A bit puzzled by this Andy.
Do you do any processing of the jpegs or are they posted essentially out of camera but resized.

What level of in camera sharpening have you set on the camera, or in your case perhaps I should say camera's ??

This will have an effect as I believe only NX ( as you use Nikons ) RAW converter will recognise that level of sharpening and allow you to change it before conversion to tiff or jpeg.

I use RAW with camera set to NO sharpening, and as others have said apply that as the last pp step in CS.

Don

One talks of 'conversion' but really it is more accurate to call it 'selection' as what one is doing is choosing one of the manifold options encapsulated in a RAW file.

Clive's original is shown below left in DPP as it comes up from the CR2/RAW, L to R
the sharpness as set in the camera is '1', the image which is very soft, not as the one posted at beginning of this thread to its right.

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...1&d=1201124519

I am suggesting that it is better to get the appropriate degree of sharpness, by setting the scale to 7, right hand pic (which could have been done in camera parameters), still nowhere near the sharpness of the finished version at this point where DPP is 'selecting' the info from the sensor. At this stage the display is still only a PREVIEW. Conversion is only finished when you either go to 'tools>transfer to Photoshop' which sends the converted file as a tif to photoshop, or command D which converts and saves it in whatever form you choose.
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...1&d=1201124893

As what I was doing was trying editing in NX, I saved as tif and continued in NX. Had I started with a Nikon NEF/RAW file, I would likewise have set a practical level of sharpness in the camera controls, again, choosing from the options set by Nikon within the RAW file rather than use sharpen tool later as once you have progressed beyond (in NX) the Camera adjustments you are in the editing portion of the prog, not conversion portion. Again you are working on a preview that is only fully converted when you 'save as' some other file form. You can, and I would save the edited work as a .nef so that everything is still open for improving or changing later.

BTW one of the things I hated when using using PSE4 (at least on mac) was that the preview quality was atrocious, re-opening the saved file produced something markedly different, so making nonsense of the editing.

Chris:
1- Your are right that for photo editing you need a Right computer first but if you are a patient person and I know you are, even a 5 years old computer (Every computer year is equivalent of 20 to 25 human year), is still good enough.

2- There is no substitution for Photoshop, lets put it this way, PS is the equivalent of English language for a traveler; You can talk to most people that way.

3- If you really need a substitute that wont cost an arm and foot, think of Corel paint shop pro. I used it when I was in need of CA (Chromatic aberration) removal when PS would not give me that option. I did the 30 days free trial that I found to be a very very effective program, being offered for a fraction of cost of others. Here is a link and this is a newer generation that is on sale now for $59, so consider this as a gift from me:) here is the

L I N K

4- Free Picasa that is given by google is a program that needs admiration as well. It was my introduction to software use for post processing and I found it to be a very useful elementary level program. Still if in need of sending a lot of picture via email, I prefer its use that is so easy.

5- At times when you buy the right old computer, you may land up with treasure of softwares on the HD, of course I am not sure about the legits of their questionable third party use.

Hope this helped.

Ignore my notes if you like as I only saw the first three comments on the first page of this thread.
How embaressing...

Following Andy's kind pointing to ebay, I see you can get CS3 for £155 or even £130, if you are attending a college, on ebay (buy now UK source). :)

You don't even have to race me to it. ;)

I much prefer to shoot in RAW, set DPP sharpness control to 0. export to CS2 and sharpen there using Marc Wilson's method of a duplicate backround layer set to Luminosity and applied USM or by selective sharpening via a layer mask.
Each to their own but I consider any sharpening done in DPP to be basic and crude but if your prefer it then that's fine.

I wasn't really meaning to bring DPP into this, though for newcomers to Canon DSLR, it is a very easy to use intro prog and comes free with camera.

It also has excellent stamp/clone tool and print layout.

Editing CR2 files in the RAW section is a matter of getting to know what a few sliders and sub-menus do. For more difficult eg landscapes with vast range of exposure, it is not too clever. The supplementary curves/levels tool in the RGB section relies on fine tweaking of the curves, assisted by cunning option to 'square' the curves so as to control much smaller bits of the image.

However it has no levels or equivalent and not even a horizon leveller, so the need to move on elsewhere is frequent.

This is definitely my last post in this thread. :) :)

Just to show what Photoshop can do to a pretty rubbish shot. The first is a straight jpeg conversion from the RAW file and the second is an attempt to make it even remotely acceptable. The finished article won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I cannot imagine any other single program could have achieved this.

a couple of minutes quickie in NX
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...1&d=1202076253

Not even close, Chris!

Depends on whether you are trying to get the pic of it as it was or as it might appear in your dreams Nick

None of my photos are for documentary evidence. They all have something "done".

