mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 1, 2010 8:42:41 GMT -5
Rachel,
I use an iMac. While its iPhoto will do a little manipulation it is best used, in my opinion, for filing my photos. So I started shopping. I was advised that Photoshop is primarily for professionals and that I would be better advised to get Photoshop Elements. That was in March of 2007 when Photoshop Elements 4.0 cost me $148.00 Can.
PS Elements 4 does everything that I could ever wish and much, much more with the greatest of ease. It has transformed the drudgery of darkroom work which I never enjoyed into fun. I spend hours on PS 4 improving, ruining, manipulating, restoring, etc., etc. When it is too miserable out of doors to take pictures I sit happily at my desk and make pictures - for better or worse. And whatever I do I can also undo.
Today, one may purchase Photoshop Elements 6 for as little as $20.00 Can. and Elements 7 for a little more. Photoshop Elements 8 is the latest version but it is much more. I cannot imagine what miracles it can do though.
However, I am quite content with my PS Elements 4. It has opened up a whole new aspect of photography for me.
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 1, 2010 11:19:35 GMT -5
The full photoshop package in all honesty doesn't do that much more. I got mine from one of those internet suppliers who do it at a fraction of the full price - a download and no backup from Adobe. It appears a little dodgy, but as far as I can find out Adobe can't prevent its sale this way.
I don't have a Mac - it would be nice to have one, but other things always seem more important when I have a bob or two to spare,
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 1, 2010 12:02:29 GMT -5
I don't have a Mac - it would be nice to have one, but other things always seem more important when I have a bob or two to spare, I am very fortunate. I don't need a bob or two. I have my Paul and Jeff and grandchildren who surprised (shocked) me with a magnificent 24" iMac for my birthday. Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 1, 2010 15:16:05 GMT -5
That has to be one of the best presents ever!
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jun 1, 2010 15:38:43 GMT -5
I still spend a lot of time mamipulating images, even without the darkroom. The difference is now I'm not isolated and alone in a darkened room, and THAT is the part of the experience I do not miss at all.
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jun 1, 2010 15:41:05 GMT -5
I don't have a Mac - it would be nice to have one, but other things always seem more important when I have a bob or two to spare, I am very fortunate. I don't need a bob or two. I have my Paul and Jeff and grandchildren who surprised (shocked) me with a magnificent 24" iMac for my birthday. Mickey Nice surprise. My son surprised me with a new laptop for my birthday, so now I don't have to be at the computer upstairs to work on images (which was only modestly better than being stuck in the darkroom).
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jun 1, 2010 15:47:19 GMT -5
Rachel, I use an iMac. While its iPhoto will do a little manipulation it is best used, in my opinion, for filing my photos. So I started shopping. I was advised that Photoshop is primarily for professionals and that I would be better advised to get Photoshop Elements. That was in March of 2007 when Photoshop Elements 4.0 cost me $148.00 Can. PS Elements 4 does everything that I could ever wish and much, much more with the greatest of ease. It has transformed the drudgery of darkroom work which I never enjoyed into fun. I spend hours on PS 4 improving, ruining, manipulating, restoring, etc., etc. When it is too miserable out of doors to take pictures I sit happily at my desk and make pictures - for better or worse. And whatever I do I can also undo. Today, one may purchase Photoshop Elements 6 for as little as $20.00 Can. and Elements 7 for a little more. Photoshop Elements 8 is the latest version but it is much more. I cannot imagine what miracles it can do though. However, I am quite content with my PS Elements 4. It has opened up a whole new aspect of photography for me. Mickey I just tried to upgrade my PS CS4 to the new PS CS5. It downoladed and installed just fine ... but it won't work. Seems there's some sort of problem with one of the dll's (dynamic link library) that prevent older AMD Athlon processors like mine from working with CS5. Adobe is supposedly working to fix the coding problem (seems there are a lot of p*ssed-off AMD Athlon users out there) ... but I uninstalled it and asked for my money back. No sense paying for something that may never work!
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Jun 1, 2010 16:01:50 GMT -5
Rachel, I use an iMac. While its iPhoto will do a little manipulation it is best used, in my opinion, for filing my photos. So I started shopping. I was advised that Photoshop is primarily for professionals and that I would be better advised to get Photoshop Elements. That was in March of 2007 when Photoshop Elements 4.0 cost me $148.00 Can. PS Elements 4 does everything that I could ever wish and much, much more with the greatest of ease. It has transformed the drudgery of darkroom work which I never enjoyed into fun. I spend hours on PS 4 improving, ruining, manipulating, restoring, etc., etc. When it is too miserable out of doors to take pictures I sit happily at my desk and make pictures - for better or worse. And whatever I do I can also undo. Today, one may purchase Photoshop Elements 6 for as little as $20.00 Can. and Elements 7 for a little more. Photoshop Elements 8 is the latest version but it is much more. I cannot imagine what miracles it can do though. However, I am quite content with my PS Elements 4. It has opened up a whole new aspect of photography for me. Mickey Hi Mickey .... I recently tried the trial PS Elements from the Adobe website but the script they use is so small that I can't comfortably read it on my 19" monitor. I have a copy of Gimp installed but I've never used it. Most, well up to now all, adjustments I've needed to make to my photos I've done with Picasa. I can't see myself wanting to do the marvellous manipulation of images that we've seen on the forum.
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jun 1, 2010 20:38:02 GMT -5
PS Elements 4 does everything that I could ever wish and much, much more with the greatest of ease. It has transformed the drudgery of darkroom work which I never enjoyed into fun. I spend hours on PS 4 improving, ruining, manipulating, restoring, etc., etc. When it is too miserable out of doors to take pictures I sit happily at my desk and make pictures - for better or worse. And whatever I do I can also undo. Today, one may purchase Photoshop Elements 6 for as little as $20.00 Can. and Elements 7 for a little more. Photoshop Elements 8 is the latest version but it is much more. I cannot imagine what miracles it can do though. However, I am quite content with my PS Elements 4. It has opened up a whole new aspect of photography for me. Mickey Earlier this year when I made my switch from Windows to Mac, I wondered what to do about photo editing software. I have a registered Photoshop CS3 on my Windows machine and was quite used to it. I invested in Photoshop Elements 8 for Macintosh and found that most of what I used in CS3 was there, often hiding in a different spot. Elements doesn't allow me to use layer masks on standard layers, but I found a good workaround for this that gives me a way to do it anyway. A few functions aren't as deep as the full Photoshop versions -- e.g., the RAW editor in Elements has fewer options and is lacking the beautiful greyscaling functions of full Photoshop -- but it's not a showstopper. I was lucky enough to pick up Elements 8 for under $100. And my favourite Photoshop plugin, Silver Efex Pro, works fine with Elements. Gene
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Jul 3, 2010 17:06:50 GMT -5
Coming into this discussion late, I quite like The Gimp GNU File Manipulation Program. It is free to download at www.gimp.org/Re: the earlier discussion about digital images/captures/photographs, I happened to be at a local Camera Club judging night (I was buying a Minolta rangefinder off the judge and we arranged pick-up at the Club night). Some of the images were heavily manipulated (looking like pen and ink sketches rather than photographs I know this technique pre-dates PS and digital, but it has now become much more accessible/easy). The judge commented positively on these images but did not award them prizes, saying that they had crossed the lines between photography and graphic art. I quite like the distinction; and, of course, the role of judge is to make such distinctions without recourse to absolute or finite rules. He may also have made the same judgement in pre-digital days, but the advent of digital and file manipulation does, as stated, make heavy manipulation easier and thus more common. Personally, I liked colour reversal not only because of the visual "pop" of deeply saturated colours, but also because most of the work was done before releasing the shutter, not after it. Sitting at my small lightbox selecting images with a lupe was much more sociable and less taxing than hours in the darkroom. Re: "capture", certain US magazines used to always write about "Making" photos, not "taking" them. On one level it all seemed a bit pretentious, but I liked the non-aggressive/exploitative intention of the term. One uses light, a camera, a light sensitive medium and a subject to make an image.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jul 3, 2010 22:55:35 GMT -5
I am coming in way late but I have no qualms using digital for both taking/capturing and post processing. Digital or film the end result is still a photograph. With either medium it is possible to manipulate it to the point where it is more like graphic art than a photo. I have never found a need for CS but found Elements more than enough and Picasa would probably do too. It would be nice to get it right in camera but I appreciate the ability to salvage certain images in PP, especially after a long trip where you can't reasonable go back for a retake. As with any camera or PP program you can decide to take complete or partial charge of the process. You do not have to leave any of the process, from the taking to the PP, in auto mode.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jul 3, 2010 23:38:49 GMT -5
The GIMP is an excellent photo editor. I used it a lot on my Linux system and keep a copy on my Mac to use from time to time. I use PSE8 for Mac, but would love to have PS CS5. I had a lot of CS3 experience in Windows.
Some of my friends heavily alter digital images to look more like art. I don't mind if they have a good image and often they do.
Bottom line: there are no rules. Just differing tastes.
Gene
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jul 4, 2010 7:43:00 GMT -5
Gene
Careful, I hope you are not insinuating that a photo is not art unless it has been heavily altered. That is a whole other can of worms, along with the term "fine" (retch) art. Just giving you a small poke in the ribs.
Bob
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Oct 14, 2010 8:41:30 GMT -5
More Photoshop Fiddling A very nice authentic Totem Pole in the McMichael Canadian Art Gallery. But those signs.... Tch tch. No fear. Photoshop Elements 4 to the rescue. There seems to be no limit to what one may do with with this amazing programme. Mickey
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Oct 14, 2010 12:40:12 GMT -5
Very nice piece of undetectable cloning and pasting, Mickey.
Your hours spent playing with Photoshop are certainly paying.
I really can't understand those people who deride using Photoshop to improve a photograph. There's nothing new about image manpulation, it's almost as old as photography itself.
Look in old books and magazines and you'll find examples of photographs that have been altered together with instructions on "working up" as it used to be called with graphite pencils, oil and water paints and the bromoil process.
In those days photographers who used these techniques looked upon it as art. They were proud of it and made no attempt to hide their handwork. Maybe this was because it was done by hand, and was closely allied to to painting and drawing, skills which were much admired.
One of the things I like about Photoshop is that the finished result can still look like an untouched photograph.
I once read a comment on restoring old damaged photographs using Photoshop. I can't remember the exact words, but the gist was that restoration or alteration of a photograph with Photoshop should never show. If it does, the work isn't skilled enough.
PeterW
PeterW
|
|