Adobe Photoshop--Observations, Questions & Stuff

[raymond_bleesz]

I have noticed that there are very few postings on this site re: Adobe

Photoshop manipulations of images--which is perhaps good.

 

<p>

 

I have just finished another photoshop class & perhaps know a little bit more but..... . It is mind taxing if you are not a nerd or if you do not utilize Adobe on a constant basis, imop. I also feel it is more usefull if one is into color rather than traditional bw.

 

<p>

 

For my work, which is 99% bw as a fine art, I really do not utilize Photoshop as I do my work in the traditonal darkroom--I may use photoshop manipulation for sending images (snaps) via email but that's about it.

 

<p>

 

So where are the rest of you re: photoshop???? I have a digital snap camera, scanner, read reviews, attempt to keep current in the profession and on occasion wish for this & that and wish I had a more

talent re: manipulation. I still plan on utilizing Adobe for this & that but that's about it, for now.

 

<p>

 

Do you have particular suggestions for a very good Adobe book which is a cut above the rest if one is a "dummy"? I have utilized the "Adobe classroom in a book".

 

<p>

 

Obviously, if one were a commercial shooter, digital is where its at.

[donald_brewster]

A slight detour to your question, but check out Norman Koren's web

site, particularly:

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints.html#Imageditor

for alternatives to PhotoShop. I too have been frustrated with

trying to learn and use PhotoShop -- a memory hog and full of tools

that are for graphic artists rather than photographers. Yes,

PhotoShop is an industry standard, but for non-commercial users it is

overkill and I don't use it for my day job. Norman uses and

recommends Picture Window Pro from Digital Light and Color. The

author is Jonathan Sachs who developed Lotus 123. It's made for

photography, and it's "professional" version only costs $90.

[tony_galt]

I don't use PhotoShop. I consider it too expensive and over-bloated with graphic arts features I really don't need for straight photography. So I use an unsung program called Picture Window (see http://www.dl-c.com/) which is designed expressly for photoediting and works more directly with photographic metaphors (it even has a color to b&w function that allows you to simulate the effect of placing colored filters over the lens). It also costs about $100.

 

<p>

 

I really don't want to establish a wet darkroom in my house for a variety of reasons. So an Epson 2450 scanner and 1270 printer do the job for me at an amateur level. The scanner reopened medium format and newly opened large format photography for me, and so far I've been happy scanning both color (6x6) and b&w (4x5) and printing them on the printer. I feel that at my stage of development I can make prints that are far better than any I could ever make in a wet darkroom, although I will concede that, especially with black and white, a master printer can, at this point in technology, make better prints than are possible with inkjet media. The electronic technology keeps getting better and better, though, and by getting myself skilled at digital image manipulation, I will be ready to go when that is not the case anymore. That is my take on it. I would, however, be sorry to see film go and with LF I think it will be quite awhile before that happens given the expense of digital equipment.

[matthew_runde]

<a name="1">Raymond,</a>

 

<p>

 

Some of my opinions and experience:

 

<p>

 

I think that the easiest way to learn how to use Photoshop is to

play. That's how I've done it. Create a big, blank file, add a

photo, and create something that you think is funny.

 

<p>

 

I like to move/change/add/remove things such as trees, cars, shadows,

text, etc. Changing the wording of signs can be a challenge,

especially if I need to correct the perspective (I once had to add

logos to about a million products for an ROTC web site). The

techniques that I discover in creating these weird images are very

useful when I'm touching up photos and/or building web sites.

 

<p>

 

A long time ago I created a folder called "silly" on my computer. It

is perhaps the most useful folder that I have. It has sub-folders

and tons of experiments. Files currently in this folder include a

test of a layers technique, a futuristic design for a web site, a

carefully-planned ad campaign for a central-American country, an

examination of the history of designs of American transportation, and

tests of techniques to use with Macromedia Flash. Sometimes, I may

open the folder and play around with things that strike my fancy. I

recommend this approach.

 

<p>

 

One thing that I think is important to remember when learning to use

Photoshop, is that you really can't break it. Go ahead and push all

of the buttons and see what they do. Change settings, invert this

and that, play with all of the tools... If, somehow, you manage to

make it very hard to use, you can reinstall the program.

 

<p>

 

Life's short. Have fun!

