Post Processing Software for a Non-professional

[unpopular]

How on earth do they write an entire book on Lightroom. Is there really that much to it?

It's only 667 pages.

Lightroom 4 has 7 different modules.

Learning to effectively use the Library module alone requires a DAM book - The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers

Interesting. I've always kind of assumed it was a pretty basic application, like more or less iPhoto with raw processing, plugin support and some watered down editing facilities.

As for The DAM Book, I do need to get a copy.

 

[KmH]

Compared to CS 6 (Bridge, Photoshop, Camera Raw), Lightroom is pretty basic.

Which is why many people have both CS6 and LR4.

 

[John27]

Compared to CS 6 (Bridge, Photoshop, Camera Raw), Lightroom is pretty basic.

Which is why many people have both CS6 and LR4.

+1, I don't think lightroom replaces Photoshop for the professional, but I DO think it's a very valid option for folks not able or willing to shell out the cash for CS6. I have both (but only because of a STEEP discount I got on CS6 Extended when my wife took a photoshop class), but I still use Lightroom a lot. It's a great cataloging tool if nothing else, and it easily uploads to facebook, smugmug, flickr, etc. Photoshop could do these things too, but Lightroom does it quicker and faster.

For the real keepers, the portfolio images, those go into photoshop. But not every picture I or my wife takes is a work of art, sometimes it's just snapshots at a family event or while out riding the motorcycle. Quick run through lightroom (Often just a quick 'auto tone' and 'auto white balance' on those) and upload to facebook. It's a snap for that sort of stuff! (And it works well for the more 'intentional' shots too!)

 

[Ysarex]

Well I'm late to this party but I'm going to join in. I think I got through most of the comments. Lew noted the photo was overexposed, so OP, the EXIF data indicates you had a +.3 EC dialed in which backs up Lew's observation. That forced an overexposure -- gotta ask why? And yep, the mixed light makes this photo a real editing challenge. Got to second Keith's to-the-point about getting it right in camera: don't do this!

So I couldn't resist the challenge -- done using Photoshop:



Joe

 

[mustafanazif]

actually there is a lot of method...
+ for smoother skin you can use : "neat image" or "imagenomic noiseware" or "noise ninja" or something like that (plugins)
but also you can use ps filter "blur - surface blur" before you use it, duplicate your original photo and select the parts (like eyes) and delete other parts... in this case eyes will be clear and sharper... other areas will be smoother...

+ almost time just Photoshop enough, just use: levels, curves, color balance, sometime surface blur.... thats enough

here is your example:

i just used photoshop i didnt use any plugins...

i followed this method:

1. levels
2. curves
3. color balance
4. surface blur
(i also duplicate just eyes iris and make it "unsharp mask - radius 0.5)

thats all...

regards.

 

[unpopular]

so... is the OP runnah's out of state girlfriend?

 

[Ibis]

I use Raw Therapee for toning and black levels and such and GIMP for layers, etc.

both are free and open source and work beyond well for my needs...

EDIT: For crap and giggles, here's what I (a novice, mind you) was able to do in Raw Therapee and GIMP...