stevev1969 Posted June 17, 2009 Share #1 Posted June 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, I'm fairly new to this digital lark and have a D3 which takes the most glorious photos but then I get lost when it comes to any editing. I load the JPG's to iPhoto and until now have been using the Elements 3 that came with the camera for tweaking the RAW's. I'm not massively keen on the Elements 3 bit so tried Lightroom on free trial which I loved but then balked at the price. I'm now trying Capture One which I like even better and may well spend some of my M8 savings (it'll be M10 by the time I've saved enough!) on it. My question is though, what do you all think is best and what workflow do recommend? I'm getting in a right muggers buddle. Thanks in anticipation, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 17, 2009 Posted June 17, 2009 Hi stevev1969, Take a look here Hopelessly confused, any guidance appreciated. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ammitsboel Posted June 17, 2009 Share #2 Posted June 17, 2009 It's like it was with film. Some like kodak others like fuji. What do you like or were do you want to go? Are you looking for scientific results or beauty? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted June 17, 2009 Share #3 Posted June 17, 2009 Steve, I use Capture 1 and Elements together. That means I develop my DNG files in C1 and then process them as JPG and import these into Elements. Usely I do not need more tweaking than C1 provides especially since the excellent function to set the horizon straight was added to C1. I use Elements as a catalogue mainly. When a file needs additional tweaking I export from C1 as 16 bit TIFF and then process it into a JPG after working on the file in Elements. When downloading DNG files from the SD-card into C1 I also make an automatic back-up. I finally back-up the JPGs and the original DNGs on a separate drive every month. Regards, Maarten. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted June 18, 2009 Share #4 Posted June 18, 2009 Steve, welcome! It is important to understand that the rewards of using post-processing software, whatever brand, come from your investment in time. The initial cost of the software pales into insignificance with the value you place on the time you devote to mastering potentially very powerful tools. Having said that, most people rarely use the software to its maximum capability. Photoshop, for example, is used by graphic designers through to professional photographers. They each draw on those features relevant to their work. I don't know whether Elements 3 can cope with raw format files; I think possibly not. So if you stick with Elements, buy or upgrade to the latest version. It would be worthwhile and is a small investment. I have used Elements in the distant past and quickly needed the more versatile curves feature for adjustments. So I bought CS, then CS2. In parallel I used separate cataloging software to manage my growing digital library. All of this came together neatly in PS Lightroom which now does about 90% of my processing and 100% of my library management. I bought several specialist books to study and apply during my process of improving my skills. You never stop learning. Beyond that you can exchange views with kindred spirits in this forum. I am afraid that there is no magic wand which can be waved to become an instant expert! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnwolf Posted June 18, 2009 Share #5 Posted June 18, 2009 Hi Steve, I'm with David on this. Post-processing software is so vital to digital photography that the investment is worth it. It's really not much compared to your camera and lenses, but it's equally as important as capture. Once you start using C1, LR, or PS, I think you will agree they are all bargains. I tried Capture One briefly but did not like the interface and prefer LR. But any of them is fine. I think it's more a question of the interface you like, what you get used to, and your dedication to learning. Everyone has a preference, but all these products are capable of amazing results. For workflow, start with global edits, such as white balance, cropping, exposure, contrast, etc. Then move to local edits, such as dodging and burning. The software is usually laid out to facilitate that flow. Then, if necessary, use PS or Elements for other local edits. Once you choose the software, I suggest you get a good book on it that also includes workflow. There really is no one RIGHT way to do this stuff. Just jump in and you'll quickly figure out what works for you. Note the sticky on this topic at the top of this forum. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 18, 2009 Share #6 Posted June 18, 2009 Confusion indeed. C1 is a RAW converter and LR and the various Photoshop products are editing programs. Totally different animals. LR and PS use a converter called ACR. Many of us prefer to skip ACR and convert our RAW files in C1 and carry on in PSE (or CS) for editing and outputting to print - which C1 cannot do at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ammitsboel Posted June 18, 2009 Share #7 Posted June 18, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why is it that I always hear talk about work flow, ease of use and preferences when it comes to RAW converters? Why did you all buy a Leica then, if it's not mainly about the image quality? It seems to me that Nikon and Canon are way better at creating an easy, mediocre and consitant output. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted June 19, 2009 Share #8 Posted June 19, 2009 Why is it that I always hear talk about work flow, ease of use and preferences when it comes to RAW converters? Why did you all buy a Leica then, if it's not mainly about the image quality? It seems to me that Nikon and Canon are way better at creating an easy, mediocre and consitant output. Henrik, I think you are totally missing the point. Whether you capture jpegs or raw files you still have some degree of digital processing to do to get the best out of your digital files. The term work-flow is a meaningful piece of jargon which merely describes the steps you take from download to final output. It can be either very simple or rather complex depending on your ability and aspirations. It is also totally independent of whatever camera or scanner you use. It is true that simple consumer camera users have an easier path. They can simply take their cards to an in-store photo lab and print off their pictures. Some home printers also have a slot to take memory cards direct from the camera but they can only deal with jpeg images. The get the best out of your M8 or Nikon or Canon camera you really should shoot raw files, at least some of the time, and gain from the extra wealth of digital information that they can hold. If you are seeking an easier route, you can shoot jpeg in the M8 and follow the simple photo-lab route. However you will not consistently get the very best results from an extremely capable camera. Until you embrace these principles, I am afraid you will remain 'Hopelessly confused'. Please recognize that there are members here who can help you but it unrewarding to them if you don't try to meet them halfway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2009 Share #9 Posted June 19, 2009 Why is it that I always hear talk about work flow, ease of use and preferences when it comes to RAW converters? Why did you all buy a Leica then, if it's not mainly about the image quality? It seems to me that Nikon and Canon are way better at creating an easy, mediocre and consitant output. It seems to me they are not - I never shot a Jpeg with my Canons when I still had them. Nor printed an unprocessed output. Mediocre is the right word in this context - think 24 hour lab.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ammitsboel Posted June 20, 2009 Share #10 Posted June 20, 2009 Whether you capture jpegs or raw files you still have some degree of digital processing to do to get the best out of your digital files. True, and this is easier with Canon and Nikon. Who missed who's point? me or you? H Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marquinius Posted June 20, 2009 Share #11 Posted June 20, 2009 Henrik, I've been reading this thread with interest, as I do all posts about post processing. But now you have ME confused. As I understand, you're stating that post processing a raw format photo from Canon or Nikon is easier than processing a DNG (leica's raw)? How's that? They're are all photos with all the information hidden in them, but you'll need to do work on all of them to get a picture that is anywhere near decent. So you need a raw converter. And the "out of camera Jpeg" from a Canon, Nikon or Leica will differ, no doubt, but one is not easier than the other. I'm sure that we can start a discussion about the quality of the raw format of each camera, but that's not what I'm reading in your question. Or is it? I'm really interested: please re state your question, give us some examples, whatever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 20, 2009 Share #12 Posted June 20, 2009 True, and this is easier with Canon and Nikon.Who missed who's point? me or you? H How that? I cannot even touch the results of the M8 and DMR with Canon files with any amount of processing... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ammitsboel Posted June 21, 2009 Share #13 Posted June 21, 2009 How that? I cannot even touch the results of the M8 and DMR with Canon files with any amount of processing... No no, I was not saying that. All I'm saying is that it's easier to get a consistent and mediocre result from using Nikon and Canon because of their smoothing and "convenient helpers". Maybe you could say that with N&C you get 80% good results 80% of the time, with Leica you get 90% good results 10% of the time? By thinking of this I don't think it makes sense using a mediocre raw processor because it has an easy workflow and then use it with a Leica, do you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ammitsboel Posted June 21, 2009 Share #14 Posted June 21, 2009 As I understand, you're stating that post processing a raw format photo from Canon or Nikon is easier than processing a DNG (leica's raw)? How's that? They're are all photos with all the information hidden in them, but you'll need to do work on all of them to get a picture that is anywhere near decent. So you need a raw converter. And the "out of camera Jpeg" from a Canon, Nikon or Leica will differ, no doubt, but one is not easier than the other. Hi Marc, don't you agree that more revealing images require more skill than less revealing images? I'm not talking pixels, just censor and lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 21, 2009 Share #15 Posted June 21, 2009 No no, I was not saying that.All I'm saying is that it's easier to get a consistent and mediocre result from using Nikon and Canon because of their smoothing and "convenient helpers". Maybe you could say that with N&C you get 80% good results 80% of the time, with Leica you get 90% good results 10% of the time? By thinking of this I don't think it makes sense using a mediocre raw processor because it has an easy workflow and then use it with a Leica, do you? I don't know. I'm a bit of a perfectionist and always try for 100% whatever file I use. I find Leica+ C1 gets me a lot closer with less work than other cameras with other RAW developers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marquinius Posted June 22, 2009 Share #16 Posted June 22, 2009 Hi Marc, don't you agree that more revealing images require more skill than less revealing images? I'm not talking pixels, just censor and lens. Henrik, I'm sure we (or rather I ) have a language problem here. Revealing images? Sensor and lens? I had to reread your earlier comment and picked out "It seems to me that Nikon and Canon are way better at creating an easy, mediocre and consitant output." I think now I got you: a Leica asks for more skills, or rather is less easy to handle than a Nikon or Canon. Hmmm ... no. I don't think so. Put the Leica on "A" and to Jpeg and the only thing "missing" is an auto focus lens. Shooting with either a Canon or a Nikon in raw is just as complicated as doing dng in Leica. The end result of the post processing depends on (in first step) the quality of the raw processor and later your skills in handling the tools like LR, CS or whatever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ammitsboel Posted June 22, 2009 Share #17 Posted June 22, 2009 I think it's a hopeless discussion or a discussion without meaning. Nikon and Canon has spend decades making auto focus, anti shake and a type of processing(even in the RAW files), that all together is designed for making photographing easier. In a discussion of convenience N&C will win by far over brands like Leica and Hassy. In image quality it's the opposite because a camera like the Leica is capable of capturing that extra bit of "juice" that N&C can't. Just admit it guys, you have a difficult camera, but it's a nice lady at times :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.