[scott_walton2]

I use it on a daily basis and have since version 1.0 (quite a few

years). To be honest with you, there are alot of good books on the

subject RE Photoshop and you will learn numberous things from different

books. I too believe in just fooling around with it or take some more

courses. If you have specific questions, email me here or at

scotlynn@shore.net.

Cheers

[ellis_vener_photography]

Try <U><B>Adobe Photoshop 6.0 for Photographers</B></u> by

Martin Evening (Focal Press, 2001). It is a pretty good, well

written --i.e. a maximum of understandable English and a

minimum of geekspeak-- guide to what you can do with

Photoshop, also a a very well written explanation of various Color

space(s), calibrating your work flow so what you see on your film,

what you see on your monitor, and what you see in your output,

matches; as well as what the various tools can do. It is also

loaded with good illustrations to help you grasp the concepts

being discussed. From the point of view of a commercial

photographer, the underlying photography is also very

good.<P>Now how do I use Photo Shop/ Much as I would a

darkroom either in color or B&W: dust busting, cropping,

dodging & burning, and sizing for specific needs.<P>I agree with

the point that the full powered version of Photo Shop is a huge,

and hugely complex machine and is as much overkill for

non-commercial photographers as would be using a Sinar P2

for backpacking nature photographers. That is why Adobe

makes the "lighter weight" Photoshop Elements program.

[matthew_runde]

</u>Underscore off?

[matthew_runde]

</u>This time?

[michael_chmilar]

Photoshop 7.0 should be shipping in the next week or two. Books

updated for PS 7.0 should follow shortly after (the authors have had

the beta pre-release of PS 7 for months). You might want to wait for

the updated books, although most of the material in PS 6 books is

still valid.

 

<p>

 

I have found the "Real World Photoshop" book to be most useful.

[psychophoto]

Though I still wholeheartedly embrace every aspect of traditional

photographic processes, I absolutely love the tools I have at my

disposal in Photoshop. I used to have the light version, but

bought full 6.0 once I had the funds because for what I do,

Photoshop LE just doesn't cut it. I pretty much learned by doing,

as well as reading some reference material, but more than

anything else what has helped me has just been playing around

with files making simple goals for myself like editing poles,

wires, etc out of photographs. The more used to it you get, the

easier it is to do more advanced thigns. Kind of common sense,

but a lot of people seem to see it as being a lot harder to learn

than it really is.

[mike_mahoney]

The Adobe site itself is quite informative, and has tutorials etc.,

as well as links to forums if you have a specific question.

 

<p>

 

There are almost too many PS books in print to mention, your best bet

is to go to a local bookstore and browse to see which instructional

style suits you.

 

<p>

 

The Adobe " Classroom in a book " series is good, and comes with a CD

containing the files necessary for the lessons.

 

<p>

 

The initial learning curve is steep, but after a while becomes second

nature. Try to do a little PS work every day to keep your acquired

skills sharp.

 

<p>

 

PS is overkill for anyone like yourself just wanting to size files

and e-mail them. But for the majority of commercial photographers, PS

is the indispensible gold standard.

[jonathan brewer]

It has always been harder to demonstrate/explain the tools and

effects/filters in Photoshop than to understand them. In the past,

the manual has occaisionally left out a step in multi-step process to

achieve an effect, which you only find out about after calling tech

support. Photoshop is simpler to understand than it is to explain.

 

<p>

 

The quickest way to learn Photoshop bar none, is to find a

friend/tutor/somebody with too much time on their hands, to show you,

if you can't find anybody, you can't find anybody, but doing it

reading a manual is doing it the hard way.

 

<p>

 

My brother has occasionally tutored folks in Photoshop and he says

that most often than not, his students say that they had reservations

about shelling out the money to be tutored, but after saving an

incredible amount of time and frustration, that it was worth it.

 

<p>

 

You find somebody to show you if you can, network if you have to,

and you get the benefit of not having to make the same mistakes that

thay've already made, and tips on their unique ways of doing things.

 

<p>

 

A big part of the fun of Photoshop is the combining of

tools/filters/effects in new ways than what they were intended, and

when you're successful in doing that, you've come up with a new

tool/effect.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

My theory is to master the basics first, which I have done: painting

out backgrounds, growing a new arm, restoring 100 year old photos etc.

