best software for around $100

<p>I don't like post processing much but I recognize it is a necessary evil.<br>

My primary digitals are a Nikon D200 and a Canon Powershot A650IS.<br>

What post processing program would you buy if you only want to spend about $100.<br>

I use to shoot RAW plus highest qual jpeg with the D200, but I think RAW is highly overrated.</p>

<p>Well, if my budget limit is only up to $100, the post processing progam that I'll buy would be Photomatix since I'm into <a href="http://captainkimo.com/hdr-how-to">HDR photography</a> . I like how easy to use it is and I'm always satisfied with the results. I actually wrote about it <a href="http://captainkimo.com/hdr-review-photomatix">here</a> in my <a href="http://captainkimo.com">site</a> .<br>

Cheers!<br>

<em>Captain Kimo</em></p>

<p>I do agree about raw! Corel paintshop Pro X2.....does everything and is in your price range....Bob</p>

<p>I suggest you look at Photoshop Elements. I think it is on version 7 but earlier versions work well too. I use PSE 2 and it does everything I need it to though whether that is a good advert for it you must judge for yourself! It does not handle RAW files though as far as I know. I use Canon's own software for RAW devlopment and I suggest Nikon's counterpart is all you need there. Earlier versions of PSE can be bought from ebay. It comes with a proiduct key so make sure that is included.</p>

<p>I've used Paint Shop Pro for years - but - I don't think they are keeping up with developments in post processing. I just uninstalled PSP X2, since I rarely use it. Corel is VERY slow about supporting new RAW formats. Elements is probably a better choice, and it lets one use ACR directly from the application.</p>

<p>Hi Kerry ...<br>

I use Photoshop Elements 7 to index my photos (just over 9,000 at time of writing) and use Adobe Lightroom 2 to process RAW files even though Elements 7 also has that capability. I find Lightroom 2 surpasses every software on the market for processing RAW.<br>

As for RAW being "highly overrated", I must admit that I felt that way as well before some facts came my way and found out how easy it is to use - on most occasions where editing is necessary, RAW processing is easier.<br>

Here's my understanding of jpeg and RAW data capture:<br>

Red Blue Green<br>

Channel Channel Channel<br>

8-bit jepg 256 x 256 x 256 = 16.7 million colors<br>

12-bit RAW 4,096 x 4,096 x 4,096 = 68.7 billion colors<br>

14-bit RAW 14,336 x 14,336 x 14,336 = 2.9 trillion colors<br>

My understanding here is that if you shoot jpeg, you are effectively throwing away all the additional potential colors depending on whether your camera shoots 12-bit or 14-bit RAW !<br>

And one might say - as I used to rather frequently - 16.7 million colors is way enough for me.<br>

Having said that ... I've been shooting weddings for over 10 years - was medium format, first digital wedding last year - and I must say that when I see a white dress with a few apparent blowouts, a few hotspots on the brides face, maybe an underexposed church shot, I simply LOVE to have ALL THOSE color nuances available to achieve corrections.<br>

In effect, taking the bride's dress as an example, a jpeg image would provide 256 nuances or shades of white and a 14-bit RAW image would provide 14,336 nuances or shades of white to achieve corrections. The same goes for any other instance of an image requiring post-processing editing.<br>

After having used RAW, I do not shoot any image whether for fun, family, vacation, AND weddings of course, using jpeg. That RAW image is straight from your camera's sensor, the equivalent of an untouched film negative.<br>

Please note that the image you see on your camera's LCD is NOT the RAW image you will see on your computer screen, it is a jpeg version which will most likely be somewhat different depending on the lighting conditions.<br>

As you can readily see, I am a convert <[;-0)))))<br>

P.S.: I can't tell how well that Red Channel, Blue Channel , etc ... formatting is going to look like.<br>

Ray<br>

http://raymondvaloisphotograph.com/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You can try Picture Window Pro (dl-c.com). It cost about $89 and could be the cheapest program that can handle 16 bit files (TIFFs from RAW conversion) and has full color managment. Has a RAW converter, but I use Canon's DPP and convert to 16 bit TIFFs. The user interface is different from Adobe, so if you want to if you want to eventually migrate to LR/PS, it may make more sense to work with PS Elements initially.</p>

<p>I would suggest that you look for older versions of preferably Paint Shop Pro or else maybe Photoshop. Version 8 with PSP or 7 with PS. The key points I would insist on are layers, and adjustment layers and the ability to resize individual layers is a feature I like with PSP as well as it's warp mesh tool. They keep on adding more features to these programmes but they had the useful guts by those versions suggested for the non-commercial worker.</p>

Forgot to suggest you stay clear of Elements below v.5 as they were very poor immitations of an editing programme.

Kerry, why do you think RAW is overrated? Did you modify your A650 to produce RAW images?

GIMP is free, so it could save you $100. I like it better than the alternatives mentioned above, although I have not tried Elements 7.

<p>Elements 7 because it is the defacto standard and there is a lot of support. I use Silkypix for RAW. JMHO.</p>

<p>Some cameras can nail the shot really well w/ jpeg's. Others absolutely need RAW to get the best from the shot. The last Nikon DSLR that I had, my Photoshop 7 wouldn't open the RAW files so I went to RawShooter, a free utility, to open them.</p>

<p>There's a gal at our local market that sells her photos and she loves the Paint Shop Pro software.</p>

<p>Kerry, I agree with you on the RAW topic. As for software, google around for GIMP. It is simple, basic, gives you lots of leeway and best of all it is free.</p>