Free Editing Programs?

[spacecadet]

15 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Should you be caught - and I concede that the chance is beyond minuscule - I would like a video of you telling this to the judge. 

I don't use the software, but notwithstanding everything else, I would be reminding the judge that unfair contract terms are invalid, and I can't think of a more unfair contract term than one I don't know about.

Edited August 27, 2019 by spacecadet

[MDM]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I don't use the software, but notwithstanding everything else, I would be reminding the judge that unfair contract terms are invalid, and I can't think of a more unfair contract term than one I don't know about.

 

Normally to use software you have to accept the terms of the license which would presumably state that the software is free for non-commercial or non-professional use. Not reading the license is not a a valid argument and you know what they say about ignorance and the law anyway no doubt. 

 

[spacecadet]

That's right- there is a licence tickbox on install. So it would come down to the definition of "commercial".

[MDM]

13 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

That's right- there is a licence tickbox on install. So it would come down to the definition of "commercial".

 

Which by any normal legal or commonsense definition means monetary gain. 

[Allan Bell]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

Which by any normal legal or commonsense definition means monetary gain. 

 

Gosh that is where I am going wrong. I am not commercial.😖

 

Allan

 

[Joe Gaul]

I seem to have Corel Aftershot and Cyberlink Photo Director image editing programs installed. If they weren't free I wouldn't have installed them. Haven't had time to find out if they are any good; everything has a learning curve.

[John Walker]

I'm sure I read about a very much cut down version of Adobe PS (not Elements) which has basic facilities.  I can't find it at the moment but I'll update this post if I do.

 

John

 

UPDATE:  Probably not what you're looking for Edo but might be worth checking out.

 

Adobe Photoshop Express Editor

A convenient way to correct lighting and exposure problems

 

 

Advanced filters

Stylish design

Requires Flash

As its name suggests, Adobe Photoshop Express Editor is a trimmed-down, browser-based version of the company's world-leading photo editing software. Perhaps surprisingly, it features a more extensive toolkit than the downloadable Photoshop Express app, but it only supports images in JPG format that are below 16MB.

Again, this is a Flash-based tool, but Adobe provides handy mobile apps for all platforms so you won’t miss out if you’re using a smartphone or tablet.

This free online photo editor has all the panache you’d expect from Adobe, and although it doesn’t boast quite as many tools as some of its rivals, everything that’s there is polished to perfection. Adobe Photoshop Express Editor is a pleasure to use. Its only drawbacks are the limits on uploaded file size and types, and lack of support for layers.

Edited August 27, 2019 by John Walker
Info Update

[M.Chapman]

5 hours ago, spacecadet said:

That's right- there is a licence tickbox on install. So it would come down to the definition of "commercial".

 

IMHO - If pictures which have been edited using FastStoneViewer are subsequently licensed for financial return, then a software licence should be purchased.

 

I know that there's some "confusion" in stock photo circles that "commercial" and "editorial" licences are distinctly different. But, to any legal judge, surely if the photographer receives money in return for selling an editorial or commercial use license of an image, it's a commercial activity... Irrespective of whether such activity is profitable or not.

 

Also, have a thought for the software engineer(s) who wrote FastStoneViewer, who are probably trying to "earn a crust", just like the average Alamy contributor.

 

Mark 

 

[M.Chapman]

5 hours ago, John Walker said:

I'm sure I read about a very much cut down version of Adobe PS (not Elements) which has basic facilities.  I can't find it at the moment but I'll update this post if I do.

 

John

 

UPDATE:  Probably not what you're looking for Edo but might be worth checking out.

 

Adobe Photoshop Express Editor

A convenient way to correct lighting and exposure problems

 

I was going to give it a quick spin, but then I noticed it needs installation of the Adobe Flash plugin - which I'm reluctant to do as it has a long history of security problems. Why haven't Adobe swapped to HTML5 instead? Especially as it looks like they are going to stop supporting Flash themselves from 2020?

 

Mark

 

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by M.Chapman

[Ed Rooney]

Does making changes on jpeg files in LR or PS now still damage the image, or am I behind the times? And what about editing jpegs in GIMP? 

[John Walker]

Hi Ed

 

My understanding is that JPEGs saved at level 12 don't suffer from damage to any great degree.  Will be interesting to see other member's thoughts.

 

John

[spacecadet]

13 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Does making changes on jpeg files in LR or PS now still damage the image, or am I behind the times?

In LR, no, the changes are kept in a separate file. Something, something, something dark side catalogue. You just click on the first item your editing history in Develop and you're back to the original.

But in PS I think that if you re-save a jpeg with the same filename, the changes are baked in. That is your jpeg now.

Edited September 2, 2019 by spacecadet

[Harry Harrison]

Just to add to that, in LR the catalogue records any changes that you make behind the scenes, whether it's on a RAW file or a jpeg then the original is never altered, you then export a version with the editing changes that you have recorded. It's non-destructive editing and as spacecadet says, you can go back in the history of your changes to start off again with the file exactly as it was imported if you so wish. That isn't the same as going back in the History in Photoshop because once you save the file in PS your history is lost.

 

Rather than going back though it's sometimes better to create 'virtual copies' if you want to try out different treatments, black & white say, or a different crop perhaps. So perhaps temporarily go back to the 'import' version in History and create a virtual copy from that, then reselect your final edit in the original.

 

You can have as many virtual copies as you like, they take up no disc space. The size, colour space, ppi etc. are chosen when you export the file and that's when you can also give it a different filename. The virtual copies have Copy1, Copy2 etc.  suffixes  in LR automatically.

 

I don't think PS. Gimp etc. work like that because they don't have catalogues. Not so sure about Capture One.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Harry Harrison

[Harry Harrison]

As to whether resaving a jpeg after you've made changes in PS, it's going to depend upon what you've done to it of course. It's true that saving a jpeg with no changes at Q12, or even Q10 isn't going to affect it in real terms but any editing changes are going to be baked in so if your original was a jpeg it's best to keep an unmolested copy. It's not a workflow I ever enjoyed which is why I use Lightroom.

 

As explained, Lightroom has never damaged the original file but it's interesting to 'export' at different jpeg qualities then stack these in a tiff or psd in Photoshop to easily switch between them. Then compare the different layers with the original unchanged layer. 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Harry Harrison

[Ed Rooney]

Goodness me . . . I think I almost understand what you guys are telling me. At least it seems clearer than being a fake Irish laddie trying to live in the UK after Brexit. 

 

Thanks

[Harry Harrison]

You might also have been wondering whether 'jpegs' have got better. There was a new standard back in 2000, jpeg 2000 would you believe, that was better I think and I think also that you can use it in Photoshop but it's not a .jpg, it's a .jp2 as I understand it. I think they hoped it would be widely adopted but it never was. Don't try uploading a .jp2 to Alamy!

Edited September 2, 2019 by Harry Harrison

[Phil]

On 02/09/2019 at 11:01, Harry Harrison said:

As to whether resaving a jpeg after you've made changes in PS, it's going to depend upon what you've done to it of course. It's true that saving a jpeg with no changes at Q12, or even Q10 isn't going to affect it in real terms but any editing changes are going to be baked in so if your original was a jpeg it's best to keep an unmolested copy. It's not a workflow I ever enjoyed which is why I use Lightroom.

 

As explained, Lightroom has never damaged the original file but it's interesting to 'export' at different jpeg qualities then stack these in a tiff or psd in Photoshop to easily switch between them. Then compare the different layers with the original unchanged layer. 

I believe that image degradation occurs to some degree every time an image is saved as .jpg - regardless if editing was done on the image or not.  My understanding is every time a file is saved as .jpg it undergoes data "compression" by squeezing out image data as part of the JPG internal save algorithm - which doesn't know if the image was edited or not.    Key is how much image degradation is tolerable.  I saw jpg save tests demo'ed on same printed image at a regional US PPA convention yrs ago - and the pro photogs there could not detect image print degradation to naked eye until image was saved about 6 times.  Obviously prints are different than pixel peeping at 100%+

 

As an aside - the darktable open source RAW converter/image editor manages images using a database but not a "catalogue" like LR.   darktable has a non-destructive editing workflow using .XMP sidecar files along with its database.

[Harry Harrison]

12 minutes ago, Phil said:

I believe that image degradation occurs to some degree every time an image is saved as .jpg - regardless if editing was done on the image or not.

I'm sure you're right, hopefully Ed wasn't thinking of doing that but keeping an unmolested copy would always be desirable if you were shooting jpegs I would imagine, I've always just shot RAWs. Interesting to know about Darktable, not the first time I've seen it mentioned here. 

