bkford

I am having a difficult time and would like to be able to settle in on a photo editing program so that I can learn ONE and stop trying various ones! But for now I'm still in the trying stage, so please make suggestions. Here's what I'm looking for: I want to be able to do some editing of my digital photos (taken with Canon Rebel T3i). Do not need advanced features. Just want to take the jpg and fix things like lighting and saturation, under/overexposure, color. Also want to add text, do touch-ups (like airbrush or whatever it may be called), change to b/w or sepia. Additionally, for my heritage albums, I would like to be able to work with old photos to brighten and sharpen and repair. I am okay with spending money for a good product, but it seems that $$=difficult. I do not want PhotoShop or PSE (have tried both--overwhelming for me). I have used Picasa--okay with it, but I don't think it has any touch-up features. Have downloaded the free Gimp, but it looks very complicated. Any suggestions?

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

ACDSee Pro 5

http://www.acdsee.com/en/products/acdsee-pro-5

If you have further questions, send me a private message. I don't want people think I have a special interest in advertising this software, but I do think it's the best non-Adobe product out there. Good luck... it's a tough choice.

Coker Loc: Havana, IL

What is wrong with Elements? Gimp.com is free and very robust program.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

I suspect you are expecting too much of yourself in tackling Photo Shop. What you have set out as a goal requires something more capable, than a lot of simpler programs, or it seems that way to me. If you approach Photo Shop more in a step by step manner, then you can manage a series of successes, though more slowly. As you noted, there are some complications to get over with these, and I often find that I don't absorb a lesson sufficiently even after an "Ah Ha! Next time I go back to try it again full of zeal, I've let some detail slip. Then its back to the lesson plan.

We do not want consistently. We want to accomplish complex goals without working very hard. Once a person'[s photographic goals get past a pointed lens and a pushed shutter release, there is to be found the fact that photography is not a one dimensional technology. So it would be helpful to set our pace of learning in concert with the nature the task we set for ourselves and the tools we have at hand for doing it.

All that said, there is nothing wrong with taking up a lesser tool, when its management is within our abilities. Don't be disappointed when it does not take you all the way to where you want to go. But, having learned it and practiced it and finding its limits, the more difficult tool will seem easier to work and its capabilities more satisfying..

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

mdorn:

I use this software (acdsee) almost constantly. Even though i seldom use its editing properties, it is highly useful in keeping up with a lot of pictures located in different folders. I find it to be a wonderful supporting software working beside Photo Shop. Acdsee has been upgraded in its editing capabilities considerably over the years.

Bobber Loc: Fredericksburg, Texas

Nothing at all. That is not the problem. It is the learning curve that the topic's author has run into. I think most of us have been there ourselves at some point.

bkford

Exactly right, Bobber. I know many people who love PSE, and I have tried it myself a couple of times and have given up--because, while I might move upward on the learning curve after using it for a while, if I cannot accomplish my simple goals early in the trying of a product, I move on. For example, the first time I ever tried to use Microsoft Word, I could see that you could publish a book, write a term paper with footnotes automatically embedded, and many advanced features. However, the first time I used it, I simply wanted to create a text document. I was able to do that immediately and THEN move on to the more complex features. If I open an editing program and it takes me 15 minutes to find where the heck I can adjust the lighting in my photo, it's not a good sign for me. I am currently downloading TRIALS of PaintShop Pro 4, ACDSee 14, and PhotoImpact. They may all be over my head, and I may need to revert to Picasa or something similarly simple, but at least I will have tried. Also, in fairness to myself, the times I tried PS or PSE, I was attempting to learn to do digital scrapbooking (for which I ended up with FotoFusion rather than PS). Perhaps I never gave it a fair shot for simply photo editing. Thanks for all input. There'a lot to think about here. I take MANY pictures and am a prolific scrapbooker, so what I print out needs to be excellent.

bkford

As a matter of fact, maybe I should ask this: the thing I HATED about my trials of PS and PSE was all about the "layers." As I mentioned, I was trying to learn to use it for digital scrapbooking. I have a satisfactory software in place for that now and am only looking for photo editing. Might it be that the photo editing capabilities of PSE would be exactly what I need and it would not be that complicated to learn to use PSE for THAT? In other words, for photo editing in PSE, can I avoid the whole layering thing? Sorry for such a silly question, but I have a negative mindset about the layering thing at this point.

randym77

You can avoid the layers, but I think you'll really like them once you learn how to use them. They are one of the best things about Photoshop. They make it easy for you to try different effects, compare, and combine them.

For example, that thread about the Orton effect. You can't do that without layers.

FWIW...the original version of Elements didn't have layers. It was one of things reserved for regular Photoshop.

