Confessions Of A PhotoShop Hater....

[eyecee]

I only agree with your point that PS is overpriced.
I use both PS and PSP and find them both very usefull, PSP selling for a third of the price, I would advice PSP to anyone.
Knowing a lot of people who own SLR 's and never shot in more than the automatic setting, then using PS for cropping and resizing, what a waste!!
I use both for photo, graphic work, art.
Everytime I have new brushes, actions, plug in filters, I'm like a child with a new toy. My family is starving as I cannot leave the PC
I'm a professional photographer shooting mostly weddings and I don't have to make much alterations to those photo's, but what I can do with PS/PSP to make some photo's stand out is so wonderful.
Yes, I'm addicted

 

[sabbath999]

sabbath you clearly missed the point. You like Lightroom because it was made for photographers not because it is a "step forward" from photoshop. Lightroom is a photo editing tool. Photoshop is an entire graphics studio in a small form factor. Most photographers wouldn't even scrape the surface features that photoshop has to offer, but I know plenty of graphic artists that do things with the program to make you awe. I also hate this idea that every professional photographer needs Photoshop. That is a load of crap. There's plenty of good photoediting packages available which don't cost $1000 and don't have 59774.5 features that photographers will never use.

I may have missed the point, indeed. I am not perfect, I screw up. You are definitely on the right track (in my opinion) when you are talking about the other photo packages that are out there... absolutely.

 

[c_mac]

sabbath, i don't think matt was taking personal shots at you. i am pretty sure he was just saying that because you don't use certain tools or features doesn't mean that others don't as well. therefore you calling the program overhyped (or whatever word you used) is a bit harsh.

don't be so quick to take offense, almost everyone on this site is very friendly. I am sure you have noticed this seeing as you have quite a few posts. matt is usually one of the ones to help others and has always been nice to this community.

 

[ksmattfish]

I am all about TAKING the pictures... When I get home, I want to crop them to fit the paper, get them printed and be done with them. If I have done my job properly, they don't NEED to be fixed...

The "it's all done in the camera" philosophy has been very popular ever since the introduction of easy to use roll film, and photo labs that would finish the job for the photographer quietly, and hidden behind closed doors. But some photographers consider processing and printing to be just as important as the initial exposure in the creation of a photograph. When I was taking photography in school (back in the days of 100% film curriculum) almost all of my instructors, mentors, and gurus were of the opinion that 99% of photographs could be improved after the exposure using darkroom techniques, and to not take advantage of the possibilities was just plain lazy.

I don't "fix" things in the darkroom or image editing software. I create my photographs with the complete process in mind from exposure to finished print. It's called "previsualization". If I've done my job right I've taken into account all aspects in the creation of a photograph from the beginning to the end, and not just started and stopped at the camera. But to each their own.

 

[Mike_E]

I'm one of those who gets annoyed at all of the hoops you have to jump through to get anything done with Photo Shop but I also see where the digital camera is going. There will come a time when the advances in the technology will be such that every DSLR will 'get it right in camera' practically every time.

This of course will be a great benefit to most photographers and will Kill most of the professionals. The only thing that will save the 'professional' will be their ability to do post processing and their general abilities as a business person. (you can sell sweat if you're good enough )

Once upon a time people thought they were secure in their profession because they thought no one would be bothered with all the chemicals and glass plates. The more things change...

mike

 

[Alex_B]

There will come a time when the advances in the technology will be such that every DSLR will 'get it right in camera' practically every time.

No.

won't happen ever. At least a camera can never get it right for me. since the camera does not know if i want the image darker.. or brighter, or how much contrast and saturation I think is perfect for the scene.

There is nothing like a "real and true" image of the scene. The human eye vision plus brain work very different from cameras, hence the perception of vision is always very subjective and influenced even by moods ...

 

[Karsten V]

Its the hoops you have to jump through in PS that gives you (the user) complete control over your work and not the other way around as in Capture FX.

I dont want to click a sky and then move a fader to change the color (you can do this already in PS to some degree).
I wnat to tell the program what I believe is the sky (re-gaining control) and then change the color.

Photoshop gives you complete control over the picture.
If you can't handle that control (or even want to) then thats fine.... don't use those hoops.

Developing film in a real darkroom is also a long process of hoops... just different hoops I guess....

 

[Alex_B]

Developing film in a real darkroom is also a long process of hoops... just different hoops I guess....

yes, but the darkroom equivalent today is more the RAW converter .. call it Aperture, Lightroom, Bibble, Breeze, and all the others.

And they are workflow optimised for this, not like PS.

 

[Mike_E]

No.

won't happen ever. At least a camera can never get it right for me. since the camera does not know if i want the image darker.. or brighter, or how much contrast and saturation I think is perfect for the scene.

There is nothing like a "real and true" image of the scene. The human eye vision plus brain work very different from cameras, hence the perception of vision is always very subjective and influenced even by moods ...

Alex, Isn't what you are talking about here really Post Production? The ability for a camera to get everything in focus, the exposure perfect and the dynamic range to a full 10 is not that far away.

What will be left will be choosing the focal point (if you want to go beyond the new snap-shooting) and the rest of what you mentioned in addition to what is now considered Post Production. You will have complete freedom to do what you like with the photo because everything will be there and usable. The trick will be in knowing both what and how to do it.

