Different image processing software

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
newsbjfa19euo343la29dd6m5k8u2f9basjuj@4ax.com...
> How many different programs do you use?
> How many would you likely use on one image?

2, Digital Photo Professional and Photoshop CS.

> Reason I ask is that quite a few people seem
> to use software other than Photoshop for noise,
> scaling, etc.
> Don't the re-saves when going from one piece of
> software to another take their toll on the image
> if it's saved as .jpg each time?

Why would someone do that?

Greg

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Yes, if you're going to edit your JPG image, make sure you save in a
lossless format first, like TIFF, or even better, your image-editing
program's native format then combine the layers.

I use Corel PHOTO-PAINT for everything, incuding graphics for my site -
and CorelDRAW comes in very handy for the site graphics too. Corel
Graphics Suite costs less than PS (what doesn't!) and is highly
complex. I bought Neat Image but find PP does and great job anyway. I
also found that PP upsamples (interpolates) as well as PhotoZoom Pro.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 6/9/05 12:05 AM, in article objfa19euo343la29dd6m5k8u2f9basjuj@4ax.com,
"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote:


> Don't the re-saves when going from one piece of
> software to another take their toll on the image
> if it's saved as .jpg each time?
> -Rich
Why would anyone who cares about their images be editing them then resaving
them as jpegs? For some who shoots raw the image never has to be saved in
jpeg form except as perhaps a very last step before publishing on the web.
For someone who shoots originals in jpeg form the very first save on the
computer should be in a lossless format like tiff.
Chuck

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

How good are the Corel programs at supporting various RAW and NEF
formats? For example, is Corel better at back-porting new versions of
RAW to previous program releases. (Yes, I'm inquiring about RAW 3.1 for
my 350D).

Unfortunately Adobe products have alot of secondary support in terms of
education materials, plugins, driver support, etc that I moved away
from Corel Draw in the late 1990s.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

burnsdavidj@yahoo.com wrote:

> How good are the Corel programs at supporting various RAW and NEF
> formats? For example, is Corel better at back-porting new versions of
> RAW to previous program releases. (Yes, I'm inquiring about RAW 3.1 for
> my 350D).

I inquired a few months ago wrt the Maxxum 7D. Adobe had the RAW
pluggin for the 7D; Corel did not (I don't know about the 350D). I hate
to say that Corel, being a Canadian company, is a 2nd class outfit, but
that _is_ the case.

I've always had issues with product quality from Corel. The last good
product they made was Word Perfect, back in the 90's. (Company went
100% to MS Office in the meantime, although at the time WP was much
better than MS Word under Windows ...). No other product from Corel
has been satisfactory in any way. Some education programs for children
were particualrly bad and support from Corel to fix things was
attrocious on the better days.

> Unfortunately Adobe products have alot of secondary support in terms of
> education materials, plugins, driver support, etc that I moved away
> from Corel Draw in the late 1990s.

MS Elements 3 does the job for me. I don't do extensive manipulation of
photos, probably use less than 5% of its capability. DL the the whole
thing for US$89. (Try it free for 30 days).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:WbZpe.47785$G8.29488@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> dylan wrote:
> []
>> PSP 6,7 & 9 (they all have advantages, disadvantages, bugs) , Neat
>> Imge for noise removal occasionally.
>
> How do you find the noise reduction (nothing removes noise!) compares
> between Neat Image and Paint Shop Pro 9?
>
> David
>

I had Neat Image before PSP9 so I haven't used the PSP noise reduction much
yet. Do you use it ?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

dylan wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote in message
> news:WbZpe.47785$G8.29488@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> dylan wrote:
>> []
>>> PSP 6,7 & 9 (they all have advantages, disadvantages, bugs) , Neat
>>> Imge for noise removal occasionally.
>>
>> How do you find the noise reduction (nothing removes noise!) compares
>> between Neat Image and Paint Shop Pro 9?
>>
>> David
>>
>
> I had Neat Image before PSP9 so I haven't used the PSP noise
> reduction much yet. Do you use it ?

Yes, and it works well, but I was interested in a comparison (other than
my own tests).

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Best do as you suggested higher up and save RAW, period.
>>

> ?? And lose all the time spent editing?

And keep the dynamic range. I spend a lot of time doing photography, I
don't see why I wouldn't spend the time getting the most out of the best
images. It's not a short road to a great print.

If editing digital is too much of a chore for you, you would really have
been sick doing even the most basic color dev and printing. Even B&W,
while a genuine pleasure for many, is a horrible chore for many others.

For 'snapshots' of the dog at the family picnic or a friend in a parking
lot <g>, JPG's are certainly going to be fine.

