Canon's Editing Software

I use a 30D. I'm an ameteur but I take lots of pics -- all in JPEG. I have

been using Canon's Zoombrowser software to edit my prints, and I have been

very pleased. Will I see improved results, by purchasing Photoshop or some

other product? I've heard complaints about complexity with some software.

You will see better improvement by shooting RAW rather than using different software.

Shoot raw and use Canon's Digital Professional Pro. You got that software with your camera also. This will net you many times more gains in quality than investing in Photoshop now. Once you have learned more about post processing then you can invest in Photoshop and see even more gains. It is a somewhat complicated learning curve though and it takes a fair amount of time to get close to what to do with Photoshop.

Yeah, I agree you will see great improvement with RAW. Mostly with Exposure correction. As for photoshop, Yeah I would say wait also. But I would say look into Lightroom by Adobe. I used Digital Photo Pro (by Canon) a while before Lightroom came around. Lightroom transformed my workflow and it is rather simple with most things being slider based.

 

What I love most is that I can view, edit, export, print, or whatever any file format (raw,jpeg,tiff,psd, and many more) in the same workspace seamlessly. Not even Photoshop does that. It works well with other editing software like Phtoshop. Unless you are into layers, (if you are not now you will be) you really don't need photoshop just yet. But if you want it concider the elements version for about $100US.

 

Jason

improved results from buying Photoshop?.. probably not. improved results from going RAW?.. depends on your processing and the picture.. improved results from going RAW and buying Photoshop?.. well depends on your processing and how you use photoshop.. probably not at first but by the time you become fluent with Raw and PS ... Probably. PLUS.. you will have more practice with the camera.

Ed,<P> you have received good advice above. Besides the complexity of Photoshop, RAW processing also has a fair learning curve, chances are you will be disappointed with your first attempts. I suggest shooting RAW + Large JPEG until you get the hang of it. RAW files are VERY large and may require an investment in some larger media cards.<P> As for Photoshop my advise is don't wait too long, the sooner you become familiar with this program the better. If the learning curve and/or cost are a concern then you may want to consider Photoshop Elements (most of the bang for few of the bucks).<P> I would also agree with the recommendation for Lightroom. However, I also find a product like ACDSee Pro extremely helpful in my day-to-day image management and a fair bit cheaper as well. Paul

It took me about 5 years to get really good at using PS, so good results will take some practice and time. However once you can play PS like a piano, the transformation and control of your images can be amazing. With that said, I find most necessary image adjustments can take place prior to conversion from RAW to TIFF in DPP 3. I only use PS for tweaks (target size sharpening), the rare major surgery and printing. Film scans always needed lots of PSing but DSLR files are surprisingly good right outta the box (just as long as you nailed it).

It all depends on what you want to do and how talented and dedicated you will be to doing it.

I don't use the Canon software much, but then I started using Photoshop with version 2.5 ca 1993. Steep learning curve? Nah, not if you just use the program, learning as you use it, for say 13 or 14 years. I've toyed with other image processing software, but I guess I'm imprinted (in the ethological sense) on PS.

 

Thus you can put my advice that Photoshop is worth learning into context and ignore it if you wish. However, think about the cost of Photoshop being no more than a mid-range EF lens and much less than a capable computer and monitor. Why go cheap on the software? If you are a student or teacher, moreover, you can get fantastic discounts from Adobe. Also, you can save money by using the much cheaper Elements for a while. However, despite its great potential power, doing basic things in Photoshop is no harder than in any other program lacking the bells and whistles.

 

You can do very well by going to Linux and using GIMP, but the little I've seen of it, the welds at the seams are still pretty obvious. Reminds me of a very durable Russian jeep I once had in Ethiopia, "looked like it was put together by a high school welding shop" as one of my colleagues said.

My guess is that if you are using Zoombrowser, then you have a long learning curve to use Photoshop. What I don't know is whether or not you understand basic skills using your camera - such as exposure controls, focusing skills and elements of composition. Where you want to be is a technically skilled photographer first and then a skilled post processor. There are not a lot of amateurs that are good technically in either phase and the electronics of digital photography masks many inadequacies. I suggest a basic photography course where you can borrow a manual film camera shooting and processing and printing chemical black and white. Next, learn lighting techniques. Then learn color theory. Take a drawing course to learn your artistic vision - technical skills will not lead, alone, to good photographs. Progress from there and the post processing in digital will ultimately fall into place. Most full Photoshop users do not even know about LAB color - that makes them brain dead as Photoshop users - playing with masks and moving heads on naked bodies. It's a long learning curve but begins with your eye to the camera and manual controls. Finally, strive to please yourself. If you like putting a politician's head on a naked body - then have at it.

Do you think there is something lacking in your photos that image processing will fix? Or perhaps the money could be better spent on a photography course or workshop or a few books from Amazon?

 

If you don't want to shoot RAW just yet, start small and download the free Picasa software from Google to make additional changes to your JPG images.

 

Otherwise, the advice to use Digital Photo Professional with RAW is sound. You already paid for it, might as well use it.

 

And doesn't the 30D come with Photoshop Elements anyway?

"Most full Photoshop users do not even know about LAB color - that makes them brain dead

as Photoshop users" - how so?

My 30D did not come with Photoshop Elements. My old Rebel did. I think Canon has put alot into Digital Photo Pro and so stoped includeing PS Elements.

Hi Ed, I thought the 30d shipped with PS Elements and it would be a good start having more features than ZB, I`ve used ZB for downloading direct to my folder system and thumb views , PS is entered direct from the images in ZB via the image library its been reliable for me since the D30 2001. Try it if you have it before getting the full version of PS.

 

Hmm LAB colour, I find it handy for some B&W images.

For those "brain-dead" persons (I think that might be just a little extreme) that don't know about LAB, the best single source I know of is a book by Dan Margulis called (and this is the full title) "Photoshop LAB Color: The Canyon Conundrum and Other Adventures in the Most Powerful Colorspace". It's from Peachpit Press and fairly pricey,but worth every penny. LAB is a colorspace like RGB and can be used to advantage in many circumstances.

Forget raw. You only <I>need</I> it if you are inept. There are plenty of reasons to use it, but use as a crutch is not one of these, IMHO. JPEG and RAW are not that different. Yes; Photoshop will help, because it is the least destructive of all commonly available image editing programs. It also gives you a million different paths to take to achieve your desired outcome, which is invaluable. The biggest problem is that it eats electric power and is a bit of overkill, meaning I only use 5 to 10% of it.

<BR><BR>

Keith

<<Forget raw. You only <I>need</I> it if you are inept. There are plenty of reasons to use it, but use as a crutch is not one of these, IMHO. JPEG and RAW are not that different.>>

 

Keith,

 

The difference between 8 bits and 16 bits is a fundamentally huge one. That you can't see a difference does not mean there isn't one. Shooting RAW has absolutely nothing to do with ineptitude.

 

Let's look at the film world. Some people process at home and some people rely on 3rd parties to do it for them. Those that process at home do so (cost issues aside) for a level control not afforded to them elsewhere. They can choose different developers, different agitation methods, etc etc. Those that have their film processed by a 3rd party have little to no control over the process. And so goes RAW vs JPG. Shooting RAW is about having a level of control not given to JPG. If you shoot JPG, you're relying on the internal processing of the camera to make the development decisions for you. Shooting RAW allows you to make those decisions yourself.