Printable View
I have no idea. I think I take some ok shots on a beginning amateur status. Now it's time to do more editing than a simple crop. Light balance, sequences, etc.
What do I get? I looked at photoshop and saw CS3 is out of my price range and I probably don't need that many functions.
I'm thinking $200 to 300.
Any thoughts or good sites for reviews. I'm sorry to newb it up but I'm board and this forum doesn't get many posts anyway.
THE GIMP.
It's free - try it out. Otherwise I got nothin' - PS ain't free.
I don't know shit about Photoshop Elements but you may want to look into it. Sounds kinda like FCP vs FCE.
Gimp is a really good free option.
Couple the Gimp with Lightroom and you're set (do most of the photos in LL, and only use Gimp when LL can't handle it).
Try LL for 30 days free.
Second or third lightroom. Will do almost everything you want to do.
If you want to move heads around or something then you'll need a freeware photoshop (aka gimp).
check your PM's
GIMP is great, but requires a shift in paradigm for those used to PS. Nothing is as good as Lightroom IMO. You can get anything you want for free, depending on your software piracy ethical stance.
Open source stuff beyond GIMP: Digikam and FSpot if y ou're running Linux, and also this gem which I just discovered:
http://bluemarine.tidalwave.it/
Java based Photo Workflow. It looks promising, but newer open source projects can sometimes be rough in the beginning. It's java so it should run on all 3 major platforms.
I installed and ran BlueMarine for a while...it needs work. It's very early in the dev cycle, as they don't even have the editing module integrated yet. :(
Ding. Ding.Quote:
Originally Posted by bio-smear
www.isohunt.com
My solution: PS CS3 and lightroom. Lightroom kicks ass.
// cout << "I'm a cheap pirate bastard" << endl;
Try to find a copy of Photoshop 7, which, is like, 3 or 4 versions back. It was one of the last non copy protected versions of Photoshop, so you can just move it off someone's hard drive and onto yours. Hell, you can probably find it for free or cheap somewhere collecting dust on some geek's shelf. It will be fine for you as a beginner, and if you get the bug, move on up to CS3 or maybe 4 when it comes out.
Are you a student, or do you know one? Students get Adobe products cheap.
And, once and for all, Lightroom is an organizing tool, not an editing software. Yeah, you can do a few tricks with it, but it ain't Photoshop. No layers, for a start.
Yep, you can get PS CS3 for like 200 bucks or soQuote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Well, it's a little more than just an organizing tool. It's a workflow tool, where you do majority of the tweaks on the photos with it... And only bring out the big guns (PS, Gimp) for the few pics you need.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Unless you're into big time photo manipulation, LL will cover you on nearly all situations.
And if you do need to use real photo manipulation, well I'd say that the effort is better spent on learning to take the pics in the 1st place:p.
Thanks everyone. "Found" a copy of PS 7 I'm going to mess with for a bit. Might check out Lightroom too. What is an ethic?
OK, fine. Makes my job more exotic, now that a lot of people think they are actually retouching in Lightroom. But, remember this, the next time you walk down the rows of magazines in Borders. Everyone of those cover pics has been manipulated in Photoshop, and 80% of the interior pics have been, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by hemas
but what you do is exotic for the average joe. He isn't doing magazine covers or magazine interiors. He's taking photographs. A better example would be browsing a professional photographer's gallery -- I bet the percentage of photos that have seen photoshop in that context is much much lower. Most of those photos shouldn't have to see photoshop until they're being used for a more specific purpose, like a magazine cover.
right?
I just think that , if one wants to consider themself a photographer, or, more specifically, an artist who works with the photographic medium, then you must learn Photoshop. It's the industry standard, the most versatile tool, used worldwide. It's a lot like calling yourself a photographer 30 years ago and selling prints the lab made. A, that's expensive, and B, you're losing a lot of control in the process. Photoshop may look expensive, and difficult to learn - the former, not really, the latter, well, maybe, if you don't use it a lot and keep up on things. But once you get it, man, there's a whole world of creativity in your little computer you haven't even thought of dealing with up to that point. I see people trying to do things on, say, Strobist, killing themselves for a little detail or a highlight here or there, that I can do easily in Photoshop. Unfortunately, that's how a lot of pro photographers think these days - "we'll fix it in post" is the cliche, but that's OK, I get paid by the hour.
Adobe was pretty smart putting those controls in Lightroom, and I'll bet they expand on it down the line, merging the two into one big mess of a software program. But, in the meantime, it seems to have created a new generation of photographers who think it's all you need. It's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
I would say Benny that your statement above is probably absolutely correct, but has very little bearing on what Conundrum is asking about. I don't equate "ok shots on a beginning amateur status" to Conundrum considering himself an "artist who works with the photographic medium."Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Meanwhile, interested to see how this turns out as I'd consider myself in the same boat as Conundrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E
I wasn't trying to be pompous there, just trying to stress how I think most people should approach the 21st century of photography. So many times I encounter a photographer or someone in the "art" world who sneers at the new digital age, like it's a disease. "Oh, no, I never manipulate my images. They're my pure vision.", or "Digital prints can never compare to traditional silver halide." Hell, there's still some people out there who won't shoot color. Which is an absurd way of approaching the medium, considering it's short history, and the fact that it's rooted in technology, anyway. But a lot of people are scared of change, and many of them are critics, gallery owners, and, the worst, collectors.
I think you'd have a lot more fun if you think of every click of the shutter as "raw" material to be molded on the computer.
Wasn't suggesting you were, just that for us beginners, full-blown PS is a bit of overkill I would say (both in cost and power).Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Yeah, those idiots!Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
I honestly think PS is its own artform - no longer "Photography" since you don't need to start with an image you captured at all... maybe closer to an electronic medium that you manipulate to produce art. I'm more of a purist, I guess. I like being able to look at a scene, know my camera and it's limitations, and visualize a photograph that I then capture. If I look at my pix straight from the card and am satisfied then that's a great start.
I do understand that 1/2 of Ansel Adams' magic happened in the darkroom. I do not discount post-production as a viable component of photographic art, but do seem to prefer the more... organic (for lack of a better term) workflow of capturing the image as intended, then manipulating it as little as possible.
So is Lightroom like the payed version of Picasa?
Yes, but with $$$ you get all sorts of nice stuff as well. Just download and try it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wanghoeby
I 3rd,4th,5th GIMP and add Irfanview. Edit in GIMP and file manage via Irfanview. GIMP does 8bit but unless your doing commercial stuff you wont need the higher bit depth of Photoshop. Plus its free.