# Post Processing Software for a Non-professional



## runnergirl (Nov 28, 2012)

Hey everyone.  I was hoping someone could help me with understanding different options for post-processing.  I am a beginner - I got a DSLR last year and have really learned a lot about using it.  My pictures are not great but they are definitely getting better and I am understanding the elements of photography more and more.  One thing that I have most learned is that post-processing can make good photos look great, but I have to take good photos to start with.  So basically - this post is not a question on how to make mediocre photos look like enhanced mediocre photos.  I'm trying to do the best I can with my actual camera and maybe touchups later.

I have a mac and use iPhoto for cropping and sometimes brightening the exposure on my photos.  In general this works for my purposes but there are some things I am hoping to do.  Below is a picture I took of my son a few weeks ago.  I really like the photo, (even though the white balance was a little off) and the only editing that has been done to it is that I cropped it and increased the exposure slightly in iPhoto.  The only thing I wish I could do is really smooth the skin.  When I ordered a print of this picture, it was really obvious to me that all the little capillaries are visible and detract from the main focus of the photo, which I think is his eyes.  My friend has photoshop (and she is a photographer - much better than me) but when I look at her baby's pictures the most drastic difference I see is that the skin is so smooth in the pics she has edited with Photoshop.  The only feature on iPhoto that smooths skin is the "denoise" slider, which seems to make photos very pixelated.

For someone that has a business, photoshop seems like a great investment.  However, since I just want to improve my final outcomes with my photography for personal use and for sharing with family members, spending $700 on photoshop is out of my range.  Also I would be worried about investing in photoshop since it probably has such a huge learning curve - I would love to someday know how to use it, but I don't think I have the time and money to devote to it now.  A lot of the cheaper programs seem to do basically what iPhoto does (organize, crop, increase exposure/saturation/etc.).  

Any suggestions of what software might be worthwhile?  Thanks!


----------



## ph0enix (Nov 28, 2012)

Gimp is free: 
GIMP - The GNU Image Manipulation Program

...and so is Picasa:
http://picasa.google.com/


----------



## Light Guru (Nov 28, 2012)

Photoshop Elements its available in the Mac App Store.


----------



## KmH (Nov 28, 2012)

There are many free image editing applications available, GIMP and Photoscape being just 2.

Corel also makes image editing software - PaintShop Pro X5 

Adobe has a consumer grade version of Photoshop called Elements. Elements 11 ($50) was recently released - Adobe Photoshop Elements 11 

FWIW, Adobe also sells full featured Student Editions versions of some of their software. K-12 and Higher Ed students at accredited schools usually qualify to buy Student Editions.
Adobe Photoshop Extended CS6 Student and Teacher Edition for Mac [Download]
Only Photoshop CS 6 Extended ($999 MSRP) is offered in a student version, not the regular CS 6.

But the regular CS 6 professional version can be had for less than $700 ($520) - Adobe Photoshop CS6

Plus, once someone registers their CS 6 (including student editions), they will qualify for upgrade pricing (usually $199 for regular Photoshop) with future releases.


----------



## oldhippy (Nov 28, 2012)

I just downloaded the 30 day free trial of Photoshop Elements..and have to say OMG..That is increadable..And I've only had it 24 hours..
You can also trial Elements Premium.. this way I cn wee which program I want to purchase...just sayin...Ed


----------



## runnergirl (Nov 28, 2012)

Thanks for all the input.  I was reading something about photoshop elements and it seemed like some people said it does kind of what iPhoto does - maybe the people posting didn't know how to use it?  Does photoshop elements have more functionality for things like smoothing skin and maybe stamping out a background element that isn't supposed to be there?


----------



## snowbear (Nov 28, 2012)

Apple's Aperture, is about $80 and is similar to Adobe Lightroom.  They usually have a 30-day trial available for download.


----------



## oldhippy (Nov 28, 2012)

runnergirl said:


> Thanks for all the input.  I was reading something about photoshop elements and it seemed like some people said it does kind of what iPhoto does - maybe the people posting didn't know how to use it?  Does photoshop elements have more functionality for things like smoothing skin and maybe stamping out a background element that isn't supposed to be there?


