[toptenmaterial]

Hi, I'm pretty new here and have lots of questions. In another thread I posted some questions regarding picking up new gear. I'd say that I am a pretty decent student of photography who is approaching amateur level; I understand DSLRs fairly well and certainly a lot of the fundamentals (the K1000 is a great but stern teacher!). I have never done any real digital photo editing or post processing with the exception of the default apps on my iPhone and also some settings on Instagram. I'd like to learn photoshop or another serious editing program. Which one should I pick up? Also I'd like to know the processing requirements of a computer to use for this (my dad often complains of photoshop being a "RAM hog). Thanks!

[jatrax]

Photoshop is a graphic artists tool which lets you do just about anything you want to images, including photographs. It is also quite expensive, takes a lot processing power and has a (very) steep learning curve.

You should think about, and make a list, of what you actually want to do with 'photoshop' before making any decisions. There are a lot of choices from completely free to very expensive. For basic photo editing Photoshop is not (IMHO) the best program for the job, not even close. You would be better off with Lightroom or one of the other photo management programs. Or even Photoshop Elements and it's organizer. Or the GIMP.

If you intend to really learn Photoshop and image manipulation then sure go for it. Just be very clear what you want to do before you spend money, and far more expensive: time.

As to hardware, most any modern computer will work. RAM is important 8gb being the minimum I would think, I use 32gb but run Lightroom and Photoshop at the same time. GPU is not a big concern any reasonably modern card will work. Lightroom uses the GPU only a little, Photoshop more so. A fast disk such as an SSD for the boot drive and a good HDD for photo storage. But you can get by with a lot less.

[tduell]

Why not start out with one of the free software packages and get a feel for how these tools work, then look at what some of the commercial packages offer.
It can depend on what OS you use, as not all free packages are available for all the major OSes, but Photivo, Darktable, Digikam, Gimp are some suggestions.
I use Linux and Darktable, and at the moment it provides everything I need.

Cheers,
Terry

[Pentaxis]

Hi, I'm pretty new here and have lots of questions. In another thread I posted some questions regarding picking up new gear. I'd say that I am a pretty decent student of photography who is approaching amateur level; I understand DSLRs fairly well and certainly a lot of the fundamentals (the K1000 is a great but stern teacher!). I have never done any real digital photo editing or post processing with the exception of the default apps on my iPhone and also some settings on Instagram. I'd like to learn photoshop or another serious editing program. Which one should I pick up? Also I'd like to know the processing requirements of a computer to use for this (my dad often complains of photoshop being a "RAM hog). Thanks!

I don't want to raise a hornets' nest but....have you considered not using any "processing" at all? (Shock, horror!)

I am from the dark ages of film photography, loading my own, processing my own, etc., etc. Even during that period I did not resort to "dodging" in the darkroom. I just feel that all this modern "processing" stuff is of secondary importance and can get in the way of the really creative elements e.g. recognising the shot in the first instance, framing it, exposing it in the way that you want, not what the camera wants. Often I found that technical defects can lend charm to the resulting image.
They are just my abstract thoughts, not a lecture..... I am a complete novice myself in the digital era but I seem to want to retain my "naivete", as it were.

[jatrax]

I am from the dark ages of film photography, loading my own, processing my own, etc., etc. Even during that period I did not resort to "dodging" in the darkroom. I just feel that all this modern "processing" stuff is of secondary importance and can get in the way of the really creative elements e.g. recognising the shot in the first instance, framing it, exposing it in the way that you want, not what the camera wants. Often I found that technical defects can lend charm to the resulting image. They are just my abstract thoughts, not a lecture..... I am a complete novice myself in the digital era but I seem to want to retain my "naivete", as it were.

"Processing", encompasses a LOT of area. From simply developing a negative to complete digital art. But perhaps more important is organizing those images. If you are from the dark ages, then I assume you wrote title / date on the slide card? Well in the digital era we have to do that still. Only now it has to be done on the computer, in programs like Lightroom or Photoshop.

You do realize that every time you press that shutter button your camera is taking a RAW file exposure and then "processing" it according to the settings in the camera? All processing on the computer does is allow you the freedom to do that according to the way you want the image to look, not the camera. So if you don't "process" an image you are actually getting an image that the camera wants, not what you want.

I don't want to raise any kind of nest either, but suggesting that "processing" is not part of the photographic process is not a dark ages sentiment, it is simply not understanding how digital photography works.

[Bruce Clark]

We all had to start somewhere. My personal path is probably no much different to most.
First efforts were with MS Office Picture Manager. I tried GIMP and gave up in frustration. I tried Pentax's PDCU but could not get my head around it. Played with various free offerings, Picassa, Faststone among others. Finally started getting serious with Photoshop Elements. I graduated to Lightroom at the recommendation of a friend. Finally I recently bit the bullet and purchased a Photoshop CC subscription. Now I use Lightroom for its catalogue, non destructive editing, export and printing. Switching into Photoshop CC for those edits that Lightroom can not do.

As far as skill progression, I started with JPEG from camera and applying basic global edits. Brightness, contrast, sharpening, cropping etc. Gradually progressing to more complicated techniques using layers and local adjustments. I began using RAW a few years ago and have never looked back.

All in all it is a progression, the more one learns the more there is to learn. This forum is a great place to learn. Always there is someone to answer a question, make suggestions or even just provide a benchmark to aim at. How did he do that? Someone may write of of using a "High Pass Filter" What is that? A bit more research and a whole new raft of techniques open up.

