New to Digital with very basic questions

Hi Everyone!

I'm just now entering the digital world with a new (used) Canon 20D and I have a few questions.

1. I have no experience with processing software, so I'm looking for suggestions as to where to begin. My new old camera came with Canon Digital Pro and Elements 2.0 (What? It's only 6 versions old....but hey, it came with the camera!) it seems a lot of folks use Lightroom. What are your suggestions? I want something useful, powerful and user friendly, but that also won't break the bank. I have enough other goodies in mind for that

2. I'm looking for a reputable camera shop in Denver. There's dust on the sensor of my new-old camera and I need to get supplies to begin the treacherous, nail biting journey (or so I've read) of learning to clean it myself. Also, I just want an excuse to get into a camera store and perhaps just happen to bump into other goodies that I can't live without

3. Most annoyingly of all, between the software programs I currently have, I'm having difficulty shrinking the huge jpgs from my RAW images into the precise size needed for me to be able to post a photo here on this forum. Any suggestions on the best way, given the applications I have, to convert my RAWs to jpgs of an appropriate size that won't lose too much in the conversion?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions you can offer!

1. You can go to the Canon website and download the latest version of the Digital Photo Professional and EOS Viewer Utility software. A newer version of Photoshop Elements is probably a good start, it has a lot of features of Photoshop but at a very reasonable price.

2. Probably Englewood Camera or Denver Pro Photo if you are interested in browsing for other things. You can go to the Visible Dust website and look at their offerings for sensor cleaning supplies. The stores probably carry them as well.

3. I don't have Elements, but the best way in Photoshop (and it may be in Elements) is to go to File, then Save for Web & Devices. There you can resize down to the correct pixel dimensions and it will show you the resulting file size. From there you adjust the quality level until the file size meets the criteria for posting. By using the Save for Web feature instead of just Save or Save As, it eliminates some of the metadata that you don't need so the file is a bit smaller.

Welcome!

I agree with Scott that the newest version of PS Elements (v.8) will be a terrific way to start and may in fact be all you'll ever need to optimize your images.
Consider picking up 'The Photoshop Elements 8 Book for Digital Photographers' to help get you started.
Best of luck!

Actually, in Save for Web, you don't even have to mess with the quality slider. There is a little arrow you can click which opens a small menu. Just click "Optimize to File Size" and type in the exact file size you need. PS will adjust the quality level as needed to get you that exact file size. Note: This is in PS, I don't know about Elements.

Thank you so much! Initially I was receiving an warning message when attempting "save for web", but now I've got it....it looks sooo much easier than what I was attempting! Thanks! As for getting the new version of Elements, can anyone comment on how Elements compares with Lightroom? From the posts I've read, Lightroom seems rather popular and I might not mind investing in it, I just can't see springing for Photoshop.

Thanks Brent, now I learned something too

Danna,

I would say that if you plan to pursue Photography actively Lightroom it would probably be in your best interest to start with Lightroom. It is a real pain to go back and catalog your images years later. I do almost everything in Lightroom and highly recommend it. My only concern is that they are coming out with version 3 soon and I don't know if you will get a free upgrade if you buy now or not. At least you could download the trial version of LR to get started. Just my $0.02.

Hmmmm.... Lightroom and Photoshop are really two different things. Although I use Lightroom for most of my work, I still like to have the functionality of Photoshop when I need it. I don't think I could get by with just Lightroom. Although I use LR and PSCS3, I would probably be happy with a combo of LR and Elements.

From the posts I've read, Lightroom seems rather popular and I might not mind investing in it, I just can't see springing for Photoshop.

Start with Elements first. Even if you decide to migrate to Lightroom later on, you'll still want the layer based features that Elements offers and which I for one could not do without. You can edit your camera's RAW files just fine with Elements, as well. Lightroom's main advantage is the fact that you can easily catalog images. This is important when you shoot dozens or hundreds of images at a pop.
Other than that, it's a 'lite' version of PS without nearly the same editing power. Adobe has done a masterful job in marketing this bit of software.

I agree that Elements is a good place to start.