Being a 73 year old noob..I can only tell you what I have tried..It will blur background..remove sticks in the yard..or soften blemishes..and about a hundred thing I still get to try


----------



## PlanetStarbucks (Nov 28, 2012)

Photoshop is definitely a go to program when you need post processing.  Yes, it is daunting to someone who has never used it.  But the good news is that being one of the most popular editors around there is a TON of online support and tutorials.  Adobe has a lot of stuff on their website and others have created pages upon pages of how to do things in PS.  For example:

Post-Processing | Phototuts+

Consider trying out Aperature.  I've never used it hands on, but from what I've seen it seems to be pretty intuitive from the perspective of a photographer.   I'm a Lightroom man myself, but it's not the easiest program to wrap your head around.


----------



## KmH (Nov 28, 2012)

runnergirl said:


> View attachment 26952



Goal #1 is to get it as close to right in the camera as possible.
This shot has an orangeish color cast because of a conflict between the white balance setting of the camera, and the color temperature of the main light source.
An orangeish color cast is usually caused by the camera's white balance being set to sunlight when using a tungsten/incandescent light source. It also appears you used some window light.
Using multiple light sources having different light color temperatures is known as 'mixed lighting' and color casts caused by mixed lighting cannot be fully corrected.

I see what looks to be 6 light sources (lamps) reflected in the babies left eye.
I did a quick and dirty edit using Photoshop CS5 Camera Raw and CS5 to illustrate the strong color cast:


----------



## charlieclimber (Nov 28, 2012)

Try Serif PhotoPlus X4. You can get this bundled with MoviePlus X5 for only $20 at frys.com. PhotoPlus has everything you will need, including RAW file editing.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 28, 2012)

There is Photoline, that's what I use, for something like 60&#8364;. It's as powerful as photoshop in many ways, but it's not the easiest software to use.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 28, 2012)

BTW- baby skin is super hard to work with.


----------



## runnergirl (Nov 29, 2012)

Thanks for all the great comments, especially Kmh.  I never really realized how much this picture was affected by competing light sources. I looked back at some that I took outside on a cloudy day and no other lights around - his skin looks much better and the only thing I had done to this is crop it and boost the saturation to make the leaves and his eyes brighter (I would have attached the unedited image but I'm not at my computer).!  You can see his pillow under the leaves and I do wish I could stamp that out, but I think by getting better lighting there's less editing that I wish I could do.



Kmh: for the indoor photo with too many different light sources, what should I have done? Left all the lights off and just used my external flash? Turned off just the lights closest to him? Or found another room altogether?  Thanks!


----------



## jowensphoto (Nov 29, 2012)

I think that second photo has potential, but there's a bit of "floating head" effect. If we were able to see his neck and a hint of chest/shoulders, it would help. It's important to balance comfort of the baby with your pose, so I understand why he's all bundled up! Try using a basket or apple crate to have him in, so he's not right on the ground and doesn't need to be quite so wrapped up.

I used GIMP for years before converting to PS. Lots of tutorials for this type of editing.


----------



## jowensphoto (Nov 29, 2012)

Here's a run of that second through PS



I tried to dial the eyes down a bit, they were too unnatural looking. The skin has been every so slightly smoothed and attempted to clone out that blue spot, but my cloning skills leave something to be desired.


----------



## jowensphoto (Nov 29, 2012)

and because I'm bored ...


----------



## ph0enix (Nov 29, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> and because I'm bored ...View attachment 27007



Great edits in both cases!   Too bad the WB is way off (not fixable) in this one. 
My eyes are more drawn to the leaves than the baby in the other shot unfortunately.


----------



## jowensphoto (Nov 29, 2012)

ph0enix said:


> jowensphoto said:
> 
> 
> > and because I'm bored ...View attachment 27007
> ...




Thank you!!! Yep, WB can be SO difficult with fair-completed babies. My daughter is about a ghostly as they come... photographing her is challenging. A tip (can't remember where I learned/read it) is to wear a white shirt when photographing them and make sure you have as much pure white in the surroundings as possible. Their skin reflects absolutely every tint around them. OCF helps too!


----------



## thetrue (Nov 29, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> Thank you!!! Yep, WB can be SO difficult with fair-completed babies. My daughter is about a ghostly as they come... photographing her is challenging. A tip (can't remember where I learned/read it) is to wear a white shirt when photographing them and make sure you have as much pure white in the surroundings as possible. Their skin reflects absolutely every tint around them. OCF helps too!


