Confessions Of A PhotoShop Hater....

[sabbath999]

I am a sinner in the world of digital photography... for I hate using PhotoShop.

I really do.

It is not that I don't know how to use it... in one form or another, I have been using it since the very earliest versions...

I just hate using the program... I find it completely unintuitive, and although I am not much of the artsy-fartsy type, I find the format much more suited to the desktop publishing world from where it originally came.

I find the program overpriced, overblown and containing thousands of features that virtually nobody uses.

I personally use photoshop for one thing, and one thing only... when I need to heal/clone stamp something, I fire it up. Everything else, I do in Capture NX, which is (much to my surprise) a totally amazing program. If you haven't used it, I strongly advise you to download the trial of it from Nikon's site... you can make localized adjustments to color, brightness, contrast and lots of other settings without using all those masks and layers and bar graphs. Just click on what you want to fix, move a slider or two, save it and go take more pictures... no need to spend an hour adjusting curves or getting that freaking mask just exactly right.

I find Lightroom a MAJOR step forward for the good people at Adobe, it is both intuitive and attractive, puts almost every bit of functionality you need in a program. Although I don't use it (I use Aperture) I like it very much, and I hope Adobe continues to develop it as the tool of choice for photographers.

I know a lot of folks here like playing with stuff in PhotoShop every bit as much (if not more) than taking the pictures in the first place. I say good for you, if you enjoy it, have a blast with it... it is always good to find things you enjoy.

Not me though. Not at all. 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... If not, I will throw the picture in NX and have it ready to rock in 2 minutes.

It works for me, anyway...

What say you?

 

[Alex_B]

I just hate using the program... I find it completely unintuitive, and although I am not much of the artsy-fartsy type, I find the format much more suited to the desktop publishing world from where it originally came.

unintuitive describes it pretty well. At least those things I need often are hidden at weird places in some menu-trees

That is why I switched to do virtually all but the final resizing and sharpening in my raw converter (Bibble Pro that is).

I find the program overpriced, overblown and containing thousands of features that virtually nobody uses.

True, at least for the normal post-processing. Some people who see their art more on the postprocessing side to create things different from the original image, they will need and use many of the features.

My problem is, I need CS2, since it contains a couple of features I need for a pro-ish workflow, but it contains hundreds of features I will never use ... but many of those features I do not need are even contained in PS elements

 

[Lackoffunding]

I bought it for the chrome filter.

 

[newrmdmike]

capture nx, i don't know know if they've fixed this yet, but in the earlier days of nikon raw software adjusting the white balance supposedly damaged your raw file. (maybe just a rumor, but i've read it numerous places online)

this seems pretty ridiculous, maybe you can verify to me that it does not?


oh, and i don't like using photoshop either.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I completely agree. But as counter-intuitive PS is, there are things that I need it for.

When I got the Lightroom beta, it almost replaced photoshop for me. I just find it so much more powerful and direct for color correction than photoshop.

I would say that a good 85% of my workflow is done in Lightroom, photoshop is just for the fine tuning/advanced adjustments.

I've never used Capture NX, even though I shoot Nikon as well, but i've heard mixed opinions about it.

 

[sabbath999]

capture nx, i don't know know if they've fixed this yet, but in the earlier days of nikon raw software adjusting the white balance supposedly damaged your raw file. (maybe just a rumor, but i've read it numerous places online)

this seems pretty ridiculous, maybe you can verify to me that it does not?


oh, and i don't like using photoshop either.

Adjusting white balance does not damage your RAW file in the current version of Capture NX.

 

[Digital Matt]

First off, you must realize that editing photos is not the only application for which photoshop is useful. Despite the name, the program has evolved, as the world of digital art has. As far as being a desktop publishing program, that it is not. Using photoshop for page layout is a nightmare.

containing thousands of features that virtually nobody uses.

Features that you don't use, and don't know how to use. Plenty of people do use them. There are far more post processing techniques than the ones you are using.

I am not much of the artsy-fartsy type

You are obviously not even open to learning to use the program to its fullest potential then. It can be an intimidating program no doubt, but once learned to use properly, it can be a valuable tool in crafting your artwork, if that's what you are doing.

 

[montresor]

Obviously this would be for Mac users only, but has anyone tried Aperture? I'd be curious to know how it stacked up against PhotoShop.

 

[hyakuhei]

Perhaps some of you would be interested in the open source alternative:
Gimp. The GNU Image Manipulation Program.

Although its not quite to the standard of photoshop. Its a fantastic alternative given that its completely free.

