Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I recently read a fellow photographer's advice that we should do any pre-submission editing in RAW. After we are happy with the photo then convert to JPEG and submit to Alamy for QC. It had never occurred to me to do that. I try VERY hard to get my photos the way I want in camera but occasionally I want to do a little editing and have always done so in JPEG.

 

What do you all think? Asking for advice/opinions. 

 

Thanks

 

Oh...PS. Just don't want to dive into the Abobe PS and LR mess so am looking for a free photo editor that I don't need a PhD. to learn. Tried GIMP about a year ago and trying to learn it made my head hurt. Can you edit RAW in PhotoScape? I have looked for an answer to this myself. Everywhere I've read about PhotoScape features it says that it will convert RAW to JPEG but I've yet to see where it says specifically, yes, you can use all of PhotoScape's features to edit in RAW.

Edited by Gordon O McGinnis
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want to produce top quality files without doing any work or spending any money and sell them in a very competitive market.

 

Good luck with that!

 

Regen

  • Upvote 9
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' ... Just don't want to dive into the Abobe PS and LR mess ...' it is not a mess as you call it but the world leader in photo processing and cost just a few pounds per month and worth every penny.

 

Sounds like you want to convert a pigs ear into a silk purse to make a profit at no cost - as Regan say, good luck

  • Upvote 9
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously you guys? Did you have mothers? Did they not ever tell you if you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all?

 

Sarcastic, belittling, disrespectful responses are neither helpful nor welcome.

 

You don't know me or what I am trying to accomplish and what resources I have available. In short you know nothing and have nothing worth while to say so in future when you see my post just shut up and go away.

 

Does posting petty responses like this really make you feel better about yourselves? What pathetic lives you must lead. Give me enough money to sink the Queen Mary and I would say no to it if it meant having your useless lives.

 

And where are the moderators? Is this supposed to be a safe place for beginners or a place where all you "professionals" can prop up your egos by taking pot shots at us beginners? If this is a site where snobs abound and flourish I will not be sticking around.

Edited by Gordon O McGinnis
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I recently read a fellow photographer's advice that we should do any pre-submission editing in RAW. After we are happy with the photo then convert to JPEG and submit to Alamy for QC. It had never occurred to me to do that. I try VERY hard to get my photos the way I want in camera but occasionally I want to do a little editing and have always done so in JPEG.

 

What do you all think? Asking for advice/opinions. 

 

Thanks

 

Oh...PS. Just don't want to dive into the Abobe PS and LR mess so am looking for a free photo editor that I don't need a PhD. to learn. Tried GIMP about a year ago and trying to learn it made my head hurt. Can you edit RAW in PhotoScape? I have looked for an answer to this myself. Everywhere I've read about PhotoScape features it says that it will convert RAW to JPEG but I've yet to see where it says specifically, yes, you can use all of PhotoScape's features to edit in RAW.

It all depends on the quality of the jpgs your camera produces and how much editing you want to do.

 

If the jpgs are good (not over compressed or sharpened) and you just want to remove the odd "dust bunny" and resave, you'll be OK.

 

But, if you want to significantly adjust contrast, lift shadows, darken highlights, reduce noise etc, then RAW is the way to go. You don't have to edit in RAW, you can convert RAW to 16 bit TIFF or PSD, and then adjust/edit in any 16 bit capable editor. Then save as 8 bit jpg and submit to Alamy. PhotoShop Elements is not too hard to get to grips with (easier than GIMP). It handles contrast and levels adjustments in 16 bit mode (so do these first), but you'll have to convert to 8 bit for cloning and other pixel based edits. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Editing in RAW is probably best, but it editing in TIFF is fine, especially in 16bit.

The thing to avoid is opening a JPEG and saving it as a JPEG and opening it again. RAW retains all the original camera data; TIFF retains all the data in the file when you save it; JPEG loses information / quality every time it is saved. 

I usually convert RAW to TIFF for editing, then only convert to JPEG when all the editing is done and the finished photo is ready to upload.

 

I agree that some of the responses have been less than friendly - maybe you should try to rise above it.

Edited by Phil Robinson
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always shoot raw and learn how to process raw images properly if you are serious about photography. It's not a matter of good or bad jpegs - it's having the option to process and reprocess at any point in the future. The biggest problem perhaps with in-camera jpegs is that the white balance is locked in from the start and camera often (in fact usually) get this wrong to some degree or other. Not shooting raw is trusting the camera in the same way as you would if you kept all the settings on automatic.

