Beginner question confused editing.

[Photofarmer]

Rank beginner learning the game of photography first.

Play around with canon DPP to see what it does.

But real editing software Lightroom, photoshop,topaz,dxo,affinity,caputure one,luminar.

Ive got no idea what’s best the more you read the more you get confused.

Just a farmer who likes farm photography, storm lightning photography and birds in flight plus family snaps

Any beginners out there at same stage as me?

If I’m dunce of the class that’s fine I’m all ears.

PS have R6 if that makes any difference and I do some cropping with DPP to enhance birds but that’s about it.

Maybe I don’t know what I’m missing.

Thanks all

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Welcome to the world of the digital darkroom. We've all been where you are, so no worries.

When I started there weren't the plethora of options we have now. I started with a copy of Photoshop Express eventually moving to Lightroom and then Photoshop. It should be noted these were buy once and use boxed software at the time and nothing like what is available now with (hopefully) free and even lifetime updates provided you pay the initial price or the subscription cost.

People will tell you that Canon DPP4 is clunky and difficult to use, but if you're a Canon shooter and have yet to use anything else I would start with that and stick with it for 2 reasons - it's free and it allows access into camera features that are not supported by other software. After using it for a while make notes of what you want to do with it but can't seem to do and then ask specific questions. Why? Because everyone here is an expert and their opinion is worth what you paid for it, so I suspect a lot of folks will tell you what works for them which may have nothing to do with what works for you and the way you might approach the software. My brother is a lifelong pro who now uses only DPP4 because he takes great shots out of the camera and doesn't need software to "fix" things, only present them

Me? I've tried just about everything and spent a lot of time and money on stuff that I thought would improve my photography (ie. fix my bad pictures). After 12 years I'm back to Lightroom, Photoshop, and Topaz DeNoise AI, which I wouldn't need if I wasn't shooting at higher ISOs doing wildlife work). I know folks who take incredible photos who are using only Lightroom, which is really just Camera Raw wrapped in a huge cataloging system.

 

[Photofarmer]

Thanks.
Might take some images to a pro. Get them to say hey “this programme does this, this one does that etc etc “ on my own images to show difference.

Some random images below guess the hawk could be sharpened up with post processing, the crop of beans similar,Ted the kelpie maybe sky bluer to improve it?

• Canon EOS RP
• 50.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 100

 

[Hali]

Hi there. I've been there also, although I had the advantage of learning on film an eon and a half ago, so many of the terms you see thrown around were familiar to me. I agree with Jake - DPP is good because it's free, however it is clunky, and it could get you more frustrated and make you want to tear your hair out. You could try something like Luminar, if you aren't thinking you want to learn the nuts and bolts of post-processing. It provides a fast and "easy" way to get a look you like, and their new offering with the "extensions" could be good (but expensive for what it is imo). DxO photolab 5 is a less expensive way into learning (139 for the product, no yearly fee -I think) and you can learn how to burn and dodge, do highlight and shadow adjustments and work with layers. Like Jake, though, my go to is Lightroom and Photoshop with Topaz plugins (and in my case, Nik Plugins) It's the most flexible and expansive way to work for me.

As for your images, they are not bad - you haven't clicked the critique button, so I won't give you feedback unless you ask

 

[Photofarmer]

Hi there. I've been there also, although I had the advantage of learning on film an eon and a half ago, so many of the terms you see thrown around were familiar to me. I agree with Jake - DPP is good because it's free, however it is clunky, and it could get you more frustrated and make you want to tear your hair out. You could try something like Luminar, if you aren't thinking you want to learn the nuts and bolts of post-processing. It provides a fast and "easy" way to get a look you like, and their new offering with the "extensions" could be good (but expensive for what it is imo). DxO photolab 5 is a less expensive way into learning (139 for the product, no yearly fee -I think) and you can learn how to burn and dodge, do highlight and shadow adjustments and work with layers. Like Jake, though, my go to is Lightroom and Photoshop with Topaz plugins (and in my case, Nik Plugins) It's the most flexible and expansive way to work for me.

As for your images, they are not bad - you haven't clicked the critique button, so I won't give you feedback unless you ask

Woops critique always on for me

 

[Hali]

Woops critique always on for me

Okay

Like I said the photos are good, but here's what I suggest: For the top image of the bean crop - you had a good idea with making your rows straight vertically, but that means your horizon is crooked. A crooked horizon, unless done on purpose (and if you do it on purpose it should be a very obvious part of the photo) really makes the image look off - so I'd either crop out the top part of the image or I'd straighten the horizon line and have the crop lines be angled (which can make a nice bit of interest). The other thing about that one is that it needs contrast. There are no really dark areas in the image or light areas, everything is middle toned, which means that there is nothing for the eye to hold onto and really want to look at. The second image is a nice shot of that hawk, but it needs noise removal as well as sharpening, and there is a definite blue fringe around some of the feathers that is unnatural looking. The sky in the bottom one of Ted the Kelpie looks good, but I would lighten him a bit and darken the bottom of the hay bale. The eye goes to the lightest spot in a photo first and while you don't want to make Ted too light, it would look unnatural, making him a bit lighter and the hay darker would let the eye go to him before the hay (I'm assuming he's the subject you want to emphasize in the photo).

Like I said, good shots that could be better once you get a handle on the post-processing part of things.

 

[Kwazy]

Here's the hawk after Topaz Sharpen AI and about 7 minutes of clone tool in Photoshop to clear up the blur around the edges, very basic editing.
If you'd like a beginner-friendly program that's powerful and simple to use, I highly recommend ACDSee. Photoshop has a bit of a learning curve and although very powerful, can be a bit complicated to use. Feel free to start a convo if you'd like more advice/tips!

Right now my routine workflow involves Topaz, Photoshop for general editing/stacking, and finishing up in ACDSee for color/lighting adjustments. I'm far from expert in any of them, but learning the basics can make a huge difference.
One of these days I'll try to learn Lightroom!

 

[Photofarmer]

Okay

Like I said the photos are good, but here's what I suggest: For the top image of the bean crop - you had a good idea with making your rows straight vertically, but that means your horizon is crooked. A crooked horizon, unless done on purpose (and if you do it on purpose it should be a very obvious part of the photo) really makes the image look off - so I'd either crop out the top part of the image or I'd straighten the horizon line and have the crop lines be angled (which can make a nice bit of interest). The other thing about that one is that it needs contrast. There are no really dark areas in the image or light areas, everything is middle toned, which means that there is nothing for the eye to hold onto and really want to look at. The second image is a nice shot of that hawk, but it needs noise removal as well as sharpening, and there is a definite blue fringe around some of the feathers that is unnatural looking. The sky in the bottom one of Ted the Kelpie looks good, but I would lighten him a bit and darken the bottom of the hay bale. The eye goes to the lightest spot in a photo first and while you don't want to make Ted too light, it would look unnatural, making him a bit lighter and the hay darker would let the eye go to him before the hay (I'm assuming he's the subject you want to emphasize in the photo).

Like I said, good shots that could be better once you get a handle on the post-processing part of things.

Thanks bean photos just farmer to farmer looking at crops nothing photogenic

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Of the images you've posted the hawk is the most problematic and requires a significant amount of noise reduction and sharpening. It looks like it's already been processed due to the halos around the bird. My Lightroom-Photoshop-Topaz Denoise AI workflow would work for it, but you really need all of them.

The top photo needs a bit of gradient application of a dehazing filter, if you want it, and a bit of perspective correction. Even when you don't show the horizon you want your lines to move towards a level one uniformly. Here everything is rolling off the right where you can see the severity of the horizon tilt. It's one of my biggest peeves in others' photos. Sometimes it's planned and plays into the shot, but most times not.

The bottom one probably just needs cropping and not much else. You can do everything the first and last needs in most editors.

One thing I don't think you've said, are you shooting raw or jpeg? No matter what you wind up using you're going to want to shoot raw as you'll be able to correct far more with it than with jpeg.

A lot of these tools offer free trials with full functionality before you buy, so I would take advantage of that. Just don't get a bunch at the same time because you want to focus on one and see if it works for you and you don't want the other trial periods expiring in the meantime.

 

[RedCobra]

Hi there. I've been there also, although I had the advantage of learning on film an eon and a half ago, so many of the terms you see thrown around were familiar to me. I agree with Jake - DPP is good because it's free, however it is clunky, and it could get you more frustrated and make you want to tear your hair out. You could try something like Luminar, if you aren't thinking you want to learn the nuts and bolts of post-processing. It provides a fast and "easy" way to get a look you like, and their new offering with the "extensions" could be good (but expensive for what it is imo). DxO photolab 5 is a less expensive way into learning (139 for the product, no yearly fee -I think) and you can learn how to burn and dodge, do highlight and shadow adjustments and work with layers. Like Jake, though, my go to is Lightroom and Photoshop with Topaz plugins (and in my case, Nik Plugins) It's the most flexible and expansive way to work for me.

As for your images, they are not bad - you haven't clicked the critique button, so I won't give you feedback unless you ask

DxO PL5 is an excellent program and has excellent camera and lens profiles. In it's automated mode it does a great job.