Category: Software


Ben Syverson’s Mattebox

I don't usually post much about apps, but rules are made to be broken. Ben Syverson (a TOP regular, if you'll excuse the brag) has created the killer iPhone camera app, called Mattebox. The camera interface is based on the Konica Hexar(!) (I organized a short-lived "Konica Hexar Club" on CompuServe when that camera came out).

Mattebox for iPhone from Ben Syverson on Vimeo.

$3.99 at the App Store. Mine's downloading now. And congratulations and good luck to Ben.

Mike
(Thanks to Charlie Didrickson)

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Frank Petronio: "This is wonderful...makes me want to suck it up and get an iPhone. But the truly great purpose for this would be if someone could hack a professional DSLR and give us the option to install something with this quality of usability instead of the crappy interfaces that Canikony impose upon us. The first manufacturer that opens up their cameras to apps will crush the market—it's staring them in the face and they still can't see it."

Lightroom for Half Off

I don't keep up on deals and I can't guarantee that this is the best, but I just thought I'd pass along that B&H Photo has Lightroom 3 on sale for half off for the remainder of today (October 3rd). I'm not clear whether the deal ends at the beginning or the end of the day tomorrow; all I know is "ends October 4th."

Mike

UPDATE: The sale ends at one minute before noon EST on Tuesday, October 4th.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Quick Tip: Creating A contact sheet With Photoshop CS5Photoshop used to have a cool feature where you could created contact sheets (or index cards) from a set of files on your computer. I use this feature a lot to create a giveaway card when shooting portraits for large groups of people (or Doras).

You needed to run a script called contact sheet from the automate menu, select some settings and TADA! Photoshop would magically create a contact sheet for you.

If you used this feature on previous versions of Photoshop, you may have discovered that it is missing from Photoshop CS5.

read more

Do You Suck at Photoshop?

By the way, even though I've been using Photoshop since about 1994, I still kind of suck at it. Well, that's not quite true: I have better-than-average judgment, just worse-than-average skills. What I really enjoy is "messing about" with it, as our U.K. friends might put it—I tend to imagine what I want to do and then muck around until I figure out how to get it done.

I've learned a fair amount over the years, and I do have fun, but...I really need to take a class.

Along that line of thinking—and because I just got Photoshop CS5 (upgraded from CS, if you can believe that)—I've decided to follow along with the video course at Lynda.com called Photoshop CS5 for Photographers. (Note that some of the segments can be viewed for free without signing up, as samples.) So far so good, although I don't know how long I'll be able to stick with it. Constancy is my worst thing.

Well, that last isn't really true either—I've been pretty constant about keeping TOP going. I guess I should give myself a little more credit.

Mike

P.S. This post was originally going to be titled "I Suck at Photoshop," but I chickened out—I realized that would probably come back to haunt me.

P.P.S. I should thank my buddy Steve Rosenblum for introducing me to Lynda.com, some time ago. Thanks, Steve.

 

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by fjf: "Just want to provide a second recommendation for Lynda.com.

"I would hate to have to tell you the number of expensive doorstops I have acquired in the guise of 'How to Learn Photoshop' books. I am sure the total dollar value is somewhere up around the Nikon D3S level.

"About a year ago I discovered Lynda.com and it is a great way to learn a visual tool such as Photoshop and/or any other visual technique.

"I spent hours reading books putting myself to sleep in an attempt to come to grips with PS. Viewing the application of the various tools in a Lynda.com task oriented lesson is a far superior way of gaining proficiency. And Lynda.com offers a very wide range of courseware that extends well beyond PS and Lightroom. Highly recommended and well worth a peek if not a membership."

Featured Comment by Zalman Stern: "I may be biased, but my main piece of advice for photographers is to do most adjustments in Camera Raw and only use the full glory of Photoshop as needed. It is easier to do the work one would have done in a darkroom in Camera Raw."

Editorial note: Why Zalman says he might be biased:

Aboutacr

@ ZS: I spend 80% of my time in ACR. It's home for me, for photo editing. The advice I like is "ACR for global, Photoshop for local." When I use the term "Photoshop" I actually mean "Bridge, ACR, and Photoshop."

Unsharp Mask vs. FocusFixer

This is going to sound a little sad, but quite frequently I fire up Photoshop just to have some fun.

I know. But I love to fiddle with pictures. Loved it in der Dunkelkammer, love it in P'shop.

Deb-2-small

Here's the shot I was working on last night. It's a picture of gallerist Debra Brehmer of the Portrait Society Gallery talking to some young artists, taken with an E-P1 and 20mm ƒ/1.7 lens.

For the most part, files from this lens look quite wonderful. They have a little something extra, a special quality that I don't see very often in digital. I think it's the lens, but I might be underestimating the sensors. I guess I can't really put my finger on it. But the files are often really nice.

Of course this is just the tiny little JPEG, sized for TOP. The full file is what's so pretty.

I hope this picture looks like I haven't done anything to it. My standard when working on images is never to make anything obvious—a picture should never look "Photoshopped." Work on it all you want—I've actually worked on this quite a bit—but it should look like it just fell out of the camera the way you see it. Totally natural.

As I was working, I looked at Deb's face in the full file and it suddenly occurred to me that this might be a good example to show off the abilities of one of my regular tools that I use, FocusFixer from FixerLabs. First, here's what the FocusFixer dialogue box looks like:

Debdialoguebox

Bone simple—you just move the "Deblur" slider until the image is at peak sharpness. (If you move it too far, believe me, you'll know. It's pretty alarming when you overdo it.)

I showed you the dialogue box out of sequence so you could compare the next three images more easily.

Here's an unsharpened detail at 100%:

Debdetail-1

(All these percentages will hold either in your feed reader or, if you're here at the site when you read this, after you click on the image.) You can see this looks pretty soft.

And here's after FocusFixer has been applied:

Debdetail-FF

Of course, none of these have had any noise reduction yet, so you can see the differences more clearly.

Quite an improvement.

But then, something occurred to me—it's been forever since I compared FocusFixer to plain old Unsharp Masking in Photoshop. And, since I just got a new version of Photoshop recently, I figured that maybe they've improved the Unsharp Masking function. So I ported the image over to that and tried my best to match the FocusFixer-sharpened image above using just Unsharp Masking. Here's what I came up with:

Debdetail-USM-2

This was with Radius 1.2 and Amount 148. Hmm...looks pretty close, doesn't it? Maybe my old fave, FocusFixer, isn't such a secret weapon after all.

Then I decided to look at the "image morphology" (a fancy term for the structure of the image). Here it is at 300% with FocusFixer:

Debdetail-FF-300

And with Unsharp Masking:

Debdetail-USM-300

(Again, if you click on these images they should come up pretty close to 300% on your screen.) You can see the differences a little more clearly now. I still think the FocusFixer version is a little better—softer, cleaner. With Unsharp Masking I've had to kick the contrast up a little too much to match the apparent detail in the FocusFixer version, and there are more color artifacts, and the noise isn't quite as even. But they're very close. (When I tried this five or six years ago or whenever it was, FocusFixer won much more handily. Photoshop has caught up.)

It's worth noting that my friend Carl won't look at files at 300%. He thinks it's basically misleading. He looks at them and works on them at 100% and resists the urge to pixel-peep further.

Now it's gotten late, and I'm tired. And I didn't finish working on the picture, after all that.

I think I'll continue to use FocusFixer, but I'm not going to worry about it. Plain old Unsharp Masking looks pretty good now too.

Mike

P.S. The big problem of all of this kind of stuff is that it sucks you in. All Hope Abandon, Ye Who Enter Here! It appears that now I am practically obligated to compare FocusFixer V2 with Photoshop CS5 Smart Sharpen, am I not? Woe.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Richard Howe: "I'm Richard and I'm a recovering pixel-peeper (though I must admit that I have a hard time staying on this particular wagon). I have FocusFixer, Focus Magic, and Topaz, as well as the sharpening facilities in Photoshop, Lightroom—aren't these shared with Photoshop?—and CaptureOne, and at times I still find the temptation to compare what each of them can do on a difficult image irresistible: just plain fascinating (and more fun than getting on with the job at hand). Ditto for all the other manipulations that PhotoShop and other tools provide.

