Photoshop Versions & Advantages for Photography

[Dave Humphries]

hi, I'm a beginner.. can you pls help me too.. can you please tell me what a good editor can i use easily, thankyou,

Hi, I'm a student, just a beginner, my cam is a nikon D5000, recently bought, because that's all I can afford and I'm really having a good time taking pictures of anything under the sun, I just love taking pictures of anything, just a hobby, pictures in jpeg, I'm using photoscape, but a friend told me to use Lightroom. thankyou,

Hi Maiam,

You will have received Nikon's ViewNX with the camera (and you can download from the website anyway if not) so that's free too.
It can do basic 'whole picture' adjustments on RAW captures and saves as jpg.

I have to say I don't normally use it though, I started with Adobe's Elements, it's a lot more versatile, which, while not free, is not as costly as Lightroom.

Obviously GIMP wins on price, although you'll need a separate RAW editor, I understand a good one is available free too. Because for quality like you see here at CiC, often RAW (not jpg) is the only way to achieve it.

Welcome to the CiC forums from ...

[dogald]

I started with Gimp (it's free!!!) and there are still some filters on it that I use. However after getting lightroom 3, I find that does almost everything I want,very well. So in addition I got Elements 9. This combination covers everything I need and I,m sure would suit most "non professional people...like me.

[pwnage101]

Hi Maiam,

You will have received Nikon's ViewNX with the camera (and you can download from the website anyway if not) so that's free too.
It can do basic 'whole picture' adjustments on RAW captures and saves as jpg.

I have to say I don't normally use it though, I started with Adobe's Elements, it's a lot more versatile, which, while not free, is not as costly as Lightroom.

Obviously GIMP wins on price, although you'll need a separate RAW editor, I understand a good one is available free too. Because for quality like you see here at CiC, often RAW (not jpg) is the only way to achieve it.

Welcome to the CiC forums from ...

If you no longer use ViewNX, and you don't have lightroom, how to you convert your RAWs to jpeg?

[Geoff F]

There are quite a number of free Raw converters, Troy, and some even better options if you are prepared to pay a little. A couple of free programmes which may be worth trying:-

The Scarab Labs converter is quite easy although it doesn't have a few options which I use (or I never found them!)

http://www.scarablabs.com/scarab-darkroom

Raw Therapee worked better for me; although it does take a bit of getting used to, and the newest version, RT 3, is still on test. But they appear to have sorted most of the bugs and it now appears to be stable.

You can download and try it for yourself, but unless it has happened recently there isn't and operating instructions yet.

http://www.rawtherapee.com/?mitem=3

ps. If you are going to the extra trouble of shooting Raw, most people tend to convert to Tiff or one of the other 'better quality' formats for final editing and storage. Then change these files to Jpeg as/if required.

[SpiderBob]

If I have read all this correclty, Lightroom can convert RAW, how about elements will that also convert RAW? I have been having a lot of success and fun with GIMP, but so much yet to read

[Sonic4Spuds]

I would suggest starting with either rawtherapee or UFRaw, UFRaw being my preference because of the direct GIMP interface.

-Sonic

[Colin Southern]

If I have read all this correclty, Lightroom can convert RAW, how about elements will that also convert RAW?

Yes. It uses the same Adobe Camera RAW engine as CS5 and Lightroom, but limits you to the first 2 tabs (which are pretty much all folks need 99.99 percent of the time anyway).

[SpiderBob]

OK, so I tried out (the free trial version) CS5. I was not really happy with it. It continually wanted to save in PSD and if I didn't want that it wanted to save as a TIF. Both I didn't care for. Unless I was to purchase it then perhaps I could have saved in a jpeg. It would not open my RAW format. It stated that it could not open T2i RAW image. So, I finally deleted it today. Sense I have downloaded the Lightroom version 3.3, now this is interesting. I fell right into place with this program, finding it much easier to use and more to what I'm looking for. I have 30 days to play with it, but so far, I like it. On the con side, it still will not open my RAW image. I have a canon program that will open and convert, just an extra step. Perhaps the non-trial version will, I don't know yet. So...I will work with this program and see how it goes. I should say that I used to use Photoshop CS in an earlier version, so I was not starting out cold, I knew how to work with several functions.

Wow, I just learned why I could not save to a Jpeg, as I changed to 16 bit in the program which means I can only save in Tiff - I think that is why. If I'm right jpeg is only 8 bit, making Tiff a larger file to boot.

[SpiderBob]

OK, so after working with Lightroom until 3 this morning, which is a great program, I found myself still needing Photoshop. Perhaps I can go with elements instead of CS5. this is really getting frustrating, or maybe I'm just tired. Back to reading I guess. I wonder is there is a trial offer with Elements.

[mythlady]

Bob, in order to save in .jpg in CS5, you have to change the image to 8-bit, at least that's how it works for me.

I'm sure you can get a trial of Elements, and if you're just starting out in post-processing (I haven't read too far back in this thread), then Elements and LR3 would be a good combination, I think. There's a pretty steep learning curve for Photoshop itself.

[Geoff F]

As I understand the situation, Bob (and I have been known to be wrong on occasions) CS5 gives you the option of saving images (with Save As command) in 20 different formats including standard Jpeg and Jpeg 2000. No problem, just click the down arrow in the Format box option to see the alternatives.

But one thing to watch is that it won't save an image which contains layers, etc, as a Jpeg. You have to merge the layers into a single image first. If you try to save an image with layers you will automatically be offered Psd or Tiff as the preferred option.

It doesn't matter what format the original file was; as long as CS5 can open it, Save As is a simple case of a couple of clicks.

However, personally speaking, I have never found any Photoshop software from Elements 2 onwards to be easy or logical to use compared with most of the cheaper alternatives. But CS5, for all of it's little quirks, is probably still the best quality software in general use - pity about the price though!

ps. If you still have trouble opening Raw files try going through Bridge which should transfer selected Raw files directly into the Camera Raw editor. And after basic editing these images can be transfered onto the main CS 5 editing window, but watch out for the 'hidden' file options at the very bottom of the Raw studio frame.

Like most things in Photoshop, this isn't necessarily straight forward.

[SpiderBob]

Well, as I continue on with my three different options at this point, CS5, Elements, and Lightroom, I wish I could have them all. But as it goes, it is not possible. Yes, I found most of my mistakes with CS5, of course they were me. I've learned that yes, I can save in almost any format (thanks Geoff) and yes, I can't be changing the bits to 16 or 32 and expect to use anything except Tiff or PDS (thanks Mythlady) and guess what, I'm going BACK to CS5 and Lightroom at this point. My daughter is a student up at Oregon Stage, so maybe I'll give her a shout to see if she can purchase it for me of course it would be hers (on my computer) To say why I need Photoshop (CS5), well, I use layers, quite a bit and while using Lightroom it even has buttons for editing in CS5, but that just may be for the fact they are the same company. I tried to keep both CS5 and Lightroom on a trial basis, but for some reason it required me to lose one before using the other. Smart company. I can't believe that I have spend the last three days working with these programs with only total of 7 hours of sleep. The boss (my wife) says I better pick really soon

On a side note, I'm keeping GIMP as well.

[MiniChris]

As I understand the situation, Bob (and I have been known to be wrong on occasions) CS5 gives you the option of saving images (with Save As command) in 20 different formats including standard Jpeg and Jpeg 2000. No problem, just click the down arrow in the Format box option to see the alternatives.

But one thing to watch is that it won't save an image which contains layers, etc, as a Jpeg. You have to merge the layers into a single image first. If you try to save an image with layers you will automatically be offered Psd or Tiff as the preferred option.

It doesn't matter what format the original file was; as long as CS5 can open it, Save As is a simple case of a couple of clicks.

However, personally speaking, I have never found any Photoshop software from Elements 2 onwards to be easy or logical to use compared with most of the cheaper alternatives. But CS5, for all of it's little quirks, is probably still the best quality software in general use - pity about the price though!

ps. If you still have trouble opening Raw files try going through Bridge which should transfer selected Raw files directly into the Camera Raw editor. And after basic editing these images can be transfered onto the main CS 5 editing window, but watch out for the 'hidden' file options at the very bottom of the Raw studio frame.

Like most things in Photoshop, this isn't necessarily straight forward.

"But one thing to watch is that it won't save an image which contains layers, etc, as a Jpeg. You have to merge the layers into a single image first. If you try to save an image with layers you will automatically be offered Psd or Tiff as the preferred option."

Not true at all.
If you have all your layers set as smart objects, you can save as many layers as you wish (well, I think up to 99), as you can also as a PSD format sans the smart object route.

(Misread the last part as to saving via PSD...and you can do it that way. I find that if I save it as a smart object layer, I can do much more editing at a later date and lose zero percent image quality.)

[Colin Southern]

Hi Bob,

In a nutshell, lightroom is streamlined for mostly global (ie "entire image") corrections, and handling large batches of images (think "wedding photography"). CS5 / Bridge can do pretty much the same stuff, but not quite as eloquently. In terms of sheer power, CS5 wins hands-down.

In terms of CS5 not reading images from your camera - you'll need to run the updater, but I'd suggest converting all your images to Adobe's open DNG RAW format anyway (that's what I do) - you won't have pesky sidecar files, and you'll be able to open them in any version of CS (depending on DNG version selected). Personally, I use Bridge to transfer the files from my card - convert them to DNG - and add metadata all in one smooth operation.

[Geoff F]

With regard to 'Smart Objects'.

This is something which I haven't used very much, other than creating 2 differently exposed versions of a Raw file to produce a simple HDR effect. However, as I understand the situation (and once again I could be wrong) the risk of using smart objects is that they may not work correctly if the image is opened with another earlier Photoshop programme, or an entirely different piece of software.

And if saved in one of the 'common' formats like Jpeg, there is an increased risk of accidentally 'exporting' an image which will not be compatible with the recipients software.

Is this correct, or have I misunderstood everything once again?

ps. The DNG format is another one that a lot of other software won't recognise so these files may need to be transferred to a common format like Tiff or Jpeg prior to export to another programme. Kind of gets complicated don't it!

[Colin Southern]

This is something which I haven't used very much, other than creating 2 differently exposed versions of a Raw file to produce a simple HDR effect.

HDR isn't an "effect" or a "look" - it's a technique for capturing a range of brightness that's too big to capture in a normal single exposure

[pwnage101]

It is a misconception that one can get more dynamic range out of a single image by merging different versions of it. It is simply impossible.

For TONE MAPPING it is much easier, faster, and better to simply linearize the raw conversion and open as a 16 bit image. At this point one may click the HDR button in cs5 or upsample to 32 bit then back down to 16 bit using local adaptation. Even better, dodge and burn the image manually!

[Colin Southern]

It is a misconception that one can get more dynamic range out of a single image by merging different versions of it. It is simply impossible.

This man gets it

(I am heartened!)

I might add that sometimes working on 2 versions of the same RAW file does make it easier to process the file, but none-the-less, the dynamic range doesn't change.

[Geoff F]

Perhaps the letters HDR were wrong; hence the word effect. But when a single Raw image looks a bit 'flat' and too preoccupied with midtones, it is sometimes possible to set the 'exposure' of one copy to suit the highlights and the second version to darken the shadows.

Then, sometimes turning each layer into a smart object, it is possible by carefully editing masks on the layers to produce a composite version which includes the most suitable areas from each layer.

Not true HDR but, for example, creating a brighter foreground plus a darker sky which can give a more 'dramatic' effect. Perhaps a different descriptive term; something like Adjustment - Locally Enhanced (or ALE for short) might be a better description.

Or to quote from Martin Evening 'If you want to extend the dynamic range of an image capture with greater precision you can make two or more conversions using Camera Raw, combine them together as layers in a single document and blend them to produce a composite image.'

But whatever the name, I sometimes use this method with Smart Objects on layers (using masks) to produce an enhanced final result.

And a word of warning to anybody who is tempted to give this a try; it only works with some photos and isn't a universal guaranteed technique.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Geoff,

Perhaps the letters HDR were wrong; hence the word effect.

I'm afraid that even the word "effect" is still part of the common thinking that I'm trying to stamp out because it's still leading people astray. HDR is all about techniques to capture an image of a scene that has a dynamic range that's too big to be captured in a normal single exposure (I say "normal" because one can still capture an HDR scene using the likes of a GND filter in a single exposure) - but what pops out the other end ALWAYS has a normal dynamic range, and doesn't have ANY special kind of "look" or "effect" about it per se. Having just said that however, when one compresses perhaps 12 to 20 stops of DR into 4 to 6, then visually, something "usually has to give" - so at one end of the spectrum we have a "normal" looking image that none-the-less looks "a bit different", right through to the highly over-saturated & over-sharpened surreal image that seems to come mostly from Photomatix that many continue to confuse with "the HDR look". If one does a perfect job of an HDR conversion though, it's likely that most people wouldn't even notice; especially in areas when there might be full sun visible in one part and highlights in other parts that are both at the same level in the finished image, but still look balanced and appropriate (usually due to being in vastly different areas of the image), but still look good.

But when a single Raw image looks a bit 'flat' and too preoccupied with midtones, it is sometimes possible to set the 'exposure' of one copy to suit the highlights and the second version to darken the shadows.

Then, sometimes turning each layer into a smart object, it is possible by carefully editing masks on the layers to produce a composite version which includes the most suitable areas from each layer.

Not true HDR but, for example, creating a brighter foreground plus a darker sky which can give a more 'dramatic' effect. Perhaps a different descriptive term; something like Adjustment - Locally Enhanced (or ALE for short) might be a better description.

Absolutely - I do it myself. Personally, I just refer to it as painting a layer mask - it's especially powerful when one keeps the brush opacity low, and can apply several layers of "paint" to give a fine degree of control over which parts of each image are revealed.

Or to quote from Martin Evening 'If you want to extend the dynamic range of an image capture with greater precision you can make two or more conversions using Camera Raw, combine them together as layers in a single document and blend them to produce a composite image.'

I can see what he's getting at. Keep in mind though that just because a "known name" says something, doesn't mean that it's right. I'm not trying to be arrogant in saying that - it could well be that they understand the difference themselves, but have decided to go with more common (and less accurate) meaning of words -- ultimately though, I think it makes things worse. I review a LOT of training materials, and after a while there's inevitably conflict between the experts in certain areas, and also technical inaccuracies: One refers to monitor calibration when he's really meaning monitor profiling - one "calibrates" his light meter to but a return from an "18% grey card" in the middle - others refer to the "highly over-processed look" as being HDR.

Such is life I guess