do we need a photoshop forum?

[VinceC]

>>i must admit i'm having a hell of a time getting past my plateau of skills with photoshop.<<
I've been using PhotoShop off and on for 10 years now, and it was only a few weeks ago, in an unrelated discussion, that someone informed me of the importance of the weirdly named unsharp mask for scanned negs.

 

[nomade]

I think that's a great idea, specially that PS is a very powerfull and usefull tool for photographers to edit everything, corrections and stuff...I know my way in but there r many tricks i don't know...With some photoshop junkies, it'll be an excellent forum.

 

[dmr]

i'm open...i assume gimp is kinda like photoshop?

One of the Gimp developers that I coincidentally met said something like "The Gimp is what Photoshop wants to be when it grows up." 🙂

 

[peter_n]

Maybe a label like Digital Darkroom - Scanning/post-processing might do the trick?

 

[T_om]

One of the Gimp developers that I coincidentally met said something like "The Gimp is what Photoshop wants to be when it grows up." 🙂

You should have spoken to one of the brighter developers. 😀

GIMP has a lot going for it but the primary attraction is the price... free.

If monetary concerns keep anyone from using PhotoShop, there are many *legal* ways around that obstacle. Many local Colleges and Jr. Colleges have PhotoShop classes available and along with your student ID you can get the full, uncrippled, version of PhotoShop at a VERY good price. That was the way I got my initial copy (Ver. 3 I think it was) and I have upgraded ever since as newer versions came out. PhotoShop REALLY hit its stride with Ver. 6 That blew the doors off any other program out there.

Adobe doesn't publicize this much, but you can even upgrade from a copy of "PhotoShop Elements" that comes bundled free with many digital camera packages. You have to call Adobe directly to do this but it is certainly an option.

One of the less well known image editors is Picture Window Pro by Digital Light & Color.

http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/

This was written by Johnathan Sachs. Those of you with computer backgrounds will instantly recognize THAT name. 🙂 (He's the guy that wrote Lotus 1-2-3 for non-computer nerds.) Picture Window Pro is a powerful program, but yet is still inexpensive. I use one of his tools, Color Mechanic Pro, in PhotoShop ALL the time. I tried PW Pro and liked it MUCH better than the other PhotoShop alternatives out there, but I invested my "learning time" in PhotoShop and have never seriously considered going elsewhere. YMMV.

Tom

Edited To Add: To get the PS educational discount, all you have to be is a student. You do not have to be taking a "PhotoShop" class. I was taking classes in business (real estate) when I bought my initial copy of PS.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I don't care which program as long as I can still use my big box of 8 Crayolas, BTW which two combine to make ochre? 😀

 

[JoeFriday]

another very useful tool in PS is the Shadows/Highlight function which is sort of a simplified Levels control

or, for the non-purists, the Perspective and Skew functions which can nearly eliminate parallax in photos

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

So... would that be photoshopforum.com?

 

[DougK]

I think "digital darkroom" is useful to convey the overall steps of what we do to post-process images but when you're trying to find posts in an online forum, it's a little bit too broad for a category. I'd like to see separate forums for scanning, image editing, and printing. Each of those topics is large enough that there won't be an unacceptably large number of additional forums to keep track of yet are specific enough to focus the discussions and allow information to be found more readily.

My USD$0.02 worth 🙂

 

[MacDaddy]

BMATTOCK:
It will run SCREAMINGLY fast on Macs, too, since they use FreeBSD Unix as their underlying code base. How about going with the suggested "Digital Darkroom" and either sub-topics for each program or tags in the subject, as has been already suggested by worthy members? And Joe, GIMP is a Linux-based photo manipulation program like Photoshop that also includes a nifty printer manipulation program!

 

[XAos]

Gimp is great, it's one of the true smashing success stories of Linux, but ... it's still not photoshop yet.

 

[djon]

From what I've been seeing on B&W yahoo digital printing Forum, Photo.net digital darkroom, and inkjetart.com (to name 3), most discussion involves consumerism, little relates to technique...this is very different from wet darkroom chat. It's apples/oranges. I've found that wet darkroom/zone system/trad color printing skills are HUGE helps in digital printing, make everything far easier.

 

[dmr]

GIMP has a lot going for it but the primary attraction is the price... free.

If monetary concerns keep anyone from using PhotoShop, there are many *legal* ways around that obstacle. Many local Colleges and Jr. Colleges have PhotoShop classes available and along with your student ID you can get the full, uncrippled, version of PhotoShop at a VERY good price.

One of the most worthwhile investments I've ever made in this avocation is to get a full legal copy of Photoshop. (There is a running joke at work saying that there is no such thing as a legal copy of Photoshop.) 🙂 This is version 5, but I'm thinking of upgrading since I've finally seen something (the healing brush) that would make that worthwhile.

I'm really glad to see the interest in a Photoshop (and related topics, of course) area here. When I first saw this thread and poll earlier this afternoon I wasn't so sure how it would be received, since my impression is that the "wet" darkroom is the preferred method here.

