[TMH]

First, thanks to all who responded to my first few posts, much appreciated/needed advice. Based on said advice I’m first going to learn to use what I have, K70 w/18-135 kit lens. Eventually pick up a used manual focus 50mm, f1.4.

Now that I’ve educated myself a bit more I believe I’ll shoot 100% RAW. A 64 gig card will accommodate a lot of RAW images. I just ordered two from

PNY Elite Performance 64GB Flash Memory High Speed SDXC Class 10 UHS-I (P-SDX64U395-GE) amazon.com: PNY Elite Performance 64GB Flash Memory High Speed SDXC Class 10 UHS-I (P-SDX64U395-GE): Computers & Accessories?tag=pentaxforums-20&

I’ll need something to process those RAW files, Photoshop? I’m sure all you pros know all about PS, I don’t. I had an idea it was expensive but now I see they’ve switched it up to a subscription service, Ugh 😑. Simply not palatable to me, a novice photographer. So, Google being a close, personal friend, I asked for some advice.

Google suggested several alternatives.

Since I have an iPad Pro I decided to test drive Affinity Photo. Figured if I liked it well enough on the iPad I’d go for the very reasonably priced win10/MacOS version if I needed more horsepower.

So, I’ve been dabbling with Affinity Photo, WOW, what you can do with a photo! Again, I’m sure no surprise to all you pros/prosumers but an eye opener to this noob.

So, now I have dual learning curves to ascend, better get back to work.

Any comments, advice re Affinity appreciated.

[pschlute]

I know many do not like the subscription route that many paid products are now only available on, but I would make the following observations:

The Adobe Photography subscription means you get Lightroom and Photoshop together for what in the UK is £120 per year. LR is an invaluable cataloguing program so you can find any photograph instantly through the use of tags or collections or even lens types. If you are only just starting out with digital photography, think how you will find your pictures in 10 years time ?

Both LR and PS can process a raw file using Adobe Camera Raw. In addition PS is a program so deep you will never test its limits in a lifetime. You will always be using the most up to date version with the latest features.

I would actually suggest you start learning to use the camera using jpeg. Learn the basics of digital photography first without bogging yourself down on raw processing details.

[Paul the Sunman]

I doubt you will need PS for some time yet, if ever. LR should be able to do all you need more simply.

[gump]

I have had my K-70 for about year. I have been using Affinity Photo for about 6 months. I messed with Gimp and some other "freebie" and was never comfortable. With the tutorials on Affinity I was able to do some basic things although there was some frustration later on with the speed of the presentations. I bought the Simon Foster course SOLID FOUNDATIONS from Udemy. (There is a trial and guarantee that you have apparently discovered.) This was an improvement and when used with the Affinity tutorials things are even better. The DSLR and the editing program were all but new ground for me. I am relatively happy with my photography world. That said, I am an enthusiastic hobbyist with no demands as to output. If you are serious some of the added bells and whistles on LR/Photo. might be important to you. Research can save you money.

[normhead]

I doubt you will need PS for some time yet, if ever. LR should be able to do all you need more simply.

Photoshop is for graphic artists, not so much for most amateurs. Light room I've never bothered with. Affinity will be fine I'm sure.The free software that comes with most computers is almost good enough for many images. But shoot raw plus jpeg and see what the camera does and compare it with what you have to do to match it. 90% of my photoshop use was nothing more than one command, "Enhance image." 99% of photoshop I only used occasionally, some parts I never used except for jokes and fooling around. $120 a year might seem cheap. I use Apples now discontinued Aperture.It cost my $279 and the a $79 upgrade.

$360 for 14 years. $25 a year. I'm currently investigating Alien Skin exposure X-4 as a replacement, as Aperture has been discontinued. But there's lot's out there. And for many years, I just used the free software that came with the computer, and occasionally my school licensed photoshop when I needed it. But my advice is start simple, spend the big bucks later if you need to.

[TMH]

I know many do not like the subscription route that many paid products are now only available on, but I would make the following observations:

The Adobe Photography subscription means you get Lightroom and Photoshop together for what in the UK is £120 per year. LR is an invaluable cataloguing program so you can find any photograph instantly through the use of tags or collections or even lens types. If you are only just starting out with digital photography, think how you will find your pictures in 10 years time ?