Valuable information here. My wife's friend is letting me use her baby for practicing, and he is quite Casper-like  Thanks for sharing that!


----------



## runnergirl (Nov 29, 2012)

Jowens: thank you for your input! I know I have a long way to go to be a good photographer, and all the tips help.  Even though my white balance is un- fixable I really like how much better you made these photos look!  I'm guessing you used photoshop?


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 29, 2012)

I would just try undoing what was done a bit wrong.
I thiunk it is overexposed and the thin skin is just made transparent by the light so I lowered the exposure.
The red capillaries showed a lot so I decreased the red saturation and made it a bit lighter
It looked a bit cold so I warmed it a bit with a photofilter.
The skin mottling looked a lot like color noise so I denoised it with Noiseware, but retained the sharpness.
Added a tiny bit of brightness and contrast for a decent result.


----------



## jowensphoto (Nov 29, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> I would just try undoing what was done a bit wrong.
> I thiunk it is overexposed and the thin skin is just made transparent by the light so I lowered the exposure.
> The red capillaries showed a lot so I decreased the red saturation and made it a bit lighter
> It looked a bit cold so I warmed it a bit with a photofilter.
> ...



I can dig this, love how warm it is without being glaringly so.


----------



## NorthbyNorthwest (Nov 29, 2012)

Like others have mentioned, I think Aperture from the Apple App store is a great go-between for the budding photographer looking to do some editing.  There are some free options, but Aperture makes it a very seamless process.  Iphoto's adjustments are laughable (because they want you get aperture), and you will see a huge difference in what you can do with a picture.  Also, Aperture will automatically sync to your iphoto so anything you enhance will show up next time you open iPhoto which is handy if that is the program you are used to.  While I don't know much about GIMP or any of the Photoshop variants, I can tell you that I am one very happy Aperture user.  I suggest the free trial like others have mentioned, and if you like it $80 bucks is a heck of a deal for editing software.  It should suit your needs for years unless you get into some real heavy lifting in your editing.


----------



## runnergirl (Nov 29, 2012)

The traveler: I love what you did! It really fixed some of the bad mistakes I made.  

North by NW: thank you so much for the aperture rec.  I'm really a Mac fan and hopefully it is as easy to figure out as most apple stuff.  I will def try the free trial and $80 is worth the investment if I like it.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 29, 2012)

On Amazon this week LR4 has been less than $104 for download. I jumped on that as my free trial ran out.



socrammtz said:


> Photoshop Lightroom is $149. It's a great program, much like Aperture. For image manipulation I would recommend GIMP (free) instead of Photoshop for a beginner... because it's free.


----------



## andrewochs615 (Nov 29, 2012)

Mind my piggybacking onto this thread, but does anyone use Lightroom and Photoshop Elements. I have Lightroom 4 and am wondering is Photoshop Elements worth getting?


----------



## KmH (Nov 29, 2012)

andrewochs615 said:


> Mind my piggybacking onto this thread, but does anyone use Lightroom and Photoshop Elements. I have Lightroom 4 and am wondering is Photoshop Elements worth getting?


Yes, a lot of people use Photoshop Lightroom and Photoshop Elements. 

Adobe designed Lightroom with the intent it would be a supplement to Elements or CSx, not a replacement.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 29, 2012)

runnergirl said:


> The traveler: I love what you did! It really fixed some of the bad mistakes I made.



No problem.
It's nice to work on pictures of pretty children that are basically well done but just need a couple of tweaks to improve.
I wanted to get a little more glow but couldn't. Will try some more.
Thanks for marking your images as OK to edit.


----------



## John27 (Nov 29, 2012)

Another vote here for Lightroom.  It is an EXCELLENT tool for a hobby photographer.  Though photoshop and bridge can do it all, lightroom can do most of it much cheaper (along with the GiMP, free, for basic edits and cloning).  For $100 (or less on sale) you get a way to catalog, batch process, convert (RAW to JPEG, useful for giving out CD's of pictures to friends and family), perform Adobe Camera RAW edits, crop, etc. etc. etc. etc. your pictures.  It keeps them all organized, you can work fast, use presets for an entire set (For example, if you take 10 pictures in the exact same spot with the same lense, etc., you really only need to adjust the levels on one, then you can apply those changes to them all)

$100 for Lightroom + The GiMP is a winning combination.  It's what I used for a long time.  Later, if you decide you need it, you can get photoshop.  My wife took a class in her last semester on Photoshop, so we got it cheap.  Otherwise I probably wouldn't own it.  I won't tell you that the free and cheap stuff can do what photoshop does, but I will tell you that the GiMP and lightroom can do almost everything a non-professional / hobby photographer needs.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 29, 2012)

Lightroom 4. It's fast, and it will do "almost" everything that needs to be done by any beginning to intermediate shooter. It's more-capable than many people give it credit for.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 29, 2012)

andrewochs615 said:


> Mind my piggybacking onto this thread, but does anyone use Lightroom and Photoshop Elements. I have Lightroom 4 and am wondering is Photoshop Elements worth getting?



That is the combination that I use and I like it alot. I am new to post processing so this combination suites my needs just fine. I couldn't justify spending the money for CS6 at this time. Maybe on my next computer (Which I hope to be a Mac).


----------



## ronlane (Nov 29, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Lightroom 4. It's fast, and it will do "almost" everything that needs to be done by any beginning to intermediate shooter. It's more-capable than many people give it credit for.



Absolutely right. I admit to being lost without it after just a month of working with it. I was at a point that I didn't want to process a picture without it.


----------



## KmH (Nov 29, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Lightroom 4. .... It's more-capable than many people give it credit for.


Lightroom can also be less capable than many people give it credit for.


----------



## runnergirl (Nov 29, 2012)

What can Lightroom do that aperture can't?  Just curious as I have a Mac and am very apple-minded...is Lightroom intuitive? I watched a couple videos about using aperture and thought it might be good for me but now I'm curious about Lightroom.


----------



## John27 (Nov 29, 2012)

runnergirl said:


> What can Lightroom do that aperture can't?  Just curious as I have a Mac and am very apple-minded...is Lightroom intuitive? I watched a couple videos about using aperture and thought it might be good for me but now I'm curious about Lightroom.




I haven't used aperture but I stumbled upon this the other day:  http://www.travelphotographers.net/article.php/aperture-vs-lightroom

I surmise from that that if you have aperture, you probably won't need lightroom.  But if you haven't purchased either, lightroom might be the better bet for you.  (Kind of like minor upgrades to camera bodies or lenses or speedlights, not worth spending the money to upgrade, but if you are going to start from scratch your better with the new version)

I think Adobe still does a free trial of lightroom, they used to.  Check it out and see what you think?

EDIT:

Here it is; https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom&promoid&promoid=DTEML

Download it and give it a try.  Hey it's free why not?  Let us know what you think, I'd be curious too how it stacks up with Aperture.  Personally I love lightroom, but I've never tried Aperture!


----------



## PlanetStarbucks (Nov 30, 2012)

runnergirl said:


> What can Lightroom do that aperture can't?  Just curious as I have a Mac and am very apple-minded...is Lightroom intuitive? I watched a couple videos about using aperture and thought it might be good for me but now I'm curious about Lightroom.



Aperture has 100% more Mac-iness then Lightroom.


----------



## runnergirl (Nov 30, 2012)

Ahh haha I love the phrase Mac-iness. . I wanted to trial both but apparently apple took away the aperture free trial!


----------



## runnergirl (Nov 30, 2012)

John27 said:
			
		

> I haven't used aperture but I stumbled upon this the other day:  http://www.travelphotographers.net/article.php/aperture-vs-lightroom
> 
> I surmise from that that if you have aperture, you probably won't need lightroom.  But if you haven't purchased either, lightroom might be the better bet for you.  (Kind of like minor upgrades to camera bodies or lenses or speedlights, not worth spending the money to upgrade, but if you are going to start from scratch your better with the new version)
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link! That is helpful.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 2, 2012)

lililili said:


> Hi everybody!
> Do you guys know if there is a downloadable pdf version of the*Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers, and where I can find it?*
> 
> Thanks.



Lemme guess... you don't want to pay for it.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 2, 2012)

How on earth do they write an entire book on Lightroom. Is there really that much to it?


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 2, 2012)

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers by Martin Evening - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

only ~$30


----------



## PlanetStarbucks (Dec 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> How on earth do they write an entire book on Lightroom. Is there really that much to it?



