 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / February 2007My latest musings about photography
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  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > 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 Some decent thoughts. I agree that the attitude toward digital as either being capable of more manipulation or needing more manipulation is misguided. We are used to the days when we sent our film to the lab and got back nice, color and exposure corrected prints. This made us think that film was superior in its ability to capture images accurately. What we fail to realize is that the lab manipulated the images as much or more than we do on our computers with digital. In fact, digital has a better chance of getting it right in the first place, because we can inspect the results in-camera by means of histograms and white balancing. Both media can be manipulated, and both sometimes need it to improve the results. You just learn the differences in your workflow and go with the one that gives you the better results or has greater convenience. This gives the nod to digital, for the same reasons that computer word processing beats out the typewriter. We have greater flexibility in digital, but that does not mean that the film photography did not require the same manipulations - just that they were more difficult in those days. Gary Eickmeier >Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Wayne An interesting treatise. I don't agree with it all, but it does deal with some interesting ideas. BTW, "bares" should be "bears". SignatureAngelina Jolie moved into a mansion in New Orleans with Brad Pitt where they say they will be very involved locally. The actress is nothing if not meticulous. Whenever Angelina Jolie orders in Chinese she's very careful to specify boy or girl. >> Hi All, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > with some interesting ideas. > BTW, "bares" should be "bears". Thanks, I fixed the typo Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > Hi All, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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 >> Hi All, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. >>> Hi All, >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >PS. I imagine there are jobs that only PS can do well, but as a hobbyist >I've managed without it. What about Photoshop Elements? (At least for us non-profit hobby photographers.) It only costs about $80. They even sell it at Costco! >>> Hi All, >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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. >>>> Hi All, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > 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 > 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, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > 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? >> I love adjustment layers too. >> It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >> I love adjustment layers too. >> It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. >>I love adjustment layers too. >>It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > non destructively, why not just make a copy of the original file > before starting to edit? It allows you to make successive adjustments and then go back and change underlying adjustments without having to redo later ones. Eg. apply colour filters and then desaturate. You can change the hue and density of the colour filter and see the effects on the monochrome image. >>> I love adjustment layers too. >>> It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Eg. apply colour filters and then desaturate. You can change the hue and > density of the colour filter and see the effects on the monochrome image. Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate it as desired, then Save as a TIF so that I don't lose anything by compressing it more, and so that the original remains untouched. You aren't actually operating on your original file when you edit; you are just using the copy of it that you imported into Photoshop. No destoying is going on, unless you just hit "Save" and it replaces your camera original. Gary Eickmeier >>>> I love adjustment layers too. >>>> It is not only hobbyists who go back and revisit. Also the fine art [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > copy of it that you imported into Photoshop. No destoying is going on, > unless you just hit "Save" and it replaces your camera original. However, if you want to change any of your choices, you have to go back to the camera original and do everything over from the beginning; you can't change just one curves adjustment applied via a mask to part of the picture -- because you've actually changed the pixels in the image. >> Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put >> the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > can't change just one curves adjustment applied via a mask to part of > the picture -- because you've actually changed the pixels in the image. Sure, but... my editing isn't usually all that extensive. I just do it, and save my good image as a TIF, and I'm done with it. You ever go thru 300 wedding shots at once? Gary Eickmeier >>> Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put >>> the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and save my good image as a TIF, and I'm done with it. You ever go thru > 300 wedding shots at once? Yes, last month I think it was. (One of four weddings I've done in the last 10 years, but yes.) I've said at considerable length in a number of posts that the wort of workflow a photographer needs/wants depends among other things on the kind of work they're doing, and cited wedding photographers as people likely to need to work with high volumes and need to not spend much time on individual pictures. So it doesn't surprise me that you don't -- for wedding pictures. > Yes, last month I think it was. (One of four weddings I've done in the > last 10 years, but yes.) I've said at considerable length in a number [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > need to not spend much time on individual pictures. So it doesn't > surprise me that you don't -- for wedding pictures. Amen, bro. Which brings up a great question: I've been wondering about the practicality of just sending the lab my camera files (JPEGs) and letting them sort out the corrections - just like we used to do with film. That would really simplify our lives. Have you ever thought about it? Gary Eickmeier >> Yes, last month I think it was. (One of four weddings I've done in >> the last 10 years, but yes.) I've said at considerable length in a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > letting them sort out the corrections - just like we used to do with > film. That would really simplify our lives. Have you ever thought about it? I've thought about it, and WHCC even has an option for it -- they do either uncorrected printing (so I get full control), or for slightly more they say they duplicate what a film pro lab normally did. I haven't tried that approach, though; I'm an occasional wedding shooter, not a pro, so I haven't refined my exposure to a high art, and haven't got desperately tired of hand adjusting the troublesome shots. Also, think about shooting a wedding on slides; because that's what doing it in digital amounts to. Much more likely to need human attention than shooting it on negatives, since you have to avoid any risk of overexposure and hence often have modest underexposure. Gary Eickmeier wrote: > Amen, bro. Which brings up a great question: I've been wondering about > the practicality of just sending the lab my camera files (JPEGs) and > letting them sort out the corrections - just like we used to do with > film. That would really simplify our lives. Have you ever thought about it? Why not shoot RAW, and let Adobe Bridge automatically correct the shots, (or any other similar software automation) if you are happy with that sort of non-control? Far better than having the lab do a similar job on JPEG's. MrT. > Gary Eickmeier wrote: > > Amen, bro. Which brings up a great question: I've been wondering about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > any other similar software automation) if you are happy with that sort of > non-control? Far better than having the lab do a similar job on JPEG's. You've got a point there - RAW programs auto correct when they open the files - and do a darned good job of it. Better, I think, than pressing the auto-correct function on a JPEG. Gary Eickmeier just like we used to do with > > film. That would really simplify our lives. Have you ever thought about > it? and which Harvey norman will do this at 19cents a print? unfortunately the drive for cheaper prints by most consumers is going to leave photograpahrs worse off..... hell, you can hardly cover material costs.... colour corrections?!?!? kosh > Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put the > edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate it as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier The disadvantage of save as is that you end up with multiple versions of the same file, causing versioning and backup issues. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >> Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put >> the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Wayne Wayne Why do you have to cross post this stuff to five newsgroups? >>> Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put >>> the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Why do you have to cross post this stuff to five newsgroups? I belong to many newsgroups/forums/etc and am very active on about 20 or so. I only cross post on the groups where is seems relevant to do so. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >>>> Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put >>>> the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Wayne I consider cross posting, spam, and all your interested in promoting your web site in which you plagiarize others work. How about posting to individual groups so we don't have to put up with crap - just to see what response you actually get from individual groups. >>> Why do you have to cross post this stuff to five newsgroups? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > How about posting to individual groups so we don't have to put up with > crap - just to see what response you actually get from individual groups. I do not plagiarize anyone's work. End of story. SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ > I consider cross posting, spam, and all your interested in promoting > your web site in which you plagiarize others work. > > How about posting to individual groups so we don't have to put up with > crap - just to see what response you actually get from individual groups. How about learning to trim your posts, Rob?? Cross posting to relevant groups is preferable to a lot of us, and is preferable to multiposting, which wastes readers time and causes duplicate divergent or repetitive threads. Mark Squared will disagree, but x-posting, properly done, is the right way. Wayne is right on. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> I consider cross posting, spam, and all your interested in promoting >> your web site in which you plagiarize others work. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Wayne is right on. Thanks John. SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >> Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put >> the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Wayne How is it any more versions than your method? And my saved files don't have multiple layers to save. Gary Eickmeier >>> Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put >>> the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier Hi Gary, It isn't necessarily, but it can be. Before using adjustment layers I would save the original, a slightly tweaked version and then multiple versions as I played with the image or parts there of. Since neither Windows or Mac OS have auto file version numbering (something the Dec System 20 I was a systems programmer on over 25 years ago even had) I tack a version number on the end of the file name. With adjustment layers I find that number reduced, since I may include multiple adjustment layers that I leave turned on or off in the one file version. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >>>> Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and put >>>> the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, manipulate [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > layers I find that number reduced, since I may include multiple > adjustment layers that I leave turned on or off in the one file version. There's been some argument now and then about maybe adding version numbering to Sun's ZFS filesystem, and it got interesting with the old TOPS-20 hacks saying how simple and useful it was an other people saying how it would pollute your directories and make everything totally confusing :-). (I was a customer from 1977-1979, supported TOPS-20 and VMS in the field until 1981, and was in Marlboro in the layered products group until 1985). > There's been some argument now and then about maybe adding version > numbering to Sun's ZFS filesystem, and it got interesting with the old [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (I was a customer from 1977-1979, supported TOPS-20 and VMS in the field > until 1981, and was in Marlboro in the layered products group until 1985). HI David, TOPS-20 was pretty great and was a nice OS to do sys admin and systems programming on back then. If I remember rightly you could set a preference in a config file as to how many back versions you wanted to keep. Saved my bacon on a number of occasions. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >> There's been some argument now and then about maybe adding version >> numbering to Sun's ZFS filesystem, and it got interesting with the old [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > preference in a config file as to how many back versions you wanted to > keep. Saved my bacon on a number of occasions. What is this about versions? When I save as different types of files, it still has the photo's original number from the camera. Even if I renamed it, it would still be "Doggy.jpg" and "Doggy.TIF." What's the problem? Gary Eickmeier >>> There's been some argument now and then about maybe adding version >>> numbering to Sun's ZFS filesystem, and it got interesting with the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier What we are talking about is this old operating system would save a file, say xyz.psd as xyz.psd.001, when it is saved next time as xyz.psd.002 and so on. What I do manually is, when I am working on an image, say steadily working on it till I am finally happy I manually do Save as and then change the name to xyz v2.psd, etc. This way I have a number of files back to previous developments of my image. This works for me because I may take an image in multiple directions and then later decide which I prefer. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >>>> There's been some argument now and then about maybe adding version >>>> numbering to Sun's ZFS filesystem, and it got interesting with the [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Wayne .... and in the wonderful world of digital.... we can't go back to the negatives should we have an ooppsee k > .... and in the wonderful world of digital.... we can't go back to the > negatives should we have an ooppsee ? The "negative" is the original file. Why can't you go back to it? Gary Eickmeier >> .... and in the wonderful world of digital.... we can't go back to the >> negatives should we have an ooppsee [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gary Eickmeier In Wayne's post, he described a system in which the original is never over-written. So the file still exists to return to. I'm not realy sure what Kosh is getting at either. Unless by "oopsee" he means a system or disc crash that wipes out all the files on the disc, and you haven't made a CDROM or DVD backup beforehand. >>> There's been some argument now and then about maybe adding version >>> numbering to Sun's ZFS filesystem, and it got interesting with the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > still has the photo's original number from the camera. Even if I renamed > it, it would still be "Doggy.jpg" and "Doggy.TIF." What's the problem? Incremental saves along the way as you edit. Yielding Doggie.tif.1, doggie.tif.2, doggie.tif.3, and so forth. There's a command to to purge additional versions all at once, or by file, so it's easy to clean up when things settle down. >>>>> Obviously, you don't destroy the original when you "Save as" and >>>>> put the edited file somewhere else. I typically open my file, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> layers I find that number reduced, since I may include multiple >> adjustment layers that I leave turned on or off in the one file version. Photoshop CS loads something in my system tray called Adobe Version Cue which presumably handles this. I think it's more important in workgroups. > There's been some argument now and then about maybe adding version > numbering to Sun's ZFS filesystem, and it got interesting with the old [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (I was a customer from 1977-1979, supported TOPS-20 and VMS in the field > until 1981, and was in Marlboro in the layered products group until 1985). > photo *at least* three times). Only Photoshop has adjustment layers, > that I know of. Sigh. gimp has adjustment layers as well... >> 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). > > 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). the one I have is 2.2 >> Hi All, >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.