×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Lightroom Review

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the photo-editing-for-the-common-man dept.

Software 181

onethumb writes "Andy over at Digital Grin got his hands on a pre-release copy of Adobe's hot new app 'Lightroom' last week and has a nice review up. Adobe Lightroom, is designed to go head-to-head with Apple's own recently released Aperture. Is digital photo editing finally getting both powerful and easy?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

181 comments

Dumb Question? (2)

busman (136696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431117)

Is digital photo editing finally getting both powerful and easy?"

And it wasn't before?

Re:Dumb Question? (1)

scolby (838499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431229)

Oh, it was easy enough to figure out how to do most things basic users would try to do...it was just a bit intimidating. Getting someone to use something isn't about making it easy as much as it's making it look like something they might be able to figure out.

Re:Dumb Question? (2, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431243)

Is digital photo editing finally getting both powerful and easy?"
And it wasn't before?

I certainly didn't think so. I don't find Adobe Photoshop to the the least bit intuitive. The online help is fairly useless, unless I assume you already know what you are doing. I spent $600 buying this a couple years ago and still do most of my photo editing in other tools because they are a bit more obvious how to navigate. Photoshop may be a breeze once you've been trained on it.

I've been a bit put off, too, by the lack of books which actually teach you, run you through some comprehensive exercises so you then can figure out your best approach and tools to use.

I tried to find a class at the local community college, but they went through a lot of spending cuts and that was one of the programs that was cropped.

Re:Dumb Question? (3, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431280)

Photoshop may be a breeze once you've been trained on it. [...] I tried to find a class at the local community college, but they went through a lot of spending cuts and that was one of the programs that was cropped.

      Now that's some powerful software -- it can crop itself!

Re:Dumb Question? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431374)

Now that's some powerful software -- it can crop itself!

Alas, not more powerful than the school's regents, who with the stroke of a pen or an 'Aye' can lay waste to an Arts department.

all in favor of increasing the board's stipend say Aye!

Re:Dumb Question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431936)

I find it hilarious that a community college has a "board of regents". over-inflated view of themselves? signs point to "likely".

Re:Dumb Question? (2, Informative)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431310)

Try Adobe's Classroom In a Book series. You most likely won't find them at your local Borders, but order it from Amazon or Adobe directly. They cover almost all of the tools and their proper usage via workalong exercises. The books come with CDs of sample files, and the lessons walk you through manipulation of those files/images to achieve the end result. While they may not go in-depth into some of the more esoteric stuff, it gives you a good idea of what certain tools/functions are for, which you can then use to research them further. Also, once you learn the toolbar for one Adobe app, you can generally get around in the others, since the tools and palettes are similar across the board.

Re:Dumb Question? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431353)

Try Adobe's Classroom In a Book series.

Thanks, I'll give it a try. I'm getting a higher-end digital camera to do some Astrophotography with and would like to be able to use PS for the work.

Re:Dumb Question? (1)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431441)

Something to keep in mind is that you may want to hunt down the appropriate version of the book to match your version of Photoshop. They sometimes move a few things around in the menus and toolbars, so if you're using a newer book with an older version of Photoshop, you may get stuck a few times. If you're a troubleshooter, you'll get through it eventually and also probably figure out why they moved the function/feature. I learned on version 6 using a book for version 4, so these sorts of things became clear fairly quickly [like features were now grouped together rather than having one thing under a separate menu, etc]. Going the other way, though, may be a bit more difficult [eg, book for CS2 with a copy of PS 6 or 7]. Anyways, good luck and have fun with your new camera.

Re:Dumb Question? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431490)

Something to keep in mind is that you may want to hunt down the appropriate version of the book to match your version of Photoshop.

Already have it tagged, thanks. I'll doublecheck my version when I get home, though I believe it is 6.0

Even dumber Question? (1)

Godwin O'Hitler (205945) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431360)

What can Photoshop do that PSP (ex-JASC, now Corel) can't? This is a genuine question. I've never bought or used Photoshop because the amount of use it would get just doesn't warrant the expenditure. But I use PSP from time to time to make posters; I found the learning process fairly painless and I don't see much missing from it.

Is Photoshop a magnitude better or just slightly more powerful at certain things?

Re:Even dumber Question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431545)

All the 1337 w4r3z k1dd13z use Photoshop, so it must be better!

I'm sure that if 90% of the people that actually used Photoshop and claimed it was the best actually had to pay for it, they'd be promoting something else instead - like PSP.

Re:Even dumber Question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431661)

The things it has going for it:

Name recognition
Many Users
Expensive
Momentum
If its expensive, people will pirate it.

I haven't used psp in a while (it may have it now, didn't before), but being able to batch images with plugins/programs to, for instance, convert all images in this directory to the same size, do a white balance, place a decorative border on them and put them in another directory is really nifty.

