Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 19 Mar 2018 (Monday) 17:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Photo shop help needed please

 
Colin ­ Glover
Goldmember
1,376 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 131
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Southport nr Liverpool United Kingdom
     
Mar 22, 2018 18:52 |  #16

Excellent work Chisa.


Canon EOS 70D, Canon EOS 600D, EF-S 18-55 ii, EF 55-200 USM ii, EF-S 75-300 iii, Tamron 28-80, Sigma 70-210. Pentax 50mm, Pentax 135mm, EF-S 55-250, Raynox Macro adapter, Neewer filters (CPL, UV, FLD & ND4), Fuji HS20 EXR (30X zoom ) & cable release, Yongnuo 560 iii & Luxon 9800A manual flashguns for the Fuji, Hama Star 63 tripod, Hongdek RC-6 remote control, Velbon DF 40 www.point-n-shoot.co.uk website.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Peano
Goldmember
Avatar
1,766 posts
Likes: 115
Joined Aug 2007
     
Mar 22, 2018 20:09 |  #17

RKSphoto wrote in post #18590262 (external link)
I do not have photoshop - never have - don't really need it.

You clearly don't want Photoshop. Whether you need it is another question entirely. But one argument definitely won't float and that is: What sufficed in the film/darkroom era will suffice in the digital/Photoshop era. It won't. It simply will not.


---
Peano
RadiantPics.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
2,641 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 741
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Southen Arizona
     
Mar 22, 2018 23:24 |  #18

Peano wrote in post #18591956 (external link)
You clearly don't want Photoshop. Whether you need it is another question entirely. But one argument definitely won't float and that is: What sufficed in the film/darkroom era will suffice in the digital/Photoshop era. It won't. It simply will not.

This ongoing idea in the thread puzzles me.

You seem to believe you need Photoshop. That may be true for you. It certainly is for me. I couldn't do what I want to do without PS or a similar toolset.

How in the world would either of us know what toolset suffices for another shooter we do not know and know quite well? I know shooters who rarely need any specialized tools and know who will use them as needed. Shall I tell them I just learned that their many skills no longer suffice? I think not!


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
14,811 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4911
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Tom Reichner.
     
Mar 22, 2018 23:39 |  #19

Peano wrote in post #18591956 (external link)
You clearly don't want Photoshop. Whether you need it is another question entirely. But one argument definitely won't float and that is: What sufficed in the film/darkroom era will suffice in the digital/Photoshop era. It won't. It simply will not.

I don't use Photoshop or Lightroom. . In fact, the only editing software I use is the program that came for free, already loaded onto my computer when I bought it - Apple's program, "Photos".

And before that I used iPhoto.

These very basic programs don't do much more than what could be done in the film/darkroom era, and yet I have hundreds of photos published every month, with some of them going as magazine covers, billboards, etc. . So, at least for some of us, what sufficed in the darkroom era actually does suffice in this new digital era.

It is best to not be critical of others - of what they do and what they use - unless you have a thorough knowledge of what they shoot, what their photographic objectives are, and what they are doing with their photos, inasmuch as the "final output" is concerned.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peano
Goldmember
Avatar
1,766 posts
Likes: 115
Joined Aug 2007
     
Mar 23, 2018 12:10 |  #20

AZGeorge wrote in post #18592060 (external link)
How in the world would either of us know what toolset suffices for another shooter we do not know and know quite well?

I gauge it by looking at their photographs. The scarcity of images that don't need further processing tells me that too many photographers still live by the maxim that they can do it all with a camera.


---
Peano
RadiantPics.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,021 posts
Gallery: 543 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1629
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Mar 23, 2018 12:11 |  #21

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18592068 (external link)
I don't use Photoshop or Lightroom. . In fact, the only editing software I use is the program that came for free, already loaded onto my computer when I bought it - Apple's program, "Photos".

And before that I used iPhoto.

These very basic programs don't do much more than what could be done in the film/darkroom era, and yet I have hundreds of photos published every month, with some of them going as magazine covers, billboards, etc. . So, at least for some of us, what sufficed in the darkroom era actually does suffice in this new digital era.

It is best to not be critical of others - of what they do and what they use - unless you have a thorough knowledge of what they shoot, what their photographic objectives are, and what they are doing with their photos, inasmuch as the "final output" is concerned.

.


Actually Photos, nor iPhoto before it come anywhere close to what could be done in the darkroom. They are far more akin to what you get when you would have simply handed your film to a lab for D&P, or send in a negative to have a larger print made.

When it comes to 2D graphical arts I don't think there is anything that you can do digitally that you couldn't do in the analogue domain. Generally the big advantage of digital is speed and ease. Digital allows you to get much much further through the creation process before you have to start committing to physical media, Assuming that you ever commit to the work to a physical medium. Digital consumption of imagery is now so common that often many images never make it to being physically fixed, be they photographic or not.

In the past I had my own darkroom, for both black and white work and colour, and although I was by no means an expert in the more advanced techniques, or tried many of them, I did have an understanding of how they work. Mostly this was due to the prohibitive costs of the learn by trial and error method that was available to me, not having a photographic mentor. I guess I should have pursued a formal education in photography, rather than in electronic engineering as I did, as I would have liked to actually try some of the more esoteric techniques. This is where digital is so great, you can make as many mistakes as you like, and it costs you nothing but time.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peano
Goldmember
Avatar
1,766 posts
Likes: 115
Joined Aug 2007
     
Mar 23, 2018 12:18 |  #22

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18592068 (external link)
and yet I have hundreds of photos published every month, with some of them going as magazine covers, billboards, etc. So, at least for some of us, what sufficed in the darkroom era actually does suffice in this new digital era.

That doesn't mean the photos couldn't be improved, or even that they are good photos. It means that you and your publishers are satisfied. What suffices is relative to the standards you apply. But the question can't be argued in the abstract. We would have to consider actual images. I'm not suggesting that we do that. I'm just saying that it isn't a word problem. It's a visual problem.


---
Peano
RadiantPics.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
14,811 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4911
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Mar 24, 2018 10:17 |  #23

BigAl007 wrote in post #18592350 (external link)
Actually Photos, nor iPhoto before it come anywhere close to what could be done in the darkroom. They are far more akin to what you get when you would have simply handed your film to a lab for D&P, or send in a negative to have a larger print made.

.
I am surprised to see this statement, because it conflicts so greatly with my experience using Photos and iPhoto. . It almost seems to me like you are making this bold statement without even having a knowledge of Photos' capabilities and limitations.

In my opinion, the example below, edited in Photos, is much more akin to what one could do in the darkroom than what one would get from "simply handing my film to a lab for D&P".


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


What could one do in the darkroom that one cannot do with iPhoto or Photos? . I would really like to know.

I think that Photos and iPhoto actually have capabilities that are very similar to those of the darkroom, yet you say that they can't "come anywhere close to" the darkroom. . Seems like a pretty big conflict between your opinion and mine. . Perhaps through discussion and examples we can each come to a more accurate assessment of the abilities of each system, and thereby arrive at a mutual understanding.


.

"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AZGeorge
Goldmember
Avatar
2,641 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 741
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Southen Arizona
     
Mar 24, 2018 11:27 |  #24

Peano wrote in post #18592349 (external link)
I gauge it by looking at their photographs. The scarcity of images that don't need further processing tells me that too many photographers still live by the maxim that they can do it all with a camera.

Ah, so who decides the question of processing need? You seem to think that is your task. I think it is up to the shooter and, perhaps, his/her editor.

I've not seen any of your work. I might think it needs less/more/better/diffe​rent processing or might be perfect as presented. Whatever the quality of my opinion, it would be downright stupid for me to generalize and say something like "Too many shooters think they create fine shots in post and forget about using their camera and brain in the first place." That might be sorta kinda true of me once in a while, but, even though we seem to be enthusiastic PS users it may not apply to you.


