Post-processing fundamentals for digital newbie?
Dec 14, 2016 00:07:42 #
Having burned through a lot of film back in the day I'm realizing I need to learn post-processing to function in a digital age. Any ideas/suggestions for books or online courses will be appreciated.
Dec 14, 2016 00:22:26 #
Mark what to study will depend on what processing you are going to want to learn. None of them are not a read a book and do it. For more ideas go to You Tube-Photography-editing. spend a few hours seeing the different processes.
Till later Merry Christmas.
keith
Till later Merry Christmas.
keith
Dec 14, 2016 00:27:09 #
Dec 14, 2016 00:28:43 #
I recommend Lightroom or Photoshop Elements and the associated books by Scott Kelby to start.
If you get the Adobe subscription I recommend holding off on Photoshop till you are comfortable with Lightroom.
Check out Julianne Kost's free videos.
If you get the Adobe subscription I recommend holding off on Photoshop till you are comfortable with Lightroom.
Check out Julianne Kost's free videos.
Dec 14, 2016 00:32:54 #
ketihflyr wrote:
Mark what to study will depend on what processing you are going to want to learn. None of them are not a read a book and do it. For more ideas go to You Tube-Photography-editing. spend a few hours seeing the different processes.
Till later Merry Christmas.
keith
Till later Merry Christmas.
keith
The reason I recommend the Scott Kelby books is that they take you step by step to results. That is unlike the other books that descibe each feature.
I found videos nice to get the general idea of what can be done but challenging to follow in the beginning. Getting results requires multiple steps. You will be much slower than the instructor requiring going over and over to follow.
Dec 14, 2016 09:32:59 #
Mark1948 wrote:
Having burned through a lot of film back in the day I'm realizing I need to learn post-processing to function in a digital age. Any ideas/suggestions for books or online courses will be appreciated.
I recommend Tony Northrup's Lightroom Video Book, available for Lightroom 5 or Lightroom 6/CC. The ebook is only $9.99 and well worth it. Use it along with a free 30 day trial version of adobe lightroom to get a feel for it.
http://northrup.photo/product/lr/
Also checkout On1 Raw now available in pre-release with free gifts http://www.on1.com/landing/season-of-giving
Lightroom is based on a prescription model and On1 Raw is purchase to own. I own lightroom version 4 and On1 and use them both.
Dec 14, 2016 09:52:14 #
Dec 14, 2016 09:57:06 #
Dec 14, 2016 12:43:59 #
Dec 14, 2016 16:55:21 #
To start I would suggest Photoshop Elements (PSE) on cd because there are the most tutorials for Photoshop and PSE on the web or in print than any other programme. For learning - any of the older PSE version books will teach you the basics (Check second hand bookstores) available for Mac and Win OS
Linux OS has GIMP and Darktable UFRAW etc as free ware but tutorials are harder to find. There are sites!!!!
Your camera software disk or site download will pp most of your needs TO START WITH. It will get you used to the jargon used. Most jargon is universal or easily converted (save as / Export....crop = universal for cutting apart an image etc)
The last 5 years has seen an increase in PP software 'to get away from Adobe'. A simple search will bring you to their websites and there are screen shots and try before you buy offers. Few will do 'Layers' which is like adding clear tracing paper over part of an image and adding/subtracting/changing what you see when merging two or more layers.
A few websites do 'written' tutorials that can be printed and read at leisure (and again when forgotten!) so explore using 'key words' like 'printed tutorial on........(Add what you want to do)' bookmark interesting sites. I find Youtube goes too fast or the sound is too quiet for me.
You are correct - you will have to learn how to do PP. Starting from scratch......I would try some of the free downloads - if it looks too complicated try something else.....(but leave it on the computer as you can then come back to it when you are more proficient or need 'something done' that another programme doesn't do)
If you save your images as RAW/ TIFF and JPEG nearly all PP programmes will read it and work with it. People often use several different programmes on a single image - so do not feel pressured into using something too advanced too soon. There are lots of ways to 'skin that cat'.
