"Professional" Editing with

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by xomphos, Jun 24, 2009.

  1. xomphos macrumors newbie

    Oct 30, 2007
    ..."Point and shoot" Cameras...

    This is more of an opinion-thread. I am currently really into photography. Over the recent years, I have researched, taught myself, and experimented with a lot of photography software. One of my favorites was Adobe Lightroom. I was borrowing a Nikon D70 for some photographs to play with and got some nice ones post-processed in Adobe Lightroom during the free trial.

    I then started looking into purchasing my own digital camera. I was first looking at the Cannon Rebel series to purchase from and I was really close to doing so. However I didn't want to end up spending that much money, so, ironically, I ended up getting a "point and shoot." For $149.99, I got the Cannon PowerShot SD 1100 IS 8MP camera with a free case and 4GB 4X Kensignton SD card.

    I have been taking loads of shots on this thing and really love it. When I first got it, I put on the custom firmware that is available for the camera, but found it slow to navigate because of the hardware, so I removed it. I am shooting in the highest-quality JPEGs the camera can take, however, I cannot shoot in RAW with it. The pictures are amazing and I am primarily taking lanscape photography with it, but I was wondering if many people use photo-editing programs such as Lightroom and Aperture with "point and shoot" cameras like this.

    Any comments about this topic? I am really into photography, I just don't have the amazing budget for it.
  2. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Jan 14, 2008
    Why not use Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 in conjunction with iPhoto.

    I used Aperture for a month ( free demo ) but realized it was overkill for what I was doing professionally. ( product photography )

    By the way I use a Canon DSLR and shoot exclusively in RAW.
  3. ColinEC macrumors 6502

    Apr 4, 2008
    I use Photoshop with my Sony DSC-W200. It's a simple point a shoot with a nice manual mode (you can adjust everything from the ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed).

    I use Photoshop mainly because I only usually will only take one "good" photo where I take the time to manually adjust the camera or get the right angle. I don't take a huge amount of photos when I'm out shooting, so I find using something like Aperture or Adobe Lightroom unnecessary. That may change once I get a nicer camera, but for now I'm sticking with Photoshop.

    Also, I find the use of Photoshop being as big of a part of photography as taking the actual picture. I use it do completely overhaul a photo I've taken, accent things, emphasize the atmosphere of the environment in which the photo was taken, etc. You can really create some amazing things with the use of a point and shoot and Photoshop.
  4. 147798 Suspended

    Dec 29, 2007
    There are two different things to consider: one is the number of different controls you can use (much more in lightroom than iPhoto) and the other is the nature of the image -- where RAW can be manipulated much more than jpgs. You can use LR with jps and have far more control over processing than in iPhoto or Picasa (as two examples). For instance, you can easily do a gradiant filter in LR, or local sharpening on the eyes.

    Having said all that, there are limits to what LR can do to a jpg because of the nature of the format. Also, a point and shoot has less dynamic range and produces a flatter looking image than a DSLR. So, you have to ask yourself if the money for LR is worth it.

    In short, you will have a better experience processing in LR, but you can do so much more if, at some point, you move to a DSLR.

    On Photoshop and Photoshop Elements -- folks are absolutely right that you can do a ton with them, but they are complex, non-intuitive and hard to master for beginners. LR will be easy for you to use out of the box, but of course PSE costs like $80 vs. $300 for LR. If you can get LR on a student discount, then I'd say go for it. I have LR and PSE (and iPhoto). I use them all. If you plan to really alter your photos, and not just develop them, then you will need PS or PSE. If you are just looking for levels adjustment, sharpening, color changes, then you may not need PS or PSE.

    Hope that helps.
  5. toxic macrumors 68000

    Nov 9, 2008
    if it can shoot RAW, you can manipulate your photos to a great degree. doesn't matter if it's a p&s or not. jpeg is inherently limited...too limited to be worth buying expensive software for, i think.
  6. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Jan 14, 2008
    This makes sense ... with a RAW image you can all but retake the shot in the computer.

    JPEG format as I understand it gets lossier each time and image is opened, edited and saved again.

    You can do more with LR than a JPEG image will allow.

    You'd be better off saving your money for a DSLR and using the simple tools that I use. I have Photoshop CS4 but always throw the quick projects to Elements.

    If as you say you take you time and make sure each shot is right, in other words you get it right " in the camera " you really shouldn't need a lot of post processing in a computer.

    I used to do a lot of product photography, online catalog work for antiques and jewelry. I had total control of lighting and staging so it was easy to perfect the shot in the camera. The only post processing I needed was basically the ability to crop and resize. Why spend hundreds of dollars on software to crop and resize when a $90 program would suffice.

    If I am doing portrait work, or working outdoors than a little more post processing may be needed.

    Get that new Canon DSLR the T1 I think it is and you'll have a blast. It's the latest in the REBEL line and the damn thing shoot HD Video as well! ;)
  7. 147798 Suspended

    Dec 29, 2007
    To some extent, but not entirely. Certainly RAW in a pns is better than jpg in the same camera. But DSLRs are designed to shoot RAW and do so at a higher bit rate (12 or 14 vs. 10 or 8). Their images have more inherent dynamic range in raw, deeper colors, and also cleaner higher ISOs. In my experience, I can, for instance, get more stops of exposure out of shadows in a DSLR Raw image than I could from my SD800 using CHDK. Also, with CHDK RAW on a point and shoot, I would often have to adjust both the highlights and shadows. In DSLR RAW, it's often only one or the other.
  8. toxic macrumors 68000

    Nov 9, 2008
    this is a difference due to sensor design, not because of being "designed to shoot RAW"

    one way or another, it is not possible to extract all the creative possibilites from an image using a jpeg.

Share This Page