 

<p>

 

I scan 6x6 @ 4,000 to get 6,000 x 9,000 pixels, which fills A3 @600

dpi. 6x9 to A3+ will use nearly twice the film area.

 

<p>

 

I have ordered 7, and I believe that removing wires and poles is

easier in 7, so I will not bother in 6.

 

<p>

 

STITCHING

 

<p>

 

How do you get on joining or stitching pictures? My scanner only

scans up to 69 in one bite, so, with the Sinar p (yes Ellis I will

back pack with it for landscape and wildlife photography) I will

shift around the coverage, tiling the picture. This eliminates the

distortion you would get by panning - which would work for

landscapes, but not architecture. Stitching is an option in Elements,

but not 6. I hope that they will include it in 7: please, everybody

go to the adobe website and put in a feature request for stitching in

7.

 

<p>

 

CALIBRATION

 

<p>

 

I have not bothered to calibrate by system but, using ordinary paper

for proofs it seems ok, but glossies are too dark. I have set up a

spec for glossy and turned down the brightness and ink volume, so

that should do the trick � is calibration worth the trouble?

[tim_atherton2]

I would add that having someone (who is using it as a photographer)

and who knows there way around photoshop show you the ropes is the

best way to get going.

 

<p>

 

I would also say that the Blatner and Fraser Real World Photoshop

books are excellent. Bruce Fraser, who is the colour management guru

is also on another list I'm on and spends time to give helpful

responses to questions.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Dick r asked "is calibration worth the trouble?" if you are a

professional or just voluntarily anal-compulsive and a tech

fetishist to boot (Wait! those qualities <I>do</I> make you a

professional...hmmmm...) then yes. Professionals are advised

to because they will be sharing their files with others. But what is

equally important is to learn to always work in Adobe RGB (1998)

and to go by the numbers.

[sandy_sorlien]

The Visual Quickstart Guides from Peachpit Press are very good.

 

<p>

 

I say forget the boring, tedious tutorials. Instead, invent yourself a

little project, such as printing up a promotional postcard with type,

or restoring an old messed-up family picture, or creating some joke

composite pictures to send around via email. In order to complete your

project, you'll have to learn something, looking it up in your

Photoshop Quickstart Guide, and it will be fun.

[mike_mahoney]

Dick R. had a point about stitching ... there are many good, cheap,

and some freeware programs which do a very good job of stitching. "

Pano Tools " by Helmut Dersch (sp?) is a very good start, and it

works as a PS plug in. Also is the " Panorama Factory " by Smokey

City Design. But I'd also like to see a panorama facility contained

within PS written by Adobe.

[george_nedleman]

I took a course from West Coast Imaging 2 mo ago but since I didn't

have much of a clue re: PS 6 it was sort of a waste of money, BUT it

did illustrate the magnitude of changes that can be wrought from an

already "good" color image. I'm talking subtle, not adding or

subtracting wires or cars. They are giving hands on courses too now.

I have PS Elements and will be experimenting with it as it has all

the features I need (I hope). I just bought a 1280 and 2450, but have

yet to start scanning my 6x7's.

George

[andrew_ginther1]

As a tutor of Digital (Photoshop 6.0) and an art photographer I've

wrestled with this question too. I think the big thing about digital

is that we can start with absolutely nothing and create whatever we

like with the tools available. Conventional photography has

restrictions such as lighting, type of camera, film stock etc...

Those very restrictions have made photography what it is today. Look

at what was being achieved over 100 years ago. The tedious and

difficult technical challenges of yesteryear made for some of the

greatest ever images. The danger also is that Photoshop can take us

away from the 'photographic' moment. That brief slice of reality

that sets photography apart from every other visual medium. My point

is that digital is a continuation of conventional photography. Not

something seperate. I thing digital is still too new and too fresh

for any kind of perspective to have really occurred.

The synthesiser has been around in music for about 30 years now and

its still hard to gauge the overall impact. Perhaps we will have to

wait for the next new thing to come along before we finally see the

impact of digital photography for what it really is.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>"The tedious and difficult technical challenges of yesteryear

made for some of the greatest ever images."</I><P>Name one.

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

Ellis:

 

<p>

 

I do not know about the greatest ever images, (I live in the present

and look to the future) but we have always done what we can with what

was avalable -

 

<p>

 

The tedious and difficult technical challenges of today is to get a

decent photo with a digital camera!