Free as in speech and free as in beer. Anyone is free to use it, the source code is not protected and everyone is free to change it and modify it as they see fit.

Its not for everyone but for the sake of 10 minutes downloading, perhaps worth taking a look before shelling out on big name products....

http://www.gimp.org/
Works in Windows, MacOSX and (my personal favourite) Linux

 

[Rabieshund]

Photoshop is so much more than photo editing. I used to do spacescapes and matte paintings in Photoshop. Photoshop is also very necessary for fashion photographers. Like all the top fashion photographers uses Photoshop to retouch their images simply because it is.. great. But I take it you're not a top fashion photographer. ;P

 

[sabbath999]

First off, you must realize that editing photos is not the only application for which photoshop is useful. Despite the name, the program has evolved, as the world of digital art has. As far as being a desktop publishing program, that it is not. Using photoshop for page layout is a nightmare.

Features that you don't use, and don't know how to use. Plenty of people do use them. There are far more post processing techniques than the ones you are using.

You are obviously not even open to learning to use the program to its fullest potential then. It can be an intimidating program no doubt, but once learned to use properly, it can be a valuable tool in crafting your artwork, if that's what you are doing.

Thank you for the personal attacks, I can't tell you how much I appreciate them. Really.

I find it interesting that you assume I don't know how to use the program or most of its features. I wasn't aware that I have ever mentioned my experience or skill level at using the program.

Since you brought it up, I first started using Photoshop in 1993 when 3.0 was released for Windows. That is about when layers were introduced, and they were quite the cat's meow, let me tell you. I have owned, over the years, versions 3, 4, 5, 6, CS and (at work only, I didn't upgrade mine at home) CS2, plus I played with the beta of CS3. Since part of my job is advertising and marketing, I have used the program extensively in conjunction with InDesign and Illustrator. My boss hasn't fired me yet, so I assume I am at least competent at using the program.

I didn't say anything about using photoshop as a desktop publishing program. I started using Pagemaker way back in the day when Aldus put it out (my first version is 2.0, with "Windows Runtime 2.0" of all awful OS's to run it on), and subsequently used every version of that until 7.5, when I transfered over to InDesign CS.

I said I didn't LIKE Photoshop, I didn't say I wasn't competent to use it. Anybody can learn how to use it, Photoshop isn't rocket science.

When I am talking about it not being intuitive, I mean that you have to jump through a bunch of different hoops to do things that other programs do much more simply. For example, if you want to make the sky more blue in Capture NX, you don't start laying down layers and masks, you point at the sky, click on the color you want and move a slider. The sky becomes more blue (but ONLY the sky, not the clouds, trees, hills)... You want to give a face a more realistic skin tone in NX? You point on the face, pick the tone, and move a slider or two... This only changes the area you are wanting to change, not the whole picture.

For those familiar with working in a darkroom, it is just old fashioned dodging and burning, in color.

Hey, I am open to trying anything... which is why I have discovered tools that I like better than Photoshop... PS is, in my OPINION, simply old and extremely overpriced technology. Compare it to Adobe's own excellent Lightroom, and it shows very poorly across the board when it comes to photographic purposes, in my opinion.

Yes, there are things that PS can do that nothing else can... but those things are very few, far between and IMHO overpriced.

 

[Mike_E]

I don't want to hear about the cow that donated the steak either. Just make it mostly rare and take this sauce away!

LOLOLOL

mike

 

[NoFilter]

Obviously this would be for Mac users only, but has anyone tried Aperture? I'd be curious to know how it stacked up against PhotoShop.

I use Aperture, and it really is not much like Photoshop... it is more like Lightroom. You can do many adjustments with it, but you cannot do others. I use it as an organziational tool, I like how it lets me span disks with my libraries.

Sorry if this does not make sense.

 

[WDodd]

I completely agree. But as counter-intuitive PS is, there are things that I need it for.

When I got the Lightroom beta, it almost replaced photoshop for me. I just find it so much more powerful and direct for color correction than photoshop.

I would say that a good 85% of my workflow is done in Lightroom, photoshop is just for the fine tuning/advanced adjustments.

I've never used Capture NX, even though I shoot Nikon as well, but i've heard mixed opinions about it.

I love Lightroom and for someone like me who is still learning Photoshop it is a very easy tool for a quick edit or adjustment.

Obviously this would be for Mac users only, but has anyone tried Aperture? I'd be curious to know how it stacked up against PhotoShop.

I was going to get this for my Mac Mini but I only have 512MB of RAM (it requires 1GB).

 

[Garbz]

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.