Have fun and enjoy digital.
Linux OS has GIMP and Darktable UFRAW etc as free ware but tutorials are harder to find. There are sites!!!!
Your camera software disk or site download will pp most of your needs TO START WITH. It will get you used to the jargon used. Most jargon is universal or easily converted (save as / Export....crop = universal for cutting apart an image etc)
The last 5 years has seen an increase in PP software 'to get away from Adobe'. A simple search will bring you to their websites and there are screen shots and try before you buy offers. Few will do 'Layers' which is like adding clear tracing paper over part of an image and adding/subtracting/changing what you see when merging two or more layers.
A few websites do 'written' tutorials that can be printed and read at leisure (and again when forgotten!) so explore using 'key words' like 'printed tutorial on........(Add what you want to do)' bookmark interesting sites. I find Youtube goes too fast or the sound is too quiet for me.
You are correct - you will have to learn how to do PP. Starting from scratch......I would try some of the free downloads - if it looks too complicated try something else.....(but leave it on the computer as you can then come back to it when you are more proficient or need 'something done' that another programme doesn't do)
If you save your images as RAW/ TIFF and JPEG nearly all PP programmes will read it and work with it. People often use several different programmes on a single image - so do not feel pressured into using something too advanced too soon. There are lots of ways to 'skin that cat'.
Have fun and enjoy digital.
Dec 14, 2016 18:48:59 #
If you went through a lot of film, you can expect to take a lot of digital pictures. That means that you will eventually have a data problem. Too many pictures to be able to find the one you want, unless you develop a digital management system.
I think the Adobe Lightroom is the best system but there are some who don't agree. LR uses a database to enable you to search for the picture you want. You have to work with the database to put all the appropriate data in there for the photos so you have a basis for a search. When you import your pictures into LR you can place tags (keywords) on the whole batch you are importing. When you go through them you can add or subtract the tags. Tagging is an art you have to develop. The tags have to be descriptive and complete enough to enable a search for several different characteristics of the photo. For example I generally put an event name on the batch of photos I import. Then if there are people in the photos I put the names of the people in the set of tags but only for the photos containing those people. The location also goes there (if not in the event name). You can also search by metadata, so the date and time will be in there automatically (from the EXIF data in the image file) as well as the camera name, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, lens focal length, and a lot of other stuff. It is a pain to sit there adding tags to your pictures, but it pays off in the long run.
The people who don't like LR seem to not like it on the basis of the database. They're probably not used to using a database and don't know how to use its power. If you have been searching for things by file name for many years, the LR database is different enough that you will have to get used to it. It's worth the effort.
Photoshop is another high-power image editing program. It has a lot of capability, so it takes a lot of time to master it. Again, it's worth it, and I should point out that you can derive substantial benefit from PS with only some basic knowledge of how it works. You don't have to be a grand master. The combination of LR and PS is really useful. LR is pretty much a basic editor with a few pixel-level tools. PS is a pixel-level editor. You can start with your images in LR and if the LR editor doesn't hack it you can send it right from Lightroom to Photoshop and edit it there. When you're done, you save your work (save, not "save as") and Photoshop sends the edited image back to Lightroom so it becomes an additional image in your database and you can continue working on it in LR.
Lightroom can be bought as a stand-alone program. Not so Photoshop, which is part of the "creative cloud" (CC) system, which you license instead of buying. The cost is about $10/month for a package containing both LR and PS. For some reason this honks off a lot of people. $10/month is really a small part of my photography budget. I guess they think that buying a program is a one-time expense. In reality, programs are updated at regular (or random) intervals and there's generally a cost to the update. In the CC system the updates are included in the $10/month.
Photoshop Elements is sometimes touted as "Photoshop Lite". It can be a stand-alone program but it has limitations. The major limitation is that the editing is done in 8-bit image space whereas Photoshop uses 16-bit. Since most cameras will do 12-14 bit depth, PSE looses some depth in the image rendering.
Another thing I would recommend is that you change your file names on download. My old P&S named the files something like "PA240001". Newer Nikon DSLRs name the files something like IMG_0001 or NEF_0001 (raw image files). There are only 4 digits in that name, which is based on the ancient 8.3 computer naming format. Computers will now handle longer file names so you should use them. You can make the name describe the subject of the shoot. Meaningful names are really useful because you can search them using the regular computer file search system. You don't have to go into Lightroom to do a search. I think this is really important because although I'm fairly proficient in using the LR search, someone coming after me may not know how to use LR. Meaningful file names makes it possible to find things if you only know basic things about computers. This is important for my family pictures. Probably not as important for my other pictures.
Lightroom can change the file name to your specifications on import. But before I found that it could do that I got another program, Downloader Pro that does the file renaming. I think it's better than LR in doing that because it can automatically send the image files to the right location on my hard drive. I have a more complete description of this at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=1595.
And I have a description of my LR workflow at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=1584
Other things you should consider as a postprocessing newbie:
Regular backups. If you use Lightroom, it can be set to back up the catalog (database) on a regular basis but it does not back up your photos. You have to do that separately.
Don't edit the photos on the camera card. Download the image files to your hard drive and work on them there. Then they're there the next time you need them. You don't have to have the card plugged into the computer, and you can reformat the card for further use.
Don't take anyone's description of their favorite program as "the only way to go". That is something you will have to find out for yourself. LR/PS is used by a lot of people (I would say for good reason), but there are other programs out there. Most of them have 30-day trial periods so you can try them out without having to spend a pile of money. The only problem there is that 30 days is really a limited time to try to compare several different programs, particularly since most people don't have unlimited time to do the comparison work. Minor things like work and family tend to get in the way.
I think the Adobe Lightroom is the best system but there are some who don't agree. LR uses a database to enable you to search for the picture you want. You have to work with the database to put all the appropriate data in there for the photos so you have a basis for a search. When you import your pictures into LR you can place tags (keywords) on the whole batch you are importing. When you go through them you can add or subtract the tags. Tagging is an art you have to develop. The tags have to be descriptive and complete enough to enable a search for several different characteristics of the photo. For example I generally put an event name on the batch of photos I import. Then if there are people in the photos I put the names of the people in the set of tags but only for the photos containing those people. The location also goes there (if not in the event name). You can also search by metadata, so the date and time will be in there automatically (from the EXIF data in the image file) as well as the camera name, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, lens focal length, and a lot of other stuff. It is a pain to sit there adding tags to your pictures, but it pays off in the long run.
The people who don't like LR seem to not like it on the basis of the database. They're probably not used to using a database and don't know how to use its power. If you have been searching for things by file name for many years, the LR database is different enough that you will have to get used to it. It's worth the effort.
Photoshop is another high-power image editing program. It has a lot of capability, so it takes a lot of time to master it. Again, it's worth it, and I should point out that you can derive substantial benefit from PS with only some basic knowledge of how it works. You don't have to be a grand master. The combination of LR and PS is really useful. LR is pretty much a basic editor with a few pixel-level tools. PS is a pixel-level editor. You can start with your images in LR and if the LR editor doesn't hack it you can send it right from Lightroom to Photoshop and edit it there. When you're done, you save your work (save, not "save as") and Photoshop sends the edited image back to Lightroom so it becomes an additional image in your database and you can continue working on it in LR.
Lightroom can be bought as a stand-alone program. Not so Photoshop, which is part of the "creative cloud" (CC) system, which you license instead of buying. The cost is about $10/month for a package containing both LR and PS. For some reason this honks off a lot of people. $10/month is really a small part of my photography budget. I guess they think that buying a program is a one-time expense. In reality, programs are updated at regular (or random) intervals and there's generally a cost to the update. In the CC system the updates are included in the $10/month.
