Three Photoshop Questions

[wgerrard]

If you use Photoshop to post-process after scanning and/or to print, how long did it take you before you turned out satisfactory work?

Does it take longer to learn how to make good digital prints or good wet prints? (Impossible to answer, but perhaps a useful discussion point.)

Short Photoshop courses are commonly offered in local community colleges, etc. Are they worth it, or is the money better spent on books and practice?

[EDIT: To be clear, I'm not looking for personal advice to use or not use Photoshop. (I use it.) I'm curious about the learning curve in the real world before people are satisfied with their results from PS, whether scans or prints. Wet printing seems to have a reputation as requiring a long time as an apprentice. Is their a comparable apprenticeship on the digital side?]

 

[Arjay]

Q1: It tool me several months to learn Photoshop to a level that I found satisfactory. But - I had used other image processing software before, so I didn't start from scratch.

Q2: Can't answer this one. When I did wet prints many decades ago, I never reached a level I was satisfied with. Actually, I only learned to do PP to a reasonably high level in a digital workflow - and I feel digital is a lot faster and more precise.

Q3: I never liked courses, because they never taught me what I wanted to learn, but what some teacher thought I should learn. I guess, I'm more of a man of letters, and therefore I think using books is far more rewarding (but it takes a lot more determination than courses).

 

[sleepyhead]

Learning styles vary; some people prefer courses, some to self-learn via the internet.

I think with both scanning/photoshop and with tradional darkroom, one can continue to learn and improve one's entire life.

 

[coelacanth]

Q1: Can't really answer this one. Direct scan of negative to computer is only for quick web use for me, and I'd like to spend time in darkroom for the shots I really care. I'd come up with a basic enhancements (probably 2 or 3 different ones) and keep them as automation so I can save time in future use. That said, for speed, more dedicated program like Lightroom or Aperture might be better idea.

Q2: Very subjective and there is no end to them, but techniques you learned from one side can be applied to another. Digital processing would work easier for detailed burn/dodge, contrast manipulation but you can overdo things easily and end result can look too photoshoppy if you aren't careful, especially when you new to Photoshop.

Q3: I have a BFA in New Media and formally trained in traditional & digital arts, and teach Photoshop and other design programs one-by-one contract basis for students and pros, but I would't necessarily recommend taking classes for Photoshop for digital imaging. Photoshop is very broad and deep program, but things you'd use for post processing photo is simple and IMHO, should stay simple. (Read: I'm not into HDR stuff and all crazy manipulations) I'd study and/or apply techniques from traditional darkroom to digital processing. To get that part of Photoshop running in your head, all you need is a book and/or a savvy friend (buy him/her a lunch).


Disclaimer: I am no professional photographer, but a professional designer using Photoshop everyday. The part of Photoshop I use in regular basis isn't exactly what you need for photo manipulations although the basic principal stays the same.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Bill,

Photoshop is a wonderful, powerful and funny program, and requires a lot of practice... It's a long road, really... This long: I started using its early versions in the nineties, then studied it seriously for four years during my career, and then I've used it all the time since: maybe 15 years: yet I learn, and I am far from the level a pro lab / studio guy has... I have used it both for ink printing home and for lab printing on real photographic paper. The problem is while you use it you don't see a print (as on analog) but a screen... No matter how much you calibrate your monitor, the final output (prints) won't look like the screen... And color spaces are a complex field that requires lots of experience... This regarding tone...

Of course there's a basic level that can be achieved in maybe one year, for retouching, color and contrast control, sharpening and all the simple things for internet image sharing: but I feel that even if digital processing has advantages, reaching on prints a quality level similar to that of film and analog printing, is very very hard... Few people and few labs are there...

About the ways to learn, you should really look for someone who knows a lot and convince him/her about helping you for a few months: that's much faster than a place or a book... Personally I found very funny and comfortable learning the first time from a great book because I did the lessons when I wanted... When I studied it in classes I didn't feel the same emotion... No matter if you go for a book or a place, a person you can access anytime for help, will be a lot better than any teacher you just see in a classroom for a short time and between classmates...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Peter S]

Q1: took me a week
Q2: Both about equal and probably the younger (computer literate) amongst are faster in learning Photoshop.
Q3: Photoshop courses are very general, but they may get you on the way. After that you simply should start printing and you will get better with every print. Get your tips from everywhere, books, magazines, the internet, asking people whose work you like. It was like that in the dark room and it is like that in the light room.

In the old days you started with standard development and straight prints and then you went looking into different dilutions, different developers (maybe even mixing your own), various types of paper, toning, split grade printing, dodging and burning etc etc. It is the same with digital, first levels and then unsharp mask and down the road you end up with different ways of dodging/burning, LAB, complex layers and B+W conversion techniques etc etc etc. With both you need hard work, persistance and experimentation before the end result starts pleasing you. With Photoshop the pitfall is overdoing it, that is something that is a lot more difficult in the wet darkroom.

 

[wgerrard]

Hi Bill,

Photoshop is a wonderful, powerful and funny program, and requires a lot of practice... It's a long road, really... This long: I started using its early versions in the nineties, then studied it seriously for four years during my career, and then I've used it all the time since: maybe 15 years: yet I learn, and I am far from the level a pro lab / studio guy has... I have used it both for ink printing home and for lab printing on real photographic paper. The problem is while you use it you don't see a print (as on analog) but a screen... No matter how much you calibrate your monitor, the final output (prints) won't look like the screen...

Juan, I used to spend a lot of time hovering in and around a small graphics shop and their experiences mirror yours. The folks who actually knew a bit about PS always had worked stacked up.

 

[dmr]

I've been using Photoshop in one form or another about as long as it's been available for the PC. My guess is that I started using it in the early 1990s. I'm very confident using it for basic photo editing, although when you get into layers and masks and such I'm not that competent. It was actually quite intuitive to learn.

I have done wet printing, in college and using friends' darkrooms and such but I don't have the space, the skill, or the patience to wet print.

With my skills, I can do a far better print in Photoshop and printed on the big HP than I would ever be able to do in a wet darkroom.

Part of what my renewal of interest in photography was realizing that the printer I had (at the time a hand-me-down HP 720) was actually capable of some nice prints if some attention to detail was observed.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I was cleaning out some boxes this weekend and saw some silver prints I made about 10 years ago. Ouch. I was a damn fine printer in the darkroom. Probably took me 10 years to get there, although along the way there were many moments when I was satisfied with my work (false consciousness each and every time). Photoshop? Geez, I've been at that for the last 10 years since my daughter was born. I find it a much more complex and subtle process. Calibrated monitors, calibrated printers, ink fade, competing color spaces, yellow impermanence, new versions of PS every year and a half, more sensitive chips in ever-sophisticated cameras, scanning, DSLRs, digital rangefinders. . . sheesh. The only constant is change.

Let's face it: wet-darkroom processing was a mature technology when I encountered it. Digital is a medium in flux. It has glommed onto the teleological arguments associated with silver-based photography, without any of us stopping to consider that digital may be a different beast altogether. Time will, of course, tell.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Ben nailed it.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[wgerrard]

What's interesting here is the apparent consensus that really learning PS to a depth sufficient to consistently turn out decent prints is a process that should be measured in months, if not years.

On the assumption that most people are not going to wait that long until they can produce an acceptable print, what are the alternatives?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The same as always, pro labs...

Some years ago I prefer to work on a scanned frame and ask for lab prints at several stages of the process to be less influenced by my screen... It works very well for achieving best results in tone... I have a friendly pro lab near home and they can make cheap 4x5 prints instantly for me, so that's fast and easy.

All my B&W is wet printed, though...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Keith]

No amount of post processing via any software is going to compensate for an inability to translate what is being seen on a monitor into a decent ink jet print. Something that looks over sharpened on a monitor will look just right when printed a lot of the time and contrast levels and tones never translate from screen to print correctly with black and white IMO! No matter how your monitor is calibrated!

 

[wgerrard]

The same as always, pro labs...

Ah, yes. Pro labs. I read somewhere that they used to exist. 😉

 

[wgerrard]

No amount of post processing via any software is going to compensate for an inability to translate what is being seen on a monitor into a decent ink jet print. Something that looks over sharpened on a monitor will look just right when printed a lot of the time and contrast levels and tones never translate from screen to print correctly with black and white IMO! No matter how your monitor is calibrated!

I think I'm depressed now.

 

[Pablito]

Q3: forget about it. Do this instead: lynda.com
unless you want hand-holding.

 

[Keith]

I think I'm depressed now.

No need to be depressed! 😀

All I'm proposing is getting a decent ink jet print from a screen image is far more of an intuative process than I would have suspected ... just as creating a good wet print is not just a matter of knowing how to use an enlarger!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

No need to be depressed! 😀

All I'm proposing is getting a decent ink jet print from a screen image is far more of an intuative process than I would have suspected ... just as creating a good wet print is not just a matter of knowing how to use an enlarger!

Now we should define decency...😛

Bill: with a few months of photoshop, you'll be able to get decent prints for sure: both ink/home or from a good lab... If you use a good book with tutorials and someone helps you personally, you could make it in two months.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[thomasw_]

No amount of post processing via any software is going to compensate for an inability to translate what is being seen on a monitor into a decent ink jet print. Something that looks over sharpened on a monitor will look just right when printed a lot of the time and contrast levels and tones never translate from screen to print correctly with black and white IMO! No matter how your monitor is calibrated!

Ben nailed it....

No, Keith did! Well stated, Keith 😉 And Sug knows the deal when it comes to a B+W film hybrid workflow....keep it simple.

.....Photoshop is a very broad and deep program, but things you'd use for post processing photo are simple and IMHO, should stay simple.....

 

[Keith]

Now we should define decency...😛

Bill: with a few months of photoshop, you'll be able to get decent prints for sure: both ink/home or from a good lab... If you use a good book with tutorials and someone helps you personally, you could make it in two months.

Cheers,

Juan

Another thread maybe? 😀