Software Preferences

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

So much for my failed attempt to multi-quote....Imorin, how do you catalog your photos? I was thinking I would just create windows folders in "My Pictures" like I have done. I'm all ears to a better, more efficient way....What benefit are there to cataloging them differently also interests me.

With LR and similar applications the physical location of a file becomes irrelevant (the files could even be on an external drive, that happens to not be connected - LR would then just show the thumbnail if available).
The organization of your pictures is done by assigning meaningful tags, like "bonaire", "BVI", "2006" etc., and that is how you would search for a picture.
(There are many more options, and "quick collections" and what not, but I don't want to make this post too long).
But to answer your question (the one to lmorin :) ) - I put files into one folder per quarter, and don't have any other subfolders. And it is one per quarter because I don't like directories with possibly thousands of files (actually the real reason is that I want to be able to do a backup to cd or dvd on a per folder basis - less hassle).
 
In terms of non-destructiveness, in Lightroom nothing ever is changed in the file. If in Elements, I edit a picture and save it as DNG/TIFF/JPEG and then reopen it and make another change and save it with the same name the first version is gone forever. Of course the raw file is there but every time you make a change then save the file can not go back a single step without starting over.

As for doing things the way photographers think, I simply meant that things like color correction and tonal changes are made using tools in Lightroom that are far closer to what you did in a darkroom than the way PS elements does them. As for layers, that is very far away from the way traditional photographers think but very close to the way graphic designers think. I don't think most folks shooting slide thought about cutting out the picture of the frogfish and putting it in a different background but that is the way graphic designers tend to think. Use whatever tools you like if they do the job. As for Joe Liburdi, he is a great guy. He says elements is sufficient, not that Lightroom isn't. If money is an object, get Elements it's only $70. Otherwise, I think download them all and play and see which one is good for you.

Bill
 
halemanō;5215144:
I will just speak towards the underlined portions above;

"Also, just want to confirm that Elements does not have the amount of features to edit the pics with?"

Of course you can use elements to edit your pictures. You can use PaintShop, Picasa, Iphoto, and many other inexpensive programs as well.



"I spoke with Joe Liburdi who thinks Elements would be a sufficient program to use."

Sufficient is very different than easy, or better.

I guess I am confused by the term "most photographers." Did "most photographers" before the popularity of PC's and the original full PhotoShop make their own corrections, in a dark room, or did "most photographers" have a professional photo lab make their corrections? After PC's and the original PS, did "most photographers" start making their corrections with full PS, after scanning their images into their PC's? After Elements was released, did "most photographers" make their corrections with the new stripped down made for photographers version of PS or the full PS.

Before computers, most "serious" photographers how they wanted the lab to make their pics look. Most photographers of course just sent their film to the 1-hour lab and however it came out it came out. After computers, there were lots of ways to edit pics, and probably far more people used Iphoto than any flavor of Photoshop and many more used Corel software. Photoshop at least IMHO was not a program aimed at photographers as much as at designers and today that is even more true. The fact that Adobe made Lightroom and Apple made Aperture for professional photographers for the most part suggests that even Adobe understands that Photoshop is overkill for most photographers.

If "most photographers" started making their own corrections since the advent of digital camera (slide & film scanners were not easy/inexpensive to use hardware until recently), then haven't "most photographers" been making their adjustments with some version of PS?
Don't know if MOST photographers use PS, I would guess most use other software like Iphoto (free), Picasa (free) or Corel type stuff. At least from talking to most really serious UW photographers, Lightroom and Aperture are the day to day software being used, with PS being used when something special like trying to reproduce the Doubilet nudibranch effects without the lightbox.

If Elements works for you, great. You have been down or up the learning curve. For most newly minted UW photographers, I believe that LR or Aperture are a lot easier to learn than PS. I have been using CS since version 2 but probably won't buy CS5 and everytime I need to do something special in PS, I need to look it up in the book while with LR it is much simpler.

Bill
 
halemanō;5215144:
I will just speak towards the underlined portions above;

"Also, just want to confirm that Elements does not have the amount of features to edit the pics with?"