Photoshop Elements is sometimes touted as "Photoshop Lite". It can be a stand-alone program but it has limitations. The major limitation is that the editing is done in 8-bit image space whereas Photoshop uses 16-bit. Since most cameras will do 12-14 bit depth, PSE looses some depth in the image rendering.
Another thing I would recommend is that you change your file names on download. My old P&S named the files something like "PA240001". Newer Nikon DSLRs name the files something like IMG_0001 or NEF_0001 (raw image files). There are only 4 digits in that name, which is based on the ancient 8.3 computer naming format. Computers will now handle longer file names so you should use them. You can make the name describe the subject of the shoot. Meaningful names are really useful because you can search them using the regular computer file search system. You don't have to go into Lightroom to do a search. I think this is really important because although I'm fairly proficient in using the LR search, someone coming after me may not know how to use LR. Meaningful file names makes it possible to find things if you only know basic things about computers. This is important for my family pictures. Probably not as important for my other pictures.
Lightroom can change the file name to your specifications on import. But before I found that it could do that I got another program, Downloader Pro that does the file renaming. I think it's better than LR in doing that because it can automatically send the image files to the right location on my hard drive. I have a more complete description of this at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=1595.
And I have a description of my LR workflow at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=1584
Other things you should consider as a postprocessing newbie:
Regular backups. If you use Lightroom, it can be set to back up the catalog (database) on a regular basis but it does not back up your photos. You have to do that separately.
Don't edit the photos on the camera card. Download the image files to your hard drive and work on them there. Then they're there the next time you need them. You don't have to have the card plugged into the computer, and you can reformat the card for further use.
Don't take anyone's description of their favorite program as "the only way to go". That is something you will have to find out for yourself. LR/PS is used by a lot of people (I would say for good reason), but there are other programs out there. Most of them have 30-day trial periods so you can try them out without having to spend a pile of money. The only problem there is that 30 days is really a limited time to try to compare several different programs, particularly since most people don't have unlimited time to do the comparison work. Minor things like work and family tend to get in the way.
Dec 14, 2016 19:01:36 #
Dec 15, 2016 15:33:04 #
cmoroney
Loc: Pasadena, California
If you're just getting your feet wet, I would recommend Lightroom and Photoshop Elements, both of which can be purchased as stand-alone products, rather than on the subscription basis. Lightroom is the gold-standard for organizing, and it's pretty easy to play around with the sliders and see what they do to your images.
PSE has a very nice three-level interface, from beginner to guided to expert so you can start off knowing nothing and then slowly progress up to doing full Photoshop level stuff such as layers and brushes. It's not as full-featured as full-blown Photoshop, but it's still very capable in its own right and it's a great stepping stone up to the big granddaddy of them all - Photoshop.
I would *not* recommend going straight to Photoshop because you will need a lot of training (classes, books, videos) to make your way around it. The interface is pretty intimidating and unless you know what you're doing it's very easy to get overwhelmed. Elements, however, is a great way to get your feet wet and start learning.
Photoshop, Elements and Lightroom all interact with each other seamlessly. And, since they're the "big-guns" in the market, there is an incredible wealth of training material out there.
Catherine
PSE has a very nice three-level interface, from beginner to guided to expert so you can start off knowing nothing and then slowly progress up to doing full Photoshop level stuff such as layers and brushes. It's not as full-featured as full-blown Photoshop, but it's still very capable in its own right and it's a great stepping stone up to the big granddaddy of them all - Photoshop.
I would *not* recommend going straight to Photoshop because you will need a lot of training (classes, books, videos) to make your way around it. The interface is pretty intimidating and unless you know what you're doing it's very easy to get overwhelmed. Elements, however, is a great way to get your feet wet and start learning.
Photoshop, Elements and Lightroom all interact with each other seamlessly. And, since they're the "big-guns" in the market, there is an incredible wealth of training material out there.
Catherine
Dec 15, 2016 19:41:20 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Whatever you do, remember with post processing, less is more.
But evidently not for posts to this thread!
I am joking, not complaining. The inputs are very good.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.