Photo editing Software

[Aaron Berk]

Hey quick question... I think.
My wife and I run an online business selling clothing and we have to photograph each and ever piece. The problem were having is that our colors aren't coming out perfectly "true" to the garments real color tones. We've tried the Kodak software that came with the cameras and it doesn't work to well. Recently we have been enjoying Picasa3 powered by google and it works well, but I'd like to upgrade and am looking for software that has super quick/simple color editing and cropping ability. These are the only key features we need, anything else will just be icing on the cake.
Any thoughts? purchased software or free downloads, I'm game for anything that works.
Thanks heaps.
Aaron

[Robert Eiffert]

I'm using GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/) now. For basic stuff it has a short learning curve. Good support via help or forums also. And free. And extendable.

I used to use Photoshop Elements. It might be a bit shorter on the learning curve and also has a lot of support.

I think GIMP is a bit more resource efficient. Most actions seem quicker. P. Elements has a nice album setup.

Color matching is hard, especially considering the range of monitors and operating systems that can affect your photos. Using studio lights and the same setup will help get better consistency. Maybe check your camera manual to see if there is a manual color balance. For my wife's jewelry, I wound up with a light tent and always used the same two lights and a custom color balance setting in the camera. Once we got the variables nailed down and were consistent, I was a bit more successful at adjusting color.

Bracket your shots. 'Film' is cheap and exposure effects color.

[Glenn Clabo]

I don't know what camera or program you have so I'm shooting in the dark.;)
Because color is affected by color temperature...My first suggestion is to learn a little about white balance and then try to use your editor.
Here's a good start... http://digital-photography-school.com/introduction-to-white-balance
If that doesn't work...here's some suggestions for free editors...
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/pixelbasedwin/tp/freephotoedw.htm
Also here's some info that will help you in general... http://www.tabletopstudio.com/clothing_photography.html#tools (http://www.tabletopstudio.com/clothing_photography.html#tools)

[Bill Huber]

As Glenn stated not knowing what camera you are shooting with it is really hard to say which way to go and what to use.

I shoot all my images in Raw format and use Adobe Lightroom to develop the Raw file to a jpg

So first things first, you need to calibrate you monitor, there are some good devices out there to do this with. I use a Spyder for this job and am very happy with it. Here is a link that will give you a lot of very good info on setting up your monitor.

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

If I am shooting something that does not have a white color in it, I will use a Macbeth card and then in Lightroom Just use the color picker to pick the white square and it takes care of the rest.

If you can always shoot in the same light this will make things a lot easier. Once you have an image done the way you want it to be then check the color temperature and use that as your guide.

Now when you have a mixed lighting problem I use an Expo Disc, they work very well when you can set a custom white balance on the camera.

http://www.expodisc.com/product-detail.php?cat_id=1&product_id=2&keywords=ExpoDisc_Neutral&gclid=CMKv2Je9u5gCFRIfDQodAkeZaw


Now to answer your question, Lightroom is a great program if you can shoot Raw with your camera.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/?sdid=DKRZV

ACDSee is another really good image cataloging and editing program.

http://store.acdsee.com/store/acd/en_US/DisplayProductDetailsPage/productID.106893200

[Scott Shepherd]

Just to add to what Glenn and Bill said, the problem is that light changes the appearance of color, and your camera doesn't always know what light you are taking photos in. If you take a white piece of paper and put it in the sun and then create a shadow over 1/2 of it, one side will look bright white and one side will look gray. But it's the same color, so how can be look different? Same problem the camera has, it doesn't always know which light you are in when the photo is taken.

Basically, you can buy a white balance card, or gray card, and you can leave that in the photo next to the item if acceptable, if not then, you'll need to take one photo with it in there, one with it out.

That card is basically a calibration card.

You can then open the photo in GIMP (Free as mentioned above) or Elements, or any photo editor and set the white balance off of that gray card. Then, the color in the image will be correct. If it looks wrong from there, then it's the monitor calibration as stated above.