George
Democracy Dies in Darkness

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,021 posts
Gallery: 543 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1629
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Mar 24, 2018 11:33 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #25

Tom I'm pretty sure that you can't do anything with layers and masks in either iPhoto or Photos, something that was actually very commonly done in the darkroom. Looking at the features on the Apple website it has no pixel editing tools at all, so no spot removal, there aren't even local adjustments, unless you download additional tools. All of these things are possible in the analogue domain, using the darkroom, along with other tools after the print has been created.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
14,811 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4911
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Mar 24, 2018 12:30 |  #26

BigAl007 wrote in post #18593031 (external link)
Tom I'm pretty sure that you can't do anything with layers and masks in either iPhoto or Photos, something that was actually very commonly done in the darkroom.

You are correct; neither Photos or iPhoto have those capabilities. . But they have allowed me to do some image merging, half-assed as it may be:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

.

BigAl007 wrote in post #18593031 (external link)
Looking at the features on the Apple website it has no pixel editing tools at all, so no spot removal . . .

No spot removal? . I wouldn't go so far as to say that. . I actually use Photos to remove spots on virtually every image I process. . In fact, I can remove a lot more than mere spots with Photos:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I have even used Photos to remove deer and other subjects from images and replace them with brush, to make it look as if they were never there. . To say that it has "no pixel editing tools at all, not even spot removal" is not consistent with my experience.

You have made some good points about the limitations of Photos and iPhoto, especially in regard to the lack of local adjustments, masks, and layers. . However, I am still unable to justify your previous statement (re-quoted below) with my own hands-on experiences.

BigAl007 wrote:
Actually Photos, nor iPhoto before it come anywhere close to what could be done in the darkroom. They are far more akin to what you get when you would have simply handed your film to a lab for D&P, or send in a negative to have a larger print made.

However, the more you expound on all of the things that could be done in the darkroom, the more ridiculous Peano's statement in post #17 looks.

Peano wrote:
But one argument definitely won't float and that is: What sufficed in the film/darkroom era will suffice in the digital/Photoshop era. It won't. It simply will not.

I mean, if you can use the darkroom to apply masks and layers, that is going far beyond what Lightroom can do, and Lightroom most definitely suffices for many of todays photographers and allows them to achieve their photographic objectives.

Furthermore, if you can use the darkroom to make both global and local adjustments to color balance, exposure, saturation, and contrast, then how can one honestly say that there is no way that the darkroom methods can possibly suffice for anyone today?

The vast majority of today's digital photographers are hobbyists to whom the extra time and much longer workflow don't always matter too much, so Peano can't reasonably hang his entire argument on the basis of increased editing time in the darkroom, relative to LR or PS.

Peano worded his statement in a blanket and absolutist manner, and those types of statements are seldom, if ever, correct.

For some of today's digital photographers, what sufficed in the darkroom definitely does suffice today, in what is known as the digital/Photoshop era.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peano
Goldmember
Avatar
1,766 posts
Likes: 115
Joined Aug 2007
Post edited over 2 years ago by Peano. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 24, 2018 21:00 |  #27

AZGeorge wrote in post #18593024 (external link)
Ah, so who decides the question of processing need? You seem to think that is your task. I think it is up to the shooter and, perhaps, his/her editor.

It isn't my "task" to tell others what they need, but I do exercise my own judgment when looking at photos online and in print. When a photographer or photo editor or both decide, "This is just fine," I don't always agree, though it isn't my place to impose my judgment on them.

I've not seen any of your work. I might think it needs less/more/better/diffe​rent processing or might be perfect as presented.

Well, I don't keep it a secret. There's a link just under my signature. You're welcome to click it and have a look. And if you think it needs less/more/better/diffe​rent processing, I might not agree with you, but I take no offense at you having a different view from mine.

When I implement my editing judgment, you and others might disagree.
When you and others implement your editing judgment, I might disagree.
There is nothing wrong with people having differences in aesthetic judgment.


---
Peano
RadiantPics.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,246 views & 22 likes for this thread
Photo shop help needed please
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is laptesf
789 guests, 230 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.