Both LR and PS can process a raw file using Adobe Camera Raw. In addition PS is a program so deep you will never test its limits in a lifetime. You will always be using the most up to date version with the latest features.

I would actually suggest you start learning to use the camera using jpeg. Learn the basics of digital photography first without bogging yourself down on raw processing details.

Valid points re subscription. I do not think I would use it enough to justify the cost.

As for finding my pictures in 10 years...I may well be dead by then since I’m 70 now. Haha 😂.

I didn’t realize LR was an iPad app ‘til you gentlemen posted. So I’ve learned something new.

Just installed the app, start fiddling.

With respect to RAW, I’ll put up with the curve. It just doesn’t make sense to me personally to intentionally downgrade the quality of photos by storing them in a compressed format.

Thanks for the comments!

[pschlute]

It just doesn’t make sense to me personally to intentionally downgrade the quality of photos by storing them in a compressed format

Raw files are not image files. You have to create an image file (jpeg or png or TIFF) with the raw file before you can actually do things like posting to the web or printing.

i understand the desire to keep raw files and indeed do myself. But only after creating an image file with them and keeping both files. Having a catalogue of raw files on their own is pointless.

[FreeSpirit9]

I doubt you will need PS for some time yet, if ever. LR should be able to do all you need more simply.

After some years of using light room I agree with Paul, it's all you will ever need.

[Paul the Sunman]

i understand the desire to keep raw files and indeed do myself. But only after creating an image file with them and keeping both files. Having a catalogue of raw files on their own is pointless.

Many RAW processing software programs (such as LR, ON1 etc) do not keep a full-sized jpeg. They may keep a thumbnail, and a list of instructions that you used to edit the image. Next time you go to edit the file, it reapplies these. I certainly wouldn't recommend keeping full sized jpegs (or tiffs) along with RAW.

[pschlute]

Many RAW processing software programs (such as LR, ON1 etc) do not keep a full-sized jpeg. They may keep a thumbnail, and a list of instructions that you used to edit the image. Next time you go to edit the file, it reapplies these. I certainly wouldn't recommend keeping full sized jpegs (or tiffs) along with RAW.

No need to produce a full-size jpeg from the raw file. Produce a resized jpeg suitable for the purpose you intend to use it. If you intend to use an online printing service you should resize to their requirements (pixel size/ppi). If you intend to post on the web or view on your screen at home a smaller image is needed.

I use Silkypix Developer Studio Pro 8 as my raw converter. I typically produce a 2158*1440 jpeg from the raw file for viewing on my screen. If i want to do selective editing in Photoshop I will produce a full sized TIFF first, then use PS to edit that.

I use LR to catalogue all my images and will "stack" the jpeg/TIFF/raw file on top of each other so that only the jpeg is available for viewing. if i want to produce a different sized jpeg for printing i unstack and use the TIFF or raw file to create a new jpeg.

Most raw converters will "reapply" the development settings you used when previously editing a raw file in the same program. These settings are usually stored in a sidecar or other type of settings file. The existence or not of a jpeg or tiff in the same folder should not have any affect on this behaviour. If you want to start from scratch again with a raw file then just reset your converter settings to default.

[clickclick]

I'd recommend shooting RAW+ and get those convenient jpegs. You'll probably find the camera's development engine is hard to beat, but you'll have the RAW for when you want/need it.

[Riggomatic]

I started with Corel After shot, moved on to Affinity, and recently started with Darktable. (Still learning and practicing)

There's plenty of YouTube tutorials on any software you pick, or help here on the forum.

Like learning anything, it takes practice. Don't get upset when your out of camera jpg looks better than the RAW file you are trying to develop.

[TMH]

Corel AfterShot Pro looks interesting. Especially with the Earthday price break of only $48 US.

Plus offering a native Linux option. No iPad app so far though.

The Lightroom iPad version is crippled unless upgraded to the subscription. Which I’ll probably do for a month or two, just for comparisons sake.

[pres589]

From the bit of browsing I've done, nothing quite replaces Lightroom. It's not perfect but having it for both image correction with automatic cataloging makes it very useful.

You can find replacements for Photoshop and there's folks here suggesting Lightroom is all you need. I'm happy with Lightroom and Photoshop Elements.

[normhead]

Lightroom is more than you need. You can find cheaper that does everything you need.