We lamented over the narrow latitude of slide film and wished for more.
We buy scanners with 14 and 16 bit dynamic range to get even that
range out. JPG does not cut it at the front end of the process.

In digital, we get some of that wished for latitude, at least on the
shaddow side, and hence we rejoice... if we save it in RAW. As I do it,
the camera saves a med-sized JPG as well as the RAW, so snapshots can go
from camera to screen or printer in minutes. But, that's not much of
the photography that I do.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
news:BECDEEE5.2B02E%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com...
> On 6/9/05 10:01 AM, in article d89lj8$hbp$1@inews.gazeta.pl, "Alan Browne"
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> > C Wright wrote:
> >
> >> them as jpegs? For some who shoots raw the image never has to be saved
in
> >> jpeg form except as perhaps a very last step before publishing on the
web.
> >> For someone who shoots originals in jpeg form the very first save on
the
> >> computer should be in a lossless format like tiff.
> >
> >
> > So, go from a compressed into 8-bit imagefile up to a lossless 16 bit
> > image file?
> >
> > Best do as you suggested higher up and save RAW, period.
> >
> I certainly agree with you that it is best to start with raw, period!
> However, there are some advantages to be gained in converting an 8-bit
> compressed image file to a 16-bit lossless format. Heavy duty edits in,
for
> example, Photoshop's levels and curves are less likely to leave gaps in an
> image's histogram. Also, color corrections/substitutions can be more
> accurate.
>

That's what I've found as well, and I'm with Stacey on the time issue as
well. Last wedding I shot 600 images in digital, plus 5 rolls of 120 film.
Imagine if I'd had to spend the time converting from RAW for even a third of
those, not to mention scanning my 120 film in the 8000ED... You start
working real cheap when you do that (or charge more than the market can
bear).

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Matt Clara wrote:

> That's what I've found as well, and I'm with Stacey on the time issue as
> well. Last wedding I shot 600 images in digital, plus 5 rolls of 120 film.
> Imagine if I'd had to spend the time converting from RAW for even a third of
> those, not to mention scanning my 120 film in the 8000ED... You start
> working real cheap when you do that (or charge more than the market can
> bear).

I recently shot a small fashion show for some 140 images. As the
lighting was consistent (studio flashes) once I had the RAW import
parameters set for the first image, the rest were repeats at the same
setting. So no big deal there.

Could it have been done in JPG for that job? Yes.
Would I have saved time had I done so? Maybe a total of 30 minutes on a
job that was a lot longer for other reasons.

The client refused 120 work ($) and in retrospect I'm happy! (That
would have come down to a select few shots for posters. Client decided
she didn't want posters).

Regardless of the above, most of my phtography is for my most important
client: me. So photos come in batches of a few. Doing the RAW thing is
no big deal.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Who was talking about capture?

See "C Wright" post at the beginning of this thread splinter.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> writes:

> How many different programs do you use?

Oh, let's see. Siren File Rename, Thumbs Plus, Irfan View or Wega2,
Adobe Camera Raw, Photoshop, Picture Window Pro, Noise Ninja, my
gallery scripts, Epson printer drivers, Roxio Easy CD Creator.

As plugins, ROC and SHO from Applied Science Fiction (now part of
Kodak), Color Mechanic from Digital Light and Color, Mike Russell's
Curevemeister.

No doubt I'm forgetting a thing or two.

> How many would you likely use on one image?

As many as it takes. "Integrated" programs almost never do all the
functions very well, and often don't play well with others.

> Reason I ask is that quite a few people seem
> to use software other than Photoshop for noise,
> scaling, etc.

> Don't the re-saves when going from one piece of
> software to another take their toll on the image
> if it's saved as .jpg each time?

I never save an intermediates as JPEG.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d89omf$49f$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca
says...
>
>burnsdavidj@yahoo.com wrote:
[SNIP]
I hate
>to say that Corel, being a Canadian company, is a 2nd class outfit, but
>that _is_ the case.
>
>I've always had issues with product quality from Corel. The last good
>product they made was Word Perfect, back in the 90's. (Company went
>100% to MS Office in the meantime, although at the time WP was much
>better than MS Word under Windows ...). No other product from Corel
>has been satisfactory in any way. Some education programs for children
>were particualrly bad and support from Corel to fix things was
>attrocious on the better days.
[SNIP]

Man, you should have seen the support for WP back when it was in Orem, UT/US -
the ultimate, but that was also two owners and decades ago!

For support, I now find Adobe to be VERY good. I still have several Corel
products, and they haven't a clue. Essentially, every contact costs $, and the
answers are weak, at best. They have acquired some good softare, and have
actually improved some of it, along the way, but support is lame.

Hunt