It sounds overwhelming and confusing but once you do it a time or two, it's easy and it'll make your colors right. Now, printing them and having them turn out the right colors is another story :)

[Jim Becker]

I use Adobe Photoshop Elements.

[Thomas Bank]

As others have alluded to, no matter how careful you are with the color calibration on your end it will all depend on how things look on the buyer's monitor.

Because color quality from screen to print is essential for what I do, I use one of these: http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-pp-s3studio.php

It means that I can take a Pantone color off a chip, have it show up that color on the screen, and then show up that color on the print. Granted, there is some variation, but not a case of strong color swings.

But it still doesn't help me when I send an image to someone else and their monitor is not calibrated.

[David G Baker]

I use an old version of Adobe Photoshop and it does everything I want.

Jim B.
I tried using Elements but after getting hooked on Photoshop I can't seem to make the transition to Elements. I only use about 1/10th of what it is capable of and should learn how to use the rest but I am lazy.

Aaron,
If you are really serious about your color correction there is software that will help you adjust your monitor to what you see is what you get.
Your lighting must be color correct. I have professional tungsten studio lights that I use on occasion but I now use the white light screw in flouresent bulbs that put out light that nearly matches the color of daylight. For reflectors I use reflectors designed for brooding baby chickens. Real cheap setup and works great for good color. I try to put a lot of light on things I photograph.
Check out www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm) for some good information.

[David DeCristoforo]

Paint Shop Pro:

http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/us/en/Product/1184951547051#versionTabview=tab0&tabview=tab0

95% of the power of PhotoShop... 10% of the price. Awesome!

[Aaron Berk]

Thank you so much....
You guys put out allot of great tips. I'm on my way to using the spyder calibration tips and then from there I'll move into my camera's manual for color balance help. I like the bit about the White Balance Card, sounds like a good call.
More info on my situation......
I'm using just a plain Kodak EasyShare M863 that does 8.2mp.
I know it sounds crude but I'm taking pictures with my oak floor as a back drop and just regular household lighting and daylight from a sliding glass door.
I think I'll look into the expo disk because I can't set up custom lighting just yet. But I'm moving towards a studio set up in the distant/near future.

Thanks again for all the help. Creekers Rock!:D
God Bless
Aaron

[Myk Rian]

Another program that is free, GIMP
www.gimp.org

[Ron Dunn]

If you are taking a lot of photographs in similar light conditions I think you'll really enjoy Photoshop Lightroom. It has a batch processing capability that can make the same exposure and white balance settings (among others) to multiple files at a time.

I'm not into changing photographs (ie, pasting in new bits, adding text, making fancy shapes, etc.) and I find that Lightroom is the perfect tool for my "digital darkroom".

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

[Aaron Berk]

As Glenn stated not knowing what camera you are shooting with it is really hard to say which way to go and what to use.

I shoot all my images in Raw format and use Adobe Lightroom to develop the Raw file to a jpg

Hey Bill what's "Raw Format"?

[Ron Dunn]

I'm not Bill, but I'll give an answer to that question.

"Raw" is an uncompressed file, exactly as recorded by the camera's sensor. When a camera translates the sensor data to a format like JPG it can make subtle changes in colour and lose some detail.

That said, a camera with a large sensor and a good lense won't show much (if any) difference for a typical photograph. If you don't have a "Raw" capture mode for your camera, don't let it worry you.

Are you near a book shop? I was browsing around the Barnes & Noble opposite the hotel in which I'm staying, and there was a whole section on digital photography. Go and look around, I'm sure I saw books on photographing items for display that would give you a lot of useful advice.

[Jim Becker]

One other note about "raw" images is that they are vendor specific and contain a wealth of information that can be manipulated by "good" software like Photoshop if the format is supported. Nikon raw is one supported format, for example. Raw makes major image manipulation and retouching a very precise science for folks who know what they are doing.

[Scott Conners]

Aaron, you've gotten a lot of good advice so far. One thing that is CRITICAL if you need correct colors is that you use a single color of light when taking your pictures. The light that comes from a tungsten bulb is very different than the color that comes from the sunlight coming in the sliding glass window. This will make getting a true color across the whole subject nearly impossible. You need to pick a light source and stick with it - use only tungsten light, use only sunlight, or use only fluorescent light. You can use a large white paper/sheet/reflector to bounce light onto the dark side to use the natural light only.
Tungsten lights (standard light bulbs) run around 3000K or lower, where sunlight in a nice clear blue sky can run above 6000K. This means that areas lit by the sun will be much bluer and "colder" than the areas lit by the tungsten bulbs. This can cause one side of your subject to be proper color, while the other side is far too red or blue.

Almost all of my paying photography is product photography, and having correct colors is always an important concern. I generally shoot using flash, which is balanced by the manufacturers to match sunlight, but I often have to gel my flashes to match ambient light so I can maintain color balance.

As for software, I LOVE Adobe Lightroom 2, it has taken my photography to a whole new level.
Calibrating your monitor is also important if you want to be sure other web users are seeing the colors you are seeing, investing in a hardware calibrating system is well worth the expense. I use a Spyder 3 Pro myself and am very happy with it.

[Aaron Berk]

Well I researched Gimp and it's got to steep of a learning curve for me at this time. It's a bit more advanced than I'm looking for. I'm looking into Adobe elements now, appears more my speed.
I think allot of my problem is turning out to be my mixed/inadequate lighting. After looking into the spyder calibrating tools the price tag scared me off. I read into the manual for my camera and it's not to deep. If my camera starts bugging out on me I'll upgrade to something with features I can manipulate.
Thanks again for all the great input, I'm still working the issue:rolleyes:
Blessed be
Aaron

[Colin Giersberg]

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 is a $300 program. Amazon.com had it on sale a few days ago for $189.99, but that was only for one day, so I ordered a copy for myself.

You can download a 30 day trial version for free, and start playing around with various settings. One nice feature with Lightroom 2 is that it is a non-destructive program. Each picture that you import into it can be manipulated as much as you want, but the original photo is saved as is. The edited version becomes a new version of the original, only with the changes that you made.

I tried the trial version, and liked what I saw, but I just didn't have enough time to learn very much about it before the trial expired, but now that I have purchased the program, that is a non-issue.

You can also try to download Picasa 3, which is a Google program , and guess what, it's free. From what I have read, it is still one of the best photo editing programs on the market, and that most amateur's and some more serious photographers like it. I have it now, and it is not bad, but I wanted something that would do more than Picasa offers. My only beef with Picasa is how it organizes your photos. Whenever I want to upload a photo in an e-mail, or to a photography forum, I have a lot of hunting to do at times, but that could be my fault.

Picasa 3 also will open up RAW images now, so you have that option should you upgrade to a DSLR camera.

Regards, Colin

[Tom Henry]

I use Photoshop CS3 on a daily basis...didn't dive into CS4 yet...

[John Keeton]

Like Jim, I use Photoshop Elements, but I have never dealt with raw images. I understand from others that they have their own unique qualities that require a better understanding of editing programs.

[Jim Becker]

Colin, Lightroom is a really nice application...designed for photo pros. I've been considering getting a copy, too, as I'm starting to play around more with photos artistically, particularly for our equestrian stuff. Here's an example just out of Elements....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/a-j-adopt/jim-jan-show.jpg

[Bill Huber]

A little more on Raw files.

This is a real basic drawing showing the basics of a raw file. (see attachment 1)

Some differences in raw files and jpg files.

Raw file are not compressed in most cameras, there are cameras that do compress raw data, but it is no difference then making a zip file. The data from the camera is not changed just compressed. The only thing this does is to make the raw file smaller but it does take more time to do it and there for writing from the time you shoot the image until its on the memory card will take a little longer.

Jpg files are compressed and data is removed from the image, so that image will never be just like it was from the camera again. This compression is not a big thing as far as image quality until you really compress the file. (see attachment 2)

White balance can not be changed in a jpg file, the tint and color temp can be changed but the white balance can not. This is some what like changing the white balance but it is different and will not have the same effect.