 

By the way, this forum is very helpful and friendly but Alamy is not a place for beginner photographers. If you are serious about photography and you should be if you want to sell on Alamy, then the investment in Lightroom or the Creative Cloud Photography package is almost essential - there is no other real choice. And it's very cheap. So I suggest you do yourself a favour and invest the small amount of money required to produce professional quality processing of your images.

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arterra - Thank you for your comments which respond to my original question. I found what you said helpful and I appreciate it. A bit mystified by your last remarks about my not appreciating having folks posting pot shots at me that are just rude and unhelpful.

 

M. Chapman, Phil Robinson and MDM - Thank you for your helpful responses. 

 

Phil Robinson - "...maybe you should try to rise above it." I agree. Good point. Now that I've had a bit to cool off and think about it I am sorry for popping off the way I did. Not a sterling moment for me, eh?

 

To all of you though, who've offered helpful comments or those of you who may do so over the next day or so, thank you. And again very sorry for going off.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a fan of JPEGs for some years until I got into a prolonged spot of bother with QC, although I probably needed new glasses as well. Switching to RAW put that right.

RAWs are just sharper in anything but good light- it's a simple fact- and it's not the images taken at f16 at 100ISO that get you into QC hell. I also no longer have blown skies or noisy shadows.

If you are to work in any sort of volume you will probably have to acquire LR by whatever means sooner or later. You don't necessarily need the latest version- I'm happy with LR4. There are things PS is handy for but I hardly ever use it for processing these days and when i do it's still CS2.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a fan of JPEGs for some years until I got into a prolonged spot of bother with QC, although I probably needed new glasses as well. Switching to RAW put that right.

RAWs are just sharper in anything but good light- it's a simple fact- and it's not the images taken at f16 at 100ISO that get you into QC hell. I also no longer have blown skies or noisy shadows.

If you are to work in any sort of volume you will probably have to acquire LR by whatever means sooner or later. You don't necessarily need the latest version- I'm happy with LR4. There are things PS is handy for but I hardly ever use it for processing these days and when i do it's still CS2.

 

There have been several very very useful features added to Lightroom since version 4 so you really are missing out not upgrading. The best thing of all in my opinion is very recent - the increase in speed in LR6.6. The Develop model is no longer a massive slug in terms of the graphics - it generates full size previews of my 36MP files in no time, it's possible to flick around a full size image and the response to changes is instantaneous whereas before it was often painful to use. And there are numerous other changes and enhancements. This is an upgrade that has very major workflow enhancements

 

You may not recall, but I was  one of the main advocates in persuading you to shoot and process raw - well now I'm strongly advocating upgrading (but you may need to upgrade your computer as LR6 requires a 64-bit OS).

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always RAW.  Non-destructive and gives you so many more ways to improve your images in a very tough market.  I have images where I have adjusted the exposure in one area 4 times in 4 different layers.

 

Improving skies, pumping up some colour, bringing out those hidden highlights and bringing out detail hidden in shadows.  As a beginner, you should be wanting to take on the professional software to compete in a professional marketplace.  When all your competitors have these tools, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage.

 

As Spacecadet said, you don't have to subscribe to PS and Lightroom.  Simply purchase Lightroom and as you get more adept take on PS when you are ready to clone, remove wires, do some composites, remove small distracting items, etc.  Lots more stuff as well, but those are the basics you will find yourself using the most.

 

Jill

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a fan of JPEGs for some years until I got into a prolonged spot of bother with QC, although I probably needed new glasses as well. Switching to RAW put that right.

RAWs are just sharper in anything but good light- it's a simple fact- and it's not the images taken at f16 at 100ISO that get you into QC hell. I also no longer have blown skies or noisy shadows.

If you are to work in any sort of volume you will probably have to acquire LR by whatever means sooner or later. You don't necessarily need the latest version- I'm happy with LR4. There are things PS is handy for but I hardly ever use it for processing these days and when i do it's still CS2.

 

 

My workflow is RAW-tiff-jpeg. That's LR5.6>CS2, with an occasional stop in NX2. But let me point out that we can in fact edit jpegs non-destructively in LR:  http://lightroomkillertips.com/qa-is-lightroom-destructive-to-jpegs/

 

To the OP:  I must point out that the Alamy forum is not a basic photography school. This is a good place to develop an understanding of high-end information about the stock business, details of digital editing, and pro shooting. You are not there yet, not in a position to understand or benefit from such information. Nobody here has the time to type out pages of basic information. Learn digital photography, YouTube can help, and come back later.

Edited by Ed Rooney
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon, you might want to check out DxO Optics Pro for processing RAW files. It will also handle JPEGs, but I wouldn't recommend that. You don't need a PhD in order to learn how to use Optics Pro, and there are plenty of online tutorials available. If you do some Googling, you might find a copy of DxO Optics Pro 8 for free. Apparently the promo "gift" codes floating around out there are still working. I'm still using my free copy of version 8 that I downloaded a couple of years ago. It's a powerful and innovative program. I find that Optics Pro in conjunction with PS Elements do everything that I need at the moment. When I buy my next, more powerful computer, I'm planning on upgrading to the latest version of Optics Pro.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I was a fan of JPEGs for some years until I got into a prolonged spot of bother with QC, although I probably needed new glasses as well. Switching to RAW put that right.

RAWs are just sharper in anything but good light- it's a simple fact- and it's not the images taken at f16 at 100ISO that get you into QC hell. I also no longer have blown skies or noisy shadows.

If you are to work in any sort of volume you will probably have to acquire LR by whatever means sooner or later. You don't necessarily need the latest version- I'm happy with LR4. There are things PS is handy for but I hardly ever use it for processing these days and when i do it's still CS2.

 

 

My workflow is RAW-tiff-jpeg. That's LR5.6>CS2, with an occasional stop in NX2. But let me point out that we can in fact edit jpegs non-destructively in LR:  http://lightroomkillertips.com/qa-is-lightroom-destructive-to-jpegs/

 

To the OP:  I must point out that the Alamy forum is not a basic photography school. This is a good place to develop an understanding of high-end information about the stock business, details of digital editing, and pro shooting. You are not there yet, not in a position to understand or benefit from such information. Nobody here has the time to type out pages of basic information. Learn digital photography, YouTube can help, and come back later.

 

 

Ed, now you really confuse me with your new avatar  :wacko:

Who are you now? A grumpy old man, named Ed? Or a cute Mexican girl, named Ed?

......................

..............

..........

.........like in Johnny Cash' song "A boy Named Sue" but vice versa  :huh:

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

He's like me -- he's off his rocker. B)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what Alamy tells newbies, why newbies post to the forum, and I think one of the reasons why Alamy supports this forum:

 
“Why not join our community of photographers and find out all the latest news and trends:
Contributor forum – Find out what Alamy is really like first-hand from our photographers”
 
You can find this statement here:
 
 
If forum members consider the OP’s question would be better answered by Alamy memberservices, then they should send the OP back to Alamy memberservices by ignoring the OP’s forum question. Don’t answer.
 
Edo’s new avatar is Edo’s subtle way of announcing he has finally raised enough money through selling his photography on Alamy to make the final installment payment on his sex change.
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am among the most parsimonious on the planet, I use old lenses bought from charity shops etc, and I certainly don't want to pay Adobe a monthly slug. To be honest my stock earnings don't justify this. But I do use LR (along with an ancient copy of PS) and periodically update to the latest edition of LR - credit to Adobe you could (and hopefully still can) update from way back so this is not a frequent occurrence and therefore not expensive overall.

 

Consider giving yourself a break and buy a copy of LR. As others have said, you need a professional quality raw converter, and the Internet is full of people falling over themselves to show you how to use it. Further, although I thought it was a complete pain when I first used it,  I now realise that the included cataloguing system is extremely useful. I now keyword all of my shots in LR, and then shuffle the words around after uploading to Alamy. In the long run it's the easiest way.

 

If perchance you are a Canon user, then the included (free) raw converter DPP used to be a very good  product.  It doesn't match LR for features, but it does a good job on the conversions. Ideally you would probably still need access to some other image editing software. I used to use it in conjunction with my steam age copy of PS. (I've tried comparing old DPP conversions with the latest LR, and to my, admittedly weary, eyeballs, I can't see any significant differences).

 

Final thought, I believe that you can  still buy a standalone copy of Photoshop Elements.  I seem to recall that some folk who successfully contribute here are users. 

Edited by Bryan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was a fan of JPEGs for some years until I got into a prolonged spot of bother with QC, although I probably needed new glasses as well. Switching to RAW put that right.

RAWs are just sharper in anything but good light- it's a simple fact- and it's not the images taken at f16 at 100ISO that get you into QC hell. I also no longer have blown skies or noisy shadows.

If you are to work in any sort of volume you will probably have to acquire LR by whatever means sooner or later. You don't necessarily need the latest version- I'm happy with LR4. There are things PS is handy for but I hardly ever use it for processing these days and when i do it's still CS2.

 

 

My workflow is RAW-tiff-jpeg. That's LR5.6>CS2, with an occasional stop in NX2. But let me point out that we can in fact edit jpegs non-destructively in LR:  http://lightroomkillertips.com/qa-is-lightroom-destructive-to-jpegs/

 

To the OP:  I must point out that the Alamy forum is not a basic photography school. This is a good place to develop an understanding of high-end information about the stock business, details of digital editing, and pro shooting. You are not there yet, not in a position to understand or benefit from such information. Nobody here has the time to type out pages of basic information. Learn digital photography, YouTube can help, and come back later.

 

Not sure where you are getting the idea that I am new to photography. I have not said anything to that effect. I have not asked anyone to teach me anything about digital photography.

 

You say, "This is a good place to develop an understanding of high-end information about the stock business, details of digital editing, and pro shooting."

 

If you will please read my OP you will see I am doing exactly what you say this forum is for. I am asking about "details of digital editing" as you put it. In that direction I appreciate what you say about how you do RAW-TIFF-JPEG. Your comment led me to go back and dig up and read again an article about this very approach that I came across about a year ago. Good stuff and I think I can see the wisdom of your working this way.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I have not said anything to that effect." 

 

Sure you did. You posted your pictures. And backed that up with every remark you've made. 

 


 

Edited by Ed Rooney
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comparison of RAW conversion software here.

 

LR obviously has the most features. One of these years, I might break down and give it a go (after my PhD from Trump University arrives in the mail). Something I really like about Optics Pro are their "lens modules." They supposedly use parameters based on DxO lab tests on a wide range of lenses. I find that the modules really do help correct some inherent flaws such as corner/edge softness.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ed, now you really confuse me with your new avatar  :wacko:

Who are you now? A grumpy old man, named Ed? Or a cute Mexican girl, named Ed?"
 
Philippe, my man -- that red dot on the lady's head is a bindi, which means she's a Hindu woman (in Bali), in this case from India. Not Mexican. By the way, are you the African girl in your avatar? And yes, grumpy, old and RED as in the film of that name. 
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with John Mitchell.

 

I use the free DxO Pro Optics 8 and it's a "professional" package.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been doing stock since 2006. I did some reading online, so knew shooting Raw was the way to go. But from there things morphed through the years. At first I saved the finished 16 bit tiff alongside the Raw. Talk about eating up HD space.

Now I save the JPEG alongside. I read just the other day somebody here only keeps the Raw files, and just reprocesses if they need to.

But having the JPEG in the same folder lets me know which files I've developed. I mark the jpegs file name to reflect they've been uploaded to Alamy which is useful to me. I use Lightroom and PS CC, but don't catalogue Since I've been unwilling to figure out how to do it.

You sound a bit like my husband, who hates sitting at the computer and processing. I did teach him a few moves that color corrected, straightened and added contrast.

You might do those simple things at first, and only when you are comfortable doing those in whatever software you choose, add a new trick from time to time.

That's what I did. Photoshop completely overwhelmed me in the beginning. Then I bought a how-to book by Scott Kelby. He writes in a simple step by step way that wasn't over my head, and didn't assume I already knew things I didn't know. I bought several of his books.

I doubt, but don't know, that he does anything but Adobe software books, and I don't know if he's still writing them. Check it out and see. I would think since Adobe CC came out and is continuously updated, that would make up-to-date books hard.

But I do recommend getting a decent piece of software that will get you started with basic adjustments that you can grow into when you're ready to take the next step. Then if there are no books, look for online tutorials. That said, I hate the tutorials, I'd much rather have a book open on my desk. But I use the tutorials when I have to.

My method learning processing was always not trying to shove the whole meal in my mouth at once, but one little bite at a time. I didn't feel so overwhelmed that way.

Believe it or not, but once you learn how to develop a Raw image in an advanced way, you'll be thrilled how much better your images look.

Good luck. Been where you are. It's tough.

Betty

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with John Mitchell.

 

I use the free DxO Pro Optics 8 and it's a "professional" package.

 

You certainly can't beat the price for such powerful software. It fit right into my limited budget.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I'm late to this, it's late at night and I can't read all of this right now. I have had no issue picking up LR/PS and I have quickly learned how to edit my photos. Mainly, I adjust exposure and DOF. I can't shoot in RAW with my camera, but I would if I could! RAW takes much more storage, but a 64 micro sd card with an adapter from Samsung on amazon is $20, which is a steal. As for editing programs, snapseed is an app for your phone. Its free and has many basic features that you'd need. Works well for me in a hurry!

Edited by bobdabiulder
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.