If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
VicTek wrote: Wayne J. Cosshall wrote: Hi All, I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site at: http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php Cheers, Wayne My fear of Photoshop is what it may do to my wallet, so I'll stay with PhotoPlus (and it's companion product PagePlus). Dave Cohen Yes, Photoshop does cause one's wallet to be overexposed g. There are many photo-editing programs that are quite capable that cost a lot less than PS. I imagine there are jobs that only PS can do well, but as a hobbyist I've managed without it. In many ways a hobbyist is *more* at risk there; we don't mostly have the production rate, and hence the need for a really efficient workflow, that professionals do. We can afford the luxury of hand-tuning each exposure (just like we used to do in the darkroom). Personally, I'm addicted to non-destructive editing, and hence adjustment layers. Again, this is more an amateur problem in some ways (and high-end professionals of some sorts). People doing wedding work, say, will never look at a picture again after their first hit at it (if they even consider hand-adjustment at all, with that kind of volume), so doing destructive editing is fine. But I'm always going back to old photos (I've re-edited scans of old negatives, so I've adjusted that photo *at least* three times). Only Photoshop has adjustment layers, that I know of. Sigh. Ihear good things about gimp... and it's free! application made for linux, it has many parralells to ps. I have ps, so have not spent too much time with it, but a skim thru themenus looked quite promising. kosh |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:07:02 +1100, "Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote: Hi All, I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site at: http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php Cheers, Wayne An interesting treatise. I don't agree with it all, but it does deal with some interesting ideas. BTW, "bares" should be "bears". Thanks, I fixed the typo Cheers, Wayne -- Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Dave Cohen wrote:
Wayne J. Cosshall wrote: Hi All, I've posted a new column article, called "Why Do Some Fear Photoshop and Others Think Digital Photography is Something Special?" to my site at: http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/dimw.php Cheers, Wayne My fear of Photoshop is what it may do to my wallet, so I'll stay with PhotoPlus (and it's companion product PagePlus). Dave Cohen True. And of course when I speak of Photoshop I also mean all the other similar programs. Cheers, Wayne -- Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
In many ways a hobbyist is *more* at risk there; we don't mostly have the production rate, and hence the need for a really efficient workflow, that professionals do. We can afford the luxury of hand-tuning each exposure (just like we used to do in the darkroom). Personally, I'm addicted to non-destructive editing, and hence adjustment layers. Again, this is more an amateur problem in some ways (and high-end professionals of some sorts). People doing wedding work, say, will never look at a picture again after their first hit at it (if they even consider hand-adjustment at all, with that kind of volume), so doing destructive editing is fine. But I'm always going back to old photos (I've re-edited scans of old negatives, so I've adjusted that photo *at least* three times). Only Photoshop has adjustment layers, that I know of. Sigh. I love adjustment layers too. It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art photographers (who may be professional) often revisit old images as their 'vision' changes. Cheers, Wayne -- Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
"Wayne J. Cosshall" writes:
I love adjustment layers too. It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art photographers (who may be professional) often revisit old images as their 'vision' changes. Could someone explain what adjustment layers are? If you want to edit non destructively, why not just make a copy of the original file before starting to edit? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
photo *at least* three times). Only Photoshop has adjustment layers, that I know of. Sigh. gimp has adjustment layers as well... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Paul Rubin wrote:
"Wayne J. Cosshall" writes: I love adjustment layers too. It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art photographers (who may be professional) often revisit old images as their 'vision' changes. Could someone explain what adjustment layers are? If you want to edit non destructively, why not just make a copy of the original file before starting to edit? Adjustment layers allow you to apply an effect, like levels or curves to a layer in a non-permanent way that allows you to turn it on and off or change the setting at will. They come automatically with a mask and I use them extensively on my complex image blends: http://www.artinyourface.com/elysium/index.html Cheers, Wayne -- Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Sounds like you are a fast learner. And experienced photographer. Your roving ISO procedure is new. Anyone else do this? I think we all end up checking our LCD after pictures are taken, to reassure ourselves that the highlights haven't been blown out and the color is right. No miracle procedures on light reading, even with digital. I think the ideal would be live preview, such as the R1 Sony and the Oly 330. The Pentax K10D offers two modes which do the roving ISO automatically - Sv, which varies the ISO as part of the program, and TAv, which allows you to vary either T or A and changes the sensitivity to stop the other one changing. Since it does this in 1/3rd steps by default, and the shutter and aperture are also in 1/3rd steps, it's got a huge range of possible settings. David |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Paul Rubin wrote:
"Wayne J. Cosshall" writes: I love adjustment layers too. It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art photographers (who may be professional) often revisit old images as their 'vision' changes. Could someone explain what adjustment layers are? If you want to edit non destructively, why not just make a copy of the original file before starting to edit? That's an assumed minimum; *always* archive the camera-original. The point of this kind of "non-destructive" editing is that I can fiddle with the main curves adjustment 5 times over three weeks, and fiddle with a couple of subsidiary masked curves adjustments, and fiddle with the masks on those subsidiary adjustments, in multiple photoshop sessions, without working on the real pixels over and over again. Changing the real pixels over and over again gradually ruins them -- adjust up, and down, and over, and up a little again, and you don't get a picture that looks as good as the one you'd get if you made just the final net adjustment in one step. An adjustment layer is a layer of one of the supported tools (mine are essentially always curves layers) which sits there in the image stack and is applied to the pixels as they're presented to it. The original pixels sit at the bottom unchanged. When you print, or flatten the image and reduce the size and save a web copy, then all the adjustments are actually carried out -- in one pass starting from the original pixels. You can of course always start completely from scratch with the camera original -- but that means redoing *everything*. With an adjustment layer I can decide to just slightly darken the midtones, after thinking about it a week -- *without* having to start over and re-do everything. On a picture I'm trying to do real exhibition-quality printing from, I'll nearly always have two or three curves layers, often more. Usually all but one of them have layer masks. There'll generally be one or more retouch and alteration layers as well. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
My latest musings about photography
Noons wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: photo *at least* three times). Only Photoshop has adjustment layers, that I know of. Sigh. gimp has adjustment layers as well... As of what version? I don't remember finding them, but I don't actually *use* Gimp, I just try to check in now and then to avoid being totally ignorant (like this, but oh well). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My latest musings about photography | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital Photography | 56 | February 8th 07 01:08 AM |
More RAW musings and question on ACR vs. DPP | W | Digital Photography | 2 | October 18th 06 12:10 AM |
A few of my latest photos | DrAle | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | May 29th 06 08:26 PM |
Musings about Photography as an Art | Mike | In The Darkroom | 40 | February 14th 06 09:55 PM |
Musings on washing fiber-based prints | David Nebenzahl | In The Darkroom | 117 | March 11th 05 11:33 AM |