what software do you suggest?

[mark f]

As you know im new at this and am using your knowledge to my advantage!! Maybe in future ill be helping others!

Im using a 40d with 100-400 lens. Ive just been using the canon software to get started, but which would you suggest?

I thought of photoshop. Does that come with the RAW processing program or do i need another?

Thanks for your help.

[Keith Reeder]

Photoshop CS3 is the King Of the Hill, for sure - it does everything - but you pay for the privilege.

Elements is pretty good too - and cheap as chips - but I prefer Paint Shop Pro (PSP) over it: there's a new PSP out as we speak (PSP X2), and it is very good, I find.

One thing that PSP has that I can't find in Photoshop is a very useful sharpening function called "Focus" - it seems to apply a much more subtle sharpening than USM etc without generating jaggies.

For nowt, Photofiltre (that's how they spell it - French, y'know) is really good for basic processing.

As to RAW conversion, everyone has their own favourite: mine is RawShooter Essentials, but you need to apply a little workaround to use it with 40D files: http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/articles/rawshooter-essentials-and-the-40d

Noise reduction software is worth looking at too - I swear by Neat Image.

[mjmw]

PElements is pretty good too - and cheap as chips - but I prefer Paint Shop Pro (PSP) over it: there's a new PSP out as we speak (PSP X2), and it is very good, I find.

Other advantages of Elements are that it comes with a RAW converter and many of the free tutorials for Photoshop will make sense in Elements as well. There are some tutorials for PSP, but most of the ones for digital photographers tend to be based around Photoshop.

[Keith Reeder]

True Mark - I'm just pointing out that Photoshop isn't the only option, despite rumours to the contrary..!

;)

[mark f]

thanks guys. So (excusing my ignorance!), am i right in thinking you use a program such as photoshop to improve the picture and then you send it to a RAW conversion program to convert to jpeg or tiff because it does a better job at it than the on board converter in photoshop??

[Keith Reeder]

am i right in thinking you use a program such as photoshop to improve the picture and then you send it to a RAW conversion program to convert to jpeg or tiff?

T'other way round, Mark.

Your RAW file is your "negative" - you don't want to make any permanent changes to it.

Instead, you open the RAW file in the converter of choice, apply whatever edits you need (like adjusting white balance, exposure compensation, highlight recovery - all things best done at the RAW conversion stage) and then save a copy of the adjusted image as a jpeg of tiff for further editing in Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro or what have you.

That way the RAW is left untouched, and you can revisit it as your PP skills and/or the software you use, improve.

[mark f]

i see. Thanks keith. So these other programs are viwed as better than the raw converter in photo shop itself. i will have to play

[Keith Reeder]

Not necessarily..!

;)

The RAW converter in Photoshop (Adobe Camera Raw - ACR) is very good, and many people rate it the best: but the point is that regardless of which converter you use, you use it first.

If you fire up a RAW file in Photoshop, it will automatically open ACR to handle it.

[RAH]

I also want to add my vote for Paint Shop Pro, and I also am having good luck with the new version X2.

Having used both Elements and Paint Shop Pro, Elements is quite a bit less powerful. Sure, if you have the $600, get Photoshop. But if you want to save more than $500, Paint Shop Pro is your best bet IMHO.

[Mike Rudkin]

Hi Guys-Having had my 40d 2 weeks now I have been reading the posts avidly.Here's my situation-I have Potoshop 6 and that's it at moment.I d/loaded demo Neat Image yesterday and the first pic I tried to use it on was JPEG and too big for the Demo vers.
So,guess I will have to buy 'proper' one.
Am I going to have any probs with Photoshop 6 and RAW images from the 40d ?

Once I learn how to put pics on here I'll post a couple-I'm getting better images under atrocious conditions than I ever thought I would-but when I look on other contributors web sites I realise that I am just scratching the surface-and believe me,as a retired photographer with 40 yrs experience in Film and TV it's a bitter pill to swallow,but it's fun.
All assistance gratefully recieved.

[Roy C]

.I d/loaded demo Neat Image yesterday and the first pic I tried to use it on was JPEG and too big for the Demo vers.
So,guess I will have to buy 'proper' one.
.
That's right, the demo/freebie version is only any good for small pegs - fine for web images but not for anything else.

[Keith Reeder]

Up to 800px longest side, as I recall?

[paul goode]

Is that a recent change? Don't remember that when I was using the demo version. Surely that makes it next to useless. It works far better on the full size image than some piddly little web image.

Just out of interest why do so few people use DPP? Its free and works with the camera that it came with.

[Roy C]

Up to 800px longest side, as I recall?
Almost right Keith, it is 1024 x 1024 max.

[Keith Reeder]

I might be wrong there, Paul - maybe I'm remembering someting else.

Here's the Neat Image Feature Map: http://www.neatimage.com/featuremap.html

Added: it's 1024px x 1024px...

[Keith Reeder]

Just out of interest why do so few people use DPP? Its free and works with the camera that it came with.

Awful workflow...