Quantus5

I recommend FastStone or Google Photos for Free.

If you want to pay around $50 for a perpetual license Serif Affinity is a great choice. I have several friends that use it and they love it.

If you are ok paying around $60 for a perpetual license Corel PaintShop Pro is excellent. It is what I use.

And if you are ok paying $70-$80 for a perpetual license I highly recommend Adobe PhotoShop Elements.

All excellent choices. Do some research -- read some reviews and pick the program the best fits your needs.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It is the difference between being a documentarian, which only requires that you choose your subject, compose it, set the camera to record it as well as possible with no intention of post processing it. Or you can be an artist, which controls the entire process from previsualization to final print - and knows how to remove distractions, use tools to dodge and burn to bring emphasis to some areas and reduce it in others, selective sharpening to sharpen texture and detail while NOT sharpening blue skies, adding contrast and sharpening to the main subject, allowing the background to remain softly out of focus, and so on. It is much easier to be a documentarian, but without a doubt, the work of the photographer/artist is usually more visually interesting and memorable, and without a doubt it does require a bit more effort.

Having watched photo club competitions for years - the straight out of the camera images rarely win, and usually get lots of points taken off. By the same token, those images that are overly post processed share the same fate. A practiced hand with a good subject with subtle adjustments usually does well. Unprocessed images typically look unfinished. There are two exceptions - when you do a portrait, in a studio with 100% control over lighting and you have a makeup artist to deal with hair, shiny skin, blemishes, etc - you are less likely to require post processing - and photojournalism - where post processing is looked down upon.

Which of the three versions below looks better to you?

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Is that all you can bring to the table? Once a troll, always a troll. You've got nothing to offer regarding SubVet's questions. We were teasing and having some fun with what seems like an unrealistic quest getting an amazing camera, some software, and starting a business to sell images on line - with what seems like an overly simplistic and vague approach - others were genuinely interested in helping with suggestions. And you? Nothing! Nada! Nichego! Rien! - is all that you offered. Who's the real dick here?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You've been a good sport with all the teasing about what you are thinking about.

I suggest you start with a business plan and a marketing plan. Do the research and find out what works in online galleries and what doesn't. You'll find that online galleries work best when you use them to augment your face-to-face business. There just too many photographers posting images all over the internet that there will be little to draw people to your work using just a website.

A marketing plan will help you identify a target market and the means (and costs) associated with marketing to that target.

A business plan help you define your business goals. You need than just like you need a destination when you use a GPS to create a route for you. It will collect ALL of your production and overhead expenses, and propose what your profit margin needs to be and when you will hit the break even point. It will allow you to conduct what-if scenarios to simulate different approaches to marketing - and where the maximum profit potential lies.

It will also tell you how long this is going to take.

Getting a nice camera and buying lenses that complement it is going to cost you at least $7000 - $12000. I see from your later posts - and other posts in your UHH history - that you are not against spending $120/yr for good software and maintenance, but you are sorely in need of intensive guidance - in computer matters, business matters and photography matters. If you don't want to learn Photoshop, you can hire that talent. If you don't want to deal with computer matters, you can hire that talent. If you want to learn how to set up a business and run it successfully, you can hire that talent. But now you've got to feed yourself and at least 3 consultants - driving your costs up and possibly lengthening the ramp up for your business.

I suspect that this is why so many have responded with shock and awe - at the thought of using free software to edit images, then put them up on a website somewhere, with hopes that you will start selling hundreds or thousands of prints per year simply by having your work up on the internet without any plan of how to get people to see your work.

This is all assuming that you are a crack photographer turning out outstanding images already.

The whole thing just seems implausible. . . but not impossible. With the right resources deployed efficiently it is not impossible.

If you don't have the time or inclination to learn how to use the fundamental software tools to create sellable images, you are never going to have the time to learn how to set up a business, a website, learn the computer basics to managing your images on your computer and on your website, how to deal with software upgrades (Win10), how to find missing images on your computer, etc etc etc. You need to master that knowledge, or hire whomever you need to help you.

JMCPHD Loc: Maine

I can't speak for other models but on my D7100 there is a menu option to record raw NEF files in 12 or 14 bit formats.

The manual indicates that 14 bit results in a larger file with more color data.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Yes to this. Gene's advice is always sound...

Andy

harly82fxr

harly82fxr

harly82fxr

not 10s a 1n

HempyJ

"extensive learning curve" - not really 1Feathercrest, it's just not like Photoshop. I use both (GIMP for personal, Photoshop / Illustrator for work) and, in my opinion, the image processing workflow (open, fiddle with stuff, export to JPG) is more efficient. It is intuitive but different so it takes some getting used to.

Because it's open source, their are a lot of plugins. Those *do* have a learning curve, especially if they're relatively new. When I first started using RawTherapee it did take some effort, like half a day, to figure out. It is more refined now. RawTherapee is needed for GIMP to open / edit RAW files, UFRaw is another I messed around with.

If you can spend some time with GIMP, it's free after all, you will learn stuff about image processing just in the act of teaching yourself the software. Learning new software is tough at first (the steep part of the learning curve) - especially if you have been doing things the same way for a long time - but it's worth it just to try.

H