I have never used Photoediting software other than that from a disk that came with a camera. Are Photoshop / others much better than that sort of thing. I have never shot in RAW because the editing software that came with the camera does not seem to deal with it.

I therefore have a couple of questions:

1. Is it easy to use Photoshop et al if dealing with both RAW and JPEG files?
2. Is Adobe Photoshop the best and if so which version is suitable for an amateur? There seems to be all sorts of variants. How much should you be paying - again I have seen a wide range of pricing.

Any guidance would be gratefully received.

Photoshop is the industry standard in image editing (RAW, JPEG or any other bitmap format). Whilst there are some packages which come close (such as the Freeware "Gimp"icon_wink.gif - nothing equals or betters it.

Photoshop is NOT easy to use. It is expressly designed for professionals and it takes years to master fully. I've used it professionally for the best part of a decade and I'm still learning little things. Throw into the mix Adobe's annual upgrades and it's a full time job staying abreast of the technology.

A far better solution for the amateur is Adobe Photoshop Elements. In essence it's 80% of the Photoshop engine with a vastly simplified interface.

Not posted any stuff on here in ages:

Thanks. Does that cut down version deal with RAW files adequately?

Like the photos - esp. the Langtree Park one.

Yes. RAW files are processed equally well by Elements. As I said, it's essentially the same engine.



Thank you.

I took that on opening day before I went into work. Post-processing was done in Photoshop. The bridge photos are a couple of years after.

I printed four of the stadium onto large canvases. One is somewhere at the club. The other three were auctioned off for charity. IIRC, one went to the Steve Prescott Foundation. I can't remember the exact details.

For anyone looking for a low cost zoom lens, I bought a Sigma 70-300mm with Macro facility for less than £100 (new). I thought for the price it was worth a try. As you would expect its not superb, especially if you try to crop an image. But took these just now, which I thought given the price were pretty reasonable (NB close-ups were only hand held at 300mm so inevitably a bit of shake). Overall, I would say that although the lens is by no means great if you are working on a budget it is pretty good.

[url=http://s840.photobucket.com/user/David_Lyons/media/Jackdaw%20900cm_zpsr58ttvag.jpg.html[/url
[url=http://s840.photobucket.com/user/David_Lyons/media/Jackdaw%202%20900cm_zpsgnmtnnja.jpg.html[/url
[url=http://s840.photobucket.com/user/David_Lyons/media/Fuschia%20900cm_zps0funplhp.jpg.html[/url
[url=http://s840.photobucket.com/user/David_Lyons/media/Fuschia%20pollinator%20900cm_zpsnsjk9hai.jpg.html[/url
[url=http://s840.photobucket.com/user/David_Lyons/media/Rose%20Cat%202%20900cm_zpsb5wcq7k6.jpg.html[/url

Those are not bad photographs. Did you shoot native jpeg or convert from RAW?

Generally speaking the software you get with the camera is pretty good at RAW conversion. Technically speaking it should provide better results than Adobe Camera Raw (which is the plug-in for both Elements and Photoshop) because it is the manufacturer's own software. No one knows the peculiarities of how cameras create RAW files better than makers so the algorithms used should be the most finely tuned of the lot. I say SHOULD because these days Canon & Nikon etc. tend to palm bundled software off to third-party developers in whose hands pretty much anything can happen.

Adobe Camera Raw is a superb piece of software, tho. I mean, it's entirely possible to handle ALL post-processing within this plug-in (including more complex activities such as airbrushing, adding neutral density filters, gradients, masks, lens correction, perspective shifts etc.) without ever needing to drop the image into the parent software (whether it be Elements of Photoshop).

On the subject of lenses. Thirty years ago you'd certainly think twice about using third-party non-proprietary lenses such as Tamron or Sigma. Very often the reverse-engineering process which allowed them to "talk" to the camera and work in unison with the camera's highly sensitive light-metering systems was flawed to say the least. Worse still the lenses themselves yielded all kinds of unwanted effects such as image distortion and chromatic aberration.

These days, however, the build quality is significantly better. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. all use high-precision laser C&C to cut their bodies and glass down to very precise tolerances. I have a couple of the higher-end Sigma "EX" lenses and the build quality is definitely as good if not better than standard Canon lenses - if not quite up to Canon's pro series. Unless you are really, really picky about geometric distortion it's perfectly possible to get by with even entry level stuff right up to professional level.

I mean, I have several very expensive pro-level "L" series Canon lenses. Whilst they yield demonstrably cleaner images with better bokeh, lower chroma etc. I could easily live without all of such. The only drawback to entry level and third party lenses is build quality. Canon's "L" series are built to last with all-metal bodies and full weatherproofing. That's something I can't do without when I'm shooting professionally outside in bad weather. And you have the confidence in knowing that if you drop them on the floor they are not going to explode into a million pieces. It's the same story with my cameras. I could quite easily get by using a 700D or whatever they are named these days. But these polycarbonate bodies just can't match the durability of my Canon 7D and 5D MKII.

One welcome development in the field of photography is the arrival of the Chinese and their heavily subsidised equipment. For years Chinese equipment was nothing short of a joke. But recently they've really got their act together. A good example would be Yongnuo and their astonishingly cheap flashes and transmitters.

For years if you wanted to buy a decent Canon flash you either had to fork out £220+ for the standard models and anywhere up to £500 for their top end stuff. Meanwhile a set of professional wireless triggers would set you back the best part of £800.

Admittedly the Yongnuo stuff isn't built to the same rock-solid Canon standard. But they are close. And getting closer. However, it's on COST where Yongnuo really kick ass. For the price of ONE of Canon's top end flashes I can probably buy EIGHT Yongnuo strobes all with built in wireless receivers. Sure, they won't last as long but who cares? Break one and you've still got another seven left in the bag.

They were JPEGs. Maybe I should take another look at the camera's software to see if it processes RAW files! If I recall the software crashes on my computer and I am using my wife's software from a compact camera.

Back to the cheap lens, yes those pictures are reasonable and the cat one pretty good. But, shooting at a longer range results to date have been poor.

On a different note, I am wondering whether a Sigma 150-500mm lens (c. £600) would be worth it? I know their top of the range version (more expensive) can produce petty impressive results, but I am not sure about spending £600 on something which may not be top notch. Do you have any experience of this particular lens?

Sadly, Pentax lenses are expensive - c. £1,000 for a 300mm f4 prime lens. Maybe I should have transferred over to Canon / Nikon when I got my last camera! But the Pentax K3 came out better in reviews than the equivalent Canon / Nikon cameras and is a great top end consumer level camera.

I've never used it. But I would have no concerns about doing so. Of course I always advise people to buy the best glass they can afford. But unless image sharpness and lens distortion are absolutely critical issues I wouldn't waste the money. Professional level lenses are meant for professionals. I'm not saying amateurs should steer clear but you really need to know a good deal about photography before you'll be able to get the best out of a professional lens.

I've seen people throw two grand at a professional 18-55mm or a 22mm-80mm workhorse lens and a 70/200mm intermediate zoom and yet they scarcely know how to operate their own camera. I haven't the heart to tell them they've wasted their money.

I'd definitely be wary of spending big on a 500mm lens. Unless you are a dedicated wildlife photographer shooting at least once per week you're really not going to get a lot of work out of it. My 70-200mm cost me a grand and yet I doubt I shoot more than 5% of my photographs with it. If you are going to invest big money pile it into an everyday use zoom. At least then you are getting value for money.



I began with Canon - simply because it was a big name and the entry level bodies were affordable. I briefly moved over to the Sony Alpha system but even though I really rated the Alpha bodies the choice of lenses was very limited.

I have some very real criticisms of Canon (and Nikon) especially in relation to pricing. But you can't knock Canon's catalog of lenses. For instance I don't know any manufacturer who currently offers FOUR separate professional-standard 70-200mm lenses.

So whilst other manufacturers are undoubtedly forging ahead of Canon and Nikon in terms of camera bodies - all of them are way behind on glass. And as any photographer will tell you - glass is the most important factor when buying into any camera system. Good glass lasts you a lifetime whereas camera bodies are often outdated within 18 months.

Quote ="Diavolo Rosso"Anybody know how to replicate the look from the 1980s photos in this book? www.hoxtonminipress.com/products ... oto-book-6 I'm not entirely sure exactly what the technical term is for what I'm trying to replicate, but I'm basically trying to get the same look/feel which I presume is a function of how the camera handled the light/processing of the photo. Any thoughts?'" It's something which can be done in Photoshop but it takes an understanding of how film/photos degrade and how colours are 'lost' over the years. Generally speaking, aged 1980s photos tend to have a yellow hue to the whites and a loss of colour in the blues which gives the photos more of a red/yellow/magenta hue. The easiest and most basic way is to use the 'Selective Colour' adjustment layer in Photoshop. This allows you to alter the colour properties of each colour in the image individually. You have to be careful not to over do it though as it can look too heavily processed. Subtle adjustments often work best.

Quote ="Diavolo Rosso"Anybody know how to replicate the look from the 1980s photos in this book? www.hoxtonminipress.com/products ... oto-book-6 I'm not entirely sure exactly what the technical term is for what I'm trying to replicate, but I'm basically trying to get the same look/feel which I presume is a function of how the camera handled the light/processing of the photo. Any thoughts?'" It's something which can be done in Photoshop but it takes an understanding of how film/photos degrade and how colours are 'lost' over the years. Generally speaking, aged 1980s photos tend to have a yellow hue to the whites and a loss of colour in the blues which gives the photos more of a red/yellow/magenta hue. The easiest and most basic way is to use the 'Selective Colour' adjustment layer in Photoshop. This allows you to alter the colour properties of each colour in the image individually. You have to be careful not to over do it though as it can look too heavily processed. Subtle adjustments often work best.

In my case I take 95%+ with at least a 200mm lens and usually 300mm (biggest I have) as I principally photograph wildlife, especially birds. I have only put on a "standard" lens for about 5 minutes in the last year! Yes, I agree that lenses are more important than the box that holds them but as I was not prepared to spend several thousand pounds on a professional standard camera the K3 came out best for my needs - fully waterproof, robust, good IQ, 8 fps. etc. Problem is I like to take close ups (often necessarily cropped) of birds and so the kit lenses that came with the camera, whilst good, are not good enough for the perfectionist in me!

OK I took the plunge and have ordered a Pentax 300mm lens. Ordered online from a Dutch company as about £250 less than best UK online price. Just hope it does the business.

Ok, so i'm wanting to offload my Canon Eos 60D, i don't really want to put it on eBay due to their expensive fees as every penny is needed for a full frame upgrade, so i am wondering if there are any other sites that are safe for selling it on, Gumtree is no good as i live on the Cumbrian coast far from civilisation lol, any help would be most welcome, thanks

How much do you want for it? Is it body only?

Nice one.

Just a two foot Wescott Apollo softbox, speedlite and 1/2 CTO gel.

Aside from a Rogue Flashbender kit I really can't think of any light modifier which gives greater bang for the buck.

I do have a three foot version but you really need a half decent strobe to get the best out of it.

I've been lurking on here for a while now. I purchased a Nikon D3200 a few months ago, I'm a complete novice, but learning.

Anyway, we went to Kos last month, and I got up at 6.00 one morning to take some photographs of Syrian refugees landing on the beach from Kos. I absolutely love the last photo, the lighting at that time in the morning is perfect.

I've posted 4 pictures, but the first three are just to put the last one into context. All the images are untouched, taken on 300mm VR lens, hand held.


[url=http://s1235.photobucket.com/user/19055/media/DSC_2169_zpstaktjonp.jpg.html[/url

[url=http://s1235.photobucket.com/user/19055/media/DSC_2187_zpscq17vtow.jpg.html[/url

[url=http://s1235.photobucket.com/user/19055/media/DSC_2189_zps2adqnx9p.jpg.html[/url

[url=http://s1235.photobucket.com/user/19055/media/DSC_2198_zpsj7biwphm.jpg.html[/url

I absolutely love the last picture.