Fortunately for the pros, most people won't want to learn the 'how' part and will still be about the same on the 'what' part. And too, they still will not have access to or know how to use lighting for the different effects.

mike

 

[Alex_B]

Alex, Isn't what you are talking about here really Post Production? The ability for a camera to get everything in focus, the exposure perfect and the dynamic range to a full 10 is not that far away.

What will be left will be choosing the focal point (if you want to go beyond the new snap-shooting) and the rest of what you mentioned in addition to what is now considered Post Production. You will have complete freedom to do what you like with the photo because everything will be there and usable. The trick will be in knowing both what and how to do it.

Fortunately for the pros, most people won't want to learn the 'how' part and will still be about the same on the 'what' part. And too, they still will not have access to or know how to use lighting for the different effects.

mike

I agree that some part of post-processing today is related to the shortcomings of our gear, like the quite limited dynamic range (hey, but wait, i am a slide film shooter, so that is similar!).

In terms of dynamic range we are still far away (orders of magnitude) from the many f-stops difference between a dark shiluette and a bright sky. so there will most likely be always some limitation.

But there is nothing like a perfect exposure for a scene... ok, there are exposures which do not please you or me since some detail is lost somewhere, or the image seems too light or too heavy ... but this is totally subjective. If I want a very very dark image, where lots of detail is lost, than I want it for some reason, to create some effect. the more arty things get, the more this holds true. and this cannot be chosen automatically.

so this was the point i was trying to make.

Hey, and this is about Photoshop .. which is considered a post-production tool anyway

developing the digital negatives is done with other tools ...

 

[Mike_E]

I think that the limitations will be our own eyes because that is where the camera manufacturers will stop with the dynamic range. Realistically, there is no limit to how well light can be gathered, there is only cost consideration.

The exposure is almost there already if you use RAW. As long as you are fairly close to the absolute exposure and have not blown out anything, you can do what you like with exposure in your print.

As to the other tools, I know I should get out more but I only use CS2 -for everything.

mike

 

[Alex_B]

I think that the limitations will be our own eyes because that is where the camera manufacturers will stop with the dynamic range. Realistically, there is no limit to how well light can be gathered, there is only cost consideration.

The exposure is almost there already if you use RAW. As long as you are fairly close to the absolute exposure and have not blown out anything, you can do what you like with exposure in your print.

As to the other tools, I know I should get out more but I only use CS2 -for everything.

mike

dynamic range is one of te major problems with digital sensors, and there are lots of roadblocks to construct sensors which are better by orders of magnitude.

technology which is too costly to be produced, wil never be produced except for special purpose applications where money plays no role. in semiconductor technology many brilliant concepts never left the lab since they are not cost effective. So const considerations are a killer!

and it is not only costs, also principle problems.

As for everything is there in RAW... I am a person shooting in RAW only, with a camera known for very good signal to noise ratio also for higher ISO, but still if I have a bright sky and some darkish forground it screams for multiple exposures, the noise when you pull up the shades is just awful, and noise reduction always costs you some detail. also 12 bit are simply not enough to totally avoid posterization in the dark parts of the spectrum if you brighten it up.

just my personal experience, maybe I am just not good enough with all those tools, including my camera, my lovely neatimage for noise reduction, my RAW converter and my PS ... or maybe I just prefer more extreme situations with respect to light.

 

[Mike_E]

No, it's the Tools which are not good enough yet (or cost effective anyway). Current tech has us at about 5 stops DR. If you used a 20 Mpxl sensor instead of a 10 and used the extra 10 Mpxls for the other 5 stops- hey-ho there you go! A 10 Mpxl capture at 10 stops of DR. (yes there is a Lot more to it than that but it is doable.)

The only problem is that such a camera would sell in the $25k to $35k range and the manufacturer might only sell around 200k of them world wide- not nearly enough to pay for the R&D much less the cost to produce them. (they would not even sell that many if the cameras were priced at true cost.)

So, anyway, the camera makers will get there because if for no other reason they have to compete with each other.

mike

 

[Alex_B]

So, anyway, the camera makers will get there because if for no other reason they have to compete with each other.

mike

not all problems of cost effectiveness can be solved by mass production.

and pixel density is not unlimited.

If I had 40+MP I might be willing to donate 20MP to DR, but we are not there yet. At least not with APS-C or 35mm sensors.

At least I personally already feel a slight slow down in the advance of sensor technology ... things got rather slow in recent years and companies concentrate more and more on not so important features to compensate for that.

This is a very hypothetical discussion anyway

 

[Digital Matt]

I have to admit, I'm pretty confused as to what hoops some of you feel you have to jump through in photoshop to get anything done. All of the tools you need are right there in front of you. You can create your own shortcuts, to any filter, adjustment, adjustment layer, or function in the entire program. You can completely custom tailor the program to fit your workflow.

Its the hoops you have to jump through in PS that gives you (the user) complete control over your work and not the other way around as in Capture FX.

I dont want to click a sky and then move a fader to change the color (you can do this already in PS to some degree).
I wnat to tell the program what I believe is the sky (re-gaining control) and then change the color.

Photoshop gives you complete control over the picture.
If you can't handle that control (or even want to) then thats fine.... don't use those hoops.

Developing film in a real darkroom is also a long process of hoops... just different hoops I guess....
Today 07:22 AM

I can't say it much better than that.