What software is a necessity?

[chuxter]

I've been using standalone CS6 for decades, but since Adobe messed everything up with their CC subscription, I may switch over to Lightroom when CS6 is no longer ideal for future cameras/lenses. I'll probably give DPP a stab, too, since I'm a Canon user.

The upshot is, if you are starting from scratch, I suggest Lightroom.

Sadly, Adobe has "messed" up LR too. The current offering is called LR 6 CC and is a subscription [rental]. You can download what they call "LR Perpetual", but it does not include "dot" upgrades. It does include bug fixes and updates to the camera database [what comes w/ ACR "dot" updates]. You also can get [at the moment] "LR Perpetual" on DVD. It has the same limitation as the download version.

 

[chuxter]

Printing? I don't print much any more, so much of the amateur photographer's social interaction with other photographers is online nowadays. But I do occasionally print photos, and I find it cheaper to just send my stuff out to a commercial printer. They do excellent work, are responsible for getting it RIGHT, and I don't have the hassle of do-overs to get it perfect (I tend to obsess) nor do I have the costs associated with waste. (printers are cheap, supplies are dear!)

There are good sources of IJP ink. I reload my own cartridges, which saves a LOT! There are also some bargains sources for photo paper. I DO use some very expensive 100% rag paper occasionally for "special" images. None of the cheap commercial printers [that I know of] use this material.

Based on my experience, most inkjet printers are good enough for making casual prints for grannie, even the cheap ones. For more serious prints, commercial printers are the way to go!

Even a good 13" x 19" IJP is not a terribly expensive thing...

But, I think for many users, if they have access to Sam's Club or Costco, they can get really cheap and quite good prints. Other places too, but I have no experience w/ them.

 

[chuxter]

As others said, start with free software. When it doesn't meet your needs you'll know better what things are missing and can better evaluate how much of a solution you need.

For printers - unless you're printing high volume, your cost per print will be MUCH higher using your own printer. The problem is - once those ink packages are opened by the printer the ink will start to dry up.

Actually, there are printers that have solved that problem. It depends on the brand, mostly. :-0

Having your own printer is only beneficial for instant gratification. I use online labs for quality prints and choice of product - mostly because I no longer need a print same-day. The problem with lots of local labs is that the printer is configured to auto correct colors. Great for the common family snapshooter but if you spend time getting the color/exposure the way you want it the local Walgreens/Walmart etc can end up changing it. Whereas printing with a quality lab or at home you can guarantee your prints turn out just as you want - provided, and this is a BIG provided - you have a decent, calibrated monitor.

In either event, printing your own photos isn't cost effective unless you do a lot of volume. You can get as good or better results using a lab, provided you can wait for your prints (in my case I use Bay Photo and I get my prints in 2 days and that's good enough for me).

I also like Bay Photo and have used them a lot. BUT, I still do most of my smaller jobs at home.

 

[chuxter]

I'm a new photographer - well I used to do more and am now re-entering this world - but I'm starting to get some photos that I'm happy with and now I'm interested in the world of editing them. For a newbie photographer, what software is a necessity for photo editing and what is just a nice to have or an investment for later on?

I'm spinning in a world of photoshop, lightroom, etc and just wanted to real world advice.

Also, is it better to invest in a photo printer or just get prints from a lab to start with?

Technically software isn't necessary, especially if you're shooting JPEG, which is processed and finished in camera. Cameras have been known to discard as much as 80% of the original image data when recording to JPEG vs. raw.

This source gets his 80% number from some un-named source who did the calculations. The correct number is higher than that. It depends on how many bits the ADC has. Regardless of the number of bits, the percentage loss is higher than 80%.

Many/most cameras today have a 14-bit ADC. That results in 32,768 colors per color channel. A JPEG file is limited to 8-bit color values or 256 colors per color channel.

I think some folks do this calculation on a per color channel basis? The math is:

16,384/256 = 98.5%

But this is not the total picture...just ONE color. It says that going from a 14-bit image to an 8-bit image will result in 98.5% of the data being lost PER COLOR CHANNEL. So what happens when we include the all the other channels?

We have to raise the # of colors to the # of channels power to get the total # of colors:

Total # of Colors = 256^3 = 16,777,216 [total # colors for JPEG]

Total # of Colors = 16,384^4 = 72,057,594,037,927,900 [total # of colors for 14-bit RAW]

If you divide these two numbers and represent it as a percentage you get:

429,496,729,600%!

Why did I use "4" in the second formula? Because data from at least 4 photosites is used to calculate the color of each pixel. Some cameras use many more than 4 photosites, and there is also a weighting factor involved; camera manufacturers don't divulge their exact demosaicing algorithm. This makes it impossible to know exactly the contribution of every photosite. But "4" is a good, conservative number.

BOTTOM LINE: You lose almost all the data when you "cook" a JPEG!

I'd first recommend investing more in learning how to create better captures in camera and then sending them to a photo lab, such as Mpix. With good captures and correct settings in camera (exposure, white balance , sRGB color space), you can get a good print direct from camera. Choose the color corrected option from the lab so they'll individually adjust the print using their best judgement.

If you were to invest in a printer, I would make it only a small printer, like a 4x6 or 5x7, and leave the big prints to a lab. Big prints require more ink and more paper, which adds up quickly, especially if you're doing tests to get accurate color.

The other benefit to using a lab is easy mounting and framing. You can make a beautiful large print at home, but then what, spend $300 for custom mounting and framing? Mpix can send you a canvas ready to hang for $100 and give you a nice frame and mat for much less than a custom shop.

If you're going to edit, you need a calibrated monitor, which means you need to use a calibration device, which costs more. If you don't calibrate, you have no way of knowing if what the monitor is showing is true to the file until you waste ink and paper on a print.

As for software, Photoshop is the biggest gun out there, and to leverage its powers of layers and pixel manipulation you should invest in education. However, with the Creative Cloud, it's now possible to pay for PS and Lightroom for just $9.99 monthly instead of a $750 one-time purchase. So you could test it relatively cheaply.

For all but the heaviest editing, I'd recommend Lightroom, which is a bit brainy to set up for the first time, but once you understand the structure and the benefits, you can make basic edits at lightning speed to hundreds of images.

You could also play around with Nik from Google. They have some cool filters that are easy to use. I don't keep up with "consumer" software so I couldn't say much about programs like Elements or whatever minor titles are out there.

--
--
Want to learn more about photography? Ask Joel! | Joel Nisleit Photography | http://www.joelnisleitphotography.com/blog.

 

[hotdog321]

I've been using standalone CS6 for decades, but since Adobe messed everything up with their CC subscription, I may switch over to Lightroom when CS6 is no longer ideal for future cameras/lenses. I'll probably give DPP a stab, too, since I'm a Canon user.

The upshot is, if you are starting from scratch, I suggest Lightroom.

Sadly, Adobe has "messed" up LR too. The current offering is called LR 6 CC and is a subscription [rental]. You can download what they call "LR Perpetual", but it does not include "dot" upgrades. It does include bug fixes and updates to the camera database [what comes w/ ACR "dot" updates]. You also can get [at the moment] "LR Perpetual" on DVD. It has the same limitation as the download version.

Ouch. Quite possibly I'll drop the Adobe products entirely when they no long work with future camera/lens upgrades. Damn.

--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

 

[chuxter]

I've been using standalone CS6 for decades, but since Adobe messed everything up with their CC subscription, I may switch over to Lightroom when CS6 is no longer ideal for future cameras/lenses. I'll probably give DPP a stab, too, since I'm a Canon user.

The upshot is, if you are starting from scratch, I suggest Lightroom.

Sadly, Adobe has "messed" up LR too. The current offering is called LR 6 CC and is a subscription [rental]. You can download what they call "LR Perpetual", but it does not include "dot" upgrades. It does include bug fixes and updates to the camera database [what comes w/ ACR "dot" updates]. You also can get [at the moment] "LR Perpetual" on DVD. It has the same limitation as the download version.

Ouch. Quite possibly I'll drop the Adobe products entirely when they no long work with future camera/lens upgrades. Damn.

I too am not pleased. BUT, when you either download LR 6 Perpetual or buy it on a DVD, it DOES include camera/lens database upgrades. The only thing that is "missing" are the occasional enhancements. At the moment, that is the new "dehaze" tool. I have looked at at and have concluded:

• Few of my pictures have haze
• I do have a few w/ fog and the "dehaze" tool works to remove fog too
• BUT, I like the fog in my images and don't want to remove it
• The dehaze tool also can ADD haze...WTF would anybody want to do that for?
• I can get much the same effect with the existing sliders [contrast, black, etc]
• The people who want it to a great extent just do so because they can't have it
• It's mostly a marketing ploy to entice us holdouts to embrace their CC paradigm
• It isn't working in my case

There are a couple of outfits/guys who provide workarounds to "dehaze". One of them apparently hacked into LR 6 CC and found the code for the dehaze slider and created an alternate way to activate and control it via presets. The other one is just a set of "normal" presets, I think. I haven't gotten either one, because these type endeavors are not proper, IMO.

I got the DVD and there is already a 6.1 upgrade w/ new cameras/lenses.

There are some good alternatives to LR, but I'm comfortable w/ it as I've used it since Version 1. I would hate to have to start over w/ a different program.

 

[AmayaAria]

There is a lot of software behind all digital cameras, so yes: it influences the final result. I would be hesitant, however, to state blankly that Sony has better software capability than Nikon, or fill in any other brand.

 

[TheTom]

Photoshop is harder to learn and expensive.

I agree with hard to learn. But expensive? Which universe you live in?

Adobe creative cloud is around 1 hour US minimum wage per month in costs (single user, photography). And gives you Photoshop and Lightroom. As this moves CAPEX to OPEX - it is quite a good move for a very low price.

I would also check the manufacturer - Sony for example makes some quite amazing third party product available for free (limited to Sony) with a very low cost update option.

 

[leprechaun1]

LR either standalone or in CC. I'm still using 5.7 but am feeling the itch to upgrade to CC and learn photoshop.

 

[six34sigma]

I'm a new photographer - well I used to do more and am now re-entering this world - but I'm starting to get some photos that I'm happy with and now I'm interested in the world of editing them.

Ok good.

For a newbie photographer, what software is a necessity for photo editing and what is just a nice to have or an investment for later on?

Nothing if you are shooting JPG. If you are using apple it came with iPhoto and that is more than enough to start with. I would get a program to manage your files if you do not have anything. Lightroom does this.

I'm spinning in a world of photoshop, lightroom, etc and just wanted to real world advice.

Here is what I own:

1. Photoshop CC, includes Lightroom. Its $10 per month. <--- I would go with this, its not hard to get the basics going with it.
2. Nikon NX-D. I find that Nikon RAW renders best with Nikon programs.
3. Nik Collection from Google - find I really like the HDR and Silver programs from Nik.

Also, is it better to invest in a photo printer or just get prints from a lab to start with?

I have a Canon iP5000 and have owned it for 10 years. Used to print pictures on it but these days I find it easier just to take the shots to a Costco, Walmart etc. and get them printed if I need them immediately. You can get prints sometimes for just a few cents a print. A 6x24 panorama is $5. 4x6 used to be less than $0.10, more like $0.14 to $0.19 now. Call it $15 for a 100 shots and for that you need to buy paper and ink.

Otherwise I use a service:

1. ProDPI <---- great quality.
2. MPix for B&W <---- best B&W

If you already have a printer don't run out and change it, take a trip to Walmart, CVS, Costco etc. For nicer stuff use a service. There are other services and I am sure many people like what is offered by others.