Jatrax makes good suggestions in regards to the computer. I would add a good quality monitor, with good viewing angles. Cheaper monitors especially on laptops will display colour and contrast shifts if viewed at a slight angle. Laptops often have a nasty habit of varying brightness when using battery or mains power. A lot of screens have factory defaults that are too bright or have too high contrast so an image which looks great on screen will print dark. Calibration of the monitor becomes essential.

Small steps, Start somewhere, anywhere really and move to the more technical, more expensive solutions as your skills and needs increase. For a beginner I would suggest Photoshop Elements as an introduction if your interests are in composite work. If your needs are more organizational and have no need for text layers or compositing, I would recommend Lightroom as a first step. Be aware they are very different programs and work in entirely different ways but they do complement each other and can be used together very effectively.

There are a number of excellent youtube tutorials which may help you decide which way to go. B+H in particular produce some great learning resources.

God luck and hope to see some of your results soon.

[SpecialK]

It's nice if you have the time, ability, and knowledge to change settings for individual requirements of each shot. Nearly any image can benefit from post-processing.

Elements is the "smaller" version of Photoshop, but still does a lot. I think it is still available on disk, sometimes as low as $59.99.

Lots of tutorials online, and books.

[Murfy]

There are a lot of programs to try and jumping into photoshop is a lot. I started on it, but that was because there was no other option at that time. Lightroom to me is most like working in a darkroom. I think Lightzone, which is free, is neat to try out, it lets you place colors/tones into "zones" and I wish Lightroom had that feature. Others have mentioned Darktable. There was another I tried but I can't remember the name.

There are also trial versions of paid software that you can download, even if you can't afford the paid version - Lightroom, CaptureOne (expensive but good to see the difference between RAW processing software) Dxo, you can compare to free editing software. Most have 30 day trials

[souless]

anyone tried darktable?
a lightroom alternative

[Dickie]

I own Photoshop, but rarely use the main programme: most of my post processing is achieved through Adobe Camera Raw (colour and brightness adjustment, crops, occasional fixing of blemishes). I bought Photoshop because I could get it at a discounted price, but I think I would probably have been just as happy with Lightroom.

[reeftool]

The Photoshop/Lightroom CC package is a great deal but it's probably not a good place to start learning how to digitally edit your photos. Picasa is pretty basic but it's free and quite easy to learn. It has a lot of exposure adjustments, color adjustments, spot removal. sharpening and even some filters for effects. When I first went digital, that's what I used for the first year or so, then moving on to Photoshop Elements and Lightroom. You can edit Raw as well as JPEGs and it's also a fairly decent organizer.

[Colbyt]

I own a very old version of PS but for 95% of my images including RAW DNG files I use PS Elements. I have not upgraded Elements from the version 9. I think 13 is current.

I suspect Elements would handle your needs for a long time. And it is a one time purchase not something you rent from the cloud.

[Pentaxis]

"Processing", encompasses a LOT of area. From simply developing a negative to complete digital art. But perhaps more important is organizing those images. If you are from the dark ages, then I assume you wrote title / date on the slide card? Well in the digital era we have to do that still. Only now it has to be done on the computer, in programs like Lightroom or Photoshop.

You do realize that every time you press that shutter button your camera is taking a RAW file exposure and then "processing" it according to the settings in the camera? All processing on the computer does is allow you the freedom to do that according to the way you want the image to look, not the camera. So if you don't "process" an image you are actually getting an image that the camera wants, not what you want.

I don't want to raise any kind of nest either, but suggesting that "processing" is not part of the photographic process is not a dark ages sentiment, it is simply not understanding how digital photography works.

If you are from the dark ages, then I assume you wrote title / date on the slide card?

No, you assume incorrectly,I did not. In fact, I did not shoot transparencies and the negs that I did produce I filed pretty haphazardly.

suggesting that "processing" is not part of the photographic process is not a dark ages sentiment

I did not intend to suggest or indeed state that. I really meant that it NEED NOT be part of the process. I am sufficiently informed to understand the digital fundamentals (e.g. RAW, compression, etc.). I have certainly seen digital images that are, in my view, and from a strictly aesthetic perspective, hideous distortions of an assumed reality because of after exposure processing.

Still, each to his own.....

Post script:
Regarding your point about annotating and filing digital images. In my case, I use the Shotwell application, under the Linux OS, It is more of a file manager rather than an editor. It does allow very basic editing but, for the reasons that I have given in my posting, I prefer to avoid using those functions.

[Heavenly Creation]

I would say it depends on what computer you are using.

I hate everything Windows, so I try to buy programs that are specific to Mac and Adobe is a pain in the arse!
I am no expert, far from it, but I got Pixelmator and am ver happy with the abilities it has. Besides that for a quick render, I use Apples Photos which is the new version of Aperture. I prefer Pixelmator, I only wish that program would be able to hold photos and organize them like Photos app.

I have tried Photoshop a few years ago and wasn't very impressed with it, maybe it was because I didn't take the time to learn all the intricacies of it, idk.
Plus if you're using a Mac, then Pixelmator is like 30$ so you can't go wrong.

[boriscleto]

Another Mac alternative is Affinity Photo. Currently $50 on the App Store. There is a free trial on their website.

https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/