest it looks like the basic image file transfer format in this area will be 32 bit FP - who had it 1st? There are many other similar occasions when this sort of thing has happened. There would be no point putting the effort into 16bit GIMP if some were aware of the future needs. Wonder when Adobe will do it? Currently GIMP's 32 bit engine is being optimised. It also looks like version 3 if it ever arrives is going to be rather different when it does. It's a massive undertaking. The if it arrives is down to it being mentioned a long time ago.

Edit - Out of interest I just cloned from one layer to another with out any problem. It does down convert 16bit loads to 8 at the moment though. 2.91 offers both 16 and 32 bit editing and is available on OS style beta which is called git. Really though Most people would do the higher bit depth colour work in a raw developer such as Rawtherapee, Darktable or even GTK2RawStudio. I'm a little off Ufraw at the moment. The latter gives much better control of what happens in dcraw. Rawstudio is a completely piped system. Runs all of the settings when the output file is saved. Photivo is another that does that.

John
-

[ajohnw]

LOL Just to add a little more it will open 16bit png without mentioning downgrading to 8bit so it must go to 32 bit FP. It may well save in that format as well which is called something like xdr. It a standard HDR format.

John
-