126 replies to this topic

[TBonz]

I am on a MacBook and use Lightroom.  It pretty much handles everything I need.  I played with Aperture and it seemed fairly powerful but I was already familiar with Lightroom, so stuck with it - I can also use it on a Win7 system if needed.  Recently I've been playing with PhotoMechanic - haven't seen it mentioned here, but I'm told by some pros that it is what they're required to use by some organizations so I'm trying to get used to it just in case...so far I prefer Lightroom and when I'm shooting lots of images during my busy times (like now), I go right to Lightroom - I'll save the playing for when things slow down over the winter.  As far as I can tell with a bit of playing around with it, PhotoMechanic doesn't support RAW...

[Gump85]

So I am evaluating DxO Pro Optics 9 which is considerably different than an earlier version I used. Very easy to use! Final edits are exported to a folder...same as LR 5. Generally I like it, but find simple tasks like cropping easier in LR, The program has an abundance of presets which can be further tweaked. Attached is a Baptist Church photographed in scenic Miner's Bay Ontario. Shot in colour and converted to BW The same image was created in Fhotoroom and further edits in DxO Pro which uses lens data to correct for distortions

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[nbanjogal]

Gump85, gorgeous images. You have inspired me to go check out DxO Pro.

 

(Not that you were asking, but I find myself drawn to the color version--it's so rich!)

[nikoninjection]

Topaz Plug Ins Changed the Way I use my Camera. You can use the engine they provide so no need to spend a fortune on Photoshop.

[stuguy]

I use photoshop cs3 alot but it wont open the D3200 RAW files so had to get elements 11 as well.

Also use the topaz denoise plug-in ,alien skin exposure plug-in and NIK color effects pro 3 great plugins that go great with elements 11.

 

Nothing wrong with Capture NX2 though sometimes ill just use that for quick edits.

[nikoninjection]

Im using CS5 and was disappointed to find out it doesnt support the RAW files from D3200?

[IanB]

Daft question time, loads of people talking about plug ins.  My main edit choice is Elements 11, how do i find, use plug ins in conjunction with E11? 

 

Ian

[nikoninjection]

Daft question time, loads of people talking about plug ins.  My main edit choice is Elements 11, how do i find, use plug ins in conjunction with E11? 

 

Ian

 

plugins need to be compatible with software you are using. You can go to the elements page and find out what is available for that product

 

Here's a compatability list for Topaz!

 

https://support.topa...-Compatibility-

[IanB]

Cheers.

 

Yer link isn't working btw........ 

Oops.
The page you were looking for doesn't exist

[nikoninjection]

oops just google topaz labs

[Gump85]

nbanjogal. The color rendition of this old church was edited first in fhotoroom ( formerly Artizen ) . One can edit HDR and tone-map afterwards. Colors really jump out. The image was further edited in DXO.That software does correct for lens distortions. I shoot with a D600 as well and programmed it to correct distortions. Software does the rest., I will likely buy LR5 because of ease of use and features. I continue to use NX 2.44. And let my CS3 collect dust

[nbanjogal]

Gump85, I downloaded a trial of the latest ProOptics--I'm sure I'll eventually find this information, but as of right now I can't tell how destructive the software is. Is it like Lightroom where the original RAW image is left intact when you edit? In LR you export to jpeg with editing instructions, but the original is unaltered.

 

I opened it up, and the layout reminds me a bit of working in Lightroom, so that's nice...but I didn't dare do much because I wasn't sure if I was permanently changing my original files.

 

(...off to see if lynda.com has anything about DxO ProOptics...)

[Tony892]

Gump85, I downloaded a trial of the latest ProOptics--I'm sure I'll eventually find this information, but as of right now I can't tell how destructive the software is. Is it like Lightroom where the original RAW image is left intact when you edit? In LR you export to jpeg with editing instructions, but the original is unaltered.

 

I opened it up, and the layout reminds me a bit of working in Lightroom, so that's nice...but I didn't dare do much because I wasn't sure if I was permanently changing my original files.

 

(...off to see if lynda.com has anything about DxO ProOptics...)

Do you use lynda.com much and do you find it helpful?

[TBonz]

nbanjogal,

 

Make a copy of some of your RAW photos to a different folder for "play" and then use those copies to test out the software.  Your "original" RAW files wouldn't be touched if you do it that way.

[Bart]

Gump85, I downloaded a trial of the latest ProOptics--I'm sure I'll eventually find this information, but as of right now I can't tell how destructive the software is. Is it like Lightroom where the original RAW image is left intact when you edit? In LR you export to jpeg with editing instructions, but the original is unaltered.

 

I opened it up, and the layout reminds me a bit of working in Lightroom, so that's nice...but I didn't dare do much because I wasn't sure if I was permanently changing my original files.

 

(...off to see if lynda.com has anything about DxO ProOptics...)

DxO is non-destructive. It stores the modifications in a .dop file in the same folder as the original images.

RAWs remain completely untouched.

[nbanjogal]

Do you use lynda.com much and do you find it helpful?

 

Yes! I use it as often as I can (fortunately I have free access through the college where I teach). I have found it very helpful, especially in learning software. I think I've said elsewhere on this forum that I learned my way around Lightroom in about two hours via a lynda.com course taught by Jan Kabili. I'm currently working my way through a course on photographic composition taught by Ben Long on lynda.com. The instruction I've encountered at lynda.com is consistently good--I only wish I had more time to spend on it.  

 

nbanjogal,

 

Make a copy of some of your RAW photos to a different folder for "play" and then use those copies to test out the software.  Your "original" RAW files wouldn't be touched if you do it that way.

 

Yes, I could. I just don't want to have to do that all the time since my storage is already bursting at the seams, and if it was going to be a necessity to work that way, I wouldn't bother with the software. So I'm relieved to learn from Bart that it's non-destructive--thank you, Bart!

[Gump85]

Its not necessary to duplicate raw files. Any modifications made to a NEF file in DxO does not destroy the original data file. Simply do a test, open one raw file and change the exposure and then crop it. It will show you a before and after shot. Export the change to your desktop which saves as a DXO jpeg. Then open ViewNX to observe the original NEF file. You will see that it hasn't been touched. There are many things I like about this new version. I tested version 8  in the  summer and find version 9 to be easier to use. But keep in mind cost of software. LR 5 runs $149 USD and $79.99 if you're a student or teacher. I am told that Adobe has released version 5.2. With DXO, there are 2 versions standard and elite. If you own a full frame camera, they ding you for $299 (elite). Currently, there is an incentive to buy at $199USD. For the money, I see LR being more useful, cheaper and also shares distortion correction characteristics based on lens data..

 

I have shied away from CS and its bloated workflow. My version (cs3) allows me to load NEFs from my D300 but not the D600. For that, I have to use adobe's DNG file converter. Talk about using up hard drive space, Can't go wrong with either LR or DxO. Both do a decent job IMO

 

And I still own a copy of PS elements 6 which I use from time to time for emailing jpegs. Artizen is used for HDR work/tone-mapping.

[fishwm]

I mainly use CaptureNX2 for edits and some on Elements 11.  Capture can be slow, but I like the results, so I am OK with the speed, plus I don't do thousands of pics

[TBonz]

Yes, I could. I just don't want to have to do that all the time since my storage is already bursting at the seams, and if it was going to be a necessity to work that way, I wouldn't bother with the software. So I'm relieved to learn from Bart that it's non-destructive--thank you, Bart!

 

I was suggesting it as a method to take a few files to test the software.  I've done it a few times to try other software while maintaining my "normal" process for the full batch of images.  No way I could do it for even a couple of batches of images.

[Tony892]

I am on a MacBook and use Lightroom.  It pretty much handles everything I need.  I played with Aperture and it seemed fairly powerful but I was already familiar with Lightroom, so stuck with it - I can also use it on a Win7 system if needed.  Recently I've been playing with PhotoMechanic - haven't seen it mentioned here, but I'm told by some pros that it is what they're required to use by some organizations so I'm trying to get used to it just in case...so far I prefer Lightroom and when I'm shooting lots of images during my busy times (like now), I go right to Lightroom - I'll save the playing for when things slow down over the winter.  As far as I can tell with a bit of playing around with it, PhotoMechanic doesn't support RAW...

Similar to yourself I use a mac and have recently got Lightroom which I have not used in anger, as I am currently getting to terms with a new camera. However, when you down load your images do you you take out memory card, use an adaptor and download onto your mac directly into Lightroom?