i'm just want to get this off my chest

I like what you said... I too have been using photoshop for almost 8 years and pretty much use PS for cropping and adjusting for web use.

This is the world of digital... that's wat everybody wants. that's what everyone are demanding for right now. MP3s, DVDs, HDTV, DSLR and many more. What's next?? What's the next thing that will take over the market, the world??

Hey bud,

I completely understand your point. Mind you, I would warn you about this place. Personally, I consider POTN a camera tech forum rather then a photography forum. It's filled with more camera nuts then photo nuts. You can go to so many pure photography forums and the only time you will hear camera discussion is when someone wants to know what to buy, and thats the end of it. Those are the same sites who have shooters with a P&S blowing the socks off shooter with a 1 series and 10 "L" lenses over here, let alone basic a SLR. It's just different. If you stay here expect lots more tech talk then photo talk. People discuss Photoshop here to no end, but Photoshop is actually a small part of the whole picture. But some people seem to go nuts and compensate for a lack of skill with spending 10 hours in Photoshop fixing errors, instead of going out and improving their eye.

I like this site for its ability to fulfil the camera geek needs in me, but in no way do I consider it my place as "photo" site. There are plenty of great photographer here, but there are far more on photography/art forums. Maybe start visiting two sites to create balance, that's what I have done.

I think digital has created two community. The "must have it now" crowd who don't necessarily care for photography as an art form, then there are the good photographers who might buy digi equipment, the cheapest one. One thing I have noticed is that many photographers, don't really go nuts about their camera equipment, they live with what they have, and then there are people who think the the camera is what makes the photo. Though the camera has little to do with the photo, if it did, people with cheap P&S cameras wouldn't be taking nicer pictures then people with the best camera on the market.

Go look at Pekka's "G" gallery, then go compare some of that work to some of the work on the photography forums here and look at many of the images taken with much better equipment.

In a sense, digital is good, because it's a system that allows for more people to try photography and in turn allow people to discover a talent they might have never known about, then there are a huge group who buy and don't really have any talent and don't even care for learning, they just want to own the latest and greatest.

Do you suppose the fact that I'm not getting all goofy over the new 5D is a possible sign that I might be ready to start learning how to use the equipment I already have?

I posted a thread regarding dust on my sensor. The great and almighty user advised me to clone out the spots with photoshop.

I complained about image sharpness, someone else advised PP is essential in any DSLR format, oh btw, I must shoot in RAW!

Would I have to consult the photoshop manual if the subjects of my photos are less to be desired?

.
..
...

Photoshop is a tool, creativity is from the soul

If you can't find your soul, go to your start menu > control panel > Add or Remove programs > Highlight Adobe Photoshop (or CS ) and hit the REMOVE button.

Repeat if necessary

Hey, if ya don't want to shoot in RAW, then don't. And I really try to get the best shot straight out of the camera. All that post processing takes up too much time.

Totally agreed on that!! If I cant get the shot the first time. I'll try again. ...and again.

escapehtml wrote:
Photoshop is a tool, creativity is from the soul

If you can't find your soul, go to your start menu > control panel > Add or Remove programs > Highlight Adobe Photoshop (or CS ) and hit the REMOVE button.

Repeat if necessary

What was that you said? Can you repeat it again?

Persian-Rice... I agreed on your thoughts. Very well stated. Thank you!

But what if you can't shoot it again and again? If you are taking a shot of a tree that works just fine, but blow the exposure on a one time chance, and you'll regret not having a RAW that can at least be salvaged. If RAW takes too much time, why not shoot RAW+JPEG (which I often do). If I nail the exposure I can just use the JPEG and save some time. If not, I go to the RAW and see what I can do.

If you want to see a good example on how RAW can save a shot, see this thread. If this shot were taken in JPEG, it would have been a complete throw away.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=81742

And some of the world's greatest writers didn't even have a typewriter. Do you think many writers of today don't use word processors?

Ok, they probably don't have forums where writers drool over the latest word processing software, and I don't disagree that there are more discussions about gear nowadays then the actual photography, but to me that's half the fun. POTN is a good mix for me. I've learned enough about photography here to satisfy myself and my customers, and I get to talk about the latest and greatest gear.

Back in the old days, when man occasionally still walked on all fours, he wandered around aimlessly looking for food. When he found something that looked it might make a meal, he ate it right there on the spot. It could have had 4 legs, 6 legs, or none. It might have walked, crawled, or slithered. No matter---it was food, and it sustained him.

Later, he learned that sometimes it was easier to eat things if he killed them first. In fact, he was able to eat some very large things if they were no longer in a position to object. The quantity, quality, and variety of his diet made a quantum leap forward.

Then, he discovered fire, and learned that things tasted even better when they were cooked. This eventually led to the development of barbeque, French restaurants, and frozen fish stick.

Through this entire evolution, there remained a die-hard group who believed that killing and cooking their food was heresy and sacrilege. They argued that it was noble to forage for their food. They didn’t kill it or cook it; they simply ate it, just as they had done for ages. They believed that people who killed and cooked their food were heretics, and they preached at them endlessly about how good things used to be.

And what’s the point of all this?

I have no clue.

And those led to the development of cholesterol lowering drugs like Lipitor and Vytorin, just like the creation of all this camera equipment led to "the 2nd mortgage".

Damn, I pushed you post to the end of the previous page. That was a funny read. Anyone jumping in here, hit page back.

You're kidding! I would have thought you already placed your order...

hey philip (pcasciola),

If I cant shoot it again and again.. then I know something is wrong with either my camera or myself. You can never have the same image as the first. But your next image is always better the then first. Practice makes perfect.

I do like your approached on RAW+JPEG. If you nail it the first time, then great. If not, check the RAW and see what you can do. I just don’t like when someone say RAW is better. RAW is the way to go. You don’t have to worry about the settings. Just go home and spend your next 48 hours in front of your monitor and create that image. (hmm, what was that color of the sky I saw today? I guess it will be yellow on this image. No one will know what it really was. Heheh!)

I guess I am still in the traditional film state of mind. Not to mention I still have dozen rolls of slide film ready to be use on Labor Day weekend. I only use my digital camera for paid gigs. And right now my images are fine when using JPEG. Clients are very happy with the end result. And so is my bank and my pockets. Will I use RAW? I know I will be if needed too. I don’t think I have ever stated I will NEVER. But I have said that I NEVER shoot in RAW. I have stated that I don’t LIKE when someone is telling me RAW is the way to go.

Belmondo,

you wrote: And what’s the point of all this?...

my reply. and i have no club too.

johnlo wrote:
hey philip (pcasciola),

If I cant shoot it again and again.. then I know something is wrong with either my camera or myself. You can never have the same image as the first. But your next image is always better the then first. Practice makes perfect.

I do like your approached on RAW+JPEG. If you nail it the first time, then great. If not, check the RAW and see what you can do. I just don’t like when someone say RAW is better. RAW is the way to go. You don’t have to worry about the settings. Just go home and spend your next 48 hours in front of your monitor and create that image. (hmm, what was that color of the sky I saw today? I guess it will be yellow on this image. No one will know what it really was. Heheh!)

I guess I am still in the traditional film state of mind. Not to mention I still have dozen rolls of slide film ready to be use on Labor Day weekend. I only use my digital camera for paid gigs. And right now my images are fine when using JPEG. Clients are very happy with the end result. And so is my bank and my pockets. Will I use RAW? I know I will be if needed too. I don’t think I have ever stated I will NEVER. But I have said that I NEVER shoot in RAW. I have stated that I don’t LIKE when someone is telling me RAW is the way to go.

Belmondo,

you wrote: And what’s the point of all this?...

my reply. and i have no club too.

Ok whatever, so you don't like anyone telling you to shoot RAW and thats the only way to go. I for one wouldn't tell you that and could care less how you do it. Myself I love RAW and I love post processing. Thats how I have fun with it. I may spend 2 to 3 weeks out doing nothing but shooting. Then maybe a week or 2 on the computer. Of course I don't claim to be a "Photographer" as in the film sense. Why would any body pay so much money for digital technology then approach it with the film philosophy. I use digital photography for what its benefits offer. I am an average no talent guy that can shoot off 3,000 shots if I want and end up with maybe 5 good ones. Hey aren't the odds in my favour.

hah, thats funny, I do shoot RAW mostly but I shoot JPG as well, I like L's but I'm not fanatic, If I'll be able get 300 2.8L it makes me really happy, if I'll get 1200 L I gonna be on heaven........j/k .... yes we all prefer to have the best, best cam, best computer, best lenses, best cars.......... it is human nature, to desire the best, the sad part is that in reality there are some incredible photographers who are not aiming to have all L's and can create awesome pics without all this stuff and in the same time there are some who own Mark II Ds with several L's and the only mode they use is Full Auto ... that is funnny... just saw one few days ago...sad and funny