U S M - I Still Have No Idea

[Clicking Mad]

photoshop terms are totally foreign to me

I had Corel Paintshop prox and I know they carry a lot of the same features as photoshop so I'm not sure of what people say they do with their photos is the same thing I think I was trying to do with paintshop prox.

I'm a terrible experimenter of photo editing programs, I try something with no help from anywhere, go: that was too hard, and move on to experimenting with something else. I often over contrast, over saturate, over brighten/darken and over sharpen with just the basics, I have minor understanding of the histogram and tone curve, and don't think I'm doing it right. Removing backgrounds, unless it is just to "clone"/"stamp" another part of the same photo, I can't do - have in the past tried but wasn't very happy with the results. I never learnt about layers and masks enough to use them effectively, either.

The other thing is that I seem to spend a lot of time editing photos, I enjoy doing it for the most part, but sometimes I wish it was quicker and better.

Is it worth spending money on a good photo-editing program?

And should I go with photoshop?

I'm currently trialling lightroom (thanks to ripley's thread) and I feel it lacks the extra bits and pieces, I like it for the basics, light colour etc., but if I wanted to really get rid of that background, I'd need to use and learn how to use photoshop or something similar, is that right?

[Luke W]

photoshop terms are totally foreign to me

I had Corel Paintshop prox and I know they carry a lot of the same features as photoshop so I'm not sure of what people say they do with their photos is the same thing I think I was trying to do with paintshop prox.

I'm a terrible experimenter of photo editing programs, I try something with no help from anywhere, go: that was too hard, and move on to experimenting with something else. I often over contrast, over saturate, over brighten/darken and over sharpen with just the basics, I have minor understanding of the histogram and tone curve, and don't think I'm doing it right. Removing backgrounds, unless it is just to "clone"/"stamp" another part of the same photo, I can't do - have in the past tried but wasn't very happy with the results. I never learnt about layers and masks enough to use them effectively, either.

The other thing is that I seem to spend a lot of time editing photos, I enjoy doing it for the most part, but sometimes I wish it was quicker and better.

Is it worth spending money on a good photo-editing program?

And should I go with photoshop?

I'm currently trialling lightroom (thanks to ripley's thread) and I feel it lacks the extra bits and pieces, I like it for the basics, light colour etc., but if I wanted to really get rid of that background, I'd need to use and learn how to use photoshop or something similar, is that right?

Removing background can often be the most difficult editing tasks there is.

If you've got fur or hair, or smoke or fire, blurred edges or varying DOF...it can be very difficult.

Also, sometimes, some photos just aint worth editing.

Far better to get a decent background, a good exposure, good focus, good light, etc to begin with. I think youi'll find that most of the better photographers here, start with a good shot, then use photoshop to make it better.

Photoshop is a great, great program, but it does take practice. Have you read any books on photoshop?

For what it's worth, most of my photo editing involves the following:

Cropping.

White balance adjustment.

Exposure adjustment.

Set white point and black point.

A curves adjustment layer for overall contrast adjustment.

Multiple curves adjustment layers with masks for local adjustments (brightening eyes, darkening backgrounds, making skies more dramatic, etc).

Localised sharpening (making eyes sharper, inceasing edge sharpness).

Resizing for web.

Sharpening for web.

[persephone]

I have photoshop- and am S L O W L Y learning to use the tools correctly.

Being impatient does not help

I have bought several of these magazines

which are terrific!!!!!!!!!

and a few of THESE

I like having something I can flick thru.... (plus with dialup- video tutorials are a no go.)

I have PS2

[Ripley]

I agree with Luke. I have Elements 5 which has a good RAW converter in it - fill light, clarity, vibrance that CS2 doesn't.

I prefer to get it right in camera as I hate PSing and haven't the time for it. So on my holiday snaps I'm currently resizing, I have used a polariser and even a Grad neutral density filter on the sky for some of the sunset shots or days when the sky was a little washed out. You can fake a grad filter in PS, but I prefer to attach mine to my camera, gives a more realistic effect I think.

I convert in RAW and then just crop in PS.

For RAW I'd play around with the white balance - but find that my camera is pretty good when left on Auto and the conditions are favourable.

Then adjust the saturation slightly

Maybe fill light and shadows

That's it.

In PS I'll crop and adjust levels if needed and then slightly sharpen but only slightly. That's it. Maybe add a vignette, maybe not.

[Luke W]

I agree with Luke. I have Elements 5 which has a good RAW converter in it - fill light, clarity, vibrance that CS2 doesn't.

I prefer to get it right in camera as I hate PSing and haven't the time for it. So on my holiday snaps I'm currently resizing, I have used a polariser and even a Grad neutral density filter on the sky for some of the sunset shots or days when the sky was a little washed out. You can fake a grad filter in PS, but I prefer to attach mine to my camera, gives a more realistic effect I think.

I convert in RAW and then just crop in PS.

For RAW I'd play around with the white balance - but find that my camera is pretty good when left on Auto and the conditions are favourable.

Then adjust the saturation slightly

Maybe fill light and shadows

That's it.

In PS I'll crop and adjust levels if needed and then slightly sharpen but only slightly. That's it. Maybe add a vignette, maybe not.

If you like the RAW converter in Elements 5 - what till you see the RAW converter in CS4...

It allows you to make localised (via masks) adjustment to exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, tint, clarity, sharpeness as well as local cloning and healing, and graduated filters. All from within the RAW converter.

[Poo d'état]

I haven't read up a lot on Lightroom yet but i thought it's more a for tweaking images (exposure, w/b, dodge/burn, etc) than for the kind of manipulation you're hoping to do?

I agree with Luke re: getting best shot you can to start with. Even with big-money commercial projects, where they have plenty of cashola to spend on post production and manipulation, they still try to get the very best shot they can.

I also use Photoshop, mostly because that's what they have/had at the places i work/ed. I've never tried any other imaging programs so i can't really compare i'm afraid. I think it's a fantastic program, so many fantastic tools (i suspect i probably use only about 30% of what it has to offer...). It might be worth actually spending the time and effort to learn to use it properly - there are a lot of online tutorials that are easy to follow, or even do a short course.

The thing with how much time it takes, like most things, is the more familiar you are with the tools you have on hand and the better you get at them, the less time it takes.

[Clicking Mad]

okay, good

note to self: take better pics, read up, and practise with patience

at least I know what I have to do now ... makes it easier to set a plan

[Ripley]

I downloaded a trial of Lightroom and then deleted it. TMI and I couldn't take it in with limited time. I also don't like the fake skies look the grad gives. Just a personal choice. I like landscapes to look as I saw them, not some fabricated copy. I prefer to darken the sky with a grad filter or polariser, again, just a personal choice.

For portrait shots though and wedding photography, I totally understand the use of PS and think it's what PS is made for - who wants a big zit on their face for their wedding shots?

ETA: PS is great for B/W conversions, that's something I'd like to learn. My BW conversions look washed out, I have no idea how to convert them, even when I dodge - and I'll dodge the shadows but still, there is something missing as I suck at it.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Ripley

[rugerfly]

Wow, you can change sky colours?

[kja]

Luke did a nice summary & ruffdiamond got it in one, I think!

Lightroom is your darkroom - where you develop your image. Think of it as choosing your film, your paper, your emulsion, the chemicals, the bias in your developing etc and as your filing system so things are easy to find later. It rocks for converting to black & white or tonal conversions. Love those sliders so you can see it right away and control it so smoothly. It doesn't do so good with cloning out bits etc imho.

Photoshop can work that way, but if you have Lightroom then Photoshop is really there for manipulation - like changing backgrounds, adding borders, serious cloning work, more specific tweaks etc. LR can do some things in specific areas quite well now with the new version, but it does not deal well with any major alterations, imho.

As with most things, less is often more but I find that to figure out what something does and to see how I might want to do it, I go to extremes first to really see the changes, then pull it back to "normal" or what is visually appealing (often my exploring isn't very lovely but it makes it easier to see things - I think of it as using a highlighter on text...you wouldn't the whole book that way, but if you do a little it helps your eye).

All the tools in both Photoshop and Lightroom take a little time to get used to and each has strengths and weaknesses ... especially to a newbie like me!

Edited October 31, 2008 by kja

[kja]

ETA: PS is great for B/W conversions, that's something I'd like to learn. My BW conversions look washed out, I have no idea how to convert them, even when I dodge - and I'll dodge the shadows but still, there is something missing as I suck at it.

If you haven't already, explore your curves to control your tones ... it can really make a difference. I do all my bw conversions in LR now, but used to do them in PS ... for me, LR's controls are much easier and no pesky layers or junk. Curves is in the Adjustment menu in PS and you can choose the channels or all channels there. In LR you can control the tones with a graph or by clicking on a little dropper and moving around the actual image.

Edited October 31, 2008 by kja

[ruthless]

I've never really sharpened my pics, what's the process for pics that end up online ultimately?

Download > Edit > Resize > Sharpen? What if you want to make the same edits but keep it print quality? Do you end up having a print quality sharpened file and a web quality sharpened file and the original?

[Luke W]

I've never really sharpened my pics, what's the process for pics that end up online ultimately?

Download > Edit > Resize > Sharpen? What if you want to make the same edits but keep it print quality? Do you end up having a print quality sharpened file and a web quality sharpened file and the original?

You can keep each version (print sharpened, web sharpened) or you could just keep the edited copy which has not been resized or sharpened for output.

If you need to recreate the web version, it's a simple matter of resizing and sharpening.

If you need to recreate a print versio, same.

I tend to make sure I keep at the very least:

The RAW file, the ACR XMP data and if I've done a lot of work on an image, a layered PSD file prior to resizing and output sharpening.

Quite often, I've also got various web sized and sharpened images lying around too...plus the odd print sized and sharpened image too...storage is cheap.

[kja]

I'm really slack about sharpening for web When I remember I usually just whap it through PS Unsharp filter ... settings depend on what the image is.

I do have different files for web and for print as often a print will need a particular sharpening depending on the size. Sharpening is the very last step before saving for output for me...all edits, resizing etc are done first.

[chezzyr]

To answer your question, I would concentrate on the high res (print) version

and when I am happy with THAT simply make a 'screen capture' of it and

hey presto there is my web version of it. Obviously you will have to trim

and possibly sharpen slightly.

[kja]

I would concentrate on the high res (print) version

simply make a 'screen capture' of it and

hey presto there is my web version of it. Obviously you will have to trim

and possibly sharpen slightly.

Interesting method! I haven't heard of that one before. Just goes to show there is more than one way to skin a cat

[Ashanali]

I would concentrate on the high res (print) version

simply make a 'screen capture' of it and

hey presto there is my web version of it. Obviously you will have to trim

and possibly sharpen slightly.

Interesting method! I haven't heard of that one before. Just goes to show there is more than one way to skin a cat

I thought the same

[chezzyr]

I use the screen capture method alot these days - simply find it quicker than resizing the 'big' file.

But yes there are always several ways to skin a cat it seems

[ruthless]

I decided to do it that way today chezzyr, great idea, thanks

[Poo d'état]

Hadn't heard of the screengrab method either, sounds very simple!

We have actions preset on photoshop at work so it does the resizing with one click