"But gradually, over the past few years, I've come to the conclusion not only that what counts is what the print looks like but also that—oy!—more often than not, especially with regard to sharpness, less is usually—not always!—more, and the image straight from the camera is—again more often than not—about as good as it's going to get.

"These days I find it helpful to make a print of the unmanipulated image—or part of it, if the print is to be a large one—before I undertake any image enhancements. If the print of the unmanipulated image looks good enough to me, I try to resist the temptation to see how much 'better' I can make. Of course I often can't resist trying anyway….

"But I loved your post anyway, Mike, just as, 21 years after I quit smoking, I still occasionally enjoy second hand cigarette smoke."

Mike replies: Richard, with me it was because I couldn't sleep last night. :-)

Featured Comment by Mark Roberts: "Those of us using 64-bit operating systems have no choice in the matter. FocusFixer (and the competing Focus Magic) only work in 32-bit systems. Neither has seen an update in at least three years and it's starting to look as if these are dead products."

Featured Comment by John Brewton: ""Mike, you're doomed. The can of worms is officially opened."

Mike replies: John, I open worm cans for a living.  :-)

Featured Comment by Ken N: "For whatever reason, I find Olympus and Panasonic files need different sharpening settings than what typically is required. A setting of 1.2 and 148 on the USM settings will bring out those textures which can be quite disconcerting. You might want to try a two-pass setting of 0.5 width for the first one and 1.2 for the second. As to the specific amount, adjust till you notice it and then back off a third. Your mileage may vary depending on other factors, but this is a start point for countering the AA filter and four-pixel merge aspect of Olympus/Panasonic cameras."

Featured Comment by Frank P.: "Why don't you shoot it in focus to begin with?"

Mike replies: Wise guy.

Featured Comment by Dave: "I switched from using Photoshop's USM filter to Topaz lab's 'Detail' plugin. The Topaz product works great and offers a lot more control than USM. Also, it is easy to avoid visible sharpening artifacts when using Topaz Detail.

"Topaz has an infocus plugin that I used for the 30-day free trial period. It seemed to work well, but it wasn't a tool I thought I'd have much use for so I didn't purchase it after the trial ran out.

"I submit a lot of photos to istockphoto.com and they have a brutal inspection process. Anyone who has much experience with istock is familiar with istock's insanely low tolerance for artifacts. Since switching to Topaz Lab's 'Detail' and 'DeNoise' filters my istock acceptance rate has skyrocketed. I don't think I've gotten a single rejection for artifacts since making the switch back in December.

"I suppose I sound like a paid Topaz Labs spokesman, but I am not.  I just really like some of their PS plugins and they are way cheaper than the competition." 

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3

Adorama's one-day deal on Lightroom 3 ends tonight. Half list, about $100 off street. Just in case you'vee been waiting for "that deal."

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Audio O.T.: From Vinyl to Virtual—Part II

(Part I is here)

In Praise of Adobe Audition

By Ctein

As we resume...

I had digitized all 500 licorice pizzas and saved the resulting WAV files to duplicate external hard drives. Unfortunately, because of hardware/software glitches and ticks and pops in the records, I really had to listen to every transcription all the way through to make sure it was okay before I got rid of the record.

I like listening to music when I'm pixel-pushing on the computer. It turned out, pleasant surprise, that I still like 98% of what I bought decades ago. Newer tastes have expanded my musical enjoyment, but they haven't evicted the old ones. And, of course, much of the music had pleasant memory associations. Listening to 300+ hours of records took time, but it wasn't onerous.

What was onerous was doing the audio cleanup. Most of the albums were in pretty good shape, with only a handful of transients. When I would hear a tick or pop, I'd switch from Photoshop to Audacity, zoom in on the defective waveform and use the fabulous Repair tool to make it go away. Those little interruptions added about a third to the actual listening time; not a big deal.

