Good RAW image converter/photo editor? - Page 2 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #16 of (permalink) Old 12-30-2013, 10:33 PM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
dougz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mackenzie, BC, Canada.
Interest: hiking, skiing, camping, SAR, Canadian Rangers (army reserve)
Posts: 1,515
Default


I'll try this gimp, see how I like it..
dougz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of (permalink) Old 12-30-2013, 11:11 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Posts: 181
Default

i think shooting JPEG would yield better results than using irfanview and such to convert from RAW
lowclimber is offline  
post #18 of (permalink) Old 12-31-2013, 09:44 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Backroader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tumbler Ridge, BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,382
Default

Photoshop is great if you have it, but tres expensive for "I'm no professional".

Photoshop Express is a reasonably inexpensive alternative with 90 percent of the functionality for photogs.

Lightroom is my go-to processor these days. It's the same RAW processing engine as Photoshop, plus library functionality and the ability to create Timelapse videos and output to Flickr/Facebook/etc without leaving the program. No CMYK/Greyscale ICCs, which sucks for outputting for Press (I do that a lot these days), but about 95 percent of what I do with photos is in Lightroom, and I is a professional.

Can't comment on irfanview or GIMP, though.

I can say that shooting jpeg is rarely better than shooting RAW if quality is your top priority. However, if ease of use is your top priority, then go for it.
Backroader is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #19 of (permalink) Old 12-31-2013, 10:08 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
xj6response's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sunshine Coast, BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,194
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by lowclimber

i think shooting JPEG would yield better results than using irfanview and such to convert from RAW
That's what i do for my own picture taking

True enough, capturing in RAW format yields no deterioration at all, but JPEG capture can still be quite good. IRFANVIEW is excellent for viewing, conversion and general image manipulation. Not as good special effects as GIMP or Photoshop. However, IRFANVIEW code is extremely lean, fast to execute and utterly stable. Its conversion routines allow detailed selection of parameters to minimize compression loss etc.

We've been in the remote sensing/image processing business for years and pretty much only use IRFANVIEW now, especially with large mega-pixel files like satellite images, which can be hundreds of megabytes in size. If you're a PC user, give it a try, it's easy enough to uninstall if you don't like it.
xj6response is offline  
post #20 of (permalink) Old 12-31-2013, 11:26 AM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
dougz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mackenzie, BC, Canada.
Interest: hiking, skiing, camping, SAR, Canadian Rangers (army reserve)
Posts: 1,515
Default

Quote:
quote: IRFANVIEW is excellent for viewing, conversion and general image manipulation. Not as good special effects as GIMP or Photoshop. However, IRFANVIEW code is extremely lean, fast to execute and utterly stable. Its conversion routines allow detailed selection of parameters to minimize compression loss etc.
Thanks, I'll check them out..

I do find that I'm having to tweak 80% of the KEEPERS I take (and that's about 10% of the total taken LOL).. Most are saturation and exposure tweaks, leveling the horizon, playing with RGB levels..

So I'm going to get a book that deals with the G12 specifically:

http://www.amazon.ca/Canon-PowerShot...ords=canon+g12

or?

http://www.amazon.ca/Canon-Powershot...ords=canon+g12

and I'm going to start shooting in RAW, so that when I do tweak I have the greatest amount of raw data to work with.

I'd like to know how better to take night and evening shots, specifically.

And why I can never get a decent shot when I have the flash on auto (hate the results).. Even when the setting is on auto and there's no flash I get a better, in focus shot. Everything has to be perfectly steady when I don't have the flash on auto or it's blurry..

But I digress.. LOL
dougz is offline  
post #21 of (permalink) Old 12-31-2013, 11:41 AM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: PNW
Posts: 8,494
Default

can it shot in raw and jpeg at the same time?
Aqua Terra is offline  
post #22 of (permalink) Old 12-31-2013, 01:28 PM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
dougz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mackenzie, BC, Canada.
Interest: hiking, skiing, camping, SAR, Canadian Rangers (army reserve)
Posts: 1,515
Default

Quote:
quote:can it shot in raw and jpeg at the same time?
It can, actually..

Just not sure what the advantage/disdvantage would be?

Should bust out the manual and check that..
dougz is offline  
post #23 of (permalink) Old 12-31-2013, 01:56 PM
Scaling New Heights
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada.
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
quote:It can, actually..

Just not sure what the advantage/disdvantage would be?
As far as my own experience goes, it's a matter of fast-access/sharability paired with post-hoc editability. One of the chief advantages of shooting RAW is that your images are to a large extent unaffected by many in-camera settings, such as white balance, colour settings, etc. (though settings such as aperture and shutter speed are still relevant). Thus, you can fine-tune your white balances and whatnot using your photo editing software on your computer, presumably with a large, high-resolution monitor. And, if you had your white balance set for "sunshine", and you shot in the late afternoon on a cloudy day without resetting it, you aren't stuck with odd looking colour balances. The RAW image can basically be considered the unmanipulated optical data collected by the camera's sensor, rather than a photographic image. It's the undeveloped film.

