do we need a photoshop forum?

[Stephan]

I haven't voted because I don't think PhotoShop should be the only software included. I use Corel Photo-Paint 12 and like it. Bill has indicated a preference for GIMP.

I'd be in favor of a non-specific section devoted to digital picture manipulation programs rather than one aimed only toward PhotoShop. I realize that PhotoShop will be the major program discussed but it shouldn't be exclusive.

Just my opinion.

Walker

I agree, but photoshop has become a vernacular term to the point where I've heard it used on television here, whereas "corel photopainted images" arent something most people can identify.

And The Gimp is nice too 😀

 

[TPPhotog]

Maybe a forum with a more generic title as there's PS, GIMP, PSP, NeatImage .... and that's just off the top of my head 😉

 

[Stephan]

Maybe a forum with a more generic title as there's PS, GIMP, PSP, NeatImage .... and that's just off the top of my head 😉

Yep, how about simply calling it "software" ? not very imaginative, but covers everything from MS Paint to DxO Raw ...

 

[TPPhotog]

I don't mind what it's called as long as it's obvious to people what it is.

I'm useless at coming up with names, just look at my login name 🙁 LOL

 

[jlw]

I would hope that members here would keep in mind the goal of photography, rangefinder, large format, digital, et al is to produce an image and not have this forum degenerate into an engineering discussion solely devoted to shutter wrinkles and CLA'ing old cameras.

That may be the goal of photography, but it's not the goal of RFF.

To reiterate, one of the reasons this place works so well is that it does NOT try to be everything to everybody.

To me, the essence of rangefinder photography is not the cameras themselves but the style of images they produce.

Whatever that might be. If we were maintaining a traditional-process-photography forum, or a photography-with-nonstandard-cameras forum, or a documentary-photography forum, this viewpoint would be extremely apropos.

But we aren't. This is supposed to be a site about photography with rangefinder cameras, allowing us to concentrate on sharing solutions for the unique problems they raise and celebrating the unique opportunities they create.

That certainly does include discussions of CLAs and shutter wrinkles, when applied to specific models of RF cameras, because that clearly falls under the heading of 'solutions for unique problems.'

I'd say it would even include software discussions specific to digital cameras, such as the ongoing comparison we've got going on in the R-D 1 forum about various raw conversion options that might help us get the most out of that specific camera.

But when we get into Photoshop tutorials that could just as well apply to any type of digital image, and have nothing specific to do with rangefinder-camera photography, then I feel we've drifted off-topic and that we'll be diluting the benefits of RFF by doing so.

There are scads and scads of sites and forums devoted to nothing but using Photoshop, and there is a lot of great information on them. We can never do as good a job as those sites of presenting Photoshop info.

But those sites can never do as good a job as we can of presenting rangefinder-camera-photography info.

I feel we'll be more useful and beneficial to the photography community if we stick to what we're good at, and let others stick to what they're good at.

 

[Natalia]

Doesn't matter to me....I am sure there are folks who'd love to pick up a PS tip or two, but that can be found elsewhere. What sets this forum aside IMHO is the film photography in its purest form.....But whatever the big cheeses decide🙂

 

[Skinny McGee]

Reply to Tom

Reply to Tom

Hey Tom,

I don't at all take it as a slam... I am a where of what the great photographers did or had done... When I had my dark room set up (before my daughter was born, which I hope I will do soon again ) I would do my dodging and burning and all that jazz.
Right now I am concentrating on getting it right in the camera.. In my opinion that is what using a manual rangefinder camera is about.... (This maybe just me), But I do enjoy going thru my neg. for what they are worth coming out of the camrea... I certainly do not condem anyone for using photoshop... I do not like superimposing and altering things away from the original photo....I think that it must have some place in ad's and such but not in realism rangefinder photography...



If film products become so digitaly altered then why not go to digital?

Skinny

 

[T_om]

First, thanks for understanding my comments were not in any way attacks on your shooting philosophy. That is one of the reasons I like this forum so much... we can debate ideas without attacking the people.

Second, this quote:

Right now I am concentrating on getting it right in the camera..

... is WAY different than this one "If I can't get it right with the camera I don't want it." 🙂

I, too, concentrate on getting it right "in camera". However, in a digital world getting it right in camera is not enough. It won't LOOK right unless it is further manipulated to correct the technical discrepancies that creep into the process from Capture->Presentation. It is just as much a 'nature of the beast' problem as dealing with film base fog, developer performance, or any other technical impediments in wet processes to producing the image you "saw" in your mind when you made the shot.

Tom

PS: Hope the recent unpleasant weather down your way caused you no problems. We had no adverse effects here in the Jacksonville area at all.

 

[T_om]

If film products become so digitaly altered then why not go to digital?

Skinny

Oops, I missed that one...

You already WENT 'digital' as soon as you posted a shot to your gallery. 🙂

Tom

 

[djon]

I've changed my mind, Vs poll. I think there should NOT be any sort of specific digital Forum.

There's a tremendous amount online already, Photo.net in particular. I've noticed that smaller forums are more likely to peddle products or false info because there aren't enough participants ready to jump in and correct them.

I happen to shoot old Canons and Leica, mostly very fast negative film (color & b&w), scan with Nikon V and Vuescan and with an Epson 3200 for medium/large format (not much), printing with an Epson 2200 and Epson pigments, mostly on Moab Entrada. I buy everything I can from www.inkjetart.com which has excellent tech support for Epson printing and scanning. Whew. I do everything the old fashioned way, by eyeball.

I think there are hundreds on RFF with valid questions and valid answers, but I think it'd be destructive to let this degenerate into digital product-specific topics/Forums. Whew. My opinion. :bang:

John Kelly
Albuquerque :bang:

 

[Skinny McGee]

Yes, Tom but I did not alter with photo shop

 

[shaaktiman]

Wow, this is clearly a topic that some people feel really strongly about. I am really impressed though, (as I always am) that despite differing viewpoints and strong opinions everyone in this forum is consistently polite and respectful.

One of the reasons that I participate here, as opposed to photo.net is precisely because of that shared enthusiasm and respect. I don't come here merely for the tips about rangefinder techniques but because we happen to have a good group of interesting and considerate posters, something that photo.net (and many other photo sites) are often lacking.

I do think that Jlw makes a good point, this is primarily a forum for rangefinder topics but I think that the line between rangefinder photography and other photographic subjects is very blurry. Personally I shoot film exclusively, process in my kitchen by hand and then scan it in and edit it in photoshop before making final b/w inkjet prints. If we are going to allow discussions of film preferences, processing tips and darkroom information then I don't see why photoshop is any less relevant. (I wouldn't be opposed to discussing Corel or any of the other applications, but psd is really the industry standard. In any case, most information regarding psd can be used in the other apps as most utilize the same principals; psd is just a convenient starting point.)

This sort of site will never attract hardcore psd users. The point has already been made that there are already adequate web resources for those people. But I would personally love to have a section of this forum that is devoted to exploring how psd can best be utilized to assist rangefinder users. (Just as we do with many other general photographic topics.)

It's inarguable that psd is becoming a standard tool that many photographers use daily. I am relatively new to photography as a hobby, but I have been using psd professionally for nearly 10 years. (Which is the main reason I chose to do my retouching and printing digitally instead of starting from scratch learning darkroom techniques, and I am sure that I'm not alone.) I am considered to be a pretty proficient psd user but am still constantly being taught new things by friends, forum posters and colleagues, some of them old pros, but many of them brand new interns or hobbyists. Photoshop's cool like that, there are 20 ways to do everything and there's always something worth learning that you never knew about before.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling post. Um... mark me down for "in favor." After all, this isn't the "film forum" or the "luddite photographers association" or anything, is it?

adam