Actually you can get pretty close to this in PhotoImpact with one click, using the style 'sunny'. The roadway starts to break up a bit but that is due to the low resolution image, it can be correct by cloning the original layer using a 'hue and saturation' blend. Other areas can be moved more in line with the desired result by using the dodge tool. A few touches of extra saturation in a couple of areas, and that just leaves the addition of a purple cast. Note I've not used masks, layers or any of the other tools available in PI. I've yet to see a PS tutorial that can't be replicated in PI, it just does it differently.

and that I think is the difference... I'm with Nick on this one. When I take pictures, I'm trying to create a work of art, not a record shot. Often at the taking stage I have already envisaged some of the things that I will need to do to get the image I have in mind. Reflecting the image horizontally may help with the lines in a composition taking the viewer's eye to where you want them to look. Cloning bits out removes distractions. Darkening the corners of the image is about holding the viewer's attention in the image. Lightening particular elements helps stimulate the attention. Playing with the lighting/contrast/saturation etc etc give an image life and interest. ;)

ABSOBLOODYLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!
I doff my hat in your general direction young Gidders!

The photo was processed in 3 layers. A sharp layer, a blur layer and the background. The top layer was blended using Screen and the second layer blended using Multiply. These were also selectively dodged and burned before flattening. I don't think the low res version is highlighting the effect particularly well, but it cannot be achieved in one layer.

All the way with Greenbunion and Gidders on this. Add composition (including angles) and the photographer has actively created his/her image instead of passivley taking a snapshot. It's what photography is all about for me, and I couldn't do it without PS.

but it cannot be achieved in one layer.

PI has multiple layers, masks, etc, etc. 19 different blend modes, sharpening, blurring, countless bells and whistles, yadda-yadda-yadda.

C'mon guys & gals, it's not about which is the best software (because there is no doubt! ;) ) it's about what you are happy with/can afford/use.

I have CS3, Lightroom and NX - I would not want to be without any of them as I use them all differently for different tasks. But I'm equally sure that if all I had was Gimp/PI/PSP then I'd still make do - they are after all only tools and it's my creativity which makes (or breaks) the images.

My last comment!
Why be prepared to spend hundreds if not thousands of pounds buying the best camera you can afford (Nikon, Canon, these are generally accepted to be the very best cameras money can buy), then more hundreds and thousands on the best piece of glass to go on the front, but not spend money on the generally accepted best processing tool. Sorry, but I can't see the logic.

I have to agree.

The generally accepted best processing tool.

Says who? The 'generally' accept best word processing tool is meant to be Word, I think its crap. Go back a couple of decades and the 'best' one was supposedly WordPerfect, it was bleeding awful too. The 'best' spreadsheet program some would tell you is Excel, I saw better programs 20 years ago.

Back then everyone HAD to have WordPerfect despite the fact that the most they ever wrote was a letter to the bank. They had to have dBase IV to keep a database of their record collection, and Excel then and now is an absolute must to total up the weekly shopping bill.

you would say that :p

are you currently creating an alternative to CS3?

Interesting but we work in a higher dimension than photoshop :D. Our apps are more concerned with creating 3D objects than 2D shapes, but our vector 'Art' package sells from at least £7,500 but you can add extra modules to it, if you are interested.

A completely different market from the photo manipulation applications altogether. We would be considered 'Best in class' for what we do, but we are not necessarily the best choice for everyone, some people can get by with software costing a fraction of the price. That was the point of the earlier post, not everyone requires a relational database, few are capable of converting their data into 3NF. Not everyone needs a word processor with a 1001 bullet point styles etc. To my mind it is fundamentally wrong to suggest otherwise.

As Walwyn says, there is no 'generally accepted best' in this any more than elsewhere.

Most of us on this forum take photos for pleasure and the pleasure of walking and seeing the beauties of the earth is somewhat spoilt for me if it has to be followed up by having to grope for half a dozen essential tools from about five million on an interface that is a disgrace to the programmers profession.

Fortunately I don't any more as I find NX does what is needed on a clean interface just as Textedit on the mac does everything needed to deal with words.

But those that enjoy Adobe and Microsoft interfaces, please continue to enjoy them.

I will resist the temptation to comment on the boundaries of art.

I come on this forum to view exceptional photography, not someone's snaps taken on a country walk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My very personal perspective is that pressing the shutter is the start of a creative process that inolves me as "the artist" and the best tools I can master.

I'm almost in complete agreement with you. A few weeks ago I would have been in total agreement with you.

A few weeks ago a friend asked for help with his photography mainly the editing part. At first I was a litlle disillusioned to find he was using Serif Photoplus X2, that was until I run a CR2 file through it. Then my disillusionment turned to amazement at the versatility and wealth of available "tools", also the similarity to Photoshop.

The program was a joy to use and at £60 unbelievable value for money.

I use CS3 and Lightroom, but if I where a first time buyer looking for photo editing software I would certainly go the Serif way.

Harry

There are hundreds of reasons why people join WPF other than for being bowled over by competition style pics; for that I suspect Image Resource or pbase etc are much better.

The thing here is that at any one time there appear to be 10% with compacts wanting help easing up to DSLR and that, at the other end of the spectrum, those with the most extensive technical skills are among the most willing to share them. It bothers me more that I have had comment from folks yet to post "I am not sure if my pictures are good enough" than what software people use.

