digital photography software for beginners

manhattanboy

Just select either of the last 2, to avoid making a second copy

Thanks (!!) for that, but now I have become too set in my ways to go back without a great reason to. Being able to organize the photos using the regular Windows windows (LOL) is really convenient. I have gotten used to the slow DXO load times and now split massive imports.

For anyone who truly is just starting and needs a good comparison review, check this out:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8219582047/raw-converter-showdown-capture-one-pro-7-dxo-optics-pro-8-and-lightroom-4

This is the summary:

Wait, which one should I use?

As I said earlier, the choice of which of these raw converters to use comes down to how you work. Shoot primarily in the studio and need robust tethering capability? Then you'll be very happy with Capture One Pro 7. If you work on a relatively small number of images and/or already have an existing asset management system in place, DxO Optics Pro 8 offers perhaps the best starting point for your edits. And if you're all about workflow efficiency, need tight integration with Adobe Bridge or Photoshop and want the most feature-rich cross-platform app on the market, Lightroom 4 can fit the bill. As raw-shooting photographers we've really got an embarrassment of riches at our disposal right now. You can create some great images no matter which one you choose.

For me, I like DXO's default rendering. It gets me 90% of the way there and many times is good enough. As with the other programs, if there is something that's a little off from the exposure for the particular shoot, then I easily create a custom correction setting and can batch apply it as needed. The slow rendering times can be compensated by using the regular windows with their extra large icons to browse to what you want quickly so the lack of thumbnails is really not that bad. I rarely use Photoshop anymore as the corrections in DXO are good enough unless you want to start cutting or deleting stuff from a pic. Exporting is slow and I have found no short cut for that other than minimizing compression and avoiding JPEGs, but that kind of defeats the purpose LOL.

heartyfisher

Paint.net is not bad. But I use gimp. As its very capable and available on windows and Linux. I also use digikam which is similar to light room. I use digikam only on Linux as that is my primary os. So I am not sure how well its supported on windows.

spraynpray

@Richardflack: Lightroom and PS are cheap for a beginner if you use the cheap Cloud based offer. many people hate Adobe's approach to business, but if you work out how many ars and legs it costs you to buy every new version of both, it is cheap.

@manhattanboy: Ah, now I see - it is a self inflicted duplication. Well, as seven says, you don't need to do that at all if you don't want to, you just have Lightroom import direct from your SD into the exact same location you are deliberately choosing at the moment. Lightroom doesn't care where you store stuff, it just stores the location in the catalogue entry (database). Now if you want to duplicate it as a back up, you can have it put a duplicate anywhere on your computer, an external back-up drive or a raid array or even set-up a cloud based solution as you choose.

As I said, Lightroom does not need to duplicate files as a default.

manhattanboy

Ah, now I see - it is a self inflicted duplication. Well, as seven says, you don't need to do that at all if you don't want to, you just have Lightroom import direct from your SD into the exact same location you are deliberately choosing at the moment.

I find that using a USB 3.0 Card reader and dragging and dropping into Windows folders goes much quicker for getting files off of an SD Card. But even with that method a filled 64GB Extreme Pro card takes a boatload of time to transfer. My normal work flow is to organize the files into subfolders on the hard disk while I am waiting for all of the files to transfer off of the SD cards. Its just efficient that way.

warprints

For years, I used and upgraded NX2 and Lightroom before finally abandoning NX2 about two years ago. Lightroom is just so much better (for me) overall. (And of course, NX2 is now history.) I use PS Elements at work. Don't think I'd recommend that to a beginner. Just go ahead and get Lightroom and learn that - much better suited to photography. Photoshop (CC) was never designed for photography, it's really a graphics design program. Great if you want to play with all the advanced features, but most routine photography "manipulation" can be done better and easier in Lightroom.

sevencrossing

< My normal work flow is to organize the files into subfolders on the hard disk while I am waiting for all of the files to transfer off of the SD cards. Its just efficient that way.

Correctly set up LR will sort everything out for you, on import
I just let LR put my RAW files in date folders
Matt Kloskowski has some excellent tutorials on this
once set up LR is really very fast and very good
but to take full advantage of LR, you need to let it do the organizing for you

manhattanboy

Correctly set up LR will sort everything out for you, on import
I just let LR put my RAW files in date folders

Your enthusiasm for LR speaks volumes. Nonetheless, I am happy with the current set-up. I may shoot >3K photos a day so organizing by date is not doable
I will look at LR if I decide to switch to Mac though.

sevencrossing

Unlike PS, LR was designed to be cross platform, I use it on PCs

The fact you duplicating your RAW files, would indicate you have not grasped how the LR Data base/ library works

LR would have no problem cataloging 3000 + photos from a single folder, but if want to use separate folders, it can do that as well

The reason I am so enthusiastic about LR is, I wasted so much time trying to use and learn other programs that did not do all I wanted

