singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
Lightroom 4 for the majority of edits and Photoshop CS6 for the hard stuff (layers, healing tools, etc.)
Which software do you use to edit your pictures
- Thread starter paul04
- Start date
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
FYI, Adobe has a tool that will migrate your Aperture library to Lightroom 5.6...
Moving From Aperture to Lightroom? Get This Free Migration Tool | Photofocus
...and will be available within Lightroom itself in 5.7. The only thing it cannot do is bring in your adjustments (because it's a different engine), but it will instead bring in an "adjusted copy" of the original so you have both the original file and an edited copy.
I was on the side of those who didn't like the $10/month pricing, but I've since changed my tune dramatically. And with that said, if you subscribe to the Creative Cloud and then cancel your subscription you still retain your copy of Lightroom with 100% functionality from a catalog management perspective (i.e. you can import, tag, rate, manage metadata and invoke external editors). So for $10, if you're looking for something to manage your photos before you send them off to DxO then it's a pretty good buy, particularly given that it'll convert your existing Aperture catalog for you.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I work for a college and get a heckuva deal on Adobe Creative Cloud so I'd be a fool not to take advantage of the full range of apps for $20 annually. My tools of choice are Adobe Camera RAW for basic corrections, and Photoshop for fine-tuning and any creative aspects I want to apply.
....
....
I use Aperture, too. I think they're going to push us towards Photos or Lightroom - sort of a "your choice". I don't know why they'd want to push people toward Lightroom since they don't make money on it, but hey, it's their company. Aperture's getting a bit long in the tooth - poor noise reduction, for example. I know there are plugins for it but I hate to go expanding it (or spending money on it) now that I know it'll be defunct soon.
I recently tried Darktable under Linux. Looks pretty powerful, but I just wasn't getting it. I'm spoiled by Aperture's Auto Adjust feature, which usually gives me pretty good results and is a good place to start from to do further modifications. I should try Gimp - I've been using it for years for random graphic creation/minor photo editing, but I didn't think to try it for serious photo editing.
Englischdude
Senior Member
gimp & darktable
briansullivan
Senior Member
Photoshop since mid-nineties. Amazing tool. I am still learning, and fortunately, there's plenty of great tutorials out there. I have used others for simpler tasks, but, usually found their memory management to be sub-par compared to PS. I have not tried Lightroom, but, have associates that use it. From what I can tell, it mainly is your workflow. I tend to deal with a small amount of images at the pixel level. Lightroom seems to be better if using a lot of images from Camera Raw with multiple outputs scenarios.
I recently re-tried Capture NX-D again. They really improved memory usage. And while it is a great free program, and does have some neat Nikon specific capabilities, I find the interface tough to deal with, and it is missing a couple of capabilities I use a lot.
I recently re-tried Capture NX-D again. They really improved memory usage. And while it is a great free program, and does have some neat Nikon specific capabilities, I find the interface tough to deal with, and it is missing a couple of capabilities I use a lot.
rocketman122
Senior Member
PS CS6. been using PS for 14 years now, but I use it less and less for its rich features and more and more for resizing and cropping and just little adjustments here and there. and some cloning or text tool.
LR- nice. but way too slow for bulk work and the tiny sliders will cramp my fingers. meh. have it. stopped using it.
Nikon capture NX2 basically for raw conversation to jpeg. editing is a pita to do with it because when I lside the adjustment is shown after I let go of the slider. very dumb. will try NXD soon
for bulk wedding pics...NOTHING faster than ACDSEE PRO. nothing. well the POS picassa but there is no control there. is acdc perfect for me? pretty much what I need but there are many things they must change about it. but after using a lot of different software including bibble and paintshop pro (which I want to check and see if they made improvements) ACDSEE PRO is hands down the fastest and most versatile for bulk editing.
LR- nice. but way too slow for bulk work and the tiny sliders will cramp my fingers. meh. have it. stopped using it.
Nikon capture NX2 basically for raw conversation to jpeg. editing is a pita to do with it because when I lside the adjustment is shown after I let go of the slider. very dumb. will try NXD soon
for bulk wedding pics...NOTHING faster than ACDSEE PRO. nothing. well the POS picassa but there is no control there. is acdc perfect for me? pretty much what I need but there are many things they must change about it. but after using a lot of different software including bibble and paintshop pro (which I want to check and see if they made improvements) ACDSEE PRO is hands down the fastest and most versatile for bulk editing.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
Lightroom & Elements....mainly LR....still learning.
+1 love it especially the way it emulates the in camera Nikon JPEG settings(Vivid etc)
I prefer to spend money on expensive glass instead of expensive software....
Last edited:
Richard_B.
New member
what is better to shoot RAW file or TIFF over JPEG
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
I would think shooting RAW. I don't know that you can shoot TIFF SOOC. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Not with the D750. Still you can convert the RAWs to a 16bit TIFF format without loss.
As long as you use no compression. It's gonna be a big file however.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
Thanks for that J-See....I can't figure out why anyone would want to shoot in TIFF even if they could?
I wouldn't shoot in it but do use it frequently in post. In LR files can become pretty heavy since it needs to remember all adjustments. If I convert it as a TIFF, I can work further at that one requiring much less processor and mem usage. And I don't lose information.
It is a personal preference, and one that is highly debated. RAW offers more latitude to correct the highlights and dark areas of photos. For example, if you blow out your highlights on a jpeg, quite often you lose detail that cannot be recovered. On the same RAW file, some if not all of the highlight detail can be recovered depending upon how much the highlights were blown to begin with. If you are looking to create poster size prints, RAW would be a good choice.
If you are in a hurry to edit and have a lot of photos, jpeg tends to be quicker to edit since some of the sharpening, saturation, and contrast is already applied. RAW files are much larger than jpeg which you need to keep in mind if you have limited file storage.
I think TIFF was an option with the older Medium Format Backs. For wide colour gamut 16 bit TIFF is better than jpeg.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
yes...but I wouldn't think it's better than RAW.