But... John, this is the second reference you've made like this, and I think for you to say that Lightroom is a 'lite' version of Photoshop is misleading and ignorant.

They are two completely different animals. Photoshop (and Elements) is "old-school" pixel editing that requires large rendered files to perform direct manipulation of pixel data within the core program.

Lightroom is an example of newer software design that allows purely metadata-based editing, where all image processing and management is performed and tracked within a database which, among other things, allows unlimited history, virtual copies and robust Collections functionality. (True, some of this can be done in ACR and Bridge, but this is expensive and clunky at best.)

Photoshop is 20 years old, and these days, the Photoshop suite is targeted at graphic designers, 3D artists, video compositors and scientists more than it is photographers.

Lightroom was developed from scratch specifically for digital photography and provides an optimized environment for most all essential digital photo work. And it's frequently being extended for added functionality, often by third-party developers.

I've used Photoshop daily in professional production environments since 1992. In the past 4 years my photo work has shifted to where I can now do probably 90% of everything I need in Lightroom. For most digital photographers, especially those who prefer to get it right in the camera, Lightroom may be the only software they need. It incorporates the most current, modern methods for processing images, organizing them and sharing them with others. (For example, nothing in Photoshop can hold a candle to Lightroom where Printing and Web galleries are concerned...)

Of course, I'm not trying to say a person can expect to get by forever without Photoshop. There are advanced techniques I need to do in Photoshop that are not possible with any other software.

But to claim that Lightroom is not important is irresponsible and misinforms people who are just getting into this.

Most people whom I've heard say that Lightroom is unnecessary, irrelevant or is just marketing hype clearly don't fully grasp what it's capable of, and where it fits in the modern workflow. Just like any new technology, there will be both early adopters and holdouts who prefer to do things the old way. But like everything in mainstream photography, most of the holdouts eventually come around.

For the money, the combination of Lightroom and PSE 8 is probably ideal for the person new to digital photography. Although using layers is outmoded and usually less than ideal, PSE provides the most important pixel-level processing from Photoshop.

Anyone who has questions about any of this should be sure to attend our workflow seminar and panel discussion Dec 3.

***In case you're wondering, I don't promote Lightroom in order to sell my book; quite the opposite. I wrote a book about Lightroom because, for me and the vast majority of other photographers out there, Lightroom is the best solution currently available. And I've used them all...

Interesting....you call my statements "misleading' and ignorant", yet in the same post you state that "...using layers is outmoded...". How ironic.

Well, I could go on and on here in refuting many of your points, but for now I'll just ask all Lightroom users here one question....what can you achieve in LR that I cannot achieve using PS/adj. layers, ACR & Bridge? Answers that stick within the parameters of the question are most appreciated.
Now I'll happily concede that LR possesses a more robust cataloguing system than the Bridge, and for new users a combination of LR and Elements may be the best way to go. However, in my opinion, current PS users that upgrade every few versions have no overwhelming reasons to add LR to their workflow.

I agree with John here.....tried LR and really saw no advantage other than the cataloging. I do upgrade PS every other version and that seems to be enough for me. However, shooting Nikon I have found the NX2 is a better fit for Nikon shooters than ACR if you are not that interested in batch processing your files....NX2 is pretty clunky in that area. And,it does not work well for portrait and wedding shooters.
Joe Rogers

John - I don't know that anyone is saying that you can achieve things in LR that you can't do in PS/ACR/Bridge. I think, though, that we'd say LR can do the same thing, just better and faster, and all in one piece of well-designed software. LR can handle all my importing, exporting, sorting, metadata, image editing, printing, slideshows, and web galleries in one piece of easy-to-use software. Sure, you can do all this in Photoshop, ACR and Bridge, but why use 3 pieces of software when you can use just one, specifically designed for photographers?

PS/ACR/Bridge are well integrated, Brent.
Do you ever use adjustment layers/layer masks or Tony Kuyper's luminosity mask actions? Any third party noise reduction or sharpening apps? Nik filters?
If so, then you're having to access another piece of software to use them.

And please, please note that I don't mean my statements or points of view to be viewed as contentious or adversarial in this wonderful community here. I would rather sit on my hands than to have that occur. I just question the conventional wisdom that LR is a benefit for folks who already own PS.

For anyone new to digital photography looking for a single piece of software to start processing, I would recommend Lightroom without hesitation. Heck, you don't even need a book to learn how to use it! Sorry, Nat.

I know they are integrated. Well-integrated is up for debate. Trying to use Bridge makes me want to put a gun to my head. Very slow and frustrating.

Since I've been using LR, no, I really don't use adjustment layers, layer masks, or Tony Kuyper's luminosity masks. I can make localized adjustments in LR, so I rarely have any reason to use anything else. Only for really tricky situations do I need to leave LR. I know I've exported images to use Noise Ninja on a couple nighttime shots, and I use the Photomatix Lightroom plugin to do my HDR shots, but other than that, nope. It's all in Lightroom.

Sounds like you've gotten some good advice so far Danna, so I'll just say "Welcome aboard".
FWIW, I REALLY wish I had Lightroom back when I started into digital a few years ago. Having to catalog a ton of images is a real pain. Good luck.

I haven't been posting much lately, and only have time for a quick landing here instead of addressing everything asked, but Danna as for question #2, cleaning your sensor is ridiculously easy and quick, and unless you have some major problems stuck to your sensor, the standard "wet" and "dry" sensor swabs available at any chain photo store work fine.

You're not ever going to be touching the sensor itself; it has a glass filter on top, so you can relax.

Check out http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com. they go through all the various methods, includig pros and cons. Also, the companion site: http://www.sensorinspection.com/.

I'd also vote to start off with Elements until you get your "sea legs", then consider migrating to Lightroom once your skills are more up to speed. Photoshop is way overkill for photographers - and double the price over Lightroom. It -will- do stuff LR won't, though; but mainly in the area of graphics.

Sorry to say, you just missed my beginning digital seminar, but I'll be scheduling another early next year.

Regards, Ken

John, FWIW I didn't mean to imply that your statements were contentious, nor did I intend for mine to be. Maybe my some of words were poorly chosen and I'm sorry for any offense.

For most photographers, I believe that the combination of Photoshop/Bridge/ACR is less ideal than Lightroom alone. Let me explain.

ACR and Bridge were first developed in the void when photographers were starting to make many more photographs due to the advent of digital cameras. ACR was designed to handle raw files; Bridge designed to help manage larger numbers of files, plus metadata.

To me, this system is cobbled-together, compared with Lightroom. ACR and Bridge are a band-aid; Lightroom is a complete solution. With one program (that costs half what the basic Photoshop package costs) you can have all of this integrated.

With regard to layers: I also believe that the days of working on layered pixel-based photos are numbered. Metadata editing will become the standard.

For example: I would much prefer to work on a 20MB DNG file in Lightroom than I would an 80MB TIF in Photoshop. The difference is dramatic. Metadata editing is much faster than pixel editing. And even though storage is cheap these days, I always try to keep my file size economical.

With Lightroom, I can do almost everything (using a DNG file) that I would want to do in Photoshop. Dodging and burning using brushes and gradients, selective sharpening and blurring, selective color changes, cropping, basic retouching/cleanup etc. All without layers, masks or the need to render a TIF.

The ONLY things I still use Photoshop for are complex retouching and multi-image compositing (Pano/HDR stuff etc.). Which for my style is very rare.

I like to get the shot as perfect in the camera as I can. I don't combine images very often. So Lightroom has all the tools I need to finish, print and share my photos in numerous ways.

Photoshop is designed to work with single images. Even Photoshop's batch processing Actions, Droplets etc. open each image one at a time to do its thing.

Lightroom does true batch processing; you can select multiple images and apply adjustments - and even retouching - all at once.

Really, the list goes on and on. To my point that they are totally different animals.

For someone just starting out, Elements is probably the easiest route.

For someone who already owns Photoshop, Lightroom might seem like an unnecessary extra expense.

