After a 25 year hiatus, back into photography... will I be disillusioned... again?

.
Greetings... my first post here and glad to have found this forum.

I was into photography back as a young man; studied it a great deal, took classes (learned to process, burn and dodge, etc), and scrapped up enough money to buy myself a brand new New F1 (tho it feels awkward to call a 25 year old camera New anything!)

I was into shooting on my own... nature, etc. But back then someone with a camera certainly knew how to use it (there was no fully-auto anything and I ptahed even my own camera's semi-auto features) yet there was no escaping the expectations to be 'the guy' to shoot family get-togethers, friend's weddings, etc. I always felt obliged to do so since no one else could. I never enjoyed taking people pictures at the time. It just wasn't my thing.

Then after a few years fully automatic cameras came on the scene, then automatic focus lens, et al, and the hobby I held so dear as necessary to know in order to do, became a sea of SLRs everywhere I went. Even my far-reaching nature spots weren't sacred anymore! Grandma was crowding my duck blind! People were getting great pictures without even knowing how the camera works! Despite the reprieve I received from weddings, I became disillusioned and exited the hobby stage left. I had too much pride in those days.

Before you begin to paint my picture, let me tell you I've changed. I'm older now and I think much less of the threat of others to my hobbies and am content with my own place in it all. I still have my pride but it's better placed and after all these years and countless point and shoot cameras, I feel the need to get semi-serious as a photography hobbyist once again. Hell, I even want to take people pics!

Finally to the point:
I've been studying the market and digital photography in general for a couple of months. I've learned a lot (much of it here). Not one to get upgraditis, I think I've settled on the 7D as my weapon of choice for the long haul (I still have my New F1!). I only have one real major concern about all this:

Do I have to become a Photoshop master to be a decent amateur photographer? And if not, am I doing the 7D a disservice if I plan to use it without Photoshopping my pics? My profession is freelance product design and I spend countless hours now in front of the computer, so jumping headlong into a hobby that will require countless additional hours in this chair is anything but appealing. I'd rather be pulling weeds to be quite honest. I know just enough about Photoshop to know it is a serious discipline unto its own.

Does anyone take good pictures without secondary operations anymore?

Will I be disillusioned because a hobby that I hold dear as a physical marriage of optics, mechanisms and film has become ruled by bits and bytes?

Thanks for getting through this and I'm really looking forward to your insights.
.

dog rocket wrote in post #9385353
Do I have to become a Photoshop master to be a decent amateur photographer? And if not, am I doing the 7D a disservice if I plan to use it without Photoshopping my pics? My profession is freelance product design and I spend countless hours now in front of the computer, so jumping headlong into a hobby that will require countless additional hours in this chair is anything but appealing. I'd rather be pulling weeds to be quite honest. I know just enough about Photoshop to know it is a serious discipline unto its own.

I just use iPhoto and don't do much post-processing (PP). Maybe some levels and crop. You don't have to if you don't want to.

dog rocket wrote in post #9385353
Does anyone take good pictures without secondary operations anymore?

What are "secondary operations"? I just snap pics in whatever mode is necessary.

dog rocket wrote in post #9385353
Will I be disillusioned because a hobby that I hold dear as a physical marriage of optics, mechanisms and film has become ruled by bits and bytes?

For me, Digital is tons better than film - you can see your results right away and store on computer. No film, processing, chemicals, etc. Digital has come a long, long, way since I first started using a VGA (640x480) Kodak P&S. Computers and software for photography has too...

Nope. Computer processing is a must. But there are very basic image editors out there like Picasa (a Google product) and the actual software, Digital Photo Professional, that will come with your 7D camera.

Both mentioned above are very simple, user-friendly and non-time consuming.

Enjoy your purchase and getting back into photography. should be a snap for you.

dave

dog rocket wrote in post #9385353
Do I have to become a Photoshop master to be a decent amateur photographer? And if not, am I doing the 7D a disservice if I plan to use it without Photoshopping my pics? My profession is freelance product design and I spend countless hours now in front of the computer, so jumping headlong into a hobby that will require countless additional hours in this chair is anything but appealing. I'd rather be pulling weeds to be quite honest. I know just enough about Photoshop to know it is a serious discipline unto its own.

Does anyone take good pictures without secondary operations anymore?

Will I be disillusioned because a hobby that I hold dear as a physical marriage of optics, mechanisms and film has become ruled by bits and bytes?

If you used to work in a darkroom to produce your final product, you'll definitely want to get familiar with a decent editing software package. You'll also want to shoot in RAW mode, as that is akin to a film negative. You convert a RAW file to an editable file before doing any editing. Making changes to colors and doing exposure-related tweaks is MUCH easier during the RAW conversion process than any editing of a .JPG file. .JPG files are "edited" in the camera based on your settings, but it's not good to use them for much further editing.

If you merely took your film to the drug store to have it developed and printed and were always quite satisfied with the results, you may not be interested in post-processing.

I sort of retired from photography from about 1985 to January 2007. Between the 1950's and 1985, I even had a dark room for b/w printing. I "retired" when I started to use color slide/print film and knew I wasn't going to learn to develop these...just let Kodak to it.

I came back when our son showed me his Rebel XT. It then dawned on me that digital post processing equaled the darkroom...and it was in color. Two DSLR bodies, 1 P&S camera, 8 lenses, an iMac running Lightroom 2.6, a so-so printer later: Life is good

Too many people into photography? So what. I'm into it and enjoy it, that's all that counts. Just be aware of GAS (gear acquisition syndrome), pixel peaking, Nikon Vs Canon, primes versus zooms...and all the stuff that comes with the territory.

Since you are computer literate, learning LIghtroom, Aperture, iPhoto, or even Photoshop shouldn't be a "problem". Here, your psychological approach to post processing might matter. If you want good results in a relaxed manner, things can be fun. If you're anal about results and want to squeeze all you can get out of a file...things could get ugly (mentally that is).

Come back. I regret leaving photography for those 22 years.

Welcome to the forum, and it's wonderful to hear the completely rational, well thought-out presentation of your scenario. No really, it is.

I have to say that I think you're going to end up spending some time in Photoshop (or equivalent). With your F1, could you say that no time was needed in the darkroom, no straightening of a photo, no dodging or burning, no adjustment of brightness needed? At a minimum, I think you should be prepared to do the same tasks, though in the digital medium.

Dave

Hello Dog and welcome to POTN - gee, I remember the F1.... that was the one I couldn't afford so I only had the FTQL .

As Skip indicates, I really think that you ultimately won't be happy or satisfied unless you use some sort of photo editing s/w to "finish" your work. Having done all the old wet darkroom stuff you are pretty much there already, "mentally," from the standpoint of POLISHING in the lab what you started in the camera.

I only got into digital about 4 years ago. Prior to that my labs did all my color processing. The great thing about photoshop - or your editing s/w of choice - is that it allows me to experiment, shoot, print, and try things out in a manner that had been previously cost prohibitive. And as Snyderman mentioned, there are a lot of different programs out there, some even free, that will enable you to get as much or as little involved as you wish. - Stu

Hey everyone, thanks for the responses. I'm getting the idea that I will need to get a grip on some amount of post-processing to be fully satisfied with my photo's. That makes sense, especially since I was so involved in the processing side with film. Funny how I didn't make that connection...

I'm sure I will continue my old ways in erring on the side of trying to get every last ounce of the shot I'm looking for while still behind the lens, then using post processing as a tool to enhance the result. I'm understanding that shooting in RAW may be more conducive to that style. I'm more interested in less clicks and more thought (think large format film approach), although I'm sure I'll come back with my share of multiples. To be frank, I'd rather spend an hr in the field to get a dozen shots and minimize the time post processing than filling the memory card and spending undue amounts of time fixing the best of the bunch. Not that either way is right or wrong, it's just what I think might appeal to me best. Of course, I have this romantic notion going in and that is all subject to change with some saddle time!

Thanks again and keep the insights coming. I appreciate every one of them.

Randy

I agree with what Skip and Stu had to say, one of the best features of modern editing software is the ability to automate so many of the functions. This especially applies when shooting RAW, once you become familiar you can usually make needed adjustments to each image in a matter of seconds for each image and then let the computer do the rest. I certainly understand not wanting to spend additional hours in front of a monitor but you really won't need to if you develop a good workflow.

^ +1

Most of the time I just use DPP and apply default settings on pictures of random stuff. occasionally I use Light room as well but mainly just batch process my Raw into Jpeg and post onto web. most I do is probably just fix the white balance when I had it wrong. But if you get the settings right then you can just process them to JPEG without having to do any real work on PC.

I only spend hours in front of Photoshop for the shots that I really spend time in and really trying to achieve certain effects and trying to make a print out of it or save as large JPEG for me to appreciate and to show friends and family of "my work".

dog rocket wrote in post #9386183
Hey everyone, thanks for the responses. I'm getting the idea that I will need to get a grip on some amount of post-processing to be fully satisfied with my photo's. That makes sense, especially since I was so involved in the processing side with film. Funny how I didn't make that connection...

Randy, I always - and still do - do my darndest to get all my images right in the camera. Then, I have more to play with in post-processing.

There are folks who feel that shooting in RAW mode gives room for a couple stops of tweaking bad exposures, etc. I don't believe in that at all. There's room for tweaking, but I try to never have to use the software to fix a screwup. Screwups are for newbies to make .

In fact, I almost never rely on the camera's meter. I've almost always got my Sekonic L-358 handy and my camera (a 20D) set to manual exposure mode. I have the autofocus activation moved from the shutter release button to a button on the back of the camera. Essentially, I work much like I used to with my two Nikon F cameras (which I still have).

You seem to have monsters in your head about post processing, and you should have, cuz there ARE monsters there, but they are very, very tiny. You don't have to learn the prof version of Photoshop to do your PP. That has such a steep learning curve, not to mention the expense of it. Photoshop has a consumer version, called Photoshop Elements, for both Mac and PC ($89) and it can do everything you would ever want or need. It works with raw files and works with layers, and really is user friendly. You will love it. I was a film photographer, both medium format and 35mm, for many years and the digital era is SO MUCH BETTER. Feel the fear and do it anyway, right? buy your 7d and take it one step at a time. you won't regret it.

I dunno about amateur but photoshop processing is 100% necessary, think of it like not having the ability to work with your film ..rather just drop it off with a technician to process it for you. There's a whole world you miss with the freedom of expression.

It just makes everything so much easier, so much better. If you can bake a cake great, but if you eat it without frosting you're missing half the experience. Some people like plain cake, but the majority prefer all the bells and whistles get it?

Ha! Yea, I've got monsters in my head about Adobe products in general having dinked around with Illustrator for years without ever actually learning it (despite having created numerous logo's for my business... somehow!)!

OK, so maybe post processing won't be so bad. If anyone here has ever built their business around the use of CAD programs, they would understand my fears!

Thanks for the inputs!

I gotta agree with Karl, without PP work, images like this would be impossible, at least for me.