Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-23-2014, 08:16 AM - 1 Like   #31
Veteran Member
abmj's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Central California
Posts: 600
QuoteOriginally posted by csa Quote
.... I don't have LightRoom, just Photoshop Elements, and a free program FastStone.
Which is the combination I use (plus NIK) for my Raw shooting. But your point is still valid regarding the extra layer of complexity for folks who may not be ready or willing to take it on.

09-23-2014, 08:43 AM - 1 Like   #32
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,905
QuoteOriginally posted by csa Quote
I tried processing RAW, when on another forum I was pushed into it. I got so frustrated, that I gave up. So it's not so easy for someone new to RAW to just jump in. I don't have LightRoom, just Photoshop Elements, and a free program FastStone.
For folks looking for a bit more muscle in terms of a digital imaging program but who haven't gotten Photoshop yet. You're going to need to create an Adobe ID to continue but once you have one and sign in you can find Photoshop CS2 free, the whole CS2 suite actually, for the taking here. It's meant to be a back up for those who already have it, since Adobe is no longer supporting it, but nonetheless you can grab it no problem. Half the internet has at this point I think. The serial #'s are on the page. This version does have Camera Raw and that and is a major step up from Elements and most freeware programs.

https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobe.com%2Fcfusion%2Fentitlement%2Findex.cfm%3Fe%3Dcs2_downloads&ei=MpQhVNeFGs3IggSl_4KgCA&usg=AFQjCNEq-NMQo1X8HFyWwfhpTA19uxqTHw&sig2=_4tZcYDypm6TjvzHj5ZJGg
09-23-2014, 09:12 AM   #33
csa
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
csa's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montana mountains
Posts: 8,629
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
For folks looking for a bit more muscle in terms of a digital imaging program but who haven't gotten Photoshop yet. You're going to need to create an Adobe ID to continue but once you have one and sign in you can find Photoshop CS2 free, the whole CS2 suite actually, for the taking here. It's meant to be a back up for those who already have it, since Adobe is no longer supporting it, but nonetheless you can grab it no problem. Half the internet has at this point I think. The serial #'s are on the page. This version does have Camera Raw and that and is a major step up from Elements and most freeware programs.

https%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobe.com%2Fcfusion%2Fentitlement%2Findex.cfm%3Fe%3Dcs2_downloads&ei=MpQhVNeFGs3IggSl_4KgCA&usg=AFQjCNEq-NMQo1X8HFyWwfhpTA19uxqTHw&sig2=_4tZcYDypm6TjvzHj5ZJGg
Isn't this being dishonest, not paying for a product?
09-23-2014, 09:26 AM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 3,363
QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
Does shooting in RAW produce sharper photos than shooting in JPEG?

I thought it just allowed more latitude in exposure and color balance.
The short answer: raw offers the potential for sharper photos. If you have time to adjust your best photos, and want to learn how to do it, then I say always use raw to get the most from your camera.

The longer answer: Images captured in raw or jpeg are roughly equal sharpness. The in-camera jpeg settings allow you to increase "sharpness" via in-camera software. It's not really increasing sharpness but adjusts edges to give the appearance of a sharper image, and it can work well as long the original is reasonably sharp. Images straight out of the camera can sometimes look sharper as a jpeg.

A raw file, though, can be processed on your computer afterwards to get a sharpness boost. Sharpening a raw via software on your PC is much more flexible than the in-camera jpeg sharpness setting. If sharpening increases noise too much on your PC you can either lessen the sharpening or apply noise reduction. (jpeg files are compressed and therefore don't sharpen up as well after they are out of the camera)

Other big benefits to raw are the ability to brighten dark shadows, fix blown highlights, selectively sharpen just a portion of an image, adjust white balance, etc.

---------- Post added 09-23-14 at 12:36 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by csa Quote
Isn't this being dishonest, not paying for a product?
I'll withhold judgement. I'm opposed to pirating software, but that link has been open for so long and shared in so many places that Adobe must know about it. By not deactivating the link are they indirectly telling people to use it? Neither you nor I know. Sharing copyrighted software via some secret pirate website is IMO wrong but in this case it's Adobe doing it themselves.

Maybe Adobe is encouraging people to use that old version of Photoshop for free instead of buying competing products, in hopes that those people will eventually upgrade and pay for a new Photoshop version.

09-23-2014, 10:51 AM   #35
Veteran Member
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 901
QuoteOriginally posted by csa Quote
Isn't this being dishonest, not paying for a product?

Adobe has made their position very clear about this:

"You can use the serial numbers provided as a part of the download only if you legitimately purchased CS2, CS2 applications, Acrobat 7, or Audition 3."

You can read it at the source here:

Error: Activation Server Unavailable | CS2, Acrobat 7, Audition 3






The following is my opinion and not from the Adobe site:

Running CS2 on an older or underpowered laptop while running a newer licensed version on a workstation would seem a grey but acceptable area for use since the Adobe licensing agreement allows for installation of their software on two computers. If CS6 doesn't run on an older laptop but CS2 does then it could be a better laptop option than open source when doing quick edits that don't require serious color management or the need for complete compatibility with CS6.

I know Photoshop isn't a RAW editor, however, and not really relevant to this discussion but I thought I'd clear up the confusion about the CS2 license before it caused any unfortunate trouble for the site.

Last edited by MD Optofonik; 09-23-2014 at 12:13 PM.
09-23-2014, 11:37 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 3,363
QuoteOriginally posted by MD Optofonik Quote
Adobe has made their position very clear about this: SNIP
Thank you for the clarification. It's pretty refreshing to see Adobe risk losing some new sales in order to accommodate existing customers.
09-23-2014, 11:58 AM   #37
Moderator PEG Judges
Loyal Site Supporter
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 33,139
QuoteOriginally posted by Moropo Quote
Should I begin to shoot RAW?
In a heart beat my friend.

For all the reasons already given in the other replies, enjoy your photography.
09-23-2014, 12:43 PM - 1 Like   #38
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Helsinki
Photos: Albums
Posts: 135
If you have a Mac or Linux and want to process RAW images, I highly suggest trying out darktable. It is free and open source. I've been using it for years (and it has improved quite a bit).

Sure, it isn't Lightroom. Meaning it doesn't have seamless integration with Photoshop or whatever else. But for basic RAW editing it has it all. Profiled denoise for just about all the Pentax dSLRS, many lens corrections, and many other features I don't even use.

09-23-2014, 01:30 PM - 1 Like   #39
Pentaxian
fgaudet's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ontario
Posts: 726
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
Thank you for the clarification. It's pretty refreshing to see Adobe risk losing some new sales in order to accommodate existing customers.
This CS2 thing has been going on since the release of CS5 if I remember right. Which ever version was running like crap even on fairly powerful but not state of the art computers.

I think also that at that point they were trying to keep some customers from going to GIMP or other free alternatives. CS2 is still decent and will support most plugins but it is getting old. Given the advancements that the open source community has made and the other cheap or free alternative for the casual editor, CS2 is falling far behind in the respect of ease of use, speed and features.

It's an avenue worth exploring if you have no issues with the legality of using it. But for a Photoshop noob on a budget (read zero $), GIMP is probably the way to go IMO.
09-23-2014, 02:54 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
The raw vs JPEG debate HSS been going on since the beginning of digital photography. It will likely continue for the rest of the life I'd digital photography.

People use a lot of metaphors , raw is like negatives JPEG are like prints. Well, this is just false. Negatives, or slides for that matter are 1/2 way between raw and prints.

With film, you had to load film balanced for the lighting. So white balance , which you set I JPEG is selected in film. People select films for specific reasons, back to Kodachrome being warm and ektachrome being cold. And with slides, you were stuck. So slide film especially is much closer to the JPEG end of the spectrum than RaW. For exposure correction it is the same.once processed film of any kind is like JPEG. It is only like raw until you add the developer, but you can't go back and correct, so the analogy if r being film is just wrong. Raw is like undeveloped film. Once developed film is JPEG. You can't go back and undo the chemical process and do it over.

For exposure correction from film or from raw or JPEG you can make adjustments. But regardless of format, adjustments from shadows or highlights a correctly exposed shot will always be better than an adjusted one. But I would agree that for shadow you might have a better result boosting shadows out of raw with 12 bit color depth than an 8 bit JPEG. Better yes, but not as good as when shot correctly


There is still a lot of value in getting it right in camera. RAW+ if you have the disk space and card capacity may be the best way to go! because I agree that sharpening tools are getting better all the time, but when you look, for example at images from the Q and the fact that when properly focused , and exposed you get amazing images out of even 50 year old lens designs sharpening is not an issue of post processing but more technique, (focus accuracy, correct shutter speed for the print magnification, hand holding technique etc, than it is of post processing. Either an image is sharp or it is not. And this comes down to the pixel resolution, not the selection of raw and JPEG. Apparent sharpness (contrast eat is different. But absolute resolution and sharpness is still at the phase where sensor capability lags behind lenses.
09-23-2014, 03:45 PM   #41
Veteran Member
abmj's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Central California
Posts: 600
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
... This version does have Camera Raw and that and is a major step up from Elements and most freeware programs. ...
Sorry but no, it is not. All versions of Elements have Camera Raw and the newer versions are as usable as older versions of CS, they just don't have all the superfluous commercial artist crap that photographers don't need. There are a few advanced features like smart objects and full layers support that aren't carried over but Elements is an excellent way for beginners to learn post-processing before making an educated decision whether of not they actually need the bloatware that is CS - or worse the control-ware that is CC.
09-23-2014, 05:42 PM   #42
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,905
QuoteOriginally posted by csa Quote
Isn't this being dishonest, not paying for a product?
I know what Adobe has been saying but I don't think so. Not really. Not when Adobe isn't supporting it and pretty much makes it available to anyone who will sign up for an Adobe ID. I have a pal at Adobe actually and he says they really don't mind. The disclaimer is just there for legal reasons. It's "technically" supposed to be a backup thing for people who purchased CS2, but they literally had it online and available to anyone with new open serial numbers, no activation, no ID required for almost a year.

