Is there only Photoshop?

[Nicks Pics]

Thoughts, experience, and advise was shared extensively about software choices in my thread "Lightroom and the Use Of Layers," not long ago, which I very much appreciated and found helpful, my conclusion from it was that I plan to use lightroom, and get a plugin, or an additional software for more crafty functions which LR cannot do, such as layers. I assume that those who recommended ACR recently thought it would be a good substitute for LR for me, as it goes with Photo Shop Elements, and though that was a reasonable suggestion, based on what I have said, I don't really own PSE, but just have used it on a computer that belongs to someone else, so there is really no advantage to my not getting started with LR in that respect. The first software I used much, and still use some, is the RAW converter that came with my camera. It is fairly similar to Lightroom, but simpler, and it doesn't work as well in what things it does, in my opinion, I guess Fujifilm just has not got software production down as well as Adobe.

Whether it is still being of any benefit to Nterry or not , (which we hope it is) I hope anyone who reads threads like this will find it helpful to gain familiarity with the subject, as I usually do.

[Stagecoach]

Now I believe but could be wrong that the raw converter in Adobe Elements is 16 bit, however when file is opened in Elements needs it to be converted to 8 bit. Now I had head that Elements is now able to use 16 bit but it has been about 3 years since I actually used it.

Cheers: Allan

Facts, for PS Elements Version 7 (I believe it is now on Ver 12) the ACR converter allows 8 or 16 bit use. PS Elements Ver 7 allows 'certain' functions to be undertaken at 16 bit.

I'm not aware if the '16 bit' functions available have increased on the later versions of PSE.

Grahame

[Polar01]

John you are correct in that there should really not be any significant problems working in 8 bit if the conversion is done well. I have open j-pegs that someone has sent me to touch up or even if you set your ACR default to 8 bit instead of 16 bit. This works well if you do not intend to print the image only show on the web or TV screen or monitor. Where 16 bit comes in is in printing, I knew this but not the reason behind it. This reasoning was explained to me in a new article in Luminous-Landscape by Christopher Schneiter, who is the Adjunct Associate Professor of Photography at Lansing Community College, the article is titled Digital Zone System. In the article he states that in printing, "In properly processing an image, bit depth is extremely important. Eight bit has much less information than sixteen bit. When an image is processed, it is, in effect "ripped apart". This is what causes things like banding in transitional areas of the sky. If an image is processed in 16 bit, the tonal range will still be ripped apart, but then if it is made 8 bit for output, the banding with go away. If you start in 8 bit, there is nothing you can do about it. Set up your Camera Raw interface at the widest colorspace you can, and export in 16 bit. This gives you the most material to work with."
I am adding links to 3 articles by Prof: Schneiter that appeared in Luminous-Landscape, if you are into printing your own images as I am, I found them very interesting and now apply them to my own workflow.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/te...ibration.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...ration_2.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...e_system.shtml

Cheers: Allan

[Manfred M]

Thanks Allan - these articles were a very interesting read. When printing, I had been adjusting my black and white point to precent blocking of shadows and having the printer not deposit any ink on the whites. I had not looked at a non-linear approach to the mid-tones to improve print reproduction there. The theory makes sense, now I just have to figure out how to implement this in my workflow (post-testing, of course).

The other part that I find interesting is what he recommends for colour spaces; he nicely articulates what I have been doing since late last year; i.e. working in ProPhoto to edit and printing in AdobeRGB.

One point he does not cover is that ProPhoto should always be worked as a 16-bit workflow, just because of the wide number of colours that are represented by each digit; which makes this colour space more prone to blocking if used in 8-bit.

[ajohnw]

I don't print as a rule but have printed sRGB on a printer tuned for just that, The example of banding in the sky is one of the things I have come across on other peoples jpg's but only when they are just starting out in PP after a fashion. Christina springs to mind.

I wont argue about 16bit being better than 8 in some respect but really am pointing out if the original down conversion from camera bit depth is done reasonably well it wont be a problem. Where it cab be a problem is when mistakes are undone - the info has gone and can't be regained Some particular bit has been pushed out of that range and once that has happened that's it - gone. This explains an aspect about the GIMP. The only roll back is a complete undo as it was primarily purely an 8 bit package so a more sophisticated undo would be a bit difficult. Say one step in PP is incorrect the answer is to go back and do it again plus any subsequent steps. These days what ever colour space is being worked in data is retained in 32 bit floating point, that's roughly 1,000,000 colour steps per channel so if say some earlier adjustment needed to be modified the data is still there to do it. The only thing is that the original setting that were used are no longer available but say simply if a an initial brightening step was incorrect then no problem adjusting it again in the same or opposite direction. Really this is why 16 bit can be better than 8. In sRGB it's mapped to 8 however the data is stored internally, I strongly suspect this happens when proofing aRGB for printing as well - until some one shows me solid information that states a printer used 3x10 bit colour channels. In practice as far a I am aware they all use their own gamut anyway so if some one is going to soft proof an icc file is needed.

I will look at the links but there is a flaw in the argument. Say printing is in 3x8 aRGB that puts a limit on both saturation and colour range. Doesn't matter at all how the data is stored it's going out at 3x8. This touches on the point I was making to Nick on converting from raw - it needs more care where as if it later work is done in 16 bit a bigger range of errors could be corrected as the information is still there and hasn't been adjusted away, On the other hand try playing with colours where just a few bits are altered - often it will make no significant difference at all so loosing some doesn't matter providing it's more or less correct. You might say do it right 1st time and there can't be any problems. The other point is one Colin made not all that long ago. From raw some one might decide to fill the histogram and even get the gamma exactly correct. Fine if that ok but if further adjustment is needed there's a big problem - all of the dynamic range in the output is used up. Work could be done in the mid tone range but that's it. Thanks Colin - now at times even if I am working on a jpg I use levels to make room also use levels or curves to leave room for what I will want to do.

Pure layer work - say a softlight duplication of the original image. 16 bit might give an improvement in control but as the output is in 8 the fractional bits in the 16 ain't going to make any significant differences as the opacity is being altered. Before Manfred chimes in on 10 bit the same factors will apply except that it's 10 rather than 8. Where it might make a difference is rather subtle local recovery of detail that is too dark. On the other hand the amount that can be recovered from a jpg can be rather surprising. Do it from raw and there wont be a problem.

Afraid professionally I'm VERY wary of Prof's. Too many have tried to hood wink me. I'd would advise don't get sucked in. Best find out for your selves. It's a fact that all sorts of things get repeated over and over again from all sorts of people and in practice the original reasons for an approach have long since gone,

A page where I am pretty sure most have been done with 8 bit GIMP. Tastes vary but I feel this is a capable photographer. There are plenty of others about Should add that even PS users might get some interesting ideas here so I should keep the link to myself..

http://blog.patdavid.net/p/getting-around-in-gimp.html

John
-

[Polar01]

Manfred I made two separate density charts one for blacks and one for whites. What a pain, took me over two hours but I printed out the charts for 2 of the stocks that I use. Epson's Hot Press Bright and Hahanemuhle 308 rag, and you can see the differences of where the blacks block up and the whites blowout. Now I use an Epson 4900, the thing is the tests I did with the blacks he found the threshold to be 23 with Epson Ultra Premium Matte, whereas I was getting a threshold of 7 on the Epson stock. Now I numbered the squares using black (0 density reading), and where I could no longer tell the difference between the background and the number that is where I took the threshold to be. At 7, I could not see a difference yet at 8 I still could make out the number.
I like you work in ProPhoto and 16 bit to edit my images, however once the image to my liking, and I want to print I make some final print adjustments on what I know my printer will do and hit print. So it is still in the ProPhoto colour space went sent to the printer. Now I have not had any real problems most of the time but one or two have cropped up, maybe it would be better if I were to print out of Adobe RGB colour space. Now sure how to do that, if you would be so kind Manfred and provide me with straight forward simple instructions on how to change the colour space only from printing (I save my print files coded as MPFDSC####, where as working processed files are MFDSC####) so there is not chance of me missing up my working files)
To you last point I think he states it in the last essay, the need to work in 16 bit as when the image goes to the printer the 16 bit is ripped to 8 bit to print.

Cheers: Allan

[Polar01]

John I was brought up to question, I did this all the way through school into university not only question but challenge what was being said. Today I see more of how dare you question and/or challenge me, what I say is not to be questioned it is the truth.
John you say that you are "VERY wary of Prof's. Too many have tried to hood wink me". As stated above I question things so I think that also makes me wary of those that state things, that is why I check things out not from one source but many, from both sides of the equation before I make up my mind.
There is one thing that I am very, very, wary of when I hear or read it, the speaker or writer comes out with there is a "but there is a flaw in the argument" this is even before they have even looked at the argument. Going in with a closed mind does not advance knowledge and understanding of ideas and theories, it stalls them.

Cheers: Allan

PS interesting site that getting-around-in-gimp

[Manfred M]

John - sometimes I think I did the hoodwinking at univeristy; somehow I managed to get them to grant me a degree.

I can't say I was hoodwinked by the profs; they were always under the scrutiny of some very bright people with very questioning minds. The advantage of a reasonably large class meant that somebody was always awake and caught mistakes... The only part I found scary is when one of the math profs would come out and say "it is intuitively obvious that...", when it wasn't intuitively obvious at all.

Now when it comes to photography in the internet age; well that is something a lot more challanging. As Allan says; multiple sources help; but even then there has to be a lot of caution. The same misinformation, especially when it comes from a self-proclaimed expert, can be repeated so often that it is viewed as the "truth". More often than not, a misunderstanding or incomplete knowledge leads to the wrong answer. One needs a decent understanding of math and physics, some understanding of electrical engineering (both analog and digital circuits), computer science and mechanical engineering to grasp how a modern camera (i.e. a computer that takes images) works. Then try to explain how these things work in layman's terms. Small wonder people get these things wrong.

What is most important to me is to go out there and test things myself, so that I can validate what I think is happening. When I answer a question posted on the forum; I either have some experience with the subject or I will actually go out and try it before responding. I have no issues discussing Lightroom, Photoshop and Gimp; I have them all on my computer. Photoshop Elements, sorry, no recent knowledge. Ask me a question about macro work, birds in flight and astro-photography; I have done them all, but have too little recent knowledge to make comments I would feel comfortable with.

[ajohnw]

My caution comes from Prof's wanting me to work this way or use this etc in situations where my career might depend on the outcome. No problems with them at university. They can be extremely helpful and have been especially when I have been sent to work in one. I'm college education from a time when these didn't suddenly become universities and start issuing degrees. I also worked for a company that trained some people in all sorts of areas probably to try and produce well rounded engineers. Not that I feel particularly round.

Dr's can be even worse. I've had a lot of thesis thrown at me at times. Fellows of this and that too.

John
-

[Black Pearl]

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For crying out loud go out and take some actual pictures - then process them with whatever software you prefer and share the results.

It is that - the end results - they alone define you as a photographer - they are the only thing things that matter.


You can only talk the talk if you walk the walk.

[ajohnw]

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For crying out loud go out and take some actual pictures - then process them with whatever software you prefer and share the results.

It is that - the end results - they alone define you as a photographer - they are the only thing things that matter.


You can only talk the talk if you walk the walk.

Pot calling kettle black?

[Black Pearl]

I Won't Bee Beaten

Voodoo Glow Skulls

Leaf

[ajohnw]

I Won't Bee Beaten

Voodoo Glow Skulls

Leaf

Strange as it may seem Robin I was referring to other kettles not me as do post shots but when they are in the general forum I seldom do much to them. If some one wants a shot judged stick it in a competition - that's what I do.

John
-

[rpcrowe]

I love Photoshop, especially with a few plug-ins such as Perfect Photo and NIK Software Suite added. Yes, you can do everything you can with the two aforementioned plug-ins while using Photoshop alone. However, it is faster, easier and more enjoyable for "me" to use the capabilities of Perfect Photo and NIK Software to enhance "my" Photoshop capabilities.

BTW: A combination of Lightroom and Perfect Photo Suite will provide many capabilities which Lightroom alone doesn't have.

[Marius in Afrika]

I found that reading up and trying to evaluating all the software packages a major project in itself. We are all rightly allowed to have opinions and how do you know what is suitable for person a, b or c is also good for yourself. I eventually decided to take an affordable plunge and ordered Lightroom 5 as a first step, at least it wont cripple my budget.

I am thank full for all the advice on the forum though.

Regards
Marius

[tferstl]

Thanks, don't fel so guilty about using paint shop pro now!

I use paint shop pro - ultimate and find it an outstanding processor and the cost is minimal considering Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. I have found that processing programs are much like camera; there are Nikon, Sony, Canon users that swear by their cameras and spend millions on updating their cameras and lenses! Don't feel guilty, you have a quality processor that will do anything the others do and a much cheaper cost. I have seen some stunning and beautiful photo's that came from throw away cameras, and the film was developed at Walmart!