Sadly, many albums had a lot more than a handful of problems. By way of example, here's an especially bad track (note: the wav files are about 60 MB each). Some were just inherently noisy, some had acquired too many scratches over the years. Whatever the reason, when there are dozens or hundreds of audio defects to repair, it becomes unreasonably time-consuming. Also not something I can do as a background task; the interruptions to work come too fast and furiously.

Consequently, after over two years I still had almost half the files to clean up and they were worse than what I'd completed. I was feeling frustrated. All the cheap/bundled-in click and pop filters I tried worked like they were running a lawnmower over the waveforms, chopping off peaks. They don't actually remove the noise they find, and at sensitivity settings high enough to be useful, they do major damage to the sound quality. They suck.

I found software packages out there that serious audio folks considered pretty good at this task. Problem: They all cost money, some into four figures. Most didn't have trial versions, being aimed at professionals who already knew what they needed. Then I discovered Adobe Audition 3 as a field-trial beta download for the Mac. I could try it for free. It rocked.

Now it's out as Audition 5.5. Fabulous. Although it's $350 it would've been worth every penny to me to get it the moment I embarked on this project. You can check it out for yourself for free for 30 days with a fully-functional trial download.

Audition is a full-blown audio production tool. You can use it to record, mix, edit, and master multitrack recordings (it can record from my Inspire 1394 with no hassles). I'm using a miniscule fraction of its capability.

Blog198figure1

This illustration shows my master panel. Top left is a listing of open files. Audition will let you queue up operations on different files and then run them as processor cores become available. Audition is multicore savvy and very fast. On my quad-core iMac, it can perform operations on three files simultaneously and process albums almost as fast as I can queue up tasks—typically it's one or two minutes to run an operation like click removal or noise reduction on an album.

At the bottom right are the history states. Like Photoshop, you can undo or revert to any previous state. There's primitive scripting abilities (maybe it has sophisticated ones I haven't found yet); I can record a series of operations and save it as a "Favorite" that I can call up or apply to batch process a bunch of files.

The first thing I do on an audio file is run Automatic Click Remover (under Effects/Noise Reduction) twice (the ACR panel is open in the illustration above). Sometimes a second pass catches a few transients the first pass didn't. I've made this double-pass a Favorite of mine so it doesn't take any more effort on my part; in fact it's easier, because it's now at a higher menu level. You can save custom control settings as a preset, but the default settings work just fine for me. Almost every tick and pop is eliminated and I can hear absolutely no difference in the quality of the resulting audio, even with electronic music and percussion that has sharp transients of its own. I ran ACR twice on my sample track, and the result is here. No, it's not perfect, but the original was pretty hopeless.

The last thing I do is reduce the background noise—any residual hum from the ground loops (almost none), turntable rumble, vinyl noise—with "Noise Reduction (process)." I use a customized frequency weighting (see below) that hits the lows more than the highs, as that's where most of my noise is. I capture a noise print for each album (occasionally, each side) by selecting a small portion of the recording at the beginning of the file or between tracks.

Blog198figure2

I usually run noise reduction twice at low strength; the very helpful folks in the Adobe Forums suggested I would get better results if I shaved off the noise in a couple of passes rather than trying to hit it all at once. You can hear what that does to my sample track by downloading it. The cleanest albums only required a single pass; a few exceptionally noisy ones required three, with new noise prints between each pass.

The best thing about this tool is the preview. Hitting the play button in the lower left of the panel starts running the filter on my audio without actually processing the file. I can move the time cursor all over the place to sample different parts of the album and make sure I like the effect. Super-cool is the "Output Noise Only" checkbox, that plays only what's being filtered out, so I can hear what I'm shaving off of the real music. That almost never proved to be a problem, often it was truly inaudible. Usually it was only at the low frequencies, in other words a slight deemphasis of the bass, easily corrected with equalization.

The peaking VU meters at the bottom let me see how much noise is still making it through. Without putting any real effort into fine-tuning, I could routinely get the mean noise level down between –55dB and –60 without any audible change to the music and sometimes into the mid-60s. The results of this two-stage process sound so much better than anything that ever came off of my turntable "naturally" that it amazes me.

Audition includes special functions for eliminating 60 cycle hum and its harmonics and for eliminating hiss. Neither of these were problems with my vinyl, but I expect that hiss removal will prove mighty useful when I get to the tape cassettes.

Average time I spend per album in Audition is under 10 minutes. I'm reprocessing all the files I did manually before I got Audition, and I'll be done by the time this column appears.

I've found one minor bug so far: the first time I call up my custom noise reduction preset, the graph shows a clearly-wrong frequency weighting curve. If I go back to the default preset and then pull up my custom preset a second time it loads fine.

Peculiarly, Audition can read flac files but it can't write them. I use Audition to process my digitized vinyl and save it as wav; then I open that up in Audacity and play it to check the quality and catch any glitches that may remain. The majority of Audition-cleaned files play straight through with no artifacts that need my attention. From there I save it as a flac file.

All things considered, though, I am so happy I discovered Audition.

Now there are my 100 cassette tapes, for which Audition will be a godsend. As for my 750–1000 hours of VHS tapes? Done last year. That's a subject for some future column.

Ctein

Ctein's next column(s) will begin a series called "Introduction to Digital Printing." The schedule has been mixed up because of Yr. Hmbl. Editor's recent vacation, but starting two days from now Ctein's column will re-alight on its regular Wednesday perch.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Photography at Lynda.com

My friend Steve Rosenblum, who wrote the review of Peter Turnley's Paris workshop the other day, introduced me to Lynda.com about three years ago (...I think. Maybe four). I've subscribed ever since, and have used it intermittently, mainly for coming up to speed on specific aspects of specific software programs (most recently, spreadsheets—ugh!), but also to combat the murky, mucky feeling I occasionally get that I just don't know quite enough about a piece of software I'm using.

Personally, I have a peculiar and annoying affliction where computers are concerned: procedures I don't use regularly tend to wend their way out of my head somehow. You know those people who only have to learn something on a computer once, and then they've got it forever? I'm the opposite. I'll master something completely, and a year later I've forgotten it all and I'm back to the proverbial Square One. So I use Lynda.com for routine reviews, too.

For those of you (few, I would guess) who don't know Lynda.com already, it's the oldest, biggest, and probably best online software training site. Subscribers have access to thousands of hours of video tutorials segmented into easily identifiable smaller snips.

So let's say you already know Lightroom 2 but have just gotten Lightroom 3, and you want to know how to export to Flickr. So you'd skip "Lightroom 3 Essential Training" and go to "Lightroom 3 New Features." There's you'll find an Introduction, nine sections, and a Conclusion—with 53 subsections in all. You'd go to section 3, "Exporting from the Library," and find the subsection "Setting Up Flickr Publishing Services." A 3-minutes, 47-second video later, and you know what you need to know, having gotten it in a more easily ingestible format than scrounging for the book or wading through online help.

Photography, specifically
Lynda.com sports a pretty generous photography section. Mainly, it's organized around software, as you might expect. But it's also got some basics sections, a few tutorials from people such as the legendary glamour photographer Douglas Kirkland, and one-offs like a lecture by Rick Smolan (who did all those 24/7 books, among other projects) or 36 minutes on how to do group shots.

I can't begin to vouch for all the photography content: it's probably the part of the site I use the least. (I'm normally off banging my head against software puzzles in less familiar arenas.)

However (and here we get, finally and at long last, to the purpose for this post) there's now a new section called "Foundations of Photography: Black and White" with tutor/presenter/lecturer Ben Long that weighs in at just over three hours total.

Every digital B&W recommendation I've ever made has been controversial, so I assume all possible recommendations will be...including this one. Tutorials by their very nature are too advanced for some students, too basic for others, and hit only the occasional Goldilocks just right. But I'm looking forward to poking around in the 39 subsections of the B&W tutorial to test how my always-aging knowledge matches up to the current wisdom according to Lynda.com.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by John King: "I've looked at some free preview tutorials at Lynda.com and they are very good. The ongoing subscription model doesn't work for me though. I prefer to pay once and access the material when I want a refresher or quick reference. Just like my library of books. George Jardine's video tutorials are my favorites and he does an excellent job of explaining digital B&W in his Adobe Camera Raw series. It is very high quality instruction with a pay once, access forever model. George was a Lightroom specialist at Adobe for many years, so it's hard to imagine anyone more qualified on this subject."

Featured Comment by MM: "Ah, Lynda, the untold secret of many a graphics professional!

"It's been my observation that—assuming a personal teacher or tutor isn't available—some people learn technical matters best from books and others learn best from videos. Neither way is better or worse, but I would guess that most people gravitate one way or the other.

"A few years ago, after counting up the number of weighty 'Learn Photoshop' and 'Learn Illustrator' and 'Learn Dreamweaver' books on my shelf, all of which remained largely untouched, I realized that I was never going to learn software from studying books (for what it's worth, I do love books and have a large non-technical library).

"So I subscribed to lynda.com. Since then I've never let my subscription lapse, because as a working professional in graphics fields, $300 a year for unlimited training and review, 24 hours a day, anywhere in the world, is relatively small potatoes. Obviously the equation is different for hobbyists who aren't planning to make a living with their software knowledge, but in one month with Lynda ($25) they can still, for example, learn Photoshop inside and out.

"True story: My nephew recently graduated from an Ivy League college (4 years = a fifth of a million dollars). Another relative asked me what to get the kid for graduation since the grad wants to work in visual/creative fields and jobs are very hard to come by. I replied that a year's subscription to lynda.com will do far more to help him reach his employment goals than anything he learned in his four years of college. Yes, I know, one should never equate a liberal-arts education with vocational training, but the financial comparison is pretty interesting."

Featured Comment by Stephen Best: "I watched 'Foundations of Photography: Black and White' in its entirety and, though I didn't learn much and had a few points to quibble with, I found it an excellent introduction to not just B&W production, but the language (less so meaning) of photography itself. Ben Long is an engaging presenter and the strength of this talk is its completeness, showing him out shooting and trying to make something of the results. I would think many here could do worse than spending the money and watching this and a few other talks to make their $25 worthwhile. Certainly it will give pause to some here hanging out for monochrome sensors."

Using Dropbox To Manage Projects With Big Files

Recently I was involved in a video production for the DIY Lighting Kits that demanded synchronization between a large number of participants. Well, that is usually the case right, you have the photographer (or more than one), the editor, a retoucher sometimes, a sound man,  and a client. It can get even more complex if you have even more stakeholders to the project. how do you sync them all? In this post, I want to share my personal experience with Dropbox a semi-free file synchronization solution. (Here is my personal subscription link, if you sign up through this, both you and I get some extra space)

Before diving into the technical solution a few words about projects. The ability of ad-hock teams to organize like this to meet a project creative goals and deadlines is truly amazing. Only a few years back it was not really possible to work with a scattered team like this unless you were working for a big organization with a pricey network and expensive servers. For me this means freedom. Freedom to hire better craftsmen regardless of their physical location. Freedom to interact faster and on a deeper level with fellow photographers, and freedom to put my efforts into my core business rather than deal with bureaucracy and technicalities.

read more

Adobe Lightroom 3

In case you're one of those who want Lightroom and don't have it yet, Amazon's Gold Box deal of the Day today (May 30th) [link removed—deal is over now —MJ, May 31] is Adobe Lightroom 3 (for Windows Vista / 7 / XP or Mac OS X) for only $119. That's almost as cheap as Photoshop Elements. If you need it but have been waiting for the right deal, now would appear to be the time.

And if you're looking for a very good way to spend the money you save, Michael Tapes has an excellent downloadable tutorial video called "Raw Without FUD" ("FUD" is "fear, uncertainty, and doubt") that also serves as a tutorial for Lightroom. It's not specific to Lightroom 3, but the approach is holistic and still relevant.

I don't think it's widely enough known that "RAW Without FUD" will help you with Lightroom too. And of course as we know from Ctein's column this past week, there's no virtue in cleaving to the JPEG your camera gives you—everyone should learn RAW, even those who elect not to use it.

Mike

FD (full disclosure) Dept.: Michael T. is an advertiser here. But I wouldn't recommend his video just because of that. He has a nice knack for explaining software, IMHO.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Photography Blog | Copyright Photography-Blog.co.za