When you open your RAW file using Photoshop or GIMP, you're asked to change/confirm all the exposure, white balance, curves, etc., and then the program saves those settings as an associated file. If you want to get back to the original RAW file, without any settings or whatever, you can simply delete the little associated file, and start again from scratch.

With a JPEG, none of this is possible. Once the shot is taken, it's taken. You can still edit colour levels and whatnot, but you're editing colour levels on the processed JPEG image, rather than on the uncompressed sensor data. Shooting in JPEG is basically like shooting Polaroids (albeit high quality polaroids) rather than negatives that need to be developed. All of your darkroom decisions have to be made ahead of time with the JPEG. The image is created right there, and any subsequent edits are done to the image, rather than the unprocessed data.

The benefit of the JPEG, however, is that it can be opened by just about any photo viewing software (and it's usually a much smaller file). So if you have a USB adapter (or an SD card reader) for your phone or tablet, you can show people the JPEGs right away. You can also upload JPEGs to flickr or whatever. When I shoot artifact photos I shoot JPEG+RAW so I can hand whoever I'm working with a USB with the unedited images that they can look at it right away without needing photoshop or whatever. It can be kind of a pain to have friends over, and one says "hey, let's see the shots from your latest hike", and you have to say "OK, give me a few minutes to open all the RAW files and get the settings just right and then come gather around my computer" rather than just pulling out the iPad or whatever and showing the preliminary pics then and there.
nwaber is offline  
post #24 of (permalink) Old 12-31-2013, 05:43 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Posts: 504
Default

Adobe Lightroom is an industry standard. It has a sophisticated .RAW converter and non-destructive editing capabilities. Not free, but not expensive compared to Photoshop. Incidentally, to compare the "free" .RAW converters to Photoshop as equals is to fundamentally misunderstand the reason one would shoot in RAW in the first place.
noman is offline  
post #25 of (permalink) Old 12-31-2013, 06:26 PM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
dougz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mackenzie, BC, Canada.
Interest: hiking, skiing, camping, SAR, Canadian Rangers (army reserve)
Posts: 1,515
Default

Hmm.. Too bad they don't let you try it out..

But what the heck, will try Lightroom 5 after seeing what these other ones are like..

dougz is offline  
post #26 of (permalink) Old 12-31-2013, 08:29 PM
cjb
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Posts: 432
Default

GIMP is free, has zillions of useful plugins, & doesn't require a licensing fee or monthly subscription.

In one of my many other lives, I'm an exhibiting art photographer. GIMP has been more than sufficient for my purposes, & the price can't be beat.
cjb is offline  
post #27 of (permalink) Old 12-31-2013, 08:40 PM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
dougz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mackenzie, BC, Canada.
Interest: hiking, skiing, camping, SAR, Canadian Rangers (army reserve)
Posts: 1,515
Default

I downloaded it.. Haven't had time to try it yet, though..
dougz is offline  
post #28 of (permalink) Old 01-01-2014, 12:32 AM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Richmond, BC, Canada.
Interest: woodworking, canoeing, hiking/backpacking, computer, photography, cycling
Posts: 334
Default

Once I started shooting RAW and saw the tremendous editing latitude I rarely shoot jpeg anymore. If I do shoot jpeg I cover myself by recording a RAW file as well.

The one challenge with shooting RAW is the extreme proprietary nature of RAW files (even within a line-up of cameras from the same company). I convert all my Nikon RAW to Adobe's Digital Negative format (DNG) and delete the NEF files. DNG keeps all the RAW data but in a format that is available to all software makers as they fight to make a universal RAW format. Some camera makers have begun using DNG as the format their cameras save their RAW data under.

I prefer Photoshop as my editor but then again I didn't have to pay for it (work license that allows a home install)! I have tried GIMP a few times but I never took to it.
BCbear is offline  
post #29 of (permalink) Old 01-01-2014, 12:36 AM Thread Starter
High on the Mountain Top
 
dougz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mackenzie, BC, Canada.
Interest: hiking, skiing, camping, SAR, Canadian Rangers (army reserve)
Posts: 1,515
Default

Yeah, I'll try Lightroom 5 and GIMP, see which interface is more user-friendly..
dougz is offline  
post #30 of (permalink) Old 01-01-2014, 06:38 PM
Scaling New Heights
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: , , .
Posts: 59
Default

Hi Dougz,
GIMP and Adobe Lightroom are two very different programs.

If you like Picsa try Corel AfterShot Pro (formally known as Bibble Pro Labs). The program is powerful yet simple to use and has a good cataloging ability. As a bonus it is very adorable. I use the program for professional photography.

GIMP is a wonderful program and is my Adobe Photoshop replacement choice. When I need to manipulate photos this is my go to program.
BCBoy88 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1