PS Elements is a stripped down version of full PhotoShop, without the majority of graphic designer tools, intended for users who only need to adjust photos. You Q seems to be missing the few words, like "compared to LR and/or full PS," needed to make it a proper question/sentence. If we assume the few words in my previous sentence are supposed to be in your Q, with regards to earlier Elements, "curves" and "actions" are a couple functions that were not available, compared to full PS, but are on newer versions of Elements, IIRC. Layers seems to be available with my Elements 4.

"And when you say that LR is non-destrucitve, I take it you mean that as you save any changes to the orginal picture the jpeg file doesn't erode?"

Again, your wording is somewhat confusing to me, but then again my original files are not .jpg. I have always wondered about this claim. I shoot underwater photos in .orf (Olympus Raw File). I now use Adobe Raw to download and convert my day's photo's to .dnf (Digital Negative File), into a folder I name with the day's date. After making adjustments with Elements, the adjusted file is saved as .psd, .tif or .jpg; I chose which one(s). Before Adobe Raw, the original .orf's were/are downloaded/stored in a similarly named/cataloged folder. I have been using mostly Elements since ~'02 and I still have all my original .orf's or .dng's in exactly the same condition as when they came off the camera/card.

"I spoke with Joe Liburdi who thinks Elements would be a sufficient program to use."

Joe has been a prominent underwater photographer for decades and it he thinks Elements "would be a sufficient program" that is significant, IMHO.
QUOTE] [/QUOTE

You can still edit your post, I believe (I just edited my post you quoted). When you trimmed my quoted post you also trimmed the [/ that is required to make it a quote. Here in my educational post I have trimmed the ] that is also required to make it a quote of a quote (both bolded above in the other html end of quotes). All you need to do is edit your post and add the [/.

So much for my failed attempt to multi-quote
 
Last edited:
I'm getting into this discussion late but I have been using Photoshop Elements for years and am amazed at what you can do with that program. I usually buy the latest version on sale at COSTCO and pay $40 for it. You get an awful lot of power in the elements program for $40. I have been able to salvage pictures that I wouldn't normally keep by editing them in photoshop. I have also found several online courses on how to use elements for a reasonable cost. I recently took an online course through my community college on using elements.

Despite all the discussion regarding photo editing, my focus is on taking pictures that don't need editing. I would suggest that the more courses you take on underwater photography the less you will have to depend on editing software. I have taken a few courses on how to take better pictures that have really helped. For those that may have an interest, I have included a link to a web site of online courses that I have taken: The Underwater Photographer, Underwater Digital Photography Classes: Improve your underwater photos. I took the Introduction to Digital Underwater Photography and Digital Workflow & Image Manipulation for Underwater Photography courses. They were both excellent and I can't say enough about how helpful Marty and Bonnie were when I had a question. They both responded to all of my emails and Marty even called me one time to discuss my question. I will also say that this board has been a wonderful source of information on how to take better pictures. Scott Fiji's web site is obviously a labor of love on his part, and is an incredible source of information.

Just my thoughts,

Bill
 
So much for my failed attempt to multi-quote....Imorin, how do you catalog your photos? I was thinking I would just create windows folders in "My Pictures" like I have done. I'm all ears to a better, more efficient way....What benefit are there to cataloging them differently also interests me.

It's so much more than folders. I keep all the photos from each trip in a hierarchy of folders (like Diving -> Caribbean -> Bonaire 2010). That's the easy part of "cataloging" and you don't need a special program to do it. Then each image is rated 1 to 5 stars. I also tag each image with at least two things: What it is: "Fish -> Blennies -> Sailfin Blenny" and the dive site "Bonaire -> Bachelor's Beach" I also organize all my topside photos in a similar way.

Now lots of things are easy. If I want to make an album of my very best diving photos, I can pick the 5 star photos. If I want to see every 4-star or better grouper shot I've got from everywhere in the world or just the Caribbean, I can do that. If I want to see what I saw at a dive site over multiple visits on multiple trips, no problem. The possibilities are endless.