But my experience was different. I came from Photoshop (long before Bridge existed) and used ACR all the way up to the point Lightroom became viable.

For one, I'm glad to not be using Photoshop as much. It's expensive and its feature set is bloated beyond reason from the perspective of digital photography.

So my argument is that even if you own Photoshop, you owe it to yourself to give Lightroom a serious try. It's available for free for 30 days.

If you're like me, you'll start moving away from Photoshop and never look back.

I, for one, look forward to the demise of layer-based editing.

Your points are well made, Nat.

As it stands, I can only do about 50-70% of my editing with ACR (same as LR). When (not if) the day comes that I can use third party plug-ins/scripts (as you do in PS) and exposure blending of multiple images (e.g iHDR) in LR...in other words, when I can do 100% of my work in Lightroom, then I'm in.

Peace.

"useful, powerful and user friendly, but that also won't break the bank" ... I agree with the Lightroom recommendations here. Start early. I also believe that most photographers do not need Photoshop. Elements 8 is awesome. If you find you need to work outside of Lightroom, pick up Elements later. I too would opt for Lightroom 3.

Cleaning your sensor is not as daunting as you might think. I recommend Dust Aid products, for do it yourself.

I use a very simply process for posting JPEGs. I simply resample my original file to 72 dpi. This usually gets my file into the 1200 pixel dimension range. Then I run a simple Sharpen twice (PS/Elements) and then I resize to 600/700 pixels. Keeps it pretty sharp.

Welcome!

John - Many third-party plugins are available for Lightroom. I use Photomatix via Lightroom without having to use PS.

Coincidentally, The Digital Photography Connection just did a show about comparisons between Lightroom and Photoshop. Might be worth everyone checking it out.

Well, I checked it out and not only did he validate my opinion, but he highlighted all of the advantages of using Photoshop!

"If you're not shooting volumes and volumes of images, maybe LR isn't the answer for you. Maybe PS might be more your cup of tea." Exactly!

Much obliged for the link, Brent.

Actually, John, that video seems to show exactly what many of us are saying, which is that Lightroom and Photoshop are a great combination. I actually shoot far, far less than "volumes and volumes" of images, and couldn't imagine working without Lightroom. As he specifically points out in the video, Lightroom won't let you take a sky from one photo and paste it into another. I hope that's not considered a limitation by the people who use this forum.

It's unfortunate that you have continued to post about all the things Lightroom can't do, when it seems you really have no knowledge of what it is and how it works.

(In reference to the non-answer comment in the other post ...)

It's like beating a dead horse, John. You've obviously researched the two programs, and you like what you have ... or rather, the requirement seems to be working in only one application. If it ain't broke ...

For me, it's simple. Lightroom is 100% non-destructive (even cropping). It won't LET me destroy my images. It's like having an unlimited history palette in PS. Yeah, there are so many ways to match functionality in PS - but why, at the expense of speed, convenience and file size? I hardly touch PS anymore for my photography, now that the LR plug-ins are there. Only occasional extreme blends or panos. But it's not just about matching workflow tasks between the two apps anymore. As Nat noted, there are huge savings when it comes to file storage and processing requirements. I even moved to a Mac Mini from a tower machine, because LR file sizes and computing requirements are so much smaller than PS's. I could go on and on about workflow, but you've likely read most of it already.

My question is this ... why are you using Photoshop instead of Lightroom, when you (and most photographers) can easily get by with Elements (with or without Lightroom) for pixel-based editing? Adjustment layers, masking plugins (free), photomerging, Bridge/Organizer, ACR, 16-bit, etc. Is Photoshop REALLY worth the extra $500? (And the future upgrade costs?) Throw in Lightroom to an Elements purchase, and you're still paying less than Photoshop.

If I didn't NEED Photoshop for my CMYK graphics work, you better believe I'd be using Lightroom with $90 Elements for blending images, etc. ... until, or even if, Lightroom becomes that "all in one" with composites, etc. But I wouldn't wait for any "all in ones" with Adobe - purveyors of the multi-application, bottom-line-boosting path to imaging bliss.