Re:Even dumber Question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431791)

I haven't used PSP in a while, but for me, the best Photoshop CS2 features are:
- Vanishing Point 3D perspective grid
- Soft-proofing via full color management
- Shadow/Highlight recovery of detail at extreme ends of tonal range (this is a special algorithm that cannot be reproduced via Curves)
- Smart Sharpen (this is sort of a next-generation Unsharp Mask, much more intelligent and less destructive)
- Adobe Camera Raw (Pro-quality RAW converter) and Adobe Bridge (multi-format file and metadata browser)
- Pixel aspect ratio correction (useful for interchange with video editing pixel aspect ratios)
- Digital camera Noise Reduction (I'll bet PSP has a form of this, though)

That's just off the top of my head. I am a person who actually needs Photoshop's pro features, but in fact 90% of the population does not need Photoshop or PSP, their needs could be met by Photoshop Elements which is actually quite powerful now and under $100. Or the GIMP.

Re:Even dumber Question? (2, Informative)

ray-auch (454705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432050)

At least as of last time I looked:

      PSP has no colour management (it can actually silently screw up anything non sRGB)
      PSP can't do >8bit per channel

For serious work those are frequently show stoppers. Those are just the first two limits I ran into.

"Is PhotoShop a magnitude better ?"

This is like saying "is [high end DSLR] a magnitude better than [cheap compact]" - the answer is that it all depends what you are trying to do. If you only care about megapixels, buy the compact and get similar res for a fraction of the price. If you don't _need_ the features of the DSLR, why pay for them - but if you do, then don't buy something that is lacking.

PSP is cheap, easy to learn and great for simpler image editing. If you don't need more, then don't waste your money on PhotoShop - it won't be a magnitude better for you.

On the other hand, if you need to go beyond its limits, you don't waste your time with PSP.

I have temporarily removed PSP from machines before now when doing image work - because it was too tempting to use it to make a quick edit on an image, forgetting that it will screw up the colours (when the images are 300M+, you don't make lots of copies to go back to either).

Re:Dumb Question? (2, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431639)

"I don't find Adobe Photoshop to the the least bit intuitive."

It's not meant to be, or rather it is, but mostly it's not because you don't understand the paradigms on which it's based. It's a professional-level tool, designed for graphic arts professionals who're going to be trained in it's use and using it day-in and day-out. If all you want to do is fix the red-eye from your 3MP P&S, then use Elements or some other hand-holding piece of software.

From a similar perspective, Linux command lines and configuration files are extremely powerful, and allow administrative types to do major tasks quickly and easily. Drop a newbie with no training in front of a blinking terminal prompt, however, and he's lost. Powerful, yes. Intuitive? Not a chance.

Re:Dumb Question? (2)

Pixelmixer (907566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431897)

To tell you the truth... I dont think classes would be the way to go in order to learn photoshop... Its much more effective to do a trial and error approach and mess around with the tools until you get what you want. If you MUST be taught.. then i suggest attempting some of the 2,000,000+ free tutorials out there for photoshop, they really do help. And these are comprehensive.. most are step-by-step and provide images and settings to get the same results. Taking classes for photoshop seems a waste of money with all the free help that exists... I became fluent with Adobe Photoshop 7.0 my freshman year in highschool after only being exposed to the program for less than 3 months.

Re:Dumb Question? (1)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431643)

Is digital photo editing finally getting both powerful and easy?"
And it wasn't before?

In my office (where I'm one of the most-experienced Photoshop users), I refer to Adobe's attempts at user-friendliness as "Job Security." Nobody argues.

Re: This is not a "traditional" photo app! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431716)

Here we go again, people asking why any of this new corporate software is necessary when we have Photoshop, Jasc, or GIMP.

The reason this category is gaining traction is that this is not the same as the old-line photo editors. Aperture, Lightroom, etc. are more along the lines of Capture One, Camera Raw/Bridge, Bibble, and other pro-photoshoot-oriented batch RAW processing tools. For this particular purpose of quickly culling and processing entire shoots of RAW camera sensor data, the "single document"-centric image editors like Photoshop, GIMP, etc. are not suitable, or do not even contain features relevant to RAW processing! (In Photoshop, RAW processing is supplied by Adobe Camera Raw, a separate plug-in).

These new apps are new because they only became necessary with the spread of cameras that dump raw sensor data into the card instead of pre-processing them into JPEGs using algorithms from the factory. RAW processing apps allow you to control the initial conversion to JPEG, nondestructively, well after the fact, a mission well beyond the scope of the old-line photo editors.

So please stop comparing Aperture, Lightroom, etc. to old apps or consumer toy apps like iPhoto. By claiming that traditional photo apps cover this ground already, you reveal a lack of research that's sufficient to disqualify you from this discussion.

One more adjective (1, Informative)

op12 (830015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431135)

Powerful, easy, expensive: Aperture = $499

So is there a better option? (1)

sterno (16320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431768)

$499 is a bit steep and as an amateur that'd just like an easy way to manage my photos, it's so not worth it. I'm wondering, are there any open source equivalents to these programs. There's GIMP as an equivalent (arguably) to Photoshop, but there's a host of photo management apps coming out and I don't know of an OSS equivalent.

Currently I use Picassa which is easy to use and good at keeping track of all my photos, but it doesn't have the most powerful selection of tools to do image correction. I prefer to do my edits in Picassa because it doesn't touch the original image and it makes it easy to undo and try different things. But to do really good color correction, etc, I need to use GIMP/Photoshop and it just gets annoying.

So anything out there that might give me more power like these tools but not cost me $499, or, ideally, be completely free :)

requirements (3, Interesting)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431136)

One thing that seems nice about Lightroom is that right now it only requires a 1GHz G4. Aperture on the other hand needs at least a powerbook 1.25 G4.

Mac-only for now (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431290)

Adobe certainly knows how to cater to its target audience [atspace.com]. Consider this: Among those of us most likely [atspace.com] to use this software [atspace.com], a significant [atspace.com] number would feel slighted if Adobe were to release it for Windows or Linux first. Just as importantly, we recognize that software designed first and foremost for Mac is likely to be of higher quality, with a more careful attention paid to elegance [atspace.com] and beauty [atspace.com]. Indeed, I for one look forward to integrating Adobe Lightroom into my photography workflow.

Sigh...misinformed submitter. (5, Informative)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431667)

That's because Aperture is doing its layer processing in real-time using CoreImage and storing it in an SQLite database through CoreData.

As for the submission:
Is digital photo editing finally getting both powerful and easy?

It already was with apps like iPhoto (easy), Photoshop (powerful), and others. Aperture is geared toward professional photographers processing RAW format images. The submitter obviously has no idea what these apps are and what they're for--they're not supposed to be consumer-level photo-editing apps. They're professional photography pre-processing applications.

Meh (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431142)

Public beta is only for MacOS X.

Patience, Grasshopper (1)

The Rizz (1319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431251)

The download page says that a beta for Windows will be coming out.
Odds are, the Windows version is still just too buggy for a public release, beta or not.

Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit OT]? (2, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431146)

Aperture is awesome, and I assume Lightroom will be as well.

I'm an amateur photographer (I just have a D50 right now as my first DSLR but was an SLR user for almost a decade beforehand). I love the new line of DSLRs, they are completely a step ahead of the SLRs for my needs and the quality is amazing. I've ruined a few rolls of film in the past, so I'm glad I'm much safer with the digital storage.

My off-topic question that sort of remains on-topic is this: With all the cheap labor available online (from students, amateurs and those trying to build portfolios of work), does anyone know of good websites where I can upload my photographs and let others "compete" openly to making them look better?

Time is "expensive" for me, I try to live my life by time preference. I don't mind paying someone to do something better than I can, especially if the cost saves me time. I don't believe that time is money, the opposite is true: money is time. I'll be happy to pay up to $5 per photo (even $20 in some cases) to have them cleaned up as needed by semi-pros or even pros. I'm sure there is a market for such a thing, but I just can't find it.

Anyone know of a decent site, as well as what the popular software is for the "doing it for income" photo editor?

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (4, Funny)

Shimmer (3036) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431208)

I think most photographers enjoy working on their own photos.

If your time is so valuable, you could just hire a photographer to take the pictures for you and skip that chore as well.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (2, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431239)

You're right that a lot of photographers like working on their photos. For me, hobby photography came directly from the fact that I am on the move so much -- some days I'll be out and about for almost 14 hours! I see interesting things every day -- accidents, government workers slacking off, funny occurences, even saw a UFO once (I think it was a bird caught in the wind, it was just unidentifiable).

I like taking the photos, and I think I've become pretty good at it. I think the photos would be better with a little bit of tweaking, and I'd be happy to pay someone to "soup up" some of my favorite shots. I've messed with it myself, but I just don't find the pictures getting better.

My consulting business spends a lot of money (still) on paper marketing (for our customers), and the quality of production of some of my print shops is amazing. On some occasions we've seen GITO (garbage in-treasure out). They don't offer any photo editing as a single item I could buy, and none of their editors wants to moonlight for me.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431361)

Why do you have an expensive dSLR for what are essentially grab-shots?

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (2, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431422)

Why do you have an expensive dSLR for what are essentially grab-shots?

Good question.

First, I like the ability to use multiple lenses. I carry 3 different lenses in my camera bag and actually use them (the zoom lens is awesome).

