Digital cameras are these days ubiquitous and the market for these and the peripherals, printers etc, is buoyant, providing a boost for the computer market also. For the average person, it is sufficient just to make a trip with the memory card to the photo shop for a set of postcard-size pictures. OK for snapshots of the family at the beach and similar, but images ex-camera could be made so much better with some tinkering on the computer. For those with a computer (and printer), this can be done with picture enhancement software, simple applications of such often coming bundled with a new camera on a CD.

I would recommend anyone starting out with the intention of "serious" photography, to use Photoshop Elements which is a cut-down (but still very effective) version of the daddy of them all: Photoshop CC (= "Creative Cloud"), although I use an earlier version CS5 ("Creative Suite"). The "CC" series may only be purchased by an annual subscription - a disappointing step in my view. Photoshop is as important as the type of camera I use, but I resist upgrading unendingly, especially if that is available only by expensive annual fees.

An alternative or additional software application is Adobe's "Lightroom". This is particularly useful for the photographer who shoots pictures in RAW format. Lightroom has various beneficial attributes and one can process a photo almost exclusively using just that programme and importantly without destroying any precious pixels. It is nevertheless an expensive addition (but fortunately purchased at a one-off cost) and really only for the dedicated.

This is an image which I downloaded from my camera. Not so evident in this case but often I find the picture is not straight, so that needs to be checked. The image seems flat because it has little colour and contrast. Yet this was on a sunny day with strong shadows. It's not as I remember the scene when I took the photo. So the camera (or my misuse of it) was unable to reproduce the scene adequately. The framing of the picture was reasonably OK but it is rarely the case that any picture could not be improved with a measure of cropping from the edges. In total, quite a number of adjustments are necessary.

The adjustments may be few or extensive, depending on what is required. In this case, here is something like the procedure:

   As modified.

   As downloaded from the camera.

After some attention along the lines described above, here on the left is the modified picture. I think it looks better and hope you agree. There are some however who suggest that "cheating" with the tools supplied by Photoshop or other programme misrepresents the reality of the scene/subject. That is nonsense, in my view, and anyway, the modified picture in this case is closer to what I remember was the reality. Of greater importance however, the modified picture appears much more appealing as a picture, and that is the true test.

Although I have no compunction in "doctoring" a picture for artistic effect, I do think this should be treated with circumspection. If one is undertaking a project of surreal art or other flight of fancy (not, in my opinion, to be attempted lightly), then of course it is necessary to use a variety of techniques, but I find that in some cases the artist over-plays the craft-work, possibly because of the relish in being able to apply the tools (especially the filters and plug-ins) which Photoshop offers. The result may look not just contrived and too fanciful but also unappealing, with some unfortunate errors sometimes creeping in as well (such as changing the sky and clouds but forgetting the direction of the sun, as I have done).

My having made that caveat, it is necessary to confess that I do not follow my own advice. More often in recent days, I experiment with graphic software to enhance, or perhaps more often ruin, my photos ex camera.

In summary, Photoshop is everything I could wish for in the sheer range of facilities it provides. There is a steep and long learning curve, which some dislike but not me. There is always something more which can be learned, and that for me provides the enjoyment. I would be disappointed if ever I were to master its full potential, but that is as unlikely as Hell freezing over. I have been using it for many years and still it has so many nuances beguiling me!

PLUG-INS.

There are two main adjustments which are necessary for most digital camera images - to reduce "noise" and to sharpen the definition. The image produced by most digitals, if not all, lacks full definition - it seems to be a characteristic of the imaging sensor. Some cameras provide a setting to effect a degree of sharpening but this is really best left to post-camera adjustment. Noise is the appearance of speckles and blotchiness in plain surface areas, the sky and the like, giving the grainy appearance of pictures which may have been taken with very fast film used in non-digital cameras. With the latest cameras of large megapixel capacities the noise problem increases, even when using very low ISO settings. So it becomes another problem to be addressed in Photoshop, Lightroom or other software.

My own preference is to employ additional software as Photoshop "plug-ins" dedicated to specific purposes. There are oodles of plug-ins available and one must choose carefully in order not to be weighed down with a plethora of such procedures.

For noise, I find "Neat Image" very good. "Focal Blade" (from The Plugin Site) has produced good sharpening results. Another, "Focus Magic" is useful for out-of-focus and motion-blurred images.

Now however, I tend to use almost exclusively, a group of plug-ins produced by Topaz Laboratories. Their "Studio 2" group of plug-ins provides not just excellent denoise and sharpening methods but also much scope for exercising one's artistic predilections, such as turning photographic images into virtual paintings.

Yes, I do have a number of other plug-ins but shan't describe them here. All ways of how to keep on spending more money!

If you have any thoughts or tips, please let me know - by e-mail .