Elle Loc: Long Island, NY

[quote=bkford]My favorite software is Corel's Paint Shop Pro. Relatively inexpensive, I think it is easier to work with intuitively than Elements. it can handle all the filters that Photoshop offers so it is not limiting.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Don't know if it would give one comparable results, but there are camera models which allow you to "sandwich" images. One could, IMO create this effect "in camera"-- I might try it at some point-- but right now it doesn't interest me. Maybe I'll get "the bug"....

On the subject of layers: One of the thing that intrigues me that can only be done in layers, is to independently adjust the tonal values of individual colors within a RAW color image prior to conversion to B&W.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

I have a lot of confidence that you will like ACDSee... :-) It's hard for some to accept that some of us would rather focus our attention on taking pictures and not so much on the post processing part. Each are equally fun and rewarding in their own way, so it really boils down to what you like to do more. Do what you enjoy. Have fun, unless you are a professional... then you're gonna have to buckle down. :-) Good luck.

mjp

I really like Nikon's free ViewNX for basic processing. I too have been looking for a program to do more and don't like the complexity of PS. I find PaintShop Pro much more intuitive to work with. X4 is much faster than previous versions and adds some nice features.

I purchased LightRoom for work a few months ago when I found it half off on Adobe's site. Their license allows you to use it at home. I took a four hour class that a local photographer put on and it really helped. I really like the work flow of Lightroom. But it is still an Adobe product and I find I am going to have to spend some time dialing in its settings for my camera to get the look I want, but it's a great program for processing a lot of photos quickly.

Corel just bought another company and release their product as AfterShot Pro which is very much like LightRoom. I bought it but haven't had a chance to use it yet. I got a new computer last week and my wife is not happy with spending all my time in my office, so maybe next week.

ShakyShutter Loc: Arizona

[quote=Bobber]I suspect you are expecting too much of yourself in tackling Photo Shop. What you have set out as a goal requires something more capable, than a lot of simpler programs, or it seems that way to me. If you approach Photo Shop more in a step by step manner, then you can manage a series of successes, though more slowly. As you noted, there are some complications to get over with these, and I often find that I don't absorb a lesson sufficiently even after an "Ah Ha! Next time I go back to try it again full of zeal, I've let some detail slip. Then its back to the lesson plan.

We do not want consistently. We want to accomplish complex goals without working very hard. Once a person'[s photographic goals get past a pointed lens and a pushed shutter release, there is to be found the fact that photography is not a one dimensional technology. So it would be helpful to set our pace of learning in concert with the nature the task we set for ourselves and the tools we have at hand for doing it.

All that said, there is nothing wrong with taking up a lesser tool, when its management is within our abilities. Don't be disappointed when it does not take you all the way to where you want to go. But, having learned it and practiced it and finding its limits, the more difficult tool will seem easier to work and its capabilities more satisfying..[/quote]

You are correct in your assessment of current day photo software. None of the current software suites has an intuitive approach to photo editing. This software could easily be engineered to overcome the exact problem you mentioned. That of not being able to replicate simple tasks without having either a manual in front of you with notes or referring back to a hard to locate tutorial you saw someplace on the web. There is no way these software producers put their software in front of a focus group before they put it on the market. If they did they would find that even the most determined newbie would, more often than not, throw up their hands in frustration long before they were able figure out how to smoothed those wrinkles or whiten some teeth using the help files in most software these days. It should not require a relearning process to make simple enhancements to that shot of the grand kids and it should not require the purchase of a $400 or $500 package (adobe) to accomplish these simple tasks. Making the front end simpler and more intuitive does not mean it can't also provide depth and complexity pro's expect. Both can be done, I'm sure of it.

Yes, I've looked at all of them and yes I use some of them all the time. And like many of you I use one program for some things and another for something else usually because I can't figure out how to use a function of the first one or the process is presented in a clear way in one over the other.

They should let us look at the next version of Elements or Paint Shop Pro before they put it on the market next time don't ya think? All those in favor say "cheese"!

Elle Loc: Long Island, NY

I've been using digital software since it's inception some thirty years ago on a freehand basis almost as much as a professional might. Some things I sought a tutorial or help on and others I picked up on my own but certainly not using them to their full potential. I've tried almost every program that I've ever heard of at least once on a trial basis. I have, but rarely use a fairly recent version of Photoshop but I keep up-to-date on its less expensive cousins.

In my experience, if you learn the basics and terminology of the tried and true programs, most of the learning curve is limited to the new bells and whistles. On the other hand, a less known program may have strong capabilities but often the terminology and approach may be different enough to cause confusion.