decent free photo editor

Hey all

I know people like to edit their photos and not all of us can afford Photoshop, but if you don't want to download any programs, try Photobucket. They have a really good image editor (takes out blemishes) and really cool effects. It is free to start an account and it's really useful when you want to link your photos to your myspace, FB, wherever. Myspace also has the same editing program.

-Rae

I have to agree that the Photobucket tools are easy and allow you to save a copy or replace the original. Since the edit can only be used on the photos in the online album, the inability to "un-do" an edit won't endanger the original on you local machine. They also offer 500MB of storage with their free account.

Picasa from Google is not only an excellent organizational tool, bit it also provides a rather complete set of editing tools including blemish removal, color correction, easy-to-use cropping tools and special effects filters, all performed non-destructively with the option to return the image to its original state. The main difference is that Picasa allows you to manipulate the images on your local computer rather than ones you've already uploaded. The free 1GB PicasaWeb account does not offer online editing, but version 3 allows you to synchronize the locally edited photo with the online copy.

I guess it boils down to personal preference...online or on your computer, both are free.

Neither of the above options allows for detailed editing of an image. As your involvement in the world of photography grows, you will eventually need a more complete editing package. I agree that the $600+ price tag on Photoshop with its gigantic feature set add up to a bit much for most people and, frankly, for most pros. For the rest of us, there are excellent photo editors that won't break the bank while providing 99% of the features that most of us (or, again, most pros) will ever need. Adobe Photoshop Elements, Corel Paintshop Pro Photo and ACDSee Photo Editor are all under $100 and offer a lot of power and ease of use for the money.

It may be my own well-documented prejudice concerning the value of recording your travel memories with a camera, but $59 for Photoshop Elements was worth giving up a half-dozen martinis or a bottle of wine on my next cruise to pick up software that helps me get the most out of my photos when I need to.

My 2¢... YMMV

Happy shooting.

Dave

Additional option will be : Free and you can do it on your own computer

PhotoScape

another one >

FastStone

Additional option will be : Free and you can do it on your own computer

 

PhotoScape

Slick little tool!

Dave

GIMP is a very powerful free editor although it is not really user friendly.

DON

Can anyone recommend a site where I can resize and, or compress photos. I need to email some photos that are a specific size (300 dpi, ca.4x5 inches) and I am unable to do this with the photo storage program in my Windows Vista. The original size photos are the correct dpi but they are very large. When I resize them to a manageble size, 1064 X 768, the dpi drops to 72 dpi. Help!

Thanks for any advice.

N.

Can anyone recommend a site where I can resize and, or compress photos. I need to email some photos that are a specific size (300 dpi, ca.4x5 inches) and I am unable to do this with the photo storage program in my Windows Vista. The original size photos are the correct dpi but they are very large. When I resize them to a manageble size, 1064 X 768, the dpi drops to 72 dpi. Help!

 

Thanks for any advice.

N.

Here's an article I wrote on re-sizing. It includes a link to a great free image utility that I've been using for years.

http://pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/BatchResize.htm

Keep in mind that dpi (dots per inch) is a relative measurement that refers to printing (usually 300) or monitor display (usually 72 or 96) standards. If you are specifically going to print a 4x5 picture, it is more important that it measures 1200 x 1500 pixels, regardless of the dpi (the more common term is now ppi, pixels per inch). If you send an image to a lab sized to 2400 x 3000 pixels at 72 dpi you will get the same 8x10 print that you would from a 2400 x 3000 image at 300 dpi. For example, my Sony DSLR produces 2848 x 4272 pixel images tagged at 72 ppi but if I print directly off the card at the Costco kiosk, I get the 4x6 or 8x12 that I ordered rather than the 40" x 60" print that the 72 ppi image would suggest.

There are some online labs and even some walk-in photo finishers with software that still requires a specific minimum "dpi". This is a remnant of precautions put in place to make sure people didn't end up disappointed when they brought in a 1024 x 768 image to be printed at 8x10. Modern minilabs and even desktop photo printers are more concerned with total image size relative to pixel count and adjust the resolution to the output anyway.

Dave

Here's an article I wrote on re-sizing. It includes a link to a great free image utility that I've been using for years.

 

http://pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/BatchResize.htm

 

Keep in mind that dpi (dots per inch) is a relative measurement that refers to printing (usually 300) or monitor display (usually 72 or 96) standards. If you are specifically going to print a 4x5 picture, it is more important that it measures 1200 x 1500 pixels, regardless of the dpi (the more common term is now ppi, pixels per inch). If you send an image to a lab sized to 2400 x 3000 pixels at 72 dpi you will get the same 8x10 print that you would from a 2400 x 3000 image at 300 dpi. For example, my Sony DSLR produces 2848 x 4272 pixel images tagged at 72 ppi but if I print directly off the card at the Costco kiosk, I get the 4x6 or 8x12 that I ordered rather than the 40" x 60" print that the 72 ppi image would suggest.

 

There are some online labs and even some walk-in photo finishers with software that still requires a specific minimum "dpi". This is a remnant of precautions put in place to make sure people didn't end up disappointed when they brought in a 1024 x 768 image to be printed at 8x10. Modern minilabs and even desktop photo printers are more concerned with total image size relative to pixel count and adjust the resolution to the output anyway.

 

Dave

Thanks for the info. I will take a closer look at this over the next couple of days when I have a bit more time, (and a few more brain cells ;)). The photos need to be at a high dpi for commercial printing purposes.

Thanks again,

N.

Thanks for the info. I will take a closer look at this over the next couple of days when I have a bit more time, (and a few more brain cells ;)). The photos need to be at a high dpi for commercial printing purposes.

 

Thanks again,

N.

Again, high DPI is determined by the output device. If you feed a printer a 1200 x 1500 pixel image to print at 4" x 5", it will output at 300 PPI even ig the JPEG is tagged at 72 DPI. If the pring operator is competent with digital imagery, the only thing they will be concerned about is that there are enough pixels to provide the resolution. An easy way to assure this is for you to multiply the size of the photo in inches by 300 and make sure your image matches or exceeds that. If you want an 8x10, the image needs to be 2400 x 3000 pixels. a 12 x18 needs to be 3600 x 5400 pixels. DPI or PPI in the image are irrelevant as long as the resolution is there.

This is a tough concept with an odd mixture of old printing press and new digital terminology, so don't feel thick. It took me a lot of reading and a visit to a friend's print lab to clear it up for me.

Dave

Again, high DPI is determined by the output device. If you feed a printer a 1200 x 1500 pixel image to print at 4" x 5", it will output at 300 PPI even ig the JPEG is tagged at 72 DPI. If the pring operator is competent with digital imagery, the only thing they will be concerned about is that there are enough pixels to provide the resolution. An easy way to assure this is for you to multiply the size of the photo in inches by 300 and make sure your image matches or exceeds that. If you want an 8x10, the image needs to be 2400 x 3000 pixels. a 12 x18 needs to be 3600 x 5400 pixels. DPI or PPI in the image are irrelevant as long as the resolution is there.

 

This is a tough concept with an odd mixture of old printing press and new digital terminology, so don't feel thick. It took me a lot of reading and a visit to a friend's print lab to clear it up for me.

 

Dave

Thank you for the explanation and clarification. It can be very confusing. I think the reason why they have requested a high dpi and a smaller image is that it is easier to view an image when it fits on the screen without having to scroll side to side and up and down just to view it. As well, the higher dpi would give them more printing options for the final image, whether it is used as a small image in print advertising or brochure, or as a larger image in a poster. They don't know for sure what size that they would use until much later in the process, but they don't want to be limited by a poor resolution image. If the image is not of an acceptable quality, then ones art work could be excluded from any print publicity and the gallery catalogue.

My interest in photography was born out of a love for travel and now is crossing over into my art work. I really appreciate the time and advice that you share on this forum. Thank you.

N.

Thank you for the explanation and clarification. It can be very confusing. I think the reason why they have requested a high dpi and a smaller image is that it is easier to view an image when it fits on the screen without having to scroll side to side and up and down just to view it. As well, the higher dpi would give them more printing options for the final image, whether it is used as a small image in print advertising or brochure, or as a larger image in a poster. They don't know for sure what size that they would use until much later in the process, but they don't want to be limited by a poor resolution image. If the image is not of an acceptable quality, then ones art work could be excluded from any print publicity and the gallery catalogue.

 

My interest in photography was born out of a love for travel and now is crossing over into my art work. I really appreciate the time and advice that you share on this forum. Thank you.

 

N.

So you think it's confusing so far?:confused:

What they want when they ask for a minimum of a 4x5 at 300 DPI is a minimum 1200x1500 pixel image. This gives them a minimum resolution image for the purposes you mentioned...except for the poster-sized image.

When viewing an image at full resolution on a monitor (we'll use the 1200x1500 image for example), the monitor displays one image pixel for each monitor pixel so it will display at exactly the same size regardless of whether it is tagged at 72 ppi ot 300 ppi. All image viewers have a fit to screen function that will display any size image in the viewing window, regardless of resolution. the image is automatically re-sized to fit the screen.

This is such a convoluted subject, that you have inspired me to add an article to my PPTPhoto.com site covering it in detail. Thanks for that!

Best of luck with the mixing of the hobby and the job. Please don't let the photography become a job chore! It's too much fun as a hobby!

Happy shooting!

Dave

So you think it's confusing so far?:confused:

 

What they want when they ask for a minimum of a 4x5 at 300 DPI is a minimum 1200x1500 pixel image. This gives them a minimum resolution image for the purposes you mentioned...except for the poster-sized image.

 

When viewing an image at full resolution on a monitor (we'll use the 1200x1500 image for example), the monitor displays one image pixel for each monitor pixel so it will display at exactly the same size regardless of whether it is tagged at 72 ppi ot 300 ppi. All image viewers have a fit to screen function that will display any size image in the viewing window, regardless of resolution. the image is automatically re-sized to fit the screen.

 

This is such a convoluted subject, that you have inspired me to add an article to my PPTPhoto.com site covering it in detail. Thanks for that!

 

Best of luck with the mixing of the hobby and the job. Please don't let the photography become a job chore! It's too much fun as a hobby!

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

I'm glad that my confusion has inspired another one of your great articles. I'm sure that there are a good number of others that are just as confused and would love a tutorial.

I purchased a Nikon D60 this past spring after much research on this and many other sites. I love the quality and freedom of the digital age, but my knowledge of dealing with the images once they have been taken has lagged behind. It is one of the things that I need to work on, but it is not as much fun as taking the pictures.

Thanks again for the further clarification.

N.

OK..so i just want to get the rust off the ship in one photo...can anyone point me to an idiot proof free editing software???:confused:

This is going to get addictive....but for now, since RCCl couldn't PAINT the bow of the ship, i figured i could do it...i googled and tried a couple here but, well.....:eek:

thanks

Photo Explosion is a fairly inexpensive program that does a lot. It's not as in depth as Adobe or Corel, but it's also about 1/2 the price and you can do things like paint, clone, artistic effects, etc. I use it when I want something quickly. If you can find an old version it will be even cheaper than the current $42.

I have version 3, 4 is out now I see.

Vic

GIMP is a very powerful free editor although it is not really user friendly.

 

DON

I'll second GIMP :) Always on my flashdrive!

I use Elements 7 which is pretty good on my PC!

As soon as Mr. Jobs offers the new Macbook Pro's I will be using Aperture 3!

I have been known to use Photobucket's tools as well, as they are quick and handy for resizing :)

Dave,

I noticed in one of your signatures you signed " just my 2 cents worth, YMMV..."

What does YMMV mean ? I often see it in bargin shopping sights, have been wondering for months! please fll me in, Thanks, Maria

YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary