PDA

View Full Version : do we need a photoshop forum?


back alley
09-02-2005, 10:21
it seems, that while many still are using the traditional wet darkroom, that many also are moving to the use of scanners & printers.
in that realm i assume that many are learning/struggling with the many intricasies of photoshop.
photoshop is wonderful but, oh so, complicated. i have even caved in and recently bought a book to help me.
i usually prefer the more stone age approach of learning with a more hands on focus.

in that light, would you like to see a photoshop section added to the forum?

joe

JoeFriday
09-02-2005, 10:23
couldn't that just be covered under 'digital darkroom'?

Todd.Hanz
09-02-2005, 10:24
Sure, I'd lend what I know to anyone who needs it, might also answer some scanning question people have, maybe call it a "post processing" forum.

Todd

back alley
09-02-2005, 10:25
i saw this as a more specific section related to photoshop.

it could be in the darkroom section but photoshop is a huge area in it's own right.

joe

eric
09-02-2005, 10:32
Could it be a Photoshop and/or GIMP forum?

back alley
09-02-2005, 10:38
Could it be a Photoshop and/or GIMP forum?


i'm open...i assume gimp is kinda like photoshop?

i'm showing my ignorance here.
joe

wlewisiii
09-02-2005, 10:39
If you do create it, I'll stick my questions there. I've been using digital darkroom, but the majority of my problems are with PS rather than with, say, my scanners.

William

bmattock
09-02-2005, 10:41
i'm open...i assume gimp is kinda like photoshop?

i'm showing my ignorance here.
joe

gimp, gimp, gimp!


And it is FREE. For Windows as well as those fortunate enough to run Linux:

http://www.gimp.org/

gimp, gimp, gimp!

JoeFriday
09-02-2005, 10:42
I suppose you could create a "computer tech" section for all the hardware/software related questions

JamesW
09-02-2005, 10:43
It could be useful, but some of the responses here already look like Photoshop may be too narrow a category.

On other forums, users are sometimes encouraged to "tag" their threads to make it easy to see what it's about. For example, you could put "Photoshop: How Do I convert to Black and White" as the thread title. Just an idea.

doubs43
09-02-2005, 10:47
I haven't voted because I don't think PhotoShop should be the only software included. I use Corel Photo-Paint 12 and like it. Bill has indicated a preference for GIMP.

I'd be in favor of a non-specific section devoted to digital picture manipulation programs rather than one aimed only toward PhotoShop. I realize that PhotoShop will be the major program discussed but it shouldn't be exclusive.

Just my opinion.

Walker

sf
09-02-2005, 10:47
I think it does fit under the "digital darkroom" subject category, but digital darkroom also contains scanner, printer, RAW conversion, and every other facet of the digital workflow. Photoshop is so complex and so used that it would produce alot of information in a forum.

I am a huge user of Photoshop, and would certainly post to and read a forum devoted to it. A forum for digital darkroom would be very very large, I think. Perhaps specializing for Photoshop would be a good choice.

GeneW
09-02-2005, 10:48
In addition to Photoshop (many versions including the 'lite' version Elements, also in many versions), there is the Gimp which has been mentioned, but also well-liked photo editors such as Corel PhotoPaint, PaintShop Pro, Picture Window Pro, and probably a dozen more, including a new one on the horizon from Microsoft.

It's true that PS 'owns' this market, but it would seem a little biased to me to focus only on a single commercial product line.

Hence, I'd stump for something more generic, such as 'digital darkroom', which would also have scope for discussions on scanning techniques.

Gene

back alley
09-02-2005, 10:49
i guess my original thought about a photoshop section was that it might stimulate more discussions and perhaps more 'how to' posts.

i must admit i'm having a hell of a time getting past my plateau of skills with photoshop.

joe

JoeFriday
09-02-2005, 11:12
I've been using PS since v. 3 (about 12 years now) and I'm just starting to feel that I'm proficient.. and I'm fully aware that I know maybe 50% of its capabilities.. so don't feel bad, joe

bmattock
09-02-2005, 11:15
"They pelted us with rocks and garbage!"

kmack
09-02-2005, 11:26
Maybe you can subdivide "Digial Darkroom" in to five major sections:
Scanning and Scanners
Image Processing Software
Printers and Printing
Hardware Configuration
Disscussion (everything else)

T_om
09-02-2005, 11:37
PhotoShop is the de facto standard image editor. Most other programs emulate it to one extent or the other and make themselves compatible to plugins and other third party extensions.

However, it is only one tool in the digital darkroom (although arguably the most important tool after image capture). I would think a subsection of the "Digital Darkroom" forum may be in order, or alternatively, moving all PS posts to the Digital Darkroom forum to keep things centralized.

I am certainly no PhotoShop wizard but I will be willing to help assist by answering any questions that I am qualified to answer. I'm sure others here would do the same.

One thing is certain beyond any shadow of a doubt. Digital post processing to produce the best quality result with digital capture is absolutely required, no matter what program you favor. Skills in this area are just as important as skills in the wet darkroom were to producing the best output.

Tom, Happily Converted To The Digital Darkroom These Past 7 Years.

Kin Lau
09-02-2005, 11:52
Yes, and just call it Photoshop. It's pretty well a generic name for what we do now regardless of which software we use (kinda like 'Kleenex').

My suggestion, would be to make sure you enter the software you're using in the subject line, like "PS 6.0" or "PSP 7.0" etc.

VinceC
09-02-2005, 12:05
Seems like a worthwhile forum.
Post-scanning image processing is as essential to today's photography as post-development printing was to the wet darkroom. PhotoShop is the industry leader here and even those not using PhotoShop will likely have some interest in it. Rather like Leica being the leader in rangefinder photography even though many use other versions .... As a non-Leica rangefinder user, I still learn an awful lot from the Leica-centered discussions.

VinceC
09-02-2005, 12:08
>>i must admit i'm having a hell of a time getting past my plateau of skills with photoshop.<<
I've been using PhotoShop off and on for 10 years now, and it was only a few weeks ago, in an unrelated discussion, that someone informed me of the importance of the weirdly named unsharp mask for scanned negs.

nomade
09-02-2005, 12:09
I think that's a great idea, specially that PS is a very powerfull and usefull tool for photographers to edit everything, corrections and stuff...I know my way in but there r many tricks i don't know...With some photoshop junkies, it'll be an excellent forum.

dmr
09-02-2005, 12:17
i'm open...i assume gimp is kinda like photoshop?

One of the Gimp developers that I coincidentally met said something like "The Gimp is what Photoshop wants to be when it grows up." :)

peter_n
09-02-2005, 12:29
Maybe a label like Digital Darkroom - Scanning/post-processing might do the trick?

T_om
09-02-2005, 13:04
One of the Gimp developers that I coincidentally met said something like "The Gimp is what Photoshop wants to be when it grows up." :)


You should have spoken to one of the brighter developers. :D

GIMP has a lot going for it but the primary attraction is the price... free.

If monetary concerns keep anyone from using PhotoShop, there are many *legal* ways around that obstacle. Many local Colleges and Jr. Colleges have PhotoShop classes available and along with your student ID you can get the full, uncrippled, version of PhotoShop at a VERY good price. That was the way I got my initial copy (Ver. 3 I think it was) and I have upgraded ever since as newer versions came out. PhotoShop REALLY hit its stride with Ver. 6 That blew the doors off any other program out there.

Adobe doesn't publicize this much, but you can even upgrade from a copy of "PhotoShop Elements" that comes bundled free with many digital camera packages. You have to call Adobe directly to do this but it is certainly an option.

One of the less well known image editors is Picture Window Pro by Digital Light & Color.

http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/

This was written by Johnathan Sachs. Those of you with computer backgrounds will instantly recognize THAT name. :) (He's the guy that wrote Lotus 1-2-3 for non-computer nerds.) Picture Window Pro is a powerful program, but yet is still inexpensive. I use one of his tools, Color Mechanic Pro, in PhotoShop ALL the time. I tried PW Pro and liked it MUCH better than the other PhotoShop alternatives out there, but I invested my "learning time" in PhotoShop and have never seriously considered going elsewhere. YMMV.

Tom

Edited To Add: To get the PS educational discount, all you have to be is a student. You do not have to be taking a "PhotoShop" class. I was taking classes in business (real estate) when I bought my initial copy of PS.

Todd.Hanz
09-02-2005, 13:08
I don't care which program as long as I can still use my big box of 8 Crayolas, BTW which two combine to make ochre? :D

JoeFriday
09-02-2005, 13:52
another very useful tool in PS is the Shadows/Highlight function which is sort of a simplified Levels control

or, for the non-purists, the Perspective and Skew functions which can nearly eliminate parallax in photos

Gabriel M.A.
09-02-2005, 14:13
So... would that be photoshopforum.com?

DougK
09-02-2005, 16:02
I think "digital darkroom" is useful to convey the overall steps of what we do to post-process images but when you're trying to find posts in an online forum, it's a little bit too broad for a category. I'd like to see separate forums for scanning, image editing, and printing. Each of those topics is large enough that there won't be an unacceptably large number of additional forums to keep track of yet are specific enough to focus the discussions and allow information to be found more readily.

My USD$0.02 worth :)

MacDaddy
09-02-2005, 16:21
BMATTOCK:
It will run SCREAMINGLY fast on Macs, too, since they use FreeBSD Unix as their underlying code base. How about going with the suggested "Digital Darkroom" and either sub-topics for each program or tags in the subject, as has been already suggested by worthy members? And Joe, GIMP is a Linux-based photo manipulation program like Photoshop that also includes a nifty printer manipulation program!

XAos
09-02-2005, 16:37
Gimp is great, it's one of the true smashing success stories of Linux, but ... it's still not photoshop yet.

djon
09-02-2005, 17:14
From what I've been seeing on B&W yahoo digital printing Forum, Photo.net digital darkroom, and inkjetart.com (to name 3), most discussion involves consumerism, little relates to technique...this is very different from wet darkroom chat. It's apples/oranges. I've found that wet darkroom/zone system/trad color printