Photoshop CS5, Photoshop CS5 ex, Photoshop Elements 9, iPhoto, Aperture????

Question

kahlua021997 Author

Level 1

11 points

Photoshop CS5, Photoshop CS5 ex, Photoshop Elements 9, iPhoto, Aperture????

Okay.... so I am a bit overwhelmed with trying to decide if I should be upgrading from iPhoto or not.

iPhoto has been great for making my photobooks. But, on occasion, it has been a bit frustrating trying to get the right number of vertical vs. horizontal photos on a page. Sometimes when adding, if you add in the right order, configurations can change, usually in size (not necessarily orientation unless it is the fewer photos per page layouts 2-3 or 4). But, it makes it go really quickly to do albums as there isn't much engineering going on as you go from page to page (on occasion, I make a separate dummy album that has a different theme that I think manages my horizontal v. vertical issue or perhaps the number of photos allowed on a page (as some themes only have up to 4 or 6 photos per page and on occasion, I like to have more 9, for example)).

Primarily, I have used iPhoto to do personal albums. I intend on possibly starting to offer my services to get albums done for people and/or do slideshow videos for them. With that, I do end up, even with my own, photos from years past or current that have coloring issues or rips/tears/fading.

As it is right now, I have used iPhoto to work on the highlights, shadows, etc, which for me right now, is by trial and error.... I don't really know what I am doing and iPhoto doesn't seem to care. Fortunately, whatever I do, I can go back to the original, which I think is true in Aperture as well... However, I think I might have heard differently with Photoshop (CS5 or Elements)?

I have not installed any plug-ins for the other printer services in iPhoto (eg. Leather Craftsmen), but, I know it is possible a client may want a 12x12 album or some of those other shapes, sizes, cover options out there.... e.g. Shutterfly, even.

One other bit of information is that I am not just a candid completely amateur photographer either. I do take quite a bit of photos with my Canon Rebel Xsi. Not top of the line.... but, although I can should in raw, have chose to always just go with jpeg as this is a hobby of mine and I really don't have loads of time to just adjust all my photos... nor necessarily the space on my computer to put everything at raw. But, I could be persuaded otherwise, if I really knew how to use and really know what the benefits of it are (again, I know I should take classes or something, just don't know where to focus my attention).

So, what am I asking? Well, a few things:

1. If my primary goal is to make Photobooks, which program(s) should I have?
2. I understand you could have iPhoto or Aperture and then edit photos in PhotoShop.... Does that save the file back to Aperture/iPhoto or does it make a separate file in Photoshop?
3. Which books, classes, etc would you suggest to learn the uses of such program(s)?
4. Does the program you mention in #1 strong enough to handle typical adjustments on jpegs-aging, color casts, lack of proper lighting, red-eye (iPhoto seems to do okay on this even in the auto function, but on occasion, it sometimes replaces with too dark of a correction, or not fully complete.)
5. Does Shutterfly have a print plug-in so I could make photobooks on either Aperture or iPhoto and have Shutterfly print? Or is that just available on Photoshop (unless I print to jpegs and then upload to Shutterfly using the Shutterfly uploader)?
6. Is it really beneficial to shoot in raw over jpeg?
7. If Photoshop is even part of your answer in #1, is it worth it to have CS5 or CS5 Extended with the 3D option?

MacBook, Mac OS X (10.6.2), iPhone 4, iPod nano 3rd gen, iPod nano 4th gen, Airport Express

Posted on Oct 18, 2010 6:55 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Yer_Man

Level 10

165,978 points

Oct 18, 2010 7:41 AM in response to kahlua021997

1. If my primary goal is to make Photobooks, which program(s) should I have?

iPhoto is entirely template driven, Aperture's books are very customisable and there are losts of online options too. Google a bit and see what's out there.

2. I understand you could have iPhoto or Aperture and then edit photos in PhotoShop.... Does that save the file back to Aperture/iPhoto or does it make a separate file in Photoshop?

Yes and Yes. In iPhoto: You can set Photoshop (or any image editor) as an external editor in iPhoto. (Preferences -> General -> Edit Photo: Choose from the Drop Down Menu.) This way, when you double click a pic to edit in iPhoto it will open automatically in Photoshop or your Image Editor, and when you save it it's sent back to iPhoto automatically. This is the only way that edits made in another application will be displayed in iPhoto.

Note that iPhoto sends a copy+ of the file to Photoshop, so when you save be sure to use the Save command, not Save As... If you use Save As then you're creating a new file and iPhoto has no way of knowing about this new file. iPhoto is preserving your original anyway.

In Aperture, Preferences _. Export and set your external editor there. WHen you send a pic to PS with Aperture it makes a tiif or psd and sends it over. Saving in Photoshop brings it back.

4. Does the program you mention in #1 strong enough to handle typical adjustments on jpegs-aging, color casts, lack of proper lighting, red-eye (iPhoto seems to do okay on this even in the auto function, but on occasion, it sometimes replaces with too dark of a correction, or not fully complete.)

Photoshop Elements is a good compromise between the cost of full photoshop and the features you'll need.

5. Does Shutterfly have a print plug-in so I could make photobooks on either Aperture or iPhoto and have Shutterfly print? Or is that just available on Photoshop (unless I print to jpegs and then upload to Shutterfly using the Shutterfly uploader)?

You could look that one up at Shutterfly yourself, no?

6. Is it really beneficial to shoot in raw over jpeg?

Depends on what you want to do... Really that's a massively basic question. I would check out some o the online Photo forums and see what advice you can find there tom get you started. You could do worse than look here

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/

7. If Photoshop is even part of your answer in #1, is it worth it to have CS5 or CS5 Extended with the 3D option?

Given the amount of your experience, rather than diving in and spending a whole lot of money, start with iPhoto and Photoshop Elements. Explore. IF you want to upgrade, when you're ready, migrate to Aperture and Elements. I think you're a good way from facing CS5 yet.

Regards

TD

Reply

Answer 2

kahlua021997 Author

Level 1

11 points

Oct 18, 2010 7:58 AM in response to Yer_Man

So, going with answer #7, you would think long-term, Aperture is not a solution to everything... that, having Photoshop Elements will be beneficial to have whether you have iPhoto or Aperture?

Reply

Answer 3

Yer_Man

Level 10

165,978 points

Oct 18, 2010 9:10 AM in response to kahlua021997

going with answer #7, you would think long-term, Aperture is not a solution to everything...

No app is the solution to "everything"...

Your own description of yourself:

but, although I can should in raw, have chose to always just go with jpeg as this is a hobby of mine and I really don't have loads of time to just adjust all my photos...

So, shoot in jpeg. Unless you're shooting Raw or large amounts of Jpeg I don't think that Aperture is worth the expense over an app like iPhoto. But here's the thing: you can also process your Raw with iPhoto. If in time you find that too limiting, then you can upgrade easily to Aperture.

that, having Photoshop Elements will be beneficial to have whether you have iPhoto or Aperture?

Yes, because it will work with both no problem.

Regards

TD

Reply

Answer 4

Oct 18, 2010 9:26 AM in response to kahlua021997

An app like Aperture is primarily an images-management app with limited editing capability; iPhoto is the free beginner version. For images management use iPhoto for free until it seems limiting. Only then embark on the one-time 30 day Aperture trial, realizing that Aperture is hardware-intensive (achieve minimum 4 GB ideally 8 GB RAM prior to trial).

For significant editing but poor images-management one can use very expensive Adobe Photoshop, less expensive Adobe Photoshop Elements, inexpensive Pixelmator or (free) GIMP. You do not IMO need full very expensive Photoshop.

IMO digicam photogs should own/learn/use one app from each of the two categories above.

Specific to only removing foreground/background elements are apps/plug-ins like KnockOut or Fluid Mask.

As to RAW vs. JPEG image capture, RAW files contain far more image data and do not contain post-capture camera modifications like sharpening. For almost all shooting it makes sense to shoot with capture set to the RAW+JPEG setting with modern DSLRs. That way you have the full image data if you need it, but can also use the JPEG file for simplicity if you prefer.

HTH

-Allen Wicks

Reply

Answer 5

Oct 26, 2010 7:12 PM in response to kahlua021997

but, although I can should in raw, have chose to always just go with jpeg as this is a hobby of mine and I really don't have loads of time to just adjust all my photos...

I always shoot RAW format (NEF), because this give me the complete control of original, true native straight format from my Nikon dSLR camera. It doesn't matter which image app such as Photoshop CS5 or Photoshop CS5 Extended or Aperture or Lightroom, or even ACR, you get most out of native RAW format photos that way rather than JPEG photos.

Come to think of it, if you chose JPEG format in your camera, every time when you shoot your photos with JPG, then camera automatically compress native true format, it basically destroy true digital negative (as in RAW). However if chosen RAW format, every time when you shoot, it basically keep all kinds of digital RAW data in each photo file...

There are many misinformed information about this. To understand the difference between RAW and JPEG, and what does that means, and what it will do in camera and understand the difference and the output. Once you understand the difference between RAW and JPG, then you'd chose the preference workflow that way.

It is my personal preference to do RAW all the way, period.

Reply

Answer 6

Ric Donato

Level 4

1,129 points

Oct 26, 2010 8:11 PM in response to Caramel Macchiato

Hi Carmel,
Everything you said about raw is true. It is not my intent to make this a raw vs JPG however, here is something else to consider:

Raw has its advantages over JPG as does JPG over raw. IMHO, much of raw is lost from my computer screen the clients' and, file size made smaller for e-mailing, etc. Gosh, this Macbook Pro laptop screen is much better than my iMac. The iMac has an antiglare screen whereas this Macbook Pro has the LED backlit glossy screen. On the Macbook Pro photos pop, on screen quality is striking in their difference. Not so on the iMac. So, all our work on a raw file is lost from screen to screen or over the web posted on a site.

Print at less than 8x10 on either glossy, matt, satin, etc., we then see each paper changes the visual acuity of the photo changing the perceived quality and detail of the photo. Thus our processed raw files appear not any better than our JPG Fine Large. We e-mail a photo, the recipient's monitor may or may not be color corrected or could be old etc., thus unable to see that which we worked diligently to produce. Most often they may print the file using a non color corrected workflow, etc.

As you can see all our raw processing went out the window. The client does not see a difference in the raw file we slaved over compared to the JPG Fine Large file we produced. Yes, I have run this test with clients they do not see a difference. It is the photo not the file, it is what the photo portrays the emotion that sways the client; raw JPG TIF they do not care about. Depending on the subject, the client does not worry about the technical aspects of the photo. To them it is "what does the photo represent".

These newer DSLRs produce gorgeous JPG photos straight from the camera. I have see JPGs as good or better straight from the camera than my raw shooter friends can produce with his/her raw files.

Back in the day we were photographers, service bureaus did the processing and printing. We each had our specialty. Though I am a geek, I want to spend less of my time in front of a monitor working to tweak files. My workflow is crop, enhance, sharpen, finished, I want to be known for my photography not my computer skills.

Yes, shoot raw it works well for you. Myself, I will shoot JPG Normal maybe JPG Fine; I may get to Scotland before ye. 🙂

Oh, I use iPhoto 9, and the older, don't cringe, Photoshop Elements 4.

Thank you for reading this.

Cordially,
RicD

Reply

Answer 7

Oct 27, 2010 1:28 PM in response to Ric Donato

Ric,

I would think it is fair to say, perhaps most clients do NOT know anything about RAW files. To make things more simple for clients, just simply send them fairly reasonable sized mid-quality JPG files. I don't normally trust certain clients as they would pass the photos around without your knowledge or permission. I guess it is between your client and yourself.

But would be good idea to send clients fairly simple JPG files with sRGB profile.

As for calibrated monitors on side of clients' computer, I personally doubt that they have physical calibration. I would think they do not know anything, anything related to color management as you know, it is highly, heavy technical matter for them to understand it. It would take them years to finally understand it. All you have to do is keep it simple. I would think sRGB is usually work ok with most computers' old monitors.

Reply

Answer 8

Oct 27, 2010 3:03 PM in response to Ric Donato

Ric Donato wrote:
...much of raw is lost from my computer screen the clients' and, file size made smaller for e-mailing, etc. Print at less than 8x10... ...the client does not worry about the technical aspects of the photo. To them it is "what does the photo represent". ...These newer DSLRs produce gorgeous JPG photos straight from the camera. I have see JPGs as good or better straight from the camera than my raw shooter friends can produce with his/her raw files.

...I will shoot JPG Normal maybe JPG Fine...

I think shooting "JPG Normal maybe JPG Fine" is a very big mistake when RAW+JPEG is available.

It is correct that a perfectly exposed JPEG-Fine (forget JPEG-Normal) image captured with all of a modern DSLR's presets (e.g. Sharpening) optimally set can produce a "Print at less than 8x10" hard copy print that is excellent.

However some of us print to large sizes; or may want to crop a given image a lot to utilize just a small portion of the original. And some of us do not always get perfect exposure, or may sometimes have camera presets like white balance or sharpening not set optimally for a particular image.

JPEG-only capture loses forever the ability to optimize in any of the above common scenarios. In each of those instances it is of huge value to have maximum image data available. To intentionally discard image data when RAW+JPEG is such a simple choice IMO makes zero sense. Card storage capacity is now cheap.

Note that I do not denigrate the use of JPEG for various final-output scenarios. Nor do I denigrate the usage of the JPEG image from a RAW+JPEG pair when appropriate. However I strongly believe that capture and archiving of original images should include the maximum image data that any given camera has available.

-Allen

Reply

Answer 9

Ric Donato

Level 4

1,129 points

Oct 27, 2010 2:46 PM in response to Caramel Macchiato

Hi Caramel,
Yes, I agree with you, keep it simple for the clients.

Unless I am sending something to a service bureau for CMYK conversion then sRGB is my choice. All service bureaus I know want sRGB, our monitors are set to sRGB, home printers use sRGB. Most folks do not know that the s in sRGB means Standard.

Good chatting with you! Have fun with your photography, I wish you well.

Cordially,
RicD

Reply

Answer 10

Ric Donato

Level 4

1,129 points

Oct 27, 2010 6:15 PM in response to SierraDragon

I think shooting "JPG Normal maybe JPG Fine" is a very big mistake when RAW+JPEG is available.

It is correct that a perfectly exposed JPEG-Fine (forget JPEG-Normal) image captured with all of a modern DSLR's presets (e.g. Sharpening) optimally set can produce a "Print at less than 8x10" hard copy print that is excellent.

However some of us print to large sizes; or may want to crop a given image a lot to utilize just a small portion of the original. And some of us do not always get perfect exposure, or may sometimes have camera presets like white balance or sharpening not set optimally for a particular image.

JPEG-only capture loses forever the ability to optimize in any of the above common scenarios. In each of those instances it is of huge value to have maximum image data available. To intentionally discard image data when RAW+JPEG is such a simple choice IMO makes zero sense. Card storage capacity is now cheap.

Note that I do not denigrate the use of JPEG for various final-output scenarios. Nor do I denigrate the usage of the JPEG image from a RAW+JPEG pair when appropriate. However I strongly believe that capture and archiving of original images should include the maximum image data that any given camera has available.

-Allen

Hi SierraDragon,
I will not disagree with your comments, you have made valid points, I thank you. Please allow me to add to them.

Back in the day when the two megapixel camera was the cats meow I would on a regular basis shoot JPG Fine; on my camera raw was not available. From those captures I would crop an area then blow it up to 8x10. Clients were amazed with the photos. So, it can be accomplished but, is it as good as today's double figure raw file, no. However, to this day the photos are gorgeous. By folks that should know better regarding JPG files there is much misconception and incorrect information bandied about.

When we pixel peek we see differences in the files. However, when looking at them at the appropriate distance one will be hard pressed to see the difference in todays JPG and raw output. If there is a difference it is in the computer skill of the operator not the quality of the raw file vs JPG. Again, as I stated, depending on where and how it is viewed there is not much gained by raw over JPG. It is in the eye and mind of the beholder.

Here is a test I have run numerous times. Print five different photos at 8x10, each picture from a JPG and raw file, put them on a board asking folks to choose which was from a raw or JPG workflow. The only stipulation was they could not be closer than three to four feet from the prints. It was rare they were correct. Once I printed all ten from a raw file, you should have seen them picking out JPG files and their reasons. Afterwards, when knowing they were all the same photo we all had a laugh at themselves. It was a fun evening.

Anyway, thank you for adding your input it was a pleasure reading your comments.

