For my Flow, I do the following (On Macbook Pro):
1. DxO to post-process, clean noise, remove distortion of all pictures while converting to JPG from RAW - total time, anywhere between 10 minutes to 1 hour (depending on amount of pictures)
2. Pick top 25-50 pictures for post-processing. I utilize CS5 + Nik software for this. I really don't like action buttons (like totally rad) because they've just been overdone.
3. Upload to smugmug and let client delight and enjoy!
Best (Photo Editing) software
(43 posts) (25 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I never used the Capture software from Nikon. Everybody rages on how its RAW handling is supreme but Lightroom seems to be pretty damn good in handling Nikon RAW files that I don't even bother with the Capture software.
Posted 2 years ago # -
To All: You should divide the world in two:
- For the ones that can/should afford to get the professional tools that cost $$$
- For the ones that can't, but want the best out of their hobby.For the first item, you have the professional tools by Adobe, and also other tools that may not be popular but will allow you to get the best results out of your photos.
(Photoshop, Lightroom, Bible, Capture One, Capture NX2)For the second item, you may be downgraded from the tools above, but it may be a got start as well. (Nikon ViewNX, Gimp, Picasa and even IrFanView, also there are RAW converters that are free out there like UFRaw, etc)
@Mike Gunter: I agree with you.. and I guess I have a lot to learn from you...
Posted 2 years ago # -
alchse said:
Any thoughts on Google Picasa / picnik?The file organization interface is 100 times more intuitive then photoshop and the editing seems very user friendly to the point of being toy like
I like the ease of Google Picasa and put most of my Point and shoot camera friends on it. The one major issue is that it will destroys jpegs with many saved edits. After moving to Lightroom, I don't touch it at all.
rbid said:
To All: You should divide the world in two:
- For the ones that can/should afford to get the professional tools that cost $$$
- For the ones that can't, but want the best out of their hobby.+1 To many times we suggest software that costs more than people's total camera system.
The real question is what do you want to afford to spend. >$100,$300,$500,$1000.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think Amazifier is the best. I use Paint/PhotoScape/Irfanview as well, but I like the nice UI in Amazifier and its definitely easier.It’s a free one like Paint and PhotoScape but Amazifier is far more simple and a has real cool look and feel. You can download it on here *Link Removed*
Posted 2 years ago # -
SelinaMichel said:
I think Amazifier is the best. I use *Link Removed* as well, but I like the nice UI in Amazifier and its definitely easier.It’s a free one like Paint and PhotoScape but Amazifier is far more simple and a has real cool look and feel. You can download it on here *Link Removed*Reading on their home page.. it seems that the free version adds watermarks on the images that are manipulated.. is this correct?
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
Hi, folks. I currently use Photoshop CS5 and the ACR interface for RAW photo editing. I'm contemplating buying Lightroom 4.
From what I read on this thread, it looks like the LR4 ACR interface is the same as the CS5/6 ACR interface.
Then from the Adobe website, I see that the purpose of Lightroom is to make adjustments to photos shot in RAW format then help you organize them, like putting in tags and creating what Adobe calls catalogs. I'm not sure I need to spend money on software just to organize my photos.
ProImages said:
For professional use I prefer the Lightroom 3 and Photoshop CS5 combination.My question is, what value does LR3/4 add to your workflow if you have Photoshop CS5 or CS6?
Posted 9 months ago # -
Hi HockeyMan
yes I use LR4 and CS5
I would not be without both
Light room is brilliant for organizing
and will do most of your post production
not sure if you need it ? down load a free 30 day trial
Posted 9 months ago # -
HockeyMan said:
My question is, what value does LR3/4 add to your workflow if you have Photoshop CS5 or CS6?I have both CS5 and LR3 and while I consider myself a complete novice in both and have yet to learn to fully utilize either of them (post processing is my weakest point in photography :p), I believe LR is useful if at least for bulk raw processing. I use CS to "develop" photos one at a time but LR is like one of those photo labs machines. Kinda like a "set it and forget it" type thing.
Posted 9 months ago # -
HockeyMan said:
From what I read on this thread, it looks like the LR4 ACR interface is the same as the CS5/6 ACR interface.
It's very close so you would have a painless changeover. Providing you take the time to understand the role LR4 plays as organiser (forget windows explorer for your photos) then you will find it hugely faster than CS5 for routine editing. You will still need CS5 for major work.
Like sevencrosssing said, download it to try - I doubt you will uninstall it.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I use LR4 first. I will sometimes go to CS5 or other plugins from LR.
I also have Capture NX2 which I use for IR as it allows more WB adjustment.LR is really easy unless you want to get into retouching, BW & color composites, composite photos, panos etc.
PS is best if you are combining photos in any way or trying to do some complex masking and/or editing.
I agree with the above posts regarding LR. Once you start, you will get hooked.
Posted 9 months ago # -
-
As the original question was Aperture vs whatever.... I used Aperture for years.... then to Lightroom 3, 4, and 4.1. The comparison is like having a Volkswagen bug vs, a 911 Porsche...Lightroom is so much better and can do things Aperture simply does not address, IMO. Every photo I shoot has post processing. And, as I shoot in some difficult conditions, this is almost always necessary.
When trained in the 1960's I was shown the way to produce "camera ready" photos which were able to be sent to the separations maker and shot as is. These tended to be full of shadow detail, even tones, somewhat drab. I did not like them at that time, thinking gutsy stuff was so much better.
I think now, with LR 4.1 I am able to have a full range photo with guts, much as a result of the various masking and brush techniques available in LR 4.1. I did not find I was able to do this as easily in Aperture, although Aperture may have changed since I used it.
I am not competent enough to use Photoshop.
Posted 9 months ago # -
spraynpray said:
@Iris: There is quite a difference in the competence between LR3 & LR4. After getting LR4 I find LR3 quite crude in the effects of its sliders plus the 'engine' has been upgraded. It is very cheap to upgrade.I agree about the update being lots better, but it runs incredibly slowly on my aging machine. I've put off upgrading until I get a new computer.
Posted 9 months ago # -
@jonnyapple: I am still trying to get my machine to speed up acceptably. I have gone from 3GHz dual core to 3GHz quad core, 4Gb DDR3 RAM to 8Gb and run smaller LR catalogues but it is still slower than I would like. Next up is putting Win7 X64 and all progs on a 64Gb SSD and just use the 7200RPM hard drives for achiving. After that it will be the graphics card but I need to do that anyway as I am going to twin screens.
Yikes.
Posted 9 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