For what its worth, I think producing a competent landscape or building shot starts well before pressing the shutter and is a stage well worth pausing at before deciding on a personal style or further ambition, and certainly more sensible to pause at than following whatever fashion is running riot. Something as complicated as CS may or may not be necessary for the next stage.

The nicest furniture in my house, for comparison, was produced using fairly crude hand-tools and there is nothing quite as dead and unpleasant as reproductions made in squillion pound factories.

Sorry, but what is a competition style pic?

Great link

I would define it by a tendency to emphasize technique over, preferably minimal, content; but fortunately usually relieved by enough exceptions, where the technique has been applied to a subject worth experiencing in itself.

Other mannerisms can become a fashion and allow to pass, eg all those milkfalls where one could argue there should be waterfalls and buildings so distorted by wide-angle lenses that it is impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion.

Conversely many subjects have too much diffuse but interesting content/detail to be thus condensed, or to use such artificial drawing of attention; it is them i am arguing for and I feel need a more restrained approach to PP & for which PS is less necessary.

That’s always the case. Isn’t it Chris?
This reminds me of an old headline for a denim ad campaign: Tradition gets started when people take chance. If you don’t want to play by the rule, make a new one.
So you’re against it? Or not? Why do you say it’s impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion?

[quote=Chris;26838]

....... and buildings so distorted by wide-angle lenses that it is impossible to see any craftsmanship and/or proportion.


There is no credit to the photographer when taking a building face-on or at a slight angle, only to the Architect: this is just passive photography. Only by capturing the building at an unusual angle or from from a viewpoint that the Architect did not envisage, or by manipulating the image, can the photographer claim any credit for the photgraph: this is active photography.

[quote=birdsnapper;26855]I couldn't agree more. Beautifully put.

I think what he is saying is that there are certain techniques which achieve their WOW effect in the equipment alone. An extreme wide-angle shot will do that, because we are not used to seeing images like that. Macro photography also has a WOW effect too :p

HDR processed images when first seen fall into the same category, Orton does as well. OOB images have a certain cuteness, and so it goes on.

One needs to move outside of the application of raw technique or technology.

Check this out, for photos that aren't just your standard macros and closeups.
http://flickr.com/photos/98265926@N00/

But if you don't experiment, how will you know what works and what doesn't?
These techniques still require the original shot to be well composed and well exposed. It is just trying to take a documented scene and turning it into something "other". The abstracts that you linked to are very well done, but one page is enough and so should it be for all types of experimental photography. Master the technique, move on, then return to it when the skill is genuinely required.

What this has now got to do with CS3 I haven't a clue!

You know by looking at examples of the technique.

As for HDR automatic exposure does pretty well, and if you can't get a half way decent composition out of a +6 megapix image something is seriously wrong. Personally since seeing the first batch of HDR image they rarely get a second glance.

The issue is that most software, and most equipment is adequate nowadays. When you look at the results of work done by PS, PI, GIMP, or any of the other packages one would have to conclude that there is either not a great deal of difference, or that the GIMP users are more skilled than the PS users. What do you think?

[quote=birdsnapper;26855]I have been wondering why you two feel obliged to subject buildings and landscapes to treatments no one would dream of applying to, say, birds or dragonflies - also whether the thread had gone way off topic.

I conclude that whereas at the start I was alleging that CS3 was just unecessarily expensive and complicated, I would now go further. PS was a product of the marketing industry and thus instrumental in trying to apply to real objects magical additional properties which they do not have. My first digital camera, bought for building site record shots, immediately revealed to me that it was a revolutionary aid in observing and learning about the world around me. Soon after, that it provided a way of sharing the joys of this process that was often appreciated by others.

DSLRs are still not able to capture the wind, scent and sound that go with a particular landscape or nature study, so I am happy to be learning how composition and a degree of PP can provide mood in the same way that competent landscape artists always have done. For this a programme like NX produced like a glove for the camera by the manufacturer who designed the sensor and conversion firmware seems perfectly adequate. "Snaps" and totally unoriginal and unartistic if you wish to think of them that way.

This really is my last post here & I look forward with interest to see how my "snaps" of two of yesterday's particular joys go down in the gallery. If it is like lead balloons, I will know to go elsewhere.

The "snaps" you have posted are very good, but that's because you are attempting to freeze a very fast moving subject that will look completely different every time you press the shutter. That may well be hundreds of times. Every shot different. You don't need to add anything, the subject is giving you thousands of poses. A static building is just that. Static.The only thing that changes is light. Press the shutter hundreds of times and you will get the same shot. It is up to you, the artist, to decide how to make your shot capture something that every other photographer before you has missed. If all you are documenting is the existence of the building then that is fine. Living objects evolve before your eyes, even flowers will look different in the evening to how they look in the morning. This is where picking the moment is critical. Exactly as you have done for the fantastic shots of the kestrel. And no, they won't look out of place on Birdforum or Pbase.

With respect
Nick