Photoshop... Love it? Hate it?

[unpopular]

The GUI is really goofy at times, and the layer independence (each layer is treated like an individual image) can be a hinderance as much as a help, especially if you resize a layer non-proportionally. But it costs like 60€.

 

[unpopular]

I grew up without photoshop and there are lots of things that were achieved without it. Where there wasn't photoshop to rely on there were great graphic artists that drew what you create, there were and still are great photographers that shoot images without the use of photoshop because they took the time and learned how to take pictures without using software. Learning photoshop is a great computer skill, learning how to use it really well takes time.Learning how to take pictures, understanding light, composition, content, and putting it altogether on one frame in a camera requires much more pure skill.

And when someone combines what you said above, with great skill in post production, the become even more skilled...

A skilled photographer doesn't have to be skilled at post process, that's why they have skilled computer people to do it. I know lots of great and very skilled photographers that aren't very good with photoshop, they learn only as much as they need to know. I don't agree with that approach, I prefer to know more than I need to know, even if I never use it. I'm sure most would agree. I'd rather be great with a camera than great with photoshop, but understand what you're saying, I'd rather be great at both. I'll just stick with being pretty good with photoshop.

While this is true of color slide photography, it is untrue of black and white photography, which I think digital is closer to in approach. Black and white photographers manipulate negatives all the time, the difference is that this manipulation is being done chemically, often in complete darkness, by adjusting development times according to exposure. The assertion that a good photographer 'gets everything right in camera' has merit, but I think that the approach under-utilizes that abilities of a camera to capture the widest possible range while minimizing signal to noise. Of course, such an approach (ETTR) would require that each capture be post processed.

 

[jake337]

I grew up without photoshop and there are lots of things that were achieved without it. Where there wasn't photoshop to rely on there were great graphic artists that drew what you create, there were and still are great photographers that shoot images without the use of photoshop because they took the time and learned how to take pictures without using software. Learning photoshop is a great computer skill, learning how to use it really well takes time.

Learning how to take pictures, understanding light, composition, content, and putting it altogether on one frame in a camera requires much more pure skill.

And when someone combines what you said above, with great skill in post production, the become even more skilled...

A skilled photographer doesn't have to be skilled at post process, that's why they have skilled computer people to do it. I know lots of great and very skilled photographers that aren't very good with photoshop, they learn only as much as they need to know. I don't agree with that approach, I prefer to know more than I need to know, even if I never use it. I'm sure most would agree. I'd rather be great with a camera than great with photoshop, but understand what you're saying, I'd rather be great at both. I'll just stick with being pretty good with photoshop.

Yeah, me too. Your right though, that's why some of the best photography businesses have teams, right? Someone who is the best at what they do in each independent area of photography.


But as a hobbyist I really have no choice unless I feel like paying some re-toucher to finish up my snapshots!

 

[imagemaker46]

And when someone combines what you said above, with great skill in post production, the become even more skilled...

A skilled photographer doesn't have to be skilled at post process, that's why they have skilled computer people to do it. I know lots of great and very skilled photographers that aren't very good with photoshop, they learn only as much as they need to know. I don't agree with that approach, I prefer to know more than I need to know, even if I never use it. I'm sure most would agree. I'd rather be great with a camera than great with photoshop, but understand what you're saying, I'd rather be great at both. I'll just stick with being pretty good with photoshop.

While this is true of color slide photography, it is untrue of black and white photography, which I think digital is closer to in approach. Black and white photographers manipulate negatives all the time, the difference is that this manipulation is being done chemically, often in complete darkness, by adjusting development times according to exposure. The assertion that a good photographer 'gets everything right in camera' has merit, but I think that the approach under-utilizes that abilities of a camera to capture the widest possible range while minimizing signal to noise. Of course, such an approach (ETTR) would require that each capture be post processed.

I agree. I was great at printing in a darkroom, I grew up printing the majority of my Dad's work, which also was a learning lesson in how to shoot. I helped teach darkroom at the university level to photojournalism students while I was still in high school. There is a big difference between darkroom work and computer work, I found printing much easier, getting a buzz off the chemicals isn't something that I really miss, but there are times.

 

[unpopular]

That's not a buzz. That's cyanide poisoning!

 

[Kolander]

It is funny to read about the romantic era, when the photographers were so skillful to get The Moment alone with their camera :mrgreen:

In most cases, an anonymous lab employee worked so skilfully on the film with the brush and the masks and another tools to show those great moments.

Today we do the same with Photoshop, the one an only difference is that now people know!

And of course PS is not only to create a tsunami hitting Chicago, but to achieve the highest quality in a sober portrait with a plain background.

I do love Photoshop as I love my best lenses, wish I had begun 15 years ago.

 

[imagemaker46]

That's not a buzz. That's cyanide poisoning!

Some of the chemicals didn't taste that bad either. It was usually pulling the all nighters doing rush jobs that by the next day life was a bit of a dream world. I guess I do miss those days.

 

[biquer]

Some of the chemicals didn't taste that bad either. It was usually pulling the all nighters doing rush jobs that by the next day life was a bit of a dream world. I guess I do miss those days.

We have always used the media and technology available (tintypes to glass plates to commercial film to light meters to darkroom gymnastics and on and on).
The digital age has just given us more tools to interpret our view of the world.
Would J.S. Bach have eschewed electronics for the sake of artistic purity? I doubt it.

 

[ScubaDude]

I love it: There's not a better editing tool out there.

I hate it: It's so complicated that I'll never learn it all, and there are a million ways to accomplish whatever it is you want to do.

 

[KmH]

Photoshop gets used in ways it's designers never realized were possible. No one will ever learn it all.

 

[unpopular]

That is the difference between tools like photoshop and even gimp, and toys like picnik and other "tools" in the fauxtographer toy box.

However, I do think a lot of the features being added are a little toyish...

 

[The_Pearl_Poet]

I see photoshop as a less messy, more efficient, and more versatile version of the darkroom.

 

[unpopular]

I guess how I really feel about photoshop is: I'd love to hate Photoshop, but in the end it's the best thing we've got. Unfortunately, Adobe knows this.

 

[KenC]

I hate it: It's so complicated that I'll never learn it all, and there are a million ways to accomplish whatever it is you want to do.

Why is either of those a bad thing? You can always feel like there's room to improve instead of feeling maxed-out. As for the second, there are choices for how to do everything which don't produce exactly the same result. You can either pick the easiest or the one that produces the best result, if the difference is important.

To me the only downside is that, as unpopular said, Adobe knows how much we like it and takes advantage.

 

[HughTFall]

I am a photographer, and I know a little about Photoshop. In fact, I am practicing it for over a month now. I'm not saying that I hated or loving it. It's just that I find it interesting.