You can look at a raw image as a board you get, it is 4/4 thick and it is ruff sawed, right like it came for the mill. Now you run it thought the planer and it is now a different board and can never be the same one you bought. The camera saved the image as a jpg file.

Now lets say you plan the board down to 3/4, rip it down the middle and cut it in half. You have edited the jpg image and re-saved it.

Now if this had been a raw image (board) you could just start all over with the original board if you made a mistake.

If you want the best out of the camera and it will shoot Raw images that is going to be the best. I know many people myself included that once we started shooing raw we could never go back to jpg.

It is kind of like cutting dovetails, from what everyone has told me, if you start cutting them by hand you will never go back to a jig.

Attachment 1
http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/image/41450063

Attachment 2
This file was saved with the quality set to 12.
The image is just over 500k. (In Photoshop basically no compression)
http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/image/22907798

http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/image/22907799
This file was saved with the quality set to 8.
The image is just over 130k.

http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/image/22907800
This file was saved with the quality set to 5.
The image is just over 80k.

[Bill Huber]

Colin, Lightroom is a really nice application...designed for photo pros. I've been considering getting a copy, too, as I'm starting to play around more with photos artistically, particularly for our equestrian stuff. Here's an example just out of Elements....



Jim, if you want to done more effects you want to go to Photoshop, not Lightroom. Lightroom will do some but not a lot like you can with Photoshop.
You really can not do Masking and many other things in Lightroom. Lightroom is more of a cataloging and developing sofrware, in fact the main engine in Lightroom came from a program call Raw Shooter Pro that Adobe bought.

Look at this gallery, these were all done in Photoshop with a plug in and could not have been done in Lightroom.
http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/buzz

[Glenn Clabo]

Jim...Read this before you take the plunge.
http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/07/photoshop_vs_lightroom_1.html

[Bill Huber]

Jim...Read this before you take the plunge.
http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/07/photoshop_vs_lightroom_1.html

I really don't think Jim needs Lightroom for what he wants to do. The write up is a little misleading in that they are 2 different type of programs.

Lightroom is for just adjusting the image and the basic editing. I can shoot a wedding and have 200 plus images ready to go in an hour. But I can not take out things that are in the image that I don't want there, for that I need Photoshop.

Photoshop will do the same thing but will also let you do cloning, masking, perspective adjustment and much much more.

You can in Photoshop do batch processing plus you can also write and record actions to do a lot of things really fast to a image.

[Brad Wood]

It is super easy to build a lightbox, and very cheap. make a 1x3 frame with a couple 1x3 slats across the top. Mount some porcelain light fixtures on the slats, wire them up in a string. Wrap the whole thing in sheets of white foamcore. The longer the foamcore, the more focused the light,... shorter, wider spread of light.
Then take some 1000H tracing paper (or thiner/thicker), put it across the light box to disfuse/soften the light.
Just go with a straight white light bulb and block all other light sources. This way you have a single light temp source. You can use pieces of foamcore to bounce some of the light to act as fill. You can even use other light sources as key light sources, etc... long as you use the same bulb.

Overall cost to for getting yourself a halfway decent way to light small table top stuff is going to be less than $50.00

[Bill Huber]

It is super easy to build a lightbox, and very cheap. make a 1x3 frame with a couple 1x3 slats across the top. Mount some porcelain light fixtures on the slats, wire them up in a string. Wrap the whole thing in sheets of white foamcore. The longer the foamcore, the more focused the light,... shorter, wider spread of light.
Then take some 1000H tracing paper (or thiner/thicker), put it across the light box to disfuse/soften the light.
Just go with a straight white light bulb and block all other light sources. This way you have a single light temp source. You can use pieces of foamcore to bounce some of the light to act as fill. You can even use other light sources as key light sources, etc... long as you use the same bulb.