I also use Lightroom's color tags and ratings to move images through my workflow. I have about 10 things I can do to each image, like correcting WB, cropping, changing exposure, etc. I find it easier to do each step for a whole bunch of images rather than working on one image start to finish. LR also makes it easy to make adjustments to groups of images (all shot similarly).
 
I shoot with a Canon and I use the free Canon software. It does plenty all on it's own so why would I spend money on something like Photoshop when I could buy more camera gear and take better pictures to begin with.

One limitation I have with the Canon DPP is that it could not correct for color temps higher than 10,000K. Lightroom allows me to easily go to 50,000K. I also find the interface more intuitive and I can work faster, so well worth the $100 price with educational discount.

But if DPP works for you, great! No one should spend more than they have to, which is why I don't own Photoshop CSx.
 
In terms of non-destructiveness, in Lightroom nothing ever is changed in the file. If in Elements, I edit a picture and save it as DNG/TIFF/JPEG and then reopen it and make another change and save it with the same name the first version is gone forever. Of course the raw file is there but every time you make a change then save the file can not go back a single step without starting over.

Since this thread is back in circulation, let's look at the underlined part again.

In Elements 4 (or 2) on my Mac's, I typically follow a workflow that starts with 10 raw or dng images. After opening in Elements all 10 images are open with the last image on top.

I make two sets of each image that end with different unsharpens; a web set (500x375 @ 72 ppi) that gets a web unsharp and a print set (5x7 @ 300 dpi) that gets a print unsharpen.

Much of what I do could be done in batch, but looking at non-batch flow, the same processes happen. The first adjustments are typical WB/color and after that I could save as tif or psd to have a WB/color adjusted non lossy, so making different size web and print files in the future does not require readjusting the WB/color. I do that with the great pics, not with the pics only my client cares about.

It does not matter if I save in tiff/psd at this point; as long as I leave the file open Elements is still working on the image prior to the save. If I continue making adjustments from there or back up a step or steps, making different adjustments, and save again as any type file it is a first generation from the original.

Since the web set requires no cropping I usually make the web set first. After the above adjustments where I may or may not have saved a tif or psd, I resize to 72 ppi and 500 pixels on the long side, then apply my web unsharp mask and save as jpg with quality 6. After the first process the unsharp stays web and the quality stays 6 for all 9 other images. After making all 10 web files, every image is still open, with the first image on top.

Now I back up to the step before resizing (last WB/color adjustment), crop for 5x7, resize to 300 dpi and apply my print unsharp mask. After this first unsharp process it stays in print unsharp for the rest of the images. The quality needs to be changed to 10 or 12 for all 10 images. After saving the "print" jpg I close the image. After saving all the "print" files there are no open images.

Now I open another 10 raw/dng images. Since the unsharp mask is still print, this second 10 images get cropped and saved as print files first (after the WB/color adjustments), then I make the web files. The third set of 10 images I make web first then print and so on.

If the image is spectacular I might make two web files (500 and 800 on the long side) and 3-5 print files (4x6, 5x7, 8x12, 12x18, etc), saving as many as 8 times (including the tif/psd). Each goes into a folder inside the original dated folder (500x, 800x, 5x7, 8x12, tif, etc). As long as I do not close the image, every save is a first generation save from the raw/dng.

If you save as a psd you can save all the steps as well, but I don't do that. I still have the originals and often my adjustment skills evolve to a point where I grab an old original and try new adjustments.

I am sure many got bored with this post and did not follow the whole text, but the cliff notes are; in Elements (and full PS), every save in an edit session is a first generation save! That is what my PS guru taught me and my experience has confirmed it AFAIC.
 
We feel that the upgrade from Lightroom 2 to Lightroom 3 is well worth the expense. The noise reduction filter is outstanding. The import function in 3 is different from versions 1 and 2 and takes a bit of gettting used to, but it also imports video which is a big plus.

Upgrade from any version of Photoshop CS to CS5 is a no-brainer - the enhancements in CS5 are ideal for underwater photography. The 2 big features are refined edge which now makes selection of fine detail easy and content aware fill which is mind boggeling technology.

Jack and Sue Drafahl
 

Back
Top Bottom