LR really does nearly every item of post production, a professional/ keen photographer needs

OK it does not do ever thing you can do in PS but it integrates with PS seamlessly

Its only draw back, is you cannot access the data base across a net work the data base must be on the computer you are using and as it does nearly everything will time to learn

(I just looked at the DOX website it does not seem to have any form of catalogue at all)

manhattanboy

LR really does nearly every item of post production, a professional/ keen photographer needs

(I just looked at the DOX website it does not seem to have any form of catalogue at all)

Not debating those points at all. I, however, never keyword or use the metadata of any photo, and the time I did spend using LR I never really used the catalog feature (nor wanted to). The Windows file structure is easy enough. Wedding X stays as Wedding X. If the default corrections in LR were better I probably would never have switched to DXO, but processing the same RAW files in the two programs lead to much better images from default in DXO so that's why I switched several years back. DXO is free to try. Download and see for yourself and decide. Can you get better images with other programs? Of course! But can you get a better image with doing absolutely nothing from the default as you can with DXO? I honestly do not think so, and would switch again if there was a program that allowed me to produce better pictures while being even more lazy.

FYI for anyone interested, here is a nice article on the catalog function of LR:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2252058931/the-lightroom-catalog

sevencrossing

I just had a look to see if we had answered the OPs question
it was his only post
so we will never know

sevencrossing

. The Windows file structure is easy enough. Wedding X stays as Wedding

That makes sense

and may be the reason very few of my wedding photography friends use LR

If you do any sort of photo library work, meta data is essential

spraynpray

. The Windows file structure is easy enough. Wedding X stays as Wedding

That makes sense

and may be the reason very few of my wedding photography friends use LR

If you do any sort of photo library work, meta data is essential

Only to an extent. If you import your wedding to a folder and create a catalogue for that wedding which you also store in that folder, you still have 'wedding x staying as wedding x' but you also have all the many advantages that LR offers - like batch processing for just one example but an important one.

It is, of course @manhattanboys preference and right to not use LR, but I shoot weddings and LR is a godsend for me.

bland

I like using both LR and Elements, they each have their purpose.

henrik1963

@bland: What does Elements do for you that LR can not do? Can Elements replace PS? I have only used an old version of Elements.

paulr

If you are a Mac user, Look at Pixelmator, Cheap to buy and does some amazing things.

spraynpray

@henrik1963: Elements can do most of what PS can do these days, and for a lot of folks, that is plenty. I use PS CC with LR but only need to pop out to PS occasionally for special shots.

sevencrossing

I used to use Elements, with LR . while it would do many of the things PS would do (eg panos) it seemed to have some built in awkwardness, that made it very slow,

spraynpray

Agreed. I find it awkward too but others who haven't used PS before it don't seems to.

sevencrossing

Some one once described Elements as "exactly the same as PS, just missing the best bits"

henrik1963

I am on a 30 day LR try out version. I am on the fence wether to go CC with LR+PS or just buy a stand alone LR. I just don't know if I will use PS enough. It is a time-consuming process to learn PS.

Is the learning curve the same with Elements compared to PS? And will Elements do enough to make it worth it?

sevencrossing

@ henrik1963
Are you a professional ?
PS is a big very complicated program and nothing like elements
as you should have discovered LR will do nearly everything
there simpler cheaper programs that should most things LR cant

henrik1963

@sevencrossing: No I am not a pro. And I never will be. I just like taking pictures. There is still a lot to learn for me when it comes to post work. But slowly I am getting better. I have been using Aperture for some time. But Apple seems to have lost interest in Aperture. What I am looking for is a platform I can grow with. I don't want to change platform all the time.

I am pretty sure I can do most of what I want in something like LR - keeping track of my pictures and doing most of my post work.

I have seen what PS can do. On the other hand I have heard that it takes very long time to be any good with PS.

bland

I like using both LR and Elements, they each have their purpose.

@bland: What does Elements do for you that LR can not do? Can Elements replace PS? I have only used an old version of Elements.

Elements will allow you to add filters to it. I like to crop in Elements because I can set it at 400% (referring to small Df files) and the files come out really good in order to make a big print. Maybe you can do these two functions in LR, I never could find it. There's other things elements does that LR can't but I find using both of them to fit my situations.

sevencrossing

. On the other hand I have heard that it takes very long time to be any good with PS.

That is a bit of an understatement It is a tool for professionals who use all day every day

If you want, PS can be added at a later date, it integrates seamlessly with LR

Start with LR, If an image needs PS, go to "photo" top menu bar > edit in CS*- then edit in PS > save your work to LR > export or print in LR

learn to you all the features of LR first ( yes it has filters and very good print module)

if the above does not make sense ( I am a photographer not a wordsmith)

look up Victoria Bampton Lightroom Queen and Matt Kloskowski for tutorials

spraynpray

That's Matt Kloskowski seven.