[Ed Rooney]

On 02/09/2019 at 18:46, Harry Harrison said:

You might also have been wondering whether 'jpegs' have got better. There was a new standard back in 2000, jpeg 2000 would you believe, that was better I think and I think also that you can use it in Photoshop but it's not a .jpg, it's a .jp2 as I understand it. I think they hoped it would be widely adopted but it never was. Don't try uploading a .jp2 to Alamy!

 

Harry, jpeg 2000 is one of the Save-As conversion choices on Photoshop. I use old-fashion jpegs but alway save at Quality 12.

 

My friend is reading this Post. He will probably get the camera delivered by tomorrow -- super fast. (After Brexit it will take six months.)

[Harry Harrison]

12 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Harry, jpeg 2000 is one of the Save-As conversion choices on Photoshop

Thanks Ed, I've never had a version of Photoshop recent enough to offer it! As John Mitchell has suggested, Capture One Express for Sony seems lke the obvious place to start in terms of software, it's free:

 

https://www.captureone.com/en/download/express-sony

 

Affinity Photo might be worth a look, not free, but cheap:

 

https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/

[Betty LaRue]

7 hours ago, Phil said:

I believe that image degradation occurs to some degree every time an image is saved as .jpg - regardless if editing was done on the image or not.  My understanding is every time a file is saved as .jpg it undergoes data "compression" by squeezing out image data as part of the JPG internal save algorithm - which doesn't know if the image was edited or not.    Key is how much image degradation is tolerable.  I saw jpg save tests demo'ed on same printed image at a regional US PPA convention yrs ago - and the pro photogs there could not detect image print degradation to naked eye until image was saved about 6 times.  Obviously prints are different than pixel peeping at 100%+

 

As an aside - the darktable open source RAW converter/image editor manages images using a database but not a "catalogue" like LR.   darktable has a non-destructive editing workflow using .XMP sidecar files along with its database.

Phil, something I’ve always wondered about is this. I do my tags on Tiffs in Bridge, not LR.  The other day I neglected to save in Tiff, instead saved in jpeg by mistake. If I tag a jpeg, does that count as “editing?” Saving after tagging? Degradation?  Or would I be better served to go back, open the RAW that has the adjustments, save in Tiff and then tag? Once the tagging is done, I save a jpeg in my upload folder, one beside the RAW and discard the Tiff.

(I do the majority of my adjustments in LR then open into PS.)

Betty

[Harry Harrison]

8 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

If I tag a jpeg, does that count as “editing?”

Tagging in Bridge doesn't involve reprocessing the jpeg, it's really just acting like a text editor, not an image editor. 

[MDM]

2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Tagging in Bridge doesn't involve reprocessing the jpeg, it's really just acting like a text editor, not an image editor. 

 

I recall discussing this with Betty some years ago and after a bit of research coming to the conclusion that there is no effect on the image data, the only change being to the metadata. 

[MDM]

On 02/09/2019 at 17:50, Ed Rooney said:

Goodness me . . . I think I almost understand what you guys are telling me. At least it seems clearer than being a fake Irish laddie trying to live in the UK after Brexit. 

 

Thanks

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Harry, jpeg 2000 is one of the Save-As conversion choices on Photoshop. I use old-fashion jpegs but alway save at Quality 12.

 

My friend is reading this Post. He will probably get the camera delivered by tomorrow -- super fast. (After Brexit it will take six months.)

 

Who's been mentioning the B word then, not once but twice? Don't worry though - you may have the best position of all Edo with this putative trade deal between the UK and the US. Sending stuff to the US (or the Faroe Islands for that matter) from the UK should be no problem at all when they get this thing sorted in no time at all. Some would say that instead of being a vassal state of the EU (to paraphrase the bojo), the UK will go on to be a vassal state of the USA. Get your mojo workin and maybe you could get yourself a barony - Baron Edo of Liverpool sounds good to me 🤣. 

Edited September 5, 2019 by MDM

[Harry Harrison]

11 minutes ago, MDM said:

I recall discussing this with Betty some years ago and after a bit of research coming to the conclusion that there is no effect on the image data, the only change being to the metadata. 

Yes, I don't know if Bridge has changed since my elderly version but there's no option to save the file after tagging in mine anyway, not even a confirmation that tags have been added, but they have. As you probably know you can resize a tagged jpeg to a few pixels across and then change the .jpg extension to .txt. , then open in a text editor and see the caption, keywords & EXIF in the header.