Editing software

[AQS]

If you want to modify photos on a professional level (but don't want to pay Adobe's stupidly high pricing), I recommend Affinity Photo. It's functionality is very similar to Photoshop, but it costs €50 for an outright licence (not a subscription!) and works on Mac and Windows.

I use it at work all of the time. The learning curve coming from Adobe took me a day or two to get used to, but now it's easy.

 

[Joseph Hanna]

What do you intend to do with the pictures you take? That would help define what processing needs you require. In addition, I would focus on learning how to shoot your camera and take meaningful pictures. Special processing could come later. You're putting the cart before the horse.

I tend to agree with you in that, at least for me, I’m really all about “learning” photography as a study. That would come first for my goals. I know many take a much more casual approach and in and of itself that’s certainly as valid as the studious route. Horses for courses

I will say however that any of the current software solutions provide for a great way to review one’s pictures and learn a whole bunch about what went right and more importantly, what went wrong. Like most photographers I learn quickest through my failures and in my case Lightroom shines a pretty bright spotlight on what went wrong both technically and compositionally. In the field I usually have a bunch of irons in the fire juggling all of the parameters I want to use for a shot. There’s usually some degree of emotion involved and I’m pretty attached in that moment. Looking at the photo later, in software, tends to be more pragmatic and many times I’ve looked at the compositional results against the technique and the data and realized, only then, why my thought process at the moment was flawed.

I feel like a good editing solution can be so much more than just manipulating pictures and to that end almost all of the currently available editors would be great for a beginner if applied to a learning curve.

 

[AlanKlein]

What do you intend to do with the pictures you take? That would help define what processing needs you require. In addition, I would focus on learning how to shoot your camera and take meaningful pictures. Special processing could come later. You're putting the cart before the horse.

I tend to agree with you in that, at least for me, I’m really all about “learning” photography as a study. That would come first for my goals. I know many take a much more casual approach and in and of itself that’s certainly as valid as the studious route. Horses for courses

I will say however that any of the current software solutions provide for a great way to review one’s pictures and learn a whole bunch about what went right and more importantly, what went wrong. Like most photographers I learn quickest through my failures and in my case Lightroom shines a pretty bright spotlight on what went wrong both technically and compositionally. In the field I usually have a bunch of irons in the fire juggling all of the parameters I want to use for a shot. There’s usually some degree of emotion involved and I’m pretty attached in that moment. Looking at the photo later, in software, tends to be more pragmatic and many times I’ve looked at the compositional results against the technique and the data and realized, only then, why my thought process at the moment was flawed.

I feel like a good editing solution can be so much more than just manipulating pictures and to that end almost all of the currently available editors would be great for a beginner if applied to a learning curve.

I agree with that. Looking at you picture afterwards, trying different crops to see if it improves means that it could have been framed better while shooting. It does add to the learning process. I think though one has to be careful that you don;t use post processing as a crutch to makeup for poor technique and creativity when shooting. A camera isn't a machine gun. Often, post processing will not make up for earlier deficiencies when shooting.

 

[Joseph Hanna]

What do you intend to do with the pictures you take? That would help define what processing needs you require. In addition, I would focus on learning how to shoot your camera and take meaningful pictures. Special processing could come later. You're putting the cart before the horse.

I tend to agree with you in that, at least for me, I’m really all about “learning” photography as a study. That would come first for my goals. I know many take a much more casual approach and in and of itself that’s certainly as valid as the studious route. Horses for courses

I will say however that any of the current software solutions provide for a great way to review one’s pictures and learn a whole bunch about what went right and more importantly, what went wrong. Like most photographers I learn quickest through my failures and in my case Lightroom shines a pretty bright spotlight on what went wrong both technically and compositionally. In the field I usually have a bunch of irons in the fire juggling all of the parameters I want to use for a shot. There’s usually some degree of emotion involved and I’m pretty attached in that moment. Looking at the photo later, in software, tends to be more pragmatic and many times I’ve looked at the compositional results against the technique and the data and realized, only then, why my thought process at the moment was flawed.

I feel like a good editing solution can be so much more than just manipulating pictures and to that end almost all of the currently available editors would be great for a beginner if applied to a learning curve.

I agree with that. Looking at you picture afterwards, trying different crops to see if it improves means that it could have been framed better while shooting. It does add to the learning process. I think though one has to be careful that you don;t use post processing as a crutch to makeup for poor technique and creativity when shooting. A camera isn't a machine gun. Often, post processing will not make up for earlier deficiencies when shooting.

Yes absolutely. I’m vehemently opposed to over processed, cartoonish editing which of course is pretty rampant these days. My editing always starts from the singular position of “correction” and not much else. My intent when taking pictures is always to nail it “in camera” so that post isn’t such a big deal. I think, like many, I just don’t get much personal creative satisfaction from sliding a lever in software and getting orange and teal or blown out blue and yellow

 

[Nwcid]

Lots of great answers.

Just remember that EVERY digital image is processed. Just how it is done varies.

If you are shooting jpeg images then you are letting the computer in your camera process the image the way it thinks it should be done.
If you shoot in RAW and you process the image then you get to do it the way you want it.

The best way I can compare it to the film days is that jpeg is like dropping your roll of film off vs RAW is like exposing in your own dark room.

Each company, including Nikon has it's own free software that should have come with your camera, or is available as a download. I am not sure if PC has a "built-in" software, but Mac has "Photos".

 

[TWX]

Lots of great answers.

Just remember that EVERY digital image is processed. Just how it is done varies.

If you are shooting jpeg images then you are letting the computer in your camera process the image the way it thinks it should be done.
If you shoot in RAW and you process the image then you get to do it the way you want it.

The best way I can compare it to the film days is that jpeg is like dropping your roll of film off vs RAW is like exposing in your own dark room.

Each company, including Nikon has it's own free software that should have come with your camera, or is available as a download. I am not sure if PC has a "built-in" software, but Mac has "Photos".

Canon has a similar free package for its raw files, at least for the CR2 files created by the 77D. Canon seems to be well regarded for its colors, and the Canon program does a good job of starting out the raw file with the colors that were stored in the jpeg, and then allowing tweaking from there.

I wish that Darktable and Rawtherapee would behave similarly, the raw files as they open them are very muted. Not sure why the difference. This matters because Canon's application doesn't have a Linux version. Usually I only want to do minor tweaks to the results out of the camera, so if the raw file is much different as-imported than the jpeg it's annoying.

 

[Original katomi]

I don’t know if it’s supported by your o/s but there is DNG a raw converter on the web