It's like an Onion, layer after layer.  I keep running into things that can be done in lightroom that I didn't know about the week before and think...DAMMIT, that would have been useful to know.  It's kinda so very un-Adobe.  Adobe products like PS and Illustrator are just covered with every feature on the face of the planet and blow you down with their massiveness.  But then along comes lightroom that really just has a simple layout you'd think it isn't as feature rich, but it really is.


----------



## KmH (Dec 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> How on earth do they write an entire book on Lightroom. Is there really that much to it?


It's only 667 pages.

Lightroom 4 has *7* different modules.

Learning to effectively use the Library module alone requires a DAM book - The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers


----------



## John27 (Dec 2, 2012)

480sparky said:


> lililili said:
> 
> 
> > Hi everybody!
> ...



I sure hope that's not the case.  This is a photography forum, full of people who are very proud of their intellectual property, some who make a living off of it. None of them would appreciate their pictures taken for free, without permission, and printed out and used by just anyone!   Likewise I'm sure they wouldn't support doing the same to adobe.   

BUT, if that wasn't the case, you can get it on B&N nook for $25 and you can read it on your PC, or with a nook app on your tablet or smartphone.  (Or, you know, on a nook!)


----------



## unpopular (Dec 2, 2012)

KmH said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > How on earth do they write an entire book on Lightroom. Is there really that much to it?
> ...



Interesting. I've always kind of assumed it was a pretty basic application, like more or less iPhoto with raw processing, plugin support and some watered down editing facilities.

As for The DAM Book,  I do need to get a copy.


----------



## KmH (Dec 2, 2012)

Compared to CS 6 (Bridge, Photoshop, Camera Raw), Lightroom *is* pretty basic.

Which is why many people have both CS6 and LR4.


----------



## John27 (Dec 2, 2012)

KmH said:


> Compared to CS 6 (Bridge, Photoshop, Camera Raw), Lightroom *is* pretty basic.
> 
> Which is why many people have both CS6 and LR4.



+1, I don't think lightroom replaces Photoshop for the professional, but I DO think it's a very valid option for folks not able or willing to shell out the cash for CS6.  I have both (but only because of a STEEP discount I got on CS6 Extended when my wife took a photoshop class), but I still use Lightroom a lot.  It's a great cataloging tool if nothing else, and it easily uploads to facebook, smugmug, flickr, etc.  Photoshop could do these things too, but Lightroom does it quicker and faster.

For the real keepers, the portfolio images, those go into photoshop.  But not every picture I or my wife takes is a work of art, sometimes it's just snapshots at a family event or while out riding the motorcycle.  Quick run through lightroom (Often just a quick 'auto tone' and 'auto white balance' on those) and upload to facebook.  It's a snap for that sort of stuff!  (And it works well for the more 'intentional' shots too!)


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 2, 2012)

Well I'm late to this party but I'm going to join in. I think I got through most of the comments. Lew noted the photo was overexposed, so OP, the EXIF data indicates you had a +.3 EC dialed in which backs up Lew's observation. That forced an overexposure -- gotta ask why? And yep, the mixed light makes this photo a real editing challenge. Got to second Keith's to-the-point about getting it right in camera: don't do this!

So I couldn't resist the challenge -- done using Photoshop:




Joe


----------



## mustafanazif (Dec 2, 2012)

actually there is a lot of method...
+ for smoother skin you can use : "neat image" or "imagenomic noiseware" or "noise ninja" or something like that (plugins)
but also you can use ps filter "blur - surface blur" before you use it, duplicate your original photo and select the parts (like eyes) and delete other parts... in this case eyes will be clear and sharper... other areas will be smoother...

+ almost time just Photoshop enough, just use: levels, curves, color balance, sometime surface blur.... thats enough

here is your example:






i just used photoshop i didnt use any plugins...

i followed this method:

1. levels
2. curves
3. color balance
4. surface blur
(i also duplicate just eyes iris and make it "unsharp mask - radius 0.5)

thats all...

regards.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 9, 2012)

so... is the OP runnah's out of state girlfriend?


----------



## Ibis (Dec 16, 2012)

I use Raw Therapee for toning and black levels and such and GIMP for layers, etc.

both are free and open source and work beyond well for my needs...

EDIT: For crap and giggles, here's what I (a novice, mind you) was able to do in Raw Therapee and GIMP...


----------