Any comments for a novice are welcome.

The Mrs is offering to buy me a camera for xmas as I've been wanting one for a while.

I am a complete novice when it comes to camera's but with a budget of £150 I want to try and get something decent to get me going. I'm not expecting to set the world on fire with that kind of budget but the 2 cameras I've seen so far are a Canon PowerShot SX410 which is currently half price in argos at £129 and I also like the look of the Sony DSCH400 which is around £150 .

Specwise it looks like the sony comes out slightly better with a better zoom and viewfinder but without much knowledge i'm not sure which direction to head.

Any suggestions?

Both are good manufacturers who build excellent sensors. If the Canon really is reduced then I'd be tempted to go for it. If you plan on doing something more than taking the odd snap then I'd definitely be looking for the ability to shoot RAW as opposed to lossy JPEG. Compression is an absolute killer on little cameras so if you can avoid it - great. If neither do and the Canon price is a fiddle then I'd probably think about the better Sony lens.

I have this lens and use it all regularly, I like it. It is very good hand held at 500mm with the Sigma OS settings. Apart from the Canon 'nifty fifty' all my lenses are Sigma, the 105mm Macro and the 10-20mm 3.5 WA often top the ratings on test in the Canon edition of Photo Plus. I use the 70D which is excellent.

I took the plunge on the Adobe monthly subscription (£8.75) for which I get the latest Photoshop and Lightroom 6, these are updated to keep pace with changes. I have began to use PS more and am slowly getting to grips with it, but as said on here it is a professional tool and takes a lot of getting use to. I have used LR to play with RAW images, but tend to use PS more often. The good thing is that you hardly miss the monthly fee and it's yearly equivelant is the same buying Element outright (not including upgrades).

Not sure if this thread is worth resurrecting since the last post was 18 months ago, but here goes.

I need to buy a travel friendly camera, something that takes sharp shots, decent auto focus, not too big/bulky or takes ages to set up but has a good zoom - probably for no more than £300.

Any suggestions?

Quote ="Mike Oxlong"Not sure if this thread is worth resurrecting since the last post was 18 months ago, but here goes. I need to buy a travel friendly camera, something that takes sharp shots, decent auto focus, not too big/bulky or takes ages to set up but has a good zoom - probably for no more than £300. Any suggestions?'" Can't pretend to be up to date on all options and prices but from what I have seen Panasonic Lumix compacts are very good. For their modest price Nikon Coolpix compacts (if they still make them) are very good. Canon bridge cameras seem very good too. Edit: Could try this website (one of the places I buy stuff from) - you can input camera type, brand, price range and then look at the options. When you have decided what suits you can then shop around. For a UK based supplier they have been good for what I have bought and you can speak to the on 'phone https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Compac ... icerange/2 (NB That link is to compact systems - the "digital cameras" section is probably more help).

Quote ="Mike Oxlong"Not sure if this thread is worth resurrecting since the last post was 18 months ago, but here goes. I need to buy a travel friendly camera, something that takes sharp shots, decent auto focus, not too big/bulky or takes ages to set up but has a good zoom - probably for no more than £300. Any suggestions?'" Can't pretend to be up to date on all options and prices but from what I have seen Panasonic Lumix compacts are very good. For their modest price Nikon Coolpix compacts (if they still make them) are very good. Canon bridge cameras seem very good too. Edit: Could try this website (one of the places I buy stuff from) - you can input camera type, brand, price range and then look at the options. When you have decided what suits you can then shop around. For a UK based supplier they have been good for what I have bought and you can speak to the on 'phone https://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Compac ... icerange/2 (NB That link is to compact systems - the "digital cameras" section is probably more help).

Thx guys, all photo very interesting
[url=https://1921681.mobi/192-168-1-254/192.168.l.254[/url