MOD: Printing and Digital Darkroom, can it be sperated?

[nathan_stiles]

<p>I photoshop a lot, and I'm interested in this forum; however, I honestly never read it b/c 90% is about printing, and I send all my printing off site. It seems to me, that photo restoration and manipulation should have it's own forum. That would be worth reading for me, but printer profiles is worthless to all of us who outsource printing to other pros.</p>

<p> </p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>I agree.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>For me, theres is 3 step in this huge world; take picture / edit via photoshop / print<br>

Digital darkroom mean digital manipulation with photoshop + printing. Sure you can do only the first 2 step..but why let someone else take control on the last step? When i was doing it the tradional way, i was also doing my print..i didtn give them away to be made.</p>

<p>I dont think that 90% of it is a printing issue, more a color management across what you see on screen vs what is printed, but again, not at 90% of the time, and this part could be a problem for you also; not having a color managed environement and workflow could also yield to bad print or print you judge bad because they dont match your monitor.</p>

<p>I agree that maybe PN could have a color management section where people could talk about the monitor / print thing..but again, i think it still one of the main part of working with photoshop itself. Does maybe PN should create a *photo restoration and manipulation* tab..probably, but if you merge those 2 maybe tab together, well you got a digital darkroom one : )</p>

<p> </p>

[robert_brake1]

<p>I agree with Patrick. For me the digital darkroom is all about the print, everything else, just as it was in the wet darkroom is just steps in getting there. I can see that with digital displays, the print, for many people, may disappear as the end result. This is going to be a long transition, however, just as we call it a digital darkroom and we keep naming software in film terms, that goal, the perfect print will be around for some time.<br>

There is a Yahoo group focused on Adobe Photoshop that may be of interest to you:<br>

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/adobephotoshop/messages?o=1</p>

[nathan_stiles]

<p>I have no intention of placing priorities on color management/print vs. editing. If we take Patrick's three step process as a reference point, we haven't combined any of the "taking the picture" forums w/ this one. Furthermore, if Robert is all about the print (literally 'all'), then we could move my editing posts I want to read to some place else to not clutter up his forum.</p>

<p>I'll not cruise yahoo groups, for a similar reason why I'm not going to check all 5 or 6 subtopics for digital editing seperately-- I have limited time, and I'm only spending it on PN's forums, and only on a few topics I'm interested. I answer more questions than I ask, and I can't spend senseless time checking several sub-forums to give out free advice or help (for whatever value it may actually have). But I am interested enough that if there was a more conveinent way, I'd peruse the forum.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<blockquote>

<p>If we take Patrick's three step process as a reference point, we haven't combined any of the "taking the picture" forums w/ this one</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well i think the <strong>digital camera forum</strong> is there for that, and the <strong>digital darkroom</strong> one for what you are after? Nothing stop you in your limited time to post questions in any of those 2 to get accurate response about a particular subject. I will be more than happy to help you if you have any further questions about photo retouching ..but i personnaly tend to read/answer maily in the <strong>digital darkroom forum</strong> . ; )</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>90% is about printing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this is the case, then splitting it will result in one very active forum and one that is barely trafficked. Splitting makes sense when there is either a strong logical reason for separation or there is a lot of traffic that is more evenly split between two topics.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>I don't print colour at home because of economics, as in it doesn't add up. I can get a bang-on 8x12 done for $3, why would I spend $1300 printer that could only come close? Why would I print, just because the printer needs something to go through it so it won't clog. I would rather have the print house spend the money on printers and calibration and me spend my money on lens.</p>

<p>As much as you say you need to do your own, acknowledge that some of us don't nor want to. That's all. It would make it so much of a cleaner read without sifting through that stuff. </p>

<p>One of the nicest things about a digital darkroom is forgoing the need to print everything I shoot. I just print what needs to go on the wall with less trees killed.</p>

<p>Everything else, I'm in for and I do read it all.</p>