how valid is photoshop...?

Brian Sweeney said:
I preferred Photostyler 1.1. Had a much better user interface, and allowed you to switch back and forth between the TWAIN driver and the image Editor. To bad it got bumped off early on.
Click to expand...

I still use a little vector converter called streamline best i've found to date, that came with my very first Illustrator, but that would be later than you
 
I get a bit bored with the line of argument that keeps coming up that Photoshop and other software of this sort is somehow invalid or unsporting. Yes photography skills are important as per the article and no Photoshop does not substitute for that.

But having said this post processing is in my view an essential part of the image making process. Apart from anything else at this stage of digital technology development I am yet to see a photo straight from a camera that does not benefit from at least some noise reduction, sharpening and tonal / color adjustment. After that almost all of my shots get some additional creative adjustments in Photoshop (actually in Paintshop Pro.) I am sincerely pleased about this. I never had a photo dark room before digital came along and frankly most of my photos were as a result............crap. Well maybe not crap but very average. Now I have a much higher proportion of keepers. Partly because I can tweak and creatively manipulate photos in Photoshop.

It is here, it is here to stay, full stop and I sincerely wish people would stop arguing about it. If they wish to accept semi finished digital photos straight from a camera, good luck to them. but I really do not.
 
The 'boudary' that I resent is the continued attitude by some folk (we have one above) that you HAVE to be using 'PhotoSlop' and all of it's spores like 'lightroom' in order to 'qualify' as a serious photographer,..they usually intone the prayer of the faithful; "it's the industry standard"...before quietly tutting over any suggestion of other software, sme of which is very good, cheaper and safer to get into than PS. Additionally, Adobe is known user of dubious business tactics and policies. Personally I am a PhotoSlop refuser simply on the grounds that I resent being asked to pay the same number of pounds sterling as US purchasers pay in dollars US......thus having to pay nearly TWICE the price!!!
 
Bugleone, of course there are other image processing programs. But the reality is that, if you work with images every day, it's simply a matter of expedience to use "industry standard" programs. Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Acrobat Professional, Adobe Indesign are common tools that allow the free flow of files within the publishing "industry." Using them saves time and the hassle of incompatible formats.

Yes, they are too expensive and too complex for many users. But so are the tools of many trades. That doesn't take away from the value of the tools.
 
It seems like one of those college sophomore arguments you have at 3 a.m.

People have always post processed photos. Setting shutter speed and aperture are, in effect, post processing. Developing is post processing. Without post processing, there is no photo. Everything we do impacts the final image, and it is not important if some of those things are done before the shutter is fired or after.

So, using PS is perfectly valid. Using anything to tweak a photo is valid.

Whether PS is easy to use, or the best possible photo manipulation software, is another question.
 
I think the original question about the validity of photoshop is just a bit misleading. Had I not read the blog article I would have been right in there defending photoshop and it's use. After reading the article I feel no need to do so. All I take away from the blog article is that it is still better to get the photo as close to right at the instant of taking than to spend more time than necessary to correct the image in post. No argument from about that from me. I just don't see the article as questioning the validity of photoshop but the misguided faith in photoshop of some people who think they can create the image more in photoshop than at the time of taking it.

Bob
 
While I myself do not swing that way, I find nothing wrong with people who do. As stated earlier, this sort of thing has been around for years and will not ever be legislated away......nor should it be!

B2 (;->
 
Wow, all this for a blog post from 2005.
As with all computers... garbage in , garbage out. You can improve an image but without quality to start with there will be no quality at the end.
Steve
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom