GBarrington

<p>Well I think you can make an argument that Photography doesn't have the cultural significance that it used to. I wrote about it in my blog back in April: http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2016/04/photography-simply-doesnt-matter-any.html<br /> In that sense no one actually does care about individual photographs. The <em><strong>idea</strong> </em>of photography is important to our culture, but there's so damn MUCH of it, most of the individual photos simply don't matter all that much to the culture.<br /> I'm not going to summarize the article, I'm kind of proud of what I wrote, go read it if you're interested.</p>

<p>I'd choose to be the best photo critic. I've gotten used to being a bad photographer so the idea of not ever reaching the level of moderately good photographer is something I've already come to terms with!<br> Besides since I've started my blog, I find I enjoy writing about photography!</p>

<p>A week or so ago, I wrote an article on this subject and posted it on my not for profit blog. While it is specific to ACDSee Pro and Ultimate, I think many of the concepts are transferable to other software titles. It is my belief that photographers are not achieving all the Dynamic range possible from their cameras. They seem to be clamoring for MORE of what they aren't using!<br> http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2015/04/maximizing-dynamic-range-with-acdsee.html</p>

<p>I'm one of the drift aways. I used to be a subscriber, but I haven't subscribed for 3 years, at least.. I have been lurking for the last week or so just to see what has changed, if anything. Nothing has changed that I can see. <br /><br /> For me, critiques are very important. But posting on Photo.net is like tossing that photo into a big black hole. I'm not very good as a photographer, but I am enthusiastic as a photographer. There is no sense of real community. <br /> <br /> I get far more input from my Flickr account than I ever got here. And what little feedback I would get on Photo.net was the sort of advice along the lines of I should never forget or violate the rule of thirds, or that my photography properly belongs on Deviant Art. Really? Deviant Art? There is a strong feel of a BBS for a 1950's Camera Club on this site, if ever such a thing did or could occur.<br /><br /> The managers of this site need to figure out is this an "Art site", a "Gear site", a "beginner's site"? WHAT? There is no focus. Yeah it will drive some existing users away, but but I would remind the managers that as the old timer users die off, you need new people to replace them. What is the incentive to attract new users?<br /><br /> The infrastructure IS ugly and outdated. But that isn't going to save this web site all by itself. Don't place too much hope on that 'fix', if there isn't a vision of what this place should be and COULD be, it will just be a pretty empty box.<br /> Sorry to be so blunt, but this is why I'm never here any more.</p>

<p>Actually I use both ACDSee Pro 8 and PSP X6. I use Pro 8 as my photo manager and raw developer, and PSP X6 as a companion bit mapped editor. Though I rarely use PSP any more, since the only thing I use it for is when I need layers, which ACDSee won't do.</p> <p>To tell the truth, the bit mapped editor built into ACDSee Pro is now good enough, that I no longer think of it as some sort of 'touch-up' editor. It is capable of some very subtle work. ACDSee Pro's newest features include Pixel targeting and something they call a blend mode. PT allows you to build a mask built around lighting zone and color information contained by specific pixels. One (admittedly cheesy) example of its use would be if you only wanted certain parts of the sky to be "bluer" with out changing other parts of the sky at all.</p> <p>The ACDSee blend modes seem to function like the blend modes in most editors with layers. But it is NOT true layers. But they are named after and appear to function like layers blend modes. It is possible make an edit and then select a blend mode and offer a different effect (either quite subtle or "over the top"). I'm not sure how this function works, but it is kind of cool.</p> <p>I did not upgrade to PSP X7 as I don't think the upgrade price would have bought me much in the way of extra value, since I use it so rarely. This does not mean though that I think has no value. It is a very good bit mapped editor. And its raw development capability is far better than people give it credit for.</p> <p>The thing is PSP's raw tool does things a bit differently. More like the first generation raw developers, it focuses on developing a raw photo to the perfect exposure, which you would then finish off in the bit mapped editor. This is a common sense approach for a PSP centric workflow, and when viewed from that perspective, it is a very good raw developer. But for most of us used to the 'soup to nuts' approach of Lightroom, ACDSee Pro, or CaptureOne, it seems . . . odd. We've been spoiled, I guess.</p> <p>I wrote two articles on my personal, not for profit blog on using both Pixel Targeting, and on how to get the most out of PSP X6's raw development. And I think they're pretty good. I'm not sure if the Photo.net rules permit posting another site's address, so if you are interested, you can look meup on blogspot. just put <em>"http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/"</em> in your internet browser.</p>