They're well aware that millions of people are dl and using it. The general consensus is that they actually tacitly released it that way knowing half the internet would likely dl it and use it and like it enough to upgrade when they released the new CC suite. It's very old software, albeit old software that does the job very well indeed. You're talking six versions ago. They apparently don't really care all that much and if it gets you to sign up for CC or to buy CS6 then they probably feel it's been worth it.

I personally think it was a good move on their part. They got people using Photoshop who never have. I'm sure a lot of them signed up for Photoshop CC...

---------- Post added 09-23-14 at 08:51 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by abmj Quote
Sorry but no, it is not. All versions of Elements have Camera Raw and the newer versions are as usable as older versions of CS, they just don't have all the superfluous commercial artist crap that photographers don't need. There are a few advanced features like smart objects and full layers support that aren't carried over but Elements is an excellent way for beginners to learn post-processing before making an educated decision whether of not they actually need the bloatware that is CS - or worse the control-ware that is CC.
I don't use Elements. As far as I am concerned it's stripped down Photoshop and I have no particular use for it. I have tried it though and I still think even Photoshop CS2 offers more. But to each his or her own. What you'd call bloatware in this instance I call more capacity. Photoshop is a professional design tool. It's not just for Photographers. It's also used by video people, web people, and by illustrators along with Illustrator. That's what Lightroom is for, for people who don't do much but photography. Photoshop is more of a hybrid tool. I personally use a lot of the "commercial artist" crap as you call it. LOL As a professional photographer I do a lot more in Photoshop than just edit photos...

Last edited by magkelly; 09-23-2014 at 05:53 PM.
09-24-2014, 05:29 AM - 1 Like   #43
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,078
I've been pushed to use raw in the beginning having DPP installed in my comp (kids can be useful sometimes ) Shortly after I bought Lightroom, but hated it. It changed when I got Pentax and have been pushed to use LR since DPP did not support Pentax files. Maybe, it does, but I did not bother to check, I simply closed one program, and opened another. Now I can not imagine life without LR

However, I still know nothing about in-camera editing, or have any interest to shot in jpeg. It would be better to start in jpeg first, imo.
For a while I could not see any reason for using raw. Yes, I read about it, but practically it took me a while to feel the difference on my own. Color balance, or adjusting shadow and highlight (especially highlights), and flexibility to play with separate color channels the way I want, plus b&w adjustment.

So, I believe, it's better to try both jpeg and row, learning on your own without being pushed by anybody. LR is not that expensive, I saw it for $76 or so on BH site. I personally love LR file organization, but it's confusing in the beginning.

The more important is to explore the camera itself after buying it for the first time. So, I would say, the manual first.
I've been running too fast to explore everything at the same time, and now I go back to pick up all missing information during that run. Simply, it's too much in the beginning. Forums help a lot, but at the same time they overload with too much new information. Add on the top of that old lenses addiction
Anyway, happy exploring, just don't push yourself to frustration.
09-24-2014, 11:47 AM - 1 Like   #44
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 234
Have anyone suggested Rawtherapee as a free alternative?
09-28-2014, 10:07 AM - 1 Like   #45
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 115
Don`t push yourself into it. Yes, RAW has much more advantages then JPG but it really requires knowledge and time for PP.
For a real beginner it isnīt so relevant, in most cases you will have hundrets of photos, in which you will just adjust bit of exposure and contrast, things that you can actualy do with jpeg. You wonīt endure heavy stuff, like rescuing photos - if the photo is bad, not even PP can rescue it, in the most cases.
PP begins beeing relevant after you know what and how you want to catch. Although it is very usefull for some technics, which are actualy impossible without PP.

So, shoot raw+, and concentrate on shooting...=) save the best raws, and delete tons of junk(raws are eating space real fast, no kidding). PP only when it becomes relevant, otherwise you will lose yourself in it.
You should be the designer, your photos should be designed by concept - you should know how your picture should look like. Problems with PP is, you have so many sliders, and so many possibilities, that you loose your concept. - You are designing by choice, which Photoshop or lightroom, gives you. Looking different doesnīt really makes a picture better, its same picture, just different.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adobe, beginner, camera, cc, e.g, files, in-camera, jpeg, jpg, lens, lenses, lightroom, lot, pentax help, people, photographers, photography, photos, photoshop, pictures, settings, sharpness, software, version, versions
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm Beginning To Think I Should Add Olympian To My Title... magkelly Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 5 10-20-2014 08:43 AM
Should i shoot in raw in my pentax mx-1? tootal2 Pentax Compact Cameras 11 07-18-2014 05:54 PM
Nature Learning to shoot raw Crux Photo Critique 6 06-08-2014 06:32 AM
Should I shoot expired film? Ptr_Mrtn Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 7 03-24-2014 01:45 PM
How do I set my K5 to shoot RAW Dobson Pentax K-5 8 01-14-2013 08:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:39 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top