Quote:
Originally Posted by greypoint
Photoshop - when paid for in full [!]- may be the best photo editor there is but can be overkill for most amateurs. It may be the best and the 'industry standard' but there sometimes seems to be a bit of 'must have' about it rather than really needing it. Great if your hobby is centred round pc work and you enjoy all that editing and manipulation but certainly not essential for everyone. I sometimes feel the way we're all supposed to spend hours converting RAW files and improving our results is a bit of a let off for the camera makers - digital cameras should be capable of giving you what you want direct from camera if you spend a bit of time on setting up your shots. All DSLRs should be able to give you good JPEGs - if you'd rather shoot RAW fine, but you should'nt have to if you don't want to.
|
Spending time setting up your shots or even shooting in jpeg is ok for static objects but if you are, say, a bird photographer you very often have a second or two before the bird has come and gone and in these situations I defy anyone to get it right all the time. This is where shooting in RAW is a must. Also in Bird photography there is almost always some cropping to do as the focal length is never enough and when you start to crop you then run into other problems like a severe enhancement of noise. I think the type of photography you do plays a big part in it. I know that with my Landscapes I normally do very little in the way of editing but with my bird shots it is a different kettle of fish.