Second, I take pictures of customers' offices on occasion. When I do my consulting, I sometimes try to sell my customers on "value added" services such as desk organizing and the like (I have subcontractors that do all these jobs and I get a cut). I love to do before and after shots, so the higher resolution and customization features of a dSLR are beneficial.

Third, I love the quality of it. I've had 2 regular SLRs in a decade. I've had about 10 regular digital cameras, and the quality sucked -- sometimes they required tripods, sometimes they blurred backgrounds, I had no control.

Fourth, The d50 was a huge deal for me as my previous SLR is a Nikon as well -- compatible lenses and all.

That being said, for the $800 or so that the camera cost, it IS a deal. What does a good digital non-SLR camera cost? $400? $300? I'll keep this sucker at least 3-4 years, so it is probably cheaper for me in the long run, and I don't get frustrated over crappy shots (other than those that are my fault).

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (1)

trampel (464001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431737)

Because DSLRs are better for grab shots - my Rebel XT switches on instantaneously, the autofocus is quick, and there is almost no shutter delay.

Try taking pictures of a bunch of playing kids - its almost no doable with a non-SLR digital camera.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (2, Interesting)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431263)

does anyone know of good websites where I can upload my photographs and let others "compete" openly to making them look better?

The resultant photo will then be a collaboration. What you were seeing through the viewfinder when you took it, and what they think it should look like.

If that's ok with you, then go for it. But it won't be 'yours' any more.

I'll be happy to pay up to $5 per photo

If it takes an hour to d/l, analyze, process, and send back...well...$5/hour isn't worth getting out of bed for.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431292)

The resultant photo will then be a collaboration. What you were seeing through the viewfinder when you took it, and what they think it should look like.

If that's ok with you, then go for it. But it won't be 'yours' any more.


I repudiate copyright and ownership of thought and content anyway. Everything I write, code, photograph or paint is free for all to use (in the public domain). Yet I don't mind collaborating, in fact, I prefer it.

If it takes an hour to d/l, analyze, process, and send back...well...$5/hour isn't worth getting out of bed for.

I'm not looking for professionals, I'm looking for students or pro-ams who want to make some money while having things to practice on.

That being said, if I have 500 photos a year I take that I'd like to have enhanced a little, $2500 for what is probably a 25-50 hours or so project isn't so bad.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431335)

- But it won't be 'yours' any more.

I meant 'yours' in the sense of what it was supposed to be. What the image is suppoed to represent. What you were thinking when you took the shot.

Not 'yours' as in copyright or ownership.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431370)

An originalist :) You'd get along well with my home theater fanatics (we strive to make our home theaters look correct, not always great).

Actually, I just like to capture the image for memory-sake, but I've been told by friends and family that I should do something with the better ones. I don't really like clutter -- my better half is the one with all her painting and stuff up on the walls. I guess I'd like to get the images looking even better -- I've seen what pros can do, so I don't see what's wrong with wanting to pay someone to make things look better.

I pay to have my lawn mowed. I pay to have my house cleaned. I pay to have my food prepared. I pay to get driven around (sometimes). Why not pay to have my photos "corrected" or "enhanced"? If it means I can be more productive doing something else with that time, and then I can come back and gain some joy out of seeing better pictures, I'm all for it.

How about this idea? (3, Funny)

switcha (551514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431563)

does anyone know of good websites where I can upload my photographs and let others "compete" openly to making them look better?
...
I pay to have my lawn mowed. I pay to have my house cleaned. I pay to have my food prepared. I pay to get driven around (sometimes). Why not pay to have my photos "corrected" or "enhanced"?

Why don't you pay someone to find the answer to your original question?

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431440)

The resultant photo will then be a collaboration. What you were seeing through the viewfinder when you took it, and what they think it should look like.

If that's ok with you, then go for it. But it won't be 'yours' any more.


No... If a professional photographer hires someone to assist in the process it's not a collaboration. Hiring someone to do the grunt work is common and accepted practice.

The concept of artist's assistant is nothing new. Many painters, photographers and writers and most, if not all filmmakers and sculptors have one or more people in their employ (usually students or budding artists), and they often have a "hands-on" role in the process. What they do not do is conceive the work; they're handymen who assist in its completion. This is not a collaboration, this is an artist using skilled labor to facilitate the process.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431633)

It is a collaboration, we just like to attach nametags to things (but not too many) and many artists don't like to share "their" works, so as long as you have people willing to collaborate without beeing aknowlaged this will continue.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431376)

> I'll be happy to pay up to $5 per photo (even $20 in some cases) to have them cleaned up as needed by semi-pros or even pros.

I used to do print work like 10 years ago, and this was a common service at pre-press shops and the like.

