Ideal software?

[Ash]

I've run into an issue.

Up until last year I had access to Photoshop CS at college. Since finishing the foundation degree I've not been able to afford full PS, so I've been using *shudder* Elements.

I like to do a lot of editing using Camera Raw plugin, but limited to one image at a time (through elements) this is laborious.

Recently I used a more modern dslr which my Elements6 won't handle, no Adobe update (forced to buy new version, or defer).


Two workflows:
Scan neg - edit - save - print
Digital raw pic - edit - save - print

I do minimal editing but I'm so used to PS interface. I can't afford PS, I dont want to struggle with Elements. I'm thinking get a CameraRaw style app for majority of editing, keep older Elements in case something comes up I can't do elsewhere.


I'm tempted to get Lightroom, so long as it copes with the newer raw files, allows me to batch process files - biggest issue when white balancing & correcting negs. I don't like the look of Aperture, seems a lot like iPhoto...

Do any of you use Lightroom/Aperture?
Are they worth using?
Do they all a silverfast plugin to scan?

[Ash]

Just tried Lightroom, hated it as soon as I opened it.

Bugger

[Ken Lee]

The trick is to download trial versions, and see which one offends us least. Most of them are for helping commercial photographers do their jobs efficiently. They need to manage large collections of small files. In Large Format, we need to manage small collections of large files.

Once we consider 16-bit images and support for ICC profiles, there is really no substitute for Photoshop. It's worth the price, a prime investment like a good lens or camera or enlarger. That being said, there's no reason to upgrade every time they make a new version, until they introduce a tool you need, surpass a compelling performance threshold, or your version becomes no longer viable on a new operating system or platform.

In my experience, it's best to perform corrections in the scanner if possible, rather than afterwards in an editing tool. To that end, it's better to perform corrections during development, rather than afterwards, during scanning. And in that vein, it's best to perform corrections while taking the photograph, rather than afterwards, during development.

See where I'm heading ? Seriously.

[Matus Kalisky]

I know this stinks, but you may try to spot an older version over eBay or similar. However you need to make sure you will be able to use that version ...

I am in similar position - I am using PS form university. But once I am gone I will have to find a solution too (1000€ is bit too steep for me too .. )

[dave_whatever]

In my experience, it's best to perform corrections in the scanner if possible, rather than afterwards in an editing tool.

Some scanners (i.e. consumer flatbeds rather than dedicated film scanners) don't appear to have any analogue gain, i.e. they always actually scan at the same exposure regardless of how you set the levels in the scanning software. So even if you make changes to the levels in epson scan, its still in essence applying them after the scan simply as a software adjustment in the same way that doing in it photoshop does (even though you may get slightly different results each way, probably due to different software algorithms?).

[Matus Kalisky]

Well, most scanners probably DO have analog setting of the gain (or lamp brightness), but often the scanning software does not allow user to set it. This is also the case with my Microtek F1 - neither SilverFast nor the ScanWizard have this option (SF has one feature called multi-exposure where two scans with different lamp settings are made and merged, but user has no way to influence this and it works poorly). I have tried the VueScan and it allows this.

Also if you just save 8 bit output than doing the adjustments in the scanner is better as they seem to be made still in 16 bits (levels are smooth)

[bdkphoto]

I know this stinks, but you may try to spot an older version over eBay or similar. However you need to make sure you will be able to use that version ...

I am in similar position - I am using PS form university. But once I am gone I will have to find a solution too (1000€ is bit too steep for me too .. )

Adobe has great education discounts for students and educators. If you are still in school take advantage and purchase the latest version now with your student ID.

The workaround for camera raw files that are not supported in the older versions of PS is to use the camera capture software (ie Canon's DPP) and convert to a DNG file which PS will be able to open and process.

[dave_whatever]

Well, most scanners probably DO have analog setting of the gain (or lamp brightness), but often the scanning software does not allow user to set it. This is also the case with my Microtek F1 - neither SilverFast nor the ScanWizard have this option (SF has one feature called multi-exposure where two scans with different lamp settings are made and merged, but user has no way to influence this and it works poorly). I have tried the VueScan and it allows this.

Also if you just save 8 bit output than doing the adjustments in the scanner is better as they seem to be made still in 16 bits (levels are smooth)

I can only talk for the epsons, if they have got analogue gain then I haven't found it (I'd love to be proved wrong!). You're spot on about the bit depth though as its probably making the changes at full bit depth before outputting.

[Ken Lee]

Some scanners (i.e. consumer flatbeds rather than dedicated film scanners) don't appear to have any analogue gain, i.e. they always actually scan at the same exposure regardless of how you set the levels in the scanning software. So even if you make changes to the levels in epson scan, its still in essence applying them after the scan simply as a software adjustment in the same way that doing in it photoshop does (even though you may get slightly different results each way, probably due to different software algorithms?).

Thanks - that's an excellent point. And I'm confining my discussion to Black and White. Color is another story.

As you say, the scanner software is already performing an adjustment at scan time. We can't escape that. So let there be that one nice adjustment - instead of two, or many more. Adjustments should be kept to a minimum, and made up-stream when possible.

By analogy to the wet darkroom, a photograph of an ideal subject, which has been exposed and developed ideally, should print on Number 2 paper with no effort, and should look as analog and natural as possible. It's rare, but such images look nice.

Here's one image of mine that comes rather close. Made on 5x7 HP5+, it only required a tiny amount sharpening. Otherwise, straight from the scanner.

Here is another one just like it: 5x7 HP5+, an adjustment in the scanner, and a little sharpening.

Here's one more, this one on 4x5 TMY.

I find that images like these, have a sense of presence, which comes from nuances of tone. It is for these nuances, that we look to Large Format.

[Ash]

Silverfast (or any other frontend) for scanning doesn't give a perfect scan.
There's no way to know until the file is there, and I need tweaks, removing a subtle colour cast, sharpening, dust/spot removal.
The workflow is there with PS, but I admit all I want is Camera Raw as a standalone.

As for raw, I'm having to spend an hour & double the disk space to convert raw to tiff/dng to edit in PSE. I'd not be looking for new s/w if the old stuff worked.


I no longer have a student card, so I'm probably going to have to join an evening class just to get a student card for getting discount.