I'm looking for some freeware software to use on a lap top (Windows), I didn't fancy having to buy PSE again, and I shall only use the lap top occasionally when I'm away from home for more than a couple of days.
I've downloaded the Gimp on the PC to try it out, and from what I gather I need to download the plugin UFRaw to be able to work on my RAW files.
Does anyone have any experience here ?
I thought that UFRaw was part of the standard GIMP package these days, but I guess you could always download UFRaw separately. Hybrid will know for sure.
Later. No, it doesn't look like it is. Just download and install GIMP first then UFRaw afterwards - it will automatically put itself into the GIMP programme folder.
Why do you need to buy PSE again? If you have the disk just load it again, I think the standard licence allows you to load three times or something like that.
Or am I missing something?
Graham. :)
To be honest Graham, I've not tried. We bought Kaspersky recently and discovered that the licence for 3 computers was extra. I had PSE5 and bought the update to PSE6. I presume I'd have to load both onto the laptop. I'd better give it a try :)
I always wanted to try the Gimp tho. It's supposed to be so good. Howard - have you had any experience using it? I guess not if you've just now downloaded it ::)
Have you tried photofiltre? It's a nice free programme with plenty of plug ins.
http://download.cnet.com/PhotoFiltre/3000-2192_4-10354493.html
Yes Carol, I have used it, bit not in all seriousness for a while now. I usually use PSE 6 or 7 and Serif Photoplus X3, all of which have reasonably consistent interfaces. GIMP is somewhat different. The biggest weaknesses are that it does not support adjustment layers, and for me, that although UFRaw is an excellent RAW front end all images are then opened in 8 bit.
I know that PSE is basically useless with 16 bit files, but Photoplus is a full 16 bit editor - I think it is one of only two on the market that is not one of the Photoshop CS series. The other is Picture Window from Digital Light and Color which I have tried and it is impressive but very different.
Quote from: Sarasocke on November 03, 2009, 05:06:47 PM
I'm looking for some freeware software to use on a lap top (Windows), I didn't fancy having to buy PSE again, and I shall only use the lap top occasionally when I'm away from home for more than a couple of days.
You can load PSE onto your laptop and use it without problems. See you end licence agreement. I have copied this from Adobes website. :tup:
(b) Portable or Home Computer Use for Software Requiring Mandatory Product Activation. For Software requiring Mandatory Product Activation, in addition to the single copy of the Software permitted in Section 2(a), the primary user of the computer on which the Software is installed may make a second copy of the Software and install it on either a portable computer or a computer located at his or her home for his or her exclusive use, provided that :
(A) the second copy of the Software on the portable or home computer (i) is not used at the same time as the copy of the Software on the primary computer and (ii) is used by the primary user solely as allowed for such version or edition (such as for educational use only), (B) the second copy of the Software is not installed or used after the time such user is no longer the primary user of the primary computer on which the Software is installed, and (C) the Software was not licensed under a volume discount.
Have a looksy here
http://cameracraniums.com/forum/index.php?board=66.0 (http://cameracraniums.com/forum/index.php?board=66.0)
especially
http://www.photo-freeware.net/topdownloads.php
Thanks guys !
I must admit, I've tried other SW and always returned to PSE - probably because I'm used to it. I downloaded a test version of Capture NX2 and found that it wasn't so much better that I would want to buy it. In fact to my untrained eye, I couldn't see any difference .. but then that's me ;)
Do you find that you need 16bit ? I was on a course last year, where our teacher told us, that at our level we wouldn't really need it.
I think that it's true that 90% of the time no one really needs 16 bit, but there is a very big BUT http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/
I find that for black and white it is desirable to work in 16 bit. 8 bit mono only has 256 shades of grey, 16 bit has 65,536 shades.
Quote from: Sarasocke on November 04, 2009, 08:30:47 AM
I was on a course last year, where our teacher told us, that at our level we wouldn't really need it.
And I thought photography teachers had stopped being patronising......
Quote from: Jonathan on November 04, 2009, 11:31:47 AM
Quote from: Sarasocke on November 04, 2009, 08:30:47 AM
I was on a course last year, where our teacher told us, that at our level we wouldn't really need it.
And I thought photography teachers had stopped being patronising......
I didn't want to put our teacher in a bad light, he wasn't at all patronising, far from it :)
I learned an awful lot from him and would really welcome a follow-on course.
The class really was "almost beginners". My D80 is my first DSLR and after three years I'm still learning what all the buttons are for ;)
Howard - I see your point with B/W.
I'll have alook at the various RAW converter programs.
Quote from: Tringle WP on November 04, 2009, 10:24:42 AM
I think that it's true that 90% of the time no one really needs 16 bit, but there is a very big BUT http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/
I find that for black and white it is desirable to work in 16 bit. 8 bit mono only has 256 shades of grey, 16 bit has 65,536 shades.
I'm looking for edification here so forgive me if this sounds stupid, but what would be the point of working your B&W's in 16 bit if JPG doesn't support it? Or does the shading gradients remain after you convert?
Good question spinner. Yes, the smoothness in the shading gradient does remain when the image is compressed into a jpg.
When you convert to mono using a 16 bit editor you can get a far more subtle gradient of grays than you do starting from an 8 bit image, especially if you are editing quite vigorously. Of course, the same arguments also apply to colour editing - if you need to do a lot of work then 16 bit will always be better. This effect of 16 bit versus 8 bit in colour photography can usually be seen in blue skies where the blue darkens from one part of the sky to another. With 8 bit you will often see quite pronounced banding appear that doesn't occur as readily in a 16 bit image.
This is why it is better to make fundamental edits like applying curves within a 16 bit framework like ACR (or UFRaw) and then finish off in 8 bit if you want to.
The link I put in above http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/ explains how this works - see the second page for a graphic example.
Hope this helps a bit.
Quote from: Tringle WP on November 04, 2009, 10:24:42 AM
I think that it's true that 90% of the time no one really needs 16 bit, but there is a very big BUT http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/
Jeez...
QuoteYikes! Just as with the gradient, the 8-bit version of the image suffered quite a lot of damage thanks to the edit. There is very noticeable color banding, especially in the water, which now looks more like some sort of painting effect than a full color photo.
They really should rephrase that as "There is very noticeable color banding, especially after we'd squashed the levels beyond their breaking point."
Quote from: Tringle WP on November 04, 2009, 10:24:42 AM
I find that for black and white it is desirable to work in 16 bit. 8 bit mono only has 256 shades of grey, 16 bit has 65,536 shades.
That's only really useful for pixel peepers.
QuoteOnce again, just as with the gradient, the 16-bit version survived without a scratch!
Say WHAT???? Are we looking at the same pics? Both have suddenly acquired very nasty colour noise at the top.
I guess they are saying "if you really don't care about exposure and want to do everything in post then use 16 bits". So 16 bits is the new raw ;)
FWIW I work in 16 bits for most stuff but then I have (1) a very fast computer (2) lots of storage and (3) do a lot of work involving skin tones that might just need printing big. For most of my stuff the difference is marginal at best but it's one of those 6th sigma things - a bit better is better.
FWIW I do almost everything in 8 bit and sRGB because when there are no major tweaks involved it's better than good enough.
I think I can see a difference between the same conversion applied to an image to make it mono in 16 bit as opposed to 8 bit, so allow me my illusions ;).
The blue sky thing is definite though. :D
Most cameras produce, I believe, 12 or 14 bit RAW files. so that's 4096 to 16384 shades of any one colour. Although I bet Jonathan's state of the art stuff does the full 65536 trick. ;D
Now who wants to start on colour spaces? :legit: