, I can't even THINK about getting something like Photo shop 
).
Posted 02/28/2014 10:54 am
Postprocessing is usually necessary to get the best compromise between image size and filesize for posting. Obviously you want to show the biggest image you can - within reason - but the only way you can post really large images without taxing the bandwidth of an Internet connection is to postprocess to lower levels of Quality.
The CCF Optimizer works well, but you have to be knowledgeable of the concepts of psotprocessing to maximize its' capabilities. Unfortunately, there's no free lunch here; you have to acquire capabilities in the postprocessing realm to maximize the quality of your image postings.
The tradeoff you've accepted for the inexpensive equipment you're using is a narrow "sweet spot" of quality. It's going to be tougher for you to achieve excellence than it would be for someone who spent big bucks on bespoke equipment, and you're going to have to be more capable in post as a result. Yes, you can help image quality a lot in post, with the requisite knowledge. But washed-out or (to a lesser extent) underexposed detail isn't coming back, so you have to maximize the potential of your lighting as well. It's a complex relationship, and I'd be remiss if I implied that it's "easy."
The top of the heap for postprocessing software for those of us who don't have a lot of discretionary income is the Gimp. It's free, and has capabilities on par with the most complex software out there. But it ain't easy. Quality and software capability are on a sliding scale with an inverse relationship to complexity; how good do you want your imagery?
The CCF Optimizer works well, but you have to be knowledgeable of the concepts of psotprocessing to maximize its' capabilities. Unfortunately, there's no free lunch here; you have to acquire capabilities in the postprocessing realm to maximize the quality of your image postings.
The tradeoff you've accepted for the inexpensive equipment you're using is a narrow "sweet spot" of quality. It's going to be tougher for you to achieve excellence than it would be for someone who spent big bucks on bespoke equipment, and you're going to have to be more capable in post as a result. Yes, you can help image quality a lot in post, with the requisite knowledge. But washed-out or (to a lesser extent) underexposed detail isn't coming back, so you have to maximize the potential of your lighting as well. It's a complex relationship, and I'd be remiss if I implied that it's "easy."
The top of the heap for postprocessing software for those of us who don't have a lot of discretionary income is the Gimp. It's free, and has capabilities on par with the most complex software out there. But it ain't easy. Quality and software capability are on a sliding scale with an inverse relationship to complexity; how good do you want your imagery?
