Messages

1201

General Software Discussion / Re: Comodo Dragon browser

« on: April 16, 2010, 01:59 PM »

Just a pointer to the fact that there is still quite a lot of software that won't work on 64-bit.

1202

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 15, 2010, 05:45 AM »

But also "best result" settings with different programs, so someone could post an image from Adobe Lightroom that looks great and they'd provide the settings "Sharpen 33%, noise reduction 10% chroma, 5% luma, reduce black level by 5", etc.

-JavaJones (April 15, 2010, 12:36 AM)

For me, the problem with the idea is that the "best settings" will be specific to both the program and the photo. And, when you are looking at any "best" result, you will probably be looking more at the user's preferences and skills than on the program's capabilities.

Since I mostly use DxO, an extra problem would be that I only have the modules relevant to my cameras & lenses. I can't remember if I can download others free (I think I can) but I'm not  massively keen on loading my computer with lots of extra stuff when DxO has a fairly convoluted update/upgrade system.

1203

Living Room / Re: UK amateur photographers: if you're good, don't use Boots!

« on: April 14, 2010, 08:27 AM »

I personally dont understand e.g. not joining in with the Euro)

-tomos (April 14, 2010, 08:04 AM)

It means that the UK is freer to decide its economic policies in its own interests rather than having to be limited by the needs/preferences of other countries.

Of course, the PIIGS were allowed to fly - but now that other countries will have to pay to save their bacon, they might not be so keen to allow it again.

And if some countries (ie Ireland) had not been in the Euro, then they would not have had such a big bubble in the first place.

1204

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 13, 2010, 06:43 PM »

my absolute biggest priority is *proper* RAW processing. Which is why it's so important to me that he names the packages he tested, so I know A: how to reproduce the tests he's done with my own files and B: potentially what products to avoid or at least be wary of due to improper RAW processing. There is also the possibility that he accepted the program's defaults but that there are ways to get more "baseline" RAW output from a given tool and he just didn't use it, in which case naming the software would allow users of it to point out how the test might be made more fair.

-JavaJones (April 13, 2010, 03:24 PM)

He has to have accepted the default automatic settings. To do anything else would be seen as unfair (the other progs' developers will have chosen their default setting) as the settings would have been chosen by him and could not be reproduced others unless he explained what settings he chose and why. And trying to get the best possible photo out of them all would have taken a great deal of time. I think what he was drawing attention to is factors in developing raws that a lot of people don't know or ignore and that (some) other programs have a tendency to choose automatic settings that look better than Sagelight initially, but have actually lost information by doing so.

I think most, if not all, the major raw processors will allow you to choose settings that lose no information and will also allow you to automate it slightly by using the same formula for groups of photos that you think are similar. I'd be quite alarmed if they lost information unnecessarily whatever you did. What he is suggesting you do when you are testing raws is to check the histograms of the befores and afters. And the other thing, of course, is not to convert into jpgs if you expect to be doing much more processing, especially if it will involve a number of stages and saves.

It's not something I worry about. over much As long as I have a pristine copy of the raws, I can always go back. Any type of automatic processing or using defaults or using the same settings for a number of images is a compromise between time saved and quality. You choose the best mix you can according to your needs at the time.

1205

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 13, 2010, 02:48 PM »

Before that blog post I honestly had little interest in Sagelight. Now I'm definitely going to try it when I get home.

-JavaJones (April 13, 2010, 01:40 PM)

If you're happy with what you have and know how to use it, then I'm not sure it's worth changing your workflow. What Rob talks about is applicable whatever software you use. That said his plans for Sagelight are very promising.

1206

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 13, 2010, 02:39 PM »

I downloaded the trial of Sagelight... does anyone know if it can do lens correction (similar to DPP from Canon)?  I looked but could not find it...

-kfitting (April 13, 2010, 10:25 AM)

I haven't used it much, but don't think it would have. It doesn't sell itself as a raw processor especially and it would be expensive to get sucked into that. Rob's already found it time consuming to support plugins. You would probably have to use something like PTLens or be very careful about how much you allow DPP to do.

1207

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 13, 2010, 07:19 AM »

I'd love to know what programmes he tried!
I really like what he writes - blog and forum - it's very informative and he's open & honest and seems to plan on making a good programme great

-tomos (April 13, 2010, 06:45 AM)

Me too; I'm hoping it will slip out some time. Of course, his comments can only really apply to the automatic settings (I hope so anyway) - if you use the histograms to manage the development for each pic then this won't happen. But that takes so much more time. It also emphasises to me the need to do cropping in raw as that can change what the histogram sees.

My own workflow is to copy the RAWs on to the computer untouched and unprocessed. And making sure I have a set that stays that way.
I then put everything through DxO on automatic settings. That gives me a better idea of what might be there.
When I want to print or use a photo, I go back to the RAW and take it through manually.
And then do final editing/tweaking on the jpg.

(I am especially good at the first two stages  )

I hope this insulates me from the problems he describes. I do find the way he writes very helpful and informative.

Partly, maybe, because he seems to share a lot of my own prejudices.
He likes Faststone amongst the free image viewers - which has never felt fashionable view.
He dislikes the plasticky images produced by too much noise removal and prettifying.
He hates anything that causes a loss of more information than absolutely necessary.

I think I will probably buy and upgrade Sagelight as it develops purely to support his writing. I can see that reading him may well help me change and develop my approach and techniques. I haven't really decided how much I will use it yet (I have collected a lot of these programs over the years), but it may be that I will end up using it a lot.

1208

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 13, 2010, 05:29 AM »

For those interested in RAW conversion, there is a very interesting post on 11th April in the Sagelight BLOG.

1209

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 12, 2010, 09:26 PM »

If you are going to look at image cataloging programs, my inclination would be to suggest iMatch as your 1st port of call. It will handle the numbers and is very scriptable and is a relatively pure cataloging program. I haven't looked at it recently though, and really couldn't say whether it will do everything you listed in the way you want - though I think it ought to, and would think Mario might well code it if the need were pointed out.

But I can't help but feel that you really, really don't want the loss of speed that will go along with the features you don't want - all the reading of info you have no interest in (assuming it is there in the jpgs), all the writing of info into each image. I'd expect image catalogers to read the images in less than 5 days - but 100GB across 250,000 images is not likely to be quick. And you will need to keep your anti-virus away from your catalog and image collection.

My suggestion would be to look at one of the tagging programs that works through a database. They should have relatively light overheads for your needs (though you would have to look into how you'd write the info into the images at some stage). It would help if the underlying database were one in wide usage. I don't have much experience or expertise in these, but other people here might.

1210

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 12, 2010, 07:13 PM »

Dormouse. I was just kidding you. Look at the sentence I was talking about - I know what you meant but to anyone not reading through the thread it probably looks bewildering!

-J-Mac (April 07, 2010, 09:37 PM)

I realised that you were (almost) certainly kidding me - and that you would have read the thread - but then realised that for anyone without the patience to read the detailed info in the thread everything I said was virtually meaningless. I hope people will at least understand what I was trying to get at now and only have to read the thread if they are interested.

Personally I'm not using RAW images - like I mentioned I don’t get to take many meaningful shots anymore and mostly work with older photos; though that presents its own challenges. Have you ever tried to digitize and them repair/optimize old, old tin and silver pics?

-J-Mac (April 07, 2010, 09:37 PM)

I've done a bit of this but not much. Played a little is probably a better way of putting it. Looking to see what happens when I do, but putting off the job of doing my best with them until I have time. And hoping that the technology will be better/easier then.

Did you ever get any response from IDI support about the problems?

Having now gone through the forums in a bit of detail, it strikes me as possible that a number (probably a small number) of users have found aspects of v5 working very slowly on their machines. And much more slowly than v4. Although there was an extended beta period, the final release is still in relatively early stages and I would expect that a lot of improvements will emerge as time goes on. It's always a problem to tie down when speed is the issue because what the program does is so complex that some things (like the original indexing) will take a long time and so users get stuck in not knowing whether it is taking longer than it ought - as originally happened with you; so maybe not everything is reported.

1211

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 12, 2010, 06:41 PM »

I currently have about 250K images, disorganized into some 4K folders that people lumped them into, taking over 100GB with more coming once in a while.  By and large they are JPEGs with a handful of GIFs and PNGs, no RAWs.

And last but not least, I want it to be FAST, both when indexing and when searching.

Does such application exist?

-zevel (April 11, 2010, 07:02 PM)

The answer should be yes, depending on precisely what you mean by FAST. Especially for indexing. And depending on what you want indexed and what else you want it to do. Complex changing of tags and hierarchies of tags could also take a while across a huge number of images if the tags are attached to the file rather than simply living in the database; with images most info is usually kept with the image so that tagging etc is independent of the program that created them - but it will have an impact on speed if you want to do a lot of complex changes.

There's nothing in your post to suggest that the program needs specific image cataloging abilities. Does that mean that a general cataloging program/database would be fine? Or is there something else you need it to do (such as read/index the EXIF)?

All the programs mentioned in this thread are specifically intended for photos and photographers. They are looking for a lot of specific features that you may or may not need - with an overhead in speed that you appear not to want - and permit changes of tagging structures, but do not expect that this will happen very often.

1212

General Software Discussion / Re: Helicon Filter won't work on my computer!