Overall cost to for getting yourself a halfway decent way to light small table top stuff is going to be less than $50.00

I am not sure you are talking about the same thing we have been talking about Lightroom is a software program, not a light tent to shoot pictures in.
Here is my light tent, I get emails for all over the world about it.

http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/light_box_light_tent

[Scott Shepherd]

Bill, I think he was referring to using a lightbox to control the variation in lighting that was mentioned, not talking about the software, but I could be mistaken.

As you can see, there are many opinions. Most of those opinions (mine included) have a price tag attached. Photoshop is the Holy Grail, but it's also the Holy Grail in pricing as well. Photoshop Elements is the stripped down, retail version. There are many options out there, some free, some expensive. Almost every one of them has a 30 day free trial. Give them a shot and find the one that suits you and your budget and you'll be happy.

[David G Baker]

I am using Adobe Photoshop 5.5 which is about 10 years old or older, it serves me well. Shop on that Internet auction site for an older version at a much cheaper price.

[Brad Wood]

Yes, I was speaking to lighting not software. As others have mentioned, having a signle light temp is part of the equation. the OP mentioned at some point he was considering getting a light package (I think), so I chimed in that a home made light package can be had for very cheap. You can't really light an entire room on the cheap, but you can do table top lighting for super cheap.

The OP also mentioned using household lighting and light from the window, which I can almost gaurantee are not the same temp.

[Gord Pat]

I don't think Irfanview has been mentioned, it's a freebee at;
http://www.irfanview.com/
Don't forget to download the plugins as well .

[Benjamin Dahl]

Aaron, adobe is pretty good about offering student discounts. I am not sure what your situation is but your avatar suggests you might have children in k-12.
if you do a web search for "adobe student discount" you should be able to see if you qualify. the adobe site is probably the best one to look at though educational vendor sites will also probably show up.
I know they have discounts for higher education and k-12 (as well as educators). Not all products are available for the discount but most are. I think you could probably get elements cheaper from amazon.

I use both photoshop and lightroom (just upgraded to lightroom 2 and it is really superior to the first version IMO).
Hope this helps.
Ben

[David G Baker]

I got an E-mail from Adobe today that said because I am a registered owner of Adobe Elements I can get a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS4 for $299. I haven't kept up with Photoshop updates, anyone know if this is the latest and greatest version of Photoshop?

[Bill Huber]

I got an E-mail from Adobe today that said because I am a registered owner of Adobe Elements I can get a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS4 for $299. I haven't kept up with Photoshop updates, anyone know if this is the latest and greatest version of Photoshop?

Yes CS4 is the latest.

It has so neat additions to it from CS2 and a few from CS3.
Of the neatest things is the way you can change the size of and image, that is you can make it wider then it was and still looks good.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

David,

I went to the Adobe site and the only thing it doesn't do that CS4 Extended does is 3D images and Dicom and Matlab images. It appears to be loaded!

[David G Baker]

Bill and Ken
Thanks on the CS4 information. I am going to try to scrape up the bucks, the offer is good until February 28th.

[Scott Vigder]

I'll dive in here because I just finished comparing what photo software would be best for developing RAW pix. I just bought the Lumix G1 micro Four-Thirds camera and needed better RAW capabilities than the vendor software.

Bottom line: If you are not a professional photographer blowing up prints to 25"x40"; you will be able to do everything you need in Adobe Photoshop Elements. Caveat: make sure your camera is listed on the Adobe page as a supported camera for converting RAW files.

Since Adobe is the clear market leader, there are more discussions, blogs and support sites available for Adobe than any other product.

You can download the brand-new version 7 of Photoshop Elements for $44.99 from these folks: http://www.eproductpros.com/ (usual disclaimer I have no affiliation).

The learning curve is a bit steep. But as previously mentioned in this thread, if you maintain a consistent light source, developing your RAW images will become routine.

RAW images, once converted to jpeg, are noticeably better than had you just shot and used a jpeg image. I know it is a bit of a hassle, but I for one will never shoot in jpeg again if I can avoid it!

[Danny Thompson]

Photoshop Elements.