Digital Photography Help...

[matt_m__toronto_]

<p>i'm very new to the digital photography world. </p>

<p>can someone recommend a trusted site/method to get one going on the right foot in terms of processing images? (RAW editing, proper black and white conversion etc)</p>

<p>right now i'm 5d2 and aperture v2. photos that i've taken in RAW appear in my aperture program and i can edit, but i don't know if i'm taking full advantage of what RAW supposedly offers? is this where the DPP that i read a lot about comes in? help :)</p>

<p>thanks</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>As best as I can tell, each program has its own way of processing raw files and the only way to judge is to try as many as you can. I've used DPP, BreezeBrowser, ACDSee 2.5 Pro, LightRoom, Photoshop CS3, and DxO. Sometimes you know you want to do something special and one will do the job easier than others. LightRoom is a little harder to understand and use than DxO, but DxO is flaky about how well it will load into an operating system.<br>

However, now that I have a copy that works, If I want to batch process a bunch of simarly exposed images, especially any that have lens distortion of architectural elements that require correction, DxO is the one.<br>

If I have a bunch of dissimilar images, I can work fast by using the raw processor builtin to ZoomBrowser. If I want quick and dirty, I go to the processor in ACDSee. If I want to finetune and do several versions until I get exactly what I want, I use the Adobe version that pops up in CS3.<br>

Even Picasa has a basic editing program just available for Macs and it is free.</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ has a lot of good articles.</p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>Aperture is a great tool. One of the things that Aperture does is RAW conversion. You could choose to do your RAW conversions in another program, such as DPP. For the record, DPP will probably give you the best RAW conversion instead of using any third party converters (ACR, Aperture, DxO, Bibble and so on). However, most 3rd party converters are pretty good and chances are that you will not notice a difference between them. And that is when Apertures strength really shines as it is not only a great RAW converter but an asset management program as well. Managing all your images can be very time consuming. In terms of getting the most out of your RAW files from within Aperture, I should imagine you are on the right track. The RAW file simply contains more information than a JPEG. This allows you to do more in post-processing before the image starts to deteriorate. Try opening up the shadows on a JPEG and then do the same thing to a RAW file. For illustration sake, push it. Or, take an over-exposed file and bring the exposure down with a JPEG and then with the RAW. Obviously, we want to get shadows and/or highlights correct when shooting the image, but this will show you want the RAW file is capable of.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Matt -- start building a photo library at home and decide upon a photo editor. Photoshop is the industry standard; nothing is left to chance using PS -- plenty of excellent books, on line tuorials/videos and Help. No other program comes close.</p>

<p>Also, having a top photo printer at home, like the Epson ink jet K3 inks series, will REALLY let your work shine; therefore read everything posted at the Digital Darkroom forum.</p>

[matt_m__toronto_]

<p>thanks guys,<br>

so mike, by opening the RAW file and tweaking colour/contrast/curves etc in Aperture, i'm not skipping out on all that RAW has to offer by not doing anything with another program like DPP?</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>In terms of simply adjusting a RAW file, no, you really aren't losing anything. It has been a looooong time since I used DPP but I think you can have DPP apply whatever processing settings you had in your camera to the RAW file. As example, if you have your saturation set to +1 in your camera (which only effects the JPEG file, not the RAW), DPP can automatically apply the value whereas with Aperture you would need to physically apply +1 saturation (and then lift and stamp if you wanted that on all images). And one shouldn't confuse Aperture with Photoshop. Aperture is a RAW converter and a top notch DAM (digital asset management) program; Photoshop is a pixel editing program. Each serves their purpose. Personally, I can't live without Aperture. I could live without Photoshop (as long as I could use Gimp or Elements!).</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I like to study from books and have an extensive library, most of my books I buy from Amazon. I use Bridge and the programs that come with the cameras, most of the post processing however is done in photoshop with a few plugins such as noise ninja.</p>

[maddox]

<p>Matt,<br>

Michael Reichman of Luminous-Landscape.com is an authority on both RAW file conversion, education, printing, and a host of other photography-related topics. He has a print gallery there in Toronto, where he also conducts some training sessions... you should look it up. I would really recommend reading his "Understanding RAW files" article on his website, as well as Jeff Schewe's white papers on RAW files that you can download from Adobe (you should be able to find them easily via Google). Also, look for "Real World Camera RAW" by the late Bruce Fraser. It's a superb book. All of these things will go a long way toward helping you understand RAW and maximize the benefits of RAW files, regardless of which conversion program you choose to use. (I personally use Adobe Camera RAW with Photoshop CS4, and would recommend it highly).</p>