Cordially,

RicD

Reply

Answer 11

Oct 27, 2010 9:47 PM in response to Ric Donato

Hi RicD,

Unless I am sending something to a service bureau for CMYK conversion then sRGB is my choice. All service bureaus I know want sRGB, our monitors are set to sRGB, home printers use sRGB. Most folks do not know that the s in sRGB means Standard.

Well, I like to think sRGB being as in "stupid" RGB for some reason. It is my perspective of sRGB due to very, very limited gamut colour space. As for standardism of using sRGB on most monitors (except for professional-quality, professional-grade monitors - it is totally different ball game). I agree with you about some service bureau offering CMYK (or depending on their printers handling of types of paper, and ink used, so forth, you know the strings...) Of course, it is wise to contact service bureaus for their printer profile (icc file). If they have specific icc print profile (or for each types of paper, so forth, grab these icc profiles) used for whatever specific project you work on.

It is my personal preference that I don't use sRGB myself... but it depends on output like you suggested, and scope of project, and for whom the photos are sent to, so on.

As you are, it is my pleasure helping and learning from you as well. Allen is pretty good with all other information he has provided over the years.

Reply

Answer 12

Ric Donato

Level 4

1,129 points

Oct 28, 2010 8:35 AM in response to Caramel Macchiato

Hi Caramel,
Interesting comments you made.

Here is a quote from Will Crockett from ShootSmarter.com

The gamut, or color space of your monitor is very close to the sRGB space, and there are no monitors (yet) that can accurately reproduce the colors that are beyond the sRGB boundary - yet still inside the Adobe RGB boundary. That means if you have some colors accurately described by the Adobe RGB space that are beyond the monitors boundary - they don't show up on-screen. In some instances, this can cause trouble. Shooting and working in the sRGB space prevents all of this and streamlines your workflow. Most wedding / portrait shooters may never need to capture and print any pixel that's outside sRGB which is why so many successful wedding / portrait shooters just set up for sRGB workflow and forget about it.
Unquote.

He has a SmartArticle, http://shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc025.html , that goes into much more depth. He has a free video that explains all this in detail at http://www.fridayphotoschool.com/dl/ You will need to create an account that is free and free from spam as well. It is titled JPEG or RAW? & adobe RGB or sRGB?

In the past I did shoot in RGB but, my results were not as good as my sRGB workflow. Because of all I read about RGB my results bugged me. Then after much research I came upon many articles vouching for sRGB over RGB that I was already using. Those articles explained how the RGB and sRGB color space worked. It became clear to me the sRGB was a better workflow.

As I stated in the past there are many misconceptions about photography workflow by many that should know better. Some stick with what they have heard without testing the hows and whys.

Oh, BTW, I have moved back to film. It is now over 95% of my workflow and, the clients are asking for it as well. Hum, how times change, back to the future huh.

Of course we can agree to disagree on this subject. For too long we have hijacked this thread; this is my final response.

As always, I hope you have a good time and, much success with your photography.

Cordially,

RicD

Reply

Answer 13

Oct 28, 2010 10:39 AM in response to Yer_Man

I wanted to get back to one issue in this thread......the benefit of using PS Elements with Aperture. I am basically an advanced amateur who is moving from iPhoto to Aperture. I understand the work flow part of Aperture, although probably useful it is not something essential for my purposes. However,I was under the impression that Aperture 3 had some fairly robust adjustment tools. Could you give me some specifics on the adjustment advantages that PS Elements would offer above what is included in Aperture?

Many thanks.

Reply

Answer 14

Yer_Man

Level 10

165,978 points

Oct 28, 2010 11:03 AM in response to Malibu Flyer

Could you give me some specifics on the adjustment advantages that PS Elements would offer above what is included in Aperture?

Anything involving layers.

Regards

TD

Reply

Answer 15

gkush

Level 1

0 points

Oct 28, 2010 12:54 PM in response to Yer_Man

I know very little (if anything) about layers - in fact they confuse me. And while I don't claim to be an expert in Aperture 3, it does have a significant amount of adjustment capability, so other than what you can do in PS, I'm not sure what additional capability layers gives you, especially considering the very powerful capability of brushing in multiple settings of the same adjustment.

For example, you can apply different color, or highlight, or curves, etc, adjustments to specific portions of the picture by brushing them in. To be clear, you can have multiples of each. I find this very powerful.

Reply