Re:Where to get decent farking done (2, Funny)

rueger (210566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431431)

My off-topic question that sort of remains on-topic is this: With all the cheap labor available online (from students, amateurs and those trying to build portfolios of work), does anyone know of good websites where I can upload my photographs and let others "compete" openly to making them look better?

Really there's only one place [fark.com] to enjoy serious photoshopping of images.... artistry I tell ya...

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (4, Insightful)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431465)

I'll be happy to pay up to $5 per photo (even $20 in some cases) to have them cleaned up as needed by semi-pros or even pros. I'm sure there is a market for such a thing, but I just can't find it.

The solution to your problem: take better photos.

Some of my favourite photos make it to the printer absolutely untouched from when they came out the camera. The most I ever need to do is make minor adjustments to brightness and contrast, perform some extra cropping or rotate the image slightly. I mainly use iPhoto simply for its organisational abilities - it's great for that.

Get to know your camera. Take your time over shots. Just because you have umpteen gigabytes of memory cards and take ten thousand RAW-format photos a day doesn't make you a PROPAR PHOTOGRAFER. The best lens in the world won't correct for poor technique.

If your photos need endless work in Photoshop or similar to make them worth looking at, then you're probably doing something wrong...

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431705)

Ditto. I've had too many people tell me that they'll "fix" it in PS. Some comments I've read question why they need to learn lighting, as they'll just do that in PS too. The same feeling seems to be pervasive among some film makers as well. Rather than spend 5 mintues to fix a shot, they'll just shoot it, and then throw $100,000 at the digital effects department to clean it up.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (2, Informative)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431809)

The solution to your problem: take better photos.

Actually, I am quite happy with my photos as-is. When I have the time to take them into a good digital editing suite, I end up preferring them as a little tweaking can make a more vibrant picture. I'm not talking about pictures with crushed saturation or any major problems.

These packages from the topic are made for a reason. There are people out there who bought them for whatever reason -- I'd like to utilize these people.

I can spend 15 minutes or an hour making a photo better, but I'd rather not. I'm imagining people do it in 5-10 minutes who like doing it (and wouldn't mind the extra income). I want to find these people. I've asked on some photography forums, but the public ones seem cluttered with grandma not knowing how to copy images. I want the slashdot-for-photo-geeks forum.

I used to be in the video production business - I hated hearing "fix it in the edit" or "we'll just dub over it" or "can we erase the mic in shot?" Ugh. I definitely believe in GIGO -- I'm not starting with garbage.

After an hour of futzing around, I find some photos I like better. I assume there are experts who can do it quicker and with a better quality finished product.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (2, Informative)

StandardDeviant (122674) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431968)

photo.net perhaps? I don't know if they have a marketplace per se, but they probably have a sufficiently prosumer/photo-geek userbase to meet your search criteria and asking their forums might yield results.

sounds like a job for... (1)

schwaang (667808) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431485)

My off-topic question that sort of remains on-topic is this: [...] does anyone know of good websites where I can upload my photographs and let others "compete" openly to making them look better?


Sounds like a use for amazon's mechanical turk [amazon.com]. I'm betting some form of this labor-exchange over the internet is gonna be huge. (I mean aside from wipro et al.)

The idea is you submit tasks and assign a bounty. People with skills for your task can then do the work and submit a response. You pay them. It's tricky in a case where the results may be difficult to measure, but it could work, especially if there is a rating system for quality of work.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (2, Informative)

miyako (632510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431510)

Doing simple photo cleanup (e.g. cropping, redeye, hue, saturation, colorbalance, lightness levels, contrast, simple airbrushing, simple compositing) is a pretty mellow learning curve and doesn't take much time to do properly. Because of this most photographers do it themselves since it A: saves money and B: gives them more control over the final look of the image.
There are people who clean up photos professionally, but those tend to be cases where there is extensive editing to be done and the goal is usually not to have a large number of clean photos- but instead to use photographs to create a single high quality image to be framed, or used in an advertisement- something of that nature.
If you do want to pay someone though, you're best bet would be probably to hit up a couple of forums (try deviantart or the fark forums). You might also be able to find some web designers who are handy with photoshop who might do it while business is slow.
If you pay someone to clean up your photos however, you will still need to spend some time. Most professionals will still send back proofs for you to review and expect some communication on the details of what you would like the final image to look like.
<shamless self advertisement>If you're interested- send me an email (miyako at g mail dot com) and I may be able to work out an arrangement with you while business is slow. My website is down right now but I can email you some example work if you'd like.</shameless self advertisement>
If you decide to give it a try yourself, photoshop is still the defacto standard for most photo editing work. If you do not want to fork over the money to buy photoshop then you may consider trying The GIMP, which is not quite up to the level of photoshop but is free and better than most of the "budget" photo editing software out there.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431554)

Why don't you just get it right when you snap the shutter instead giving yourself so much work in post?

One of the things that made film wonderful is that photographers had to get it right in camera. These days people get 'close' and clean it up in photoshop.

A stitch in time saves nine.

People that get it right in camera are professionals, people that get it right in post are not.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (1)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431724)

You said that you don't have the time, but you may want to consider taking the time to learn how to do this yourself anyway.

Sure, there are a whole bunch of people that could edit your photograph in a technically correct fashion, but, from an artistic standpoint, how are they going to have any idea what you were thinking when you took the picture? You took the picture for a reason - you had something in mind when you took the picture - otherwise why would you have bothered?

If you are worried about taking on a full-featured tool like Photoshop, why not try something like Elements? You can learn the essentials of editing with a tool that automates most of the 'hard' parts. When you get the hang of it, you can try something a little more advanced.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (1)

PepperedApple (645980) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431874)

Worth 1000 [worth1000.com] has what you're looking for.

It's famous for it's high quality photoshop contests, but you can also sponsor a corporate contest: http://www.worth1000.com/popup.asp?faq=265 [worth1000.com]. You'd upload your photos, set the prize price, and then let the competition begin. If you look around the site, you'll see that there's a lot of talent.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (1)

Clueless_Medic (694869) | more than 8 years ago | (#14432003)

Damn, someone asks for a unique service I am developing & the website is not ready yet, double damn.

Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432076)

Want to know where you can find college kids (or better yet, art school kids) who will tweak your images, at a reasonable per image cost?

Its called a "Photo Lab."

      -or-

Alternatly, try craigslist, under gigs.

Just stay away from walmart and the like. Any real photolab is chock full o college kids on the way to becoming photograpers, learning the trade by doing.

-j

bull shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14432095)

If time is so fucking expensive for you, dada21, then your time wasted on slashdot posting your 1504 "insightful" comments must have cost you Michael Dell's slalary two times over.

professional tools (4, Insightful)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431201)

Is digital photo editing finally getting both powerful and easy?

Both tools are very clearly aimed (and labeled as such) at the professional market. Pros will always have a need for more in depth features than a typical consumer or home user. With the ability to properly use those tools comes a need to understand them (aka, a learning curve). So, to answer your questions: yes on the powerful part, no on the easy part.

Re:professional tools (1)

Kizeh (71312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431674)

The other things professionals need more than amateurs is work flow. The ability to consistently and quickly process high-resolution images, typically in camera raw formats, and keep an original digital negative. They're also more concerned with modest light, contrast etc. adjustments, having usually framed the picture properly beforehand. Most consumer cameras produce jpegs, and most consumers shoot jpegs even when the camera can do raw because it's a waste of memory and time. They are more interested in cropping, removing red eye and so forth, and don't really care much about the business aspects. A picture of granny is a picture of granny, and it needs to go to email.

My homage to Red Rose Tea commercials... (2, Interesting)

ArcSecond (534786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431215)

Only for OSX? Pity!

Jesus! How is my parent post a TROLL? (1)

ArcSecond (534786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431412)

I was just trying to point out that OSX 10.4 is the only operating system this Beta will run on. I think that is a pity.

Is that considered inflamatory speech on Slashdot now? Did I miss the memo or something?

Re:Jesus! How is my parent post a TROLL? (1)

iknowrobocop (934493) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431481)

I'm no rocket scientist, but it might have something to do with you asking to be modded down in your sig ;)

Mac users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431686)

If you don't already own a Mac, then it's a given that you aren't among the creative [atspace.com] sorts of [atspace.com] people [atspace.com] who will best be able to make use of software like Aperture and Lightroom. Excluding Linux users [atspace.com], Windows users [atspace.com], and fratboys is, if anything, an asset to boast. In this case, I'd say Adobe is focusing its development resources on the appropriate [atspace.com] demographic [atspace.com].

Lightroom really lean on features (5, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431254)

Yes, I know it's an Alpha-Beta (non-feature complete Beta) but it's missing a lot of stuff you'd expect even from a first draft at this kind of app:

* No PSD support for external editing of files (16-bit TIFF)

* No "Copy Image" (much less Versions or Stacks as Aperture has them).

* No Crop or Rotate

It does have some nice features. The printing and slideshow part are well done. The Lightroom take on Levels is rather interetsing and I think easier for people who do not use Photoshop much to use.

However Aperture at this point has a serious lead out of the gate, that combined with the Lightroom team also having to try and support a Windows build eventually may let Apple not only keep but increase the lead.

Also I have to say I am concerned with the caching strategy in Lightroom - every image has a same-size JPG created along with decreasing half sizes images as well. That can take up a lot of space. And the editing information for any given image seems to only be stored in the central database, not in sidecar files alongside the image. Thankfully they do back up this database automatically.

Some people will be happy to be able to use images in-place in directories. However as there is no support for conepts like versions or stacks people may be less happy when those harder-to-map kinds of things make it in the program and start making the life of a directory more complicated.

One good thing is that the competiton between Apple and Adobe in this space should yield a pretty solid application over time. I just hope Adobe is in this for the long run, and the release (currently planned around the end of 2006 according to the FAQ) has a pretty solid product.

Re:Lightroom really lean on features (1)

bubba451 (779167) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431461)

Also I have to say I am concerned with the caching strategy in Lightroom - every image has a same-size JPG created along with decreasing half sizes images as well. That can take up a lot of space.

This is called a mipmap [wikipedia.org], and it's not as bad as you'd think. A mipmap representation occupies only a third more space than just the original image.

Bad by measurement (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431662)

From a user "Ian Wood" on another forum (DPReview):

For reference (going by creation dates), the 65MB TIFF resulted in six preview files: 16KB, 48KB, 156KB, 532KB, 1,8MB and 5.9MB

5.9MB + 1.8MB + a bit more is around 8MB, or around 12% storage increase. To me it seems overkill if an image is very large to hold this data on disc.

Aperture stores a large thumbnails at a maximum size of 1024x680 (for a 2:3 ration image) and some progressivly smaller ones from there, which gives you quick and large previews without taking up a lot of space.

Wha? (2, Insightful)

tacokill (531275) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431497)

Ok, I don't understand about 3/4 of what you wrote. But I do know what cropping and rotating is.

It is unforgivable if those two features are not available. Jesus christ...it's 2005. They might as well rename it "MS Paint" if there is no cropping.

Re:Lightroom really lean on features (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431773)

"Lightroom - every image has a same-size JPG created along with decreasing half sizes images as well. That can take up a lot of space."

Then you should be even more concerned with Aperture, as there you have to import the entire image into its database.

Since the Xara Xtreme announcement... (1)

bhsx (458600) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431258)

I've been using Xara, and I'm still anxiously awaiting the GPL release. If you just want a simple photo editor with great features like red-eye reduction and a simple user interface, I'd suggest trying it out.
Like I said, they've announced that the whole suite is going GPL so it should end-up in most distros very quickly; but it's not released yet.

Adobe's Mighty Fall? (3, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431293)

Having worked with Adobe corporate before, It's my opinion that there isn't anyone there that can remember doing much of anything risky beyond going to a new restaurant for lunch.

InDesign was created to take Quark Express down and Photoshop Elements was to prevent companies like ACDSystems from getting a foothold.

The idea is to store, organize and evaluate quickly with reasonable color accuracy. Editing comes later. Does anyone else think it has so many editing features because they're built into a code base they are reusing?

I doubt a legitimate threat to them exists in any of their markets. Could they be classified as a monopoly?

Re:Adobe's Mighty Fall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431381)

They can only be classified as a monopoly if you use the SlashDot uber-nerd definition of monopoly: Nobody else offers their exact products, or something 100% compatible that they (SlashDot) love as much.

In the real world, outside these geeky drooling nerd filled pages of SlashDot vermin, there are tons of image editing and processing applications, don't be ridiculous.

Lua! (1)

cmason (53054) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431356)

From the about box:
Lua the programming language

It's cool to see folks like adobe using nifty languages like Lua [lua.org]. I've never used Lua but have been intrigued by it.

Anyone know how Lua is used in Lightroom?

-c

PPC Code (1)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431383)

Odd that this is PPC code and not universal binary, what with Apple moving to Intel and all...

They talked about this.. (1)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431467)

They wont release it yet because Apple hasn't come up with any final Intel platforms to actually run it on yet. Things may change at the last minute, etc. Right now they want something out for people to try and play with so they dont go and blow their wad on Aperature. Which happens to be their only competition right now, which is also probably why you haven't seen a Windows version. (Though, they claim they are putting extra work in for Vista, but we all know it'll be years and two service packs before most of us even think about upgrading.)

I believe... (1)

CatOne (655161) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431567)

Apple has specifically asked developers to not release builds with Intel code in them, until there is actual shipping Intel hardware.

From a development perspective, for Xcode apps, it is a single checkbox. Testing, obviously, is a bit more work. But if Adobe has Intel developer Macs (a fair bet), they may already be doing these builds internally.

Re:I believe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431600)

Ahem... Apple keeps asking developers to start using universal binaries and all. There are actually more than a few widespread Mac apps that are, in fact, universal binaries.

Re:I believe... (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431932)

Apple has specifically asked developers to not release builds with Intel code in them, until there is actual shipping Intel hardware.

Here's [sourceforge.net] two! [codingmonkeys.de] ;-)

Although I suppose they're both things more likely to be used by developers with the appropriate Intel development hardware to run them on - I guess Apple's edict is more of a strong guideline than a definitive rule. It would be silly to bloat downloads of consumer software and add confusion for 99.99+% of the market, anyway, I imagine.

I prefer... (3, Funny)

cyrax256 (845338) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431418)

Meh, I prefer Fireworks to do batch photo editing, and I'm still hoping for some great improvements on the next version...


Oh, wait...

Finally getting easy? (3, Funny)

know1 (854868) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431450)

It's been easy ever since i've known it. without any instruction whatsoever, within 10 minutes of my first go on photoshop (and bear in mind i was VERY drunk and *ahem* something else) i had managed to manipulate a picture to make it look like my mate was sucking some bloke off (with a really cheesy grin on his face and those grinning teeth hooked over the tip of the offending member).
if that's not easy i don't know what is. if i can do it drunk and stoned first time, i'm sure joe six-pack can do it in half an hour. another good area where things keep getting easier is music production, where programs such as reason mean i know someone (drummer in one of my bands) managed to finish a whole song in reason, while on the same day asking me the brain exploding question of "where is the shift key?"

Aperture is awesome (1)

mgranit11 (862145) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431463)

I have been using for a month and its incredble. I think of all the applications I have used for photo editing this one is the simplest for beginners but has icredible features for advanced users. It requires a pretty decent box but besides that its works and works well.

Great App - get Aperture (1)

kuleiana (629890) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431503)

Aperture: superior interface/only on Macs.
Adobe: superior compatibility with Photoshop CS2 (or so I've read)/available for major platforms.

paint shop pro (1)

fireiceviperhotmail. (944265) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431611)

What ever happend to jasc's paint shop pro ? i remember it being pretty good in the past ?

Julien. http://free.hostdepartment.com/8/81fortune/ [hostdepartment.com]

Re:paint shop pro (1)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431672)

Paintshop Pro is still very good, and still has a relatively faithful following. unfortunately, its niche (better than iphoto, cheaper than photoshop) has grown crowded (photoshop elements, GIMP, etc), so its name gets mentioned less, and, barring innovation, its days are probably numbered (Corel buying Jasc is unlikely to help).

Re:paint shop pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431679)

Do you even know what needs these programs address? Hint, it's not Photo Editing - in the Photoshop sense anyway; they both hand over to Photoshop when you need more control.

Really a Macromedia app? (3, Interesting)

aclarke (307017) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431640)

It's also worth noting that this might be a Macromedia application, rather than an Adobe one. It's hosted on Macromedia.com (http://labs.macromedia.com/technologies/lightroom [macromedia.com]) and requires a Macromedia login rather than an Adobe login to download the beta.

I have absolutely zero inside knowledge of this, but it would be interesting to know how much inside knowledge Macromedia had of Apple's Aperture, how much input Adobe actually had in the Lightroom product, and what impact, if any, Lightroom had on Adobe's decision to purchase Macromedia.

Or maybe Adobe just thought Macromedia's site was better for hosting betas.

Re:Really a Macromedia app? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14431983)

Lightroom was not developed at Macromedia. It was created by Mark Hamburg, one of the main guys behind Photoshop. It just happens that Macromedia's servers were a good place to host the beta, that's all.

So this is why they bought Macromedia. (1)

nbritton (823086) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431777)


So this is why they bought Macromedia! Web development software is not one of Adobe's primary markets. Apple caught them off guard with Aperture, Macromedia's Lightroom now fills this gap. So theirs still hope Adobe will kill off Flash by replacing it with SVG!... or opening the Flash spec, like pdf's.

---
Sign my petition to get a native Flash player for FreeBSD! [petitiononline.com]

Beta? Or stable pre-alpha rushed out the door? (2, Interesting)

podperson (592944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431818)

Here's a program from Macromedia...sorry Adobe that is Mac only when Macromedia and Adobe have both been going PC-first for some time now (and both have dropped support for programs that started out as Mac-only, such as Premiere and Authorware) and it's developed in Cocoa.

Is this perhaps some engineer's hobby project that is being rushed to market in response to Aperture as a placeholder while they figure out what to do?

After all, would Adobe seriously ship a product with such poor Photoshop integration?

Just watching the demo the "we have lots of features to add" comment gets bandied about so often it's not funny. How is this a "beta"?

Re:Beta? Or stable pre-alpha rushed out the door? (2, Interesting)

sharrestom (531929) | more than 8 years ago | (#14431976)

Me thinks that you hit the nail on the head. More to the point, I would argue that Aperture is, architecturally anyway, way ahead of Lightroom. If Apple continues to develop Aperture and adds a plugin architecture, I suspect that it will remain the high end application of choice for studio work, where the realtime features are extremely valuble and Apple will sell lots of hardware, which is what they want to do anyway.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...