« on: April 12, 2010, 08:16 AM »

I guess I should just be patient and wait to see if my message ever gets posted on the Helicon forum, and if it does, whether it gets a reasonable response.

-cyberdiva (April 11, 2010, 08:40 PM)

Seems to have got an excellent response. And they'll hold the BdJ price for you until the problem is sorted. And they want you to try Focus out too.

1213

General Software Discussion / Re: Helicon Filter won't work on my computer!

« on: April 11, 2010, 08:17 PM »

Added note: I went to kill the process with Task Manager and saw to my surprise that there were TWO Helicon Filter.exe files actively running.  I can't imagine why. 

-cyberdiva (April 11, 2010, 03:35 PM)

Doesn't happen when it loads here.

1214

General Software Discussion / Re: Helicon Filter won't work on my computer!

« on: April 11, 2010, 08:10 PM »

Looks as if something is interfering between the flash screen showing and the full program loading. Not had that problem (currently on Vista laptop) so can't comment.

wrt tomorrow's offer, I'm struggling to see good immediate reasons for upgrading from the (now) free version apart from the soon to disappear (for a period anyway) discount. Comments indicate that a number of features haven't yet made it into 5 (they're promised before it leaves beta). The big gain, feature-wise, is supposed to be a mask so that changes can be made to selected parts of the image - but I haven't found it anywhere yet and the help files don't exist in v5 yet. Superficially at least, v5 looks remarkably similar to v4. Other feature upgrades are supposed to be coming soon now that the initial v5 is virtually complete.

Apparently it has required a major rewrite with structural changes to overcome limitations in the architecture of v4, which is why it has been over 2 years in development. I notice that there's a question at BdJ about why have an offer now when the old version is free and the new version is still in beta. I can't imagine it was really planned like that and suspect that they thought they'd have 5 launched before the BdJ date came up.

Have to congratulate them on making 4.93(2) and PhotoSafe free though.

1215

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 11, 2010, 05:18 PM »

The HF forum thread with requests for the new version 5 (it dates back over 2 years) has a request for being able to use external plugins for noise removal.

The problem with any form of automatic noise removal is that it is too easy to smooth everything out to give a plasticky effect. Very tricky to retain all the detail and still take out the noise because a lot of what is removed is actually the detail. Noise removal is a feature, that imho receives far too much attention in reviews etc, possibly because it is an easy thing for techies to measure unlike things like colour tones etc. Like making pictures 'pop'; I'm always amazed at how many photos of natural scenes I see for sale which have been popped into garishness. These photo editing programs have a lot to answer for.

1216

Living Room / Re: two-monitors ergonomics

« on: April 11, 2010, 04:58 PM »

And if you have a chair that is set up to move with you, looking at the top of a two bank set is just a question of leaning back.

1217

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 11, 2010, 12:32 PM »

The developers describe HF as being problem focussed.

And historically it has always mapped onto a traditional photog's processing workflow. IIRC, it can work as a Photoshop plugin. It certainly works quite well and I wouldn't want to put anyone off it. And I admit to being tempted by H Focus, if not its price.

Sagelight seems to be taking a very different approach to a UI (& workflow) and one I've not seen before (iirc). And I like the forum, which seems to have a very good and helpful atmosphere even though it is relatively recent. I can see it developing a really good community.

1218

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 11, 2010, 11:07 AM »

And another thread from the Sagelight forums where Rob explains the Sagelight philosophy/workflow and even makes a comparison with Helicon Filter.

1219

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 11, 2010, 10:08 AM »

There may be (many?) programs better than Helicon, but few  if any  as easy to use!

-Curt (April 11, 2010, 02:17 AM)

It all depends on what is meant by easy to use.

Experienced users who use progs daily find a smooth workflow and shortcuts easaiest.
Users who understand what they want to do find it easy if those things are easily seen.
People who don't really know what they want to do or what is possible need an environment they can play around in or a set of clear instructions.

The limited set of main buttons in the new HF beta includes Chromatic Aberration. How many novice camera users know what that is?

This comes from their webpage:-
Some of the most interesting and unique features are:

• Live preview of all brushes
  
• Haze compensation
  
• Spectral sensitivity controls
  
• Chromatic aberration filter
  
• Vignetting and barrel corrections

I'm not sure how many people will understand why they would be interested in all these. Or what to do with them.

Don't get me wrong, Helicon Filter is a perfectly good program. I've used it before. And they have other programs that people might find interesting, particularly Helicon Focus which does what it does probably better than anything else around at the moment, including Photoshop. And in some ways it is quite easy to use.

I just feel that the thread was moving away from Sagelight and giving the impression that HF is better. I hadn't even looked at Sagelight before seeing this thread and it seems to me to have a different sort of UI to most photo processing progs and possibly more accessible to a lot of people. I haven't spent a great deal of time looking at Sagelight et, or the HF beta, but at the moment, I'd describe them as different approaches to doing many of the same things. Sagelight probably being in a currently much faster state of development. Whichever suits you best, is the one for you to use.

And there are a lot of free programs out there that do a lot of basic things, and some advanced ones, pretty well too.

1220

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 11, 2010, 09:16 AM »

I'm finding the Sagelight forums quite interesting.
Batch processing is coming soon (interesting post on some advantages/disadvantages of raw processing in batches HERE) and layers in v4

1221

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 11, 2010, 08:36 AM »

~ HF has noise reduction - cant find any in SL [I just found a 'Smooth Skin/Image' edit which = Noise Reduction, preview of effect doesnt allow you to zoom in though, so you cant really see effect unless you apply it...]

-tomos (April 08, 2010, 04:14 AM)

Discussion of Noise Reduction in Sagelight

And another

Even more discussion on 26th March in the BLOG

1222

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 10, 2010, 07:02 PM »

Remember that the value of batch processing depends on how much you want precisely the same settings applied to each photo.

If you shoot mostly RAW, then you will want to batch process them. But if you are doing that, then you might want to look at a number of other options. I use DxO which tests each lens/camera combination and calculates the corrections needed for each photo setting; that gives DxO much more controlled automatic processing for these parameters (at much greater cost too though). I'm not trying to suggest the use of DxO (or equivalent), but I am saying that HF should be compared with other raw processors if that is a substantial element of what you are interested in. But most people who shoot RAW are well into the advantages/disadvantages of various RAW processors already.

If you aren't interested in RAW, then you have to work out how much you really will want to apply all the same settings across a batch. Mostly, I suspect, if there's the same colour cast across a number of photos.

Looking at the other differences, HF (even in its latest beta) seems to me to be a much more traditional photo processor in approach and Sagelight appears to encourage more playing around. I wouldn't like to hazard any sort of guess or evaluation of which is 'best' without a lot more trying out, but I would say that I see them both as photo processors rather than image editors. I cannot really see how you can sensibly edit images without using layers.

1223

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« on: April 10, 2010, 11:53 AM »

I am happy with my six dollar Sagelight :-) but after trialing Helicon Filter 5 I am certainly going to take the offer on Monday, as well. What an easy way to make fine pictures!  

-Curt (April 10, 2010, 05:41 AM)

Interesting range of licenses.
On the HF website, they have a 12 month license for $20 and an unlimited lifetime license for $75.
The 50% off BdJ offer ($37.50) gives you free upgrades until the next major version. That might, of course, mean a lifetime

1224

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 07, 2010, 12:20 PM »

PM allows you to add tags to the photo itself as well as to a sidecar

-Dormouse (April 06, 2010, 05:16 PM)

Is one of these preferable?

-tomos (April 07, 2010, 03:36 AM)

Now that's a question. Much debate on the issue. It's generally felt that sidecars are safer, but it really all depends. And what it depends on may be something you don't know because it is in the future.

There's a sticky thread on this issue in the IDI forums.

-Dormouse (April 07, 2010, 09:25 AM)

Dormouse, I am accustomed to clear and concise answers from you - and now this "...riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." (To quote Churchill).      

Jim

-J-Mac (April 07, 2010, 11:45 AM)

Oh dear 
I was hoping that what clarity is available would emerge when people read the sticky thread I referred to.

To try and explain it myself:-
If people continue to use the hardware and software that they have now, it makes little difference which choice they make. But hardware manufacturers can change the RAW formats at will - and they do, to store info from new camera features or because they have thought of a way of squeezing more info from the data from the sensor and update the firmware on current cameras. They will update their own software - but that software may then not read extra info that has been recorded within the RAW file by other programs and may not read RAW files that have extra info at all. So sidecars can be thought of as safer as the original RAW file is still there. Other people like everything to be in the file so that they need not be dependent upon databases or programs that will be able to read the sidecar (though sidecars are pretty much a standard anyway).

One critical issue with all catalog programs that you will put a lot of work into is security against future changes because you can easily export/import the data. And that is the underlying issue here.

1225

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 07, 2010, 09:29 AM »

A browser, sorter, tagger is like a file explorer taking in details of all the files, allowing you to browse them and add tags, ratings etc.

-Dormouse (April 06, 2010, 05:16 PM)

that's a good description of Exif Pro then
(but I'm not sure of it's RAW capabilities)

-tomos (April 07, 2010, 03:36 AM)

Exif Pro is only just moving on to working with some RAW files. I've never used it myself. And it doesn't have the reputation for workflow speed that PM has. But then it doesn't have the price either.