The combination of a negative scanner, Photoshop, and learning how to properly use it with a so-so digital printer, has given me the ability to do my own "enlarging" and to use the tools, dodging, burning, not to mention the unsharp mask (I could NEVER do that in a wet darkroom although they say it can be done) when I don't have the equipment or skill to do it the wet way. I can now make quite presentable 8+x10+ prints in full color and at a reasonable cost, something I could never do just a few years ago, and It's helped to renew my interest in photography.

I'm sure others share similar feelings.

Anyway, I'm glad to see the interest and I hope such a forum gets started. 🙂

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

I would love it.

I use Photoshop daily for Web design and illustration. But I would like to know more about it's use in photography.

I have used it for retouching photos for commercial use. Yet I feel as though I still don't know enough about photographic applications for Photoshop.

For instance, I had recently joined a thread about "clipping" and found that my understanding of the issue was not in sync with that of another member. Sharing this info would allow me to better understand some of the vagaries that I have encountered.

Plus- I have a very cool sharpening technique I learned at a Canon digital user's forum. It allows for much better control over the sharpening effect. Wicked.

 

[MP Guy]

Ask and you shall receive.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61

 

[Skinny McGee]

the only thing I personally use photoshop for is to size . If I can't get it right with the camera I don't want it.

 

[jlw]

I use Photoshop a lot and usually find it useful to offer and receive tips on using it -- but I'd just as soon not see such a forum here.

It doesn't really have anything to do specifically with rangefinder cameras or rangefinder camera photography, does it?

I realize that many of us use it -- but many of us also use flush toilets, and I'm sure most of us would agree that a toilet forum wouldn't be apropos to RFF.

I also realize that the reason many people would like to see such a forum HERE is that this is such a nice, friendly place with helpful, knowledgeable people. But that's largely because rangefinder-camera photography is something of a "niche" pursuit, and niche occupants tend to be motivated to want to help those with whom they share something in common.

If RFF eventually were to morph into an "everything-about-photography" platform -- a direction in which a Photoshop forum certainly would be a step -- then it would attract a larger number of people who do not share our persecuted-minority (or at least neglected-minority) esprit de corps.

Sooner or later it would just turn into a clone of Photo.Net -- too big, too rude, too disputatious, too much. And then Jorge would have to go to all the trouble of starting it all over again!

So, sorry, I just don't think this is a good idea. In fact, I even wonder if we haven't strayed too far from the purpose of RFF in having a darkroom forum; I'm not advocating killing the darkroom forum, since many members find it useful, but I certainly don't think we want to stray any farther from our concentration on using, buying, selling, fixing, and enjoying rangefinder cameras and the style of photography they facilitate.

(And I say this even though I just bagged a good Photoshop tip off RFF! I just don't think we want to let the camel's nose any farther into the tent.)

 

[T_om]

the only thing I personally use photoshop for is to size . If I can't get it right with the camera I don't want it.

Skinny, this is in no way a slam at you but statements like this are just so far out of whack they absolutely must not be left unanswered because of the damage they can do to beginners in both digital AND wet darkrooms.

Do you REALLY think the 'wet' masters like Adams, Weston, Cunningham, etc. adhered to this creed? Of course not. They manipulated both the negative and the print to achieve the end product they "saw" in their mind's eye. Even shooters that did not process their own stuff relied on master printers to get the best from their negatives. Do you really think those master printers just stuck the negative in the carrier, clicked on the enlarger light for 15 seconds on #2 paper, and left it at that? Of course not.

And as for digital capture and image production, it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to make certain adjustments to control the final output or you are NOT producing the best quality image from your digital capture or scan. Period. There is no arguing this, the requirement is there and it is an inescapable and essential part of the digital workflow.

Anyway, I again hope you do not consider this in any way a personal attack on you or your photographic principals but I strongly disagree with the technical foundations of your comment.

Tom

 

[T_om]

I use Photoshop a lot and usually find it useful to offer and receive tips on using it -- but I'd just as soon not see such a forum here.

It doesn't really have anything to do specifically with rangefinder cameras or rangefinder camera photography, does it?

Sure it does. Not a single gallery on this website contains a wet print, every photo you see here is a digital image. The digital workflow *requires* that you manipulate the image to achieve the best quality end product.

Why would you not want to learn better ways to present your work in a digital medium?

I realize that many of us use it -- but many of us also use flush toilets, and I'm sure most of us would agree that a toilet forum wouldn't be apropos to RFF.

Non sequitur. When flush toilets have an effect on what you display here I am certain that discussions of flush toilets will pop up in the forums.

So, sorry, I just don't think this is a good idea. In fact, I even wonder if we haven't strayed too far from the purpose of RFF in having a darkroom forum; I'm not advocating killing the darkroom forum, since many members find it useful, but I certainly don't think we want to stray any farther from our concentration on using, buying, selling, fixing, and enjoying rangefinder cameras and the style of photography they facilitate.

Read your last sentence again. The part about "using" these delightful cameras. Part of the "using" process is producing an image to actually look at and enjoy. Digital manipulation is required to accomplish that on this (and every other Internet) forum.

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.

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

Tom

 

[Stephan]

I haven't read all of the thread but I'm definitely in favour of a photoshop section. Then I can point people there who really really need to be told how to resize their damn pictures for my screen for a start 😀

And also we could maybe initiate a debate about how editing your photographs isn't dirty, and how its happens to all photographers once they hit puberty, even back in the blessed days of enlargers.