Processing Digital Images

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
10:00 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
View My Gallery
I wonder not only what programs folks are using to process their digital images, but why. In the “early days” you jumped from program to program, often settling on using more than one to get all the features you wanted to be able to use.

As the programs become more complete, those days have passed. I find myself using Lightroom 3.2 for the simple reason that it has almost everything I need under one roof. It handles a larger variety of raw formats. It’s built-in sharpening and noise correction functions have replaced add-ons that I used to use. Yes, I occasionally bounce images into Photoshop or Capture One 5 for certain features that Lightroom currently doesn’t have (the patch tool in Photoshop and C1’s ability to eliminate fringing) and then bring them right back into Lightroom. But more and more, I find folks are concentrating on one image processing program.

I don’t think Lightroom is better than all its competition. I’ve dabbled with DxO Pro and Aperture, more than dabbled with Photoshop and Capture One, and settled on Lightroom for its versatility. I wondered what programs others on the forum were using - and more important - WHY.
 
I also use Lightroom 3. It does all of the adjustments that I normally use, and I like its library management and tagging. I convert raw to DNG, and like the fact that the original file remains unchanged.
 
Bill Pierce said:
<snip> I wondered what programs others on the forum were using - and more important - WHY.
Click to expand...

I shoot b&w film, edit tightly on a lightbox before scanning, and organize files in subdirectories according to series. So I have no criteria for mass adjustments or finding files by key word.

So I use Photoshop as I have few image files but every one counts. I use Photoshop because it has become very familiar over ten years of use and I do everything in high bit layers. I save files with the layers unflatened and unsharpened so I can go back and tweak if my tastes change. I always save the initial scan as a .TIF, the .PSD file with layers intact, and a .JPG so it is easy to find by viewing. All have the same file name but different file extension. That works for me.

The only downside is that I create file names that are descriptive to me without regard to public consumption. And then I post something like fathookertattotits.jpg and everyone sees the file name.
 
Only Picasa, on PC, mac, and linux.

Photoshop alters an image, and the image is no longer a photograph, but a manipulated, corrupted file, in most cases.

Read why Moose Peterson and other serious photographers involved with documenting and saving near-endangered species don't use photoshop.

Photoshop should be outlawed.
 
ampguy said:
Only Picasa, on PC, mac, and linux.

Photoshop alters an image, and the image is no longer a photograph, but a manipulated, corrupted file, in most cases.

Read why Moose Peterson and other serious photographers involved with documenting and saving near-endangered species don't use photoshop.

Photoshop should be outlawed.
Click to expand...

Huh? Ted, damn near EVERY professional photographer on Earth uses Photoshop. Even newspaper photographers use it. Photoshop doesn't do anything to an image, the user chooses to manipulate, or not. My work, all straight photography, is edited in Photoshop because frankly there is nothing else that can do the kind of precise dodging and burning on layers (so its reversible if I screw up or change my mind) with full color management support needed for preparing images for publication or high-end printing. Picasa wouldn't even begin to let me do the work I need to do, and I do not alter or manipulate anything beyond the stuff I did for 15 years in the darkroom: Adjusting contrast and overall density, dodging and burning, sizing, toning (for BW photos), color balance (for color photos), and dust spotting.
 
ampguy said:
<snip>

Photoshop alters an image, and the image is no longer a photograph, but a manipulated, corrupted file, in most cases.

<snip>

Photoshop should be outlawed.
Click to expand...

Well, all I have to do is hide my adjustment layers in Photoshop and I have a file that is identical to the original scan .TIF file. So I would debate if it is a "manipulated, corrupted file".

I would add that that the conversion from an analog negative to a digital file is the ultimate in "manipulation" so little, other than adding / deleting subject matter matters after that. Or, are you contending that only digital capture results in an authentic representation?
 
I use Corel PaintShop Pro Photo X2 for the very simple reason that its about the same cost as Photoshop Elements and about as easy to use as PSE but much more powerful - perhaps about the same power as Photoshop 7 - a few generations behind the latest Photoshop but ample for everything that photographers need. and it supports most plugins designed for Photoshop.

I have used Lightroom and think it works great for about 80% of my photos but for the remainder I need some higher end capabilities like image layers to get the outcome I want.

I cannot help commenting on what one poster says:
" Photoshop alters an image, and the image is no longer a photograph, but a manipulated, corrupted file, in most cases................ Photoshop should be outlawed."

What a narrow little world view you have sir! Maybe you do not need to use it. Your call. But many disagree as our style of work, demands its use. I see myself as an artist more than a photographer. And artists interpret the world rather than just representing it.

So or my style of image making post processing is essential. I do not give a tinker's cuss that my images have changed from those raw uncooked ones that came out of that little black box with a lens. I am not about capturing "verity" in the sense that is an accurate representation of what I saw. I am more interested in capturing an accurate representation of how it made me feel.

And it follows that all I am concerned about is the final result.

For me, that demands post processing skills. Have a look at these samples of some of my more impressionistic and / or abstract photos - there is no way I can get most of these without post processing. You may not like them but I do and judging by the feedback I get many others do too. And guess what - every one of them has had some post processing done, small or large. Nothing has been done BTW to fundamentally change any of these images - save perhaps the monochrome one which was shot in color. In every instance all I have done is to manipulate the image in post to emphasize its essence.

SAMPLES INVOLVING "PHOTOSHOPPING"

4900744616_1257b95fa4_z.jpg


4900321987_279b5f300a_z.jpg


4429765313_3f48885cc7_z.jpg


4315908134_2055d53f17_z.jpg



__________________
My photo blog
 
Last edited:
I also use picasa, linux and GIMP...I do b&w film photography and I use GIMP and picasa just to adjust contrast, and dust removal, like in oldschool darkrooms...nothing more than that...
 
For raw conversion I use only the camera maker's raw converter. Nobody else knows the sensor inside and out, and nobody else is as motivated to get it right. Less casts that way.
 
I currently use various camera makers software to convert RAW images and to do a bit of fine tuning. Then I use Picasa to adjust the image for printing. I also use Picasa as the main image file system although I also like Canon's DPP software. Before I got a Mac, I used Photoshop Elements and I hated almost everything about it except for some of the brushes and spotting tools. I don't do a lot of image processing and I despise digital manipulations so I don't need a lot of tools. I have downloaded Gimp but have yet to take the time to learn how to use it since my current procedures work well for me.

When I was using a PC, I used an old version of Paint Shop Pro (Version 6 from Jasc) that I liked much better than Photoshop Elements.
 
Last edited:
I've used Photoshop for years, and probably will use it for a long time.

However, a friend recently showed me his work process in Lightroom and I was seriously impressed. When the time comes to get a new computer (and that time is never that far away, in the digital world, is it?) I would like to switch programs.
What did it for me was the archiving and retrieval - it's a fantastic program for keeping track of your images and that's only going to get more important as time goes on.

I've heard good things about Aperture also but have heard it's a resource hog.
 
For printing:

I use Photoshop CS2 for resizing after scanning. I use a Mac, so I export and do all organizing, key wording, cleanup (dust-spotting, levels) and editing in Aperture 2.5.

I output for print in Photoshop again, though I'd like to output in Aperture but haven't taken the time to learn it's particular workflow.

If it's just a web-scan, it goes online after passing quickly through Photoshop.
 
I mostly use iPhoto anymore. Aperture just confused me.

Once in a while though I'll sneak back into the dungeons of PhotoShop with some dead parts to create a Frankensteinian abomination that would be sure to offend and frighten the good and upstanding RFF citizenry with their Leica's and torches. 🙂
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Photoshop. Is there anything else?

I do have Lightroom 2 but it runs real slow on my ancient Mac G4 so I just use Photoshop CS.
Click to expand...

Chris, just a suggestion, the next time you upgrade your computer, spend more time with Lightroom (at least 2, preferably 3).

I think you'll find it a useful addition to your toolbox. It's just so handy in many ways. I also like the ability to switch to Photoshop and back to Lightroom without having to mess with copying/renaming files.
 
As a Linux user I've used Gimp for a while now for minor adjustment. I have CS5 on a Windows laptop but I also put Gimp for Windows on it because I'm more familiar with the interface. I'm also trying out Darkimage for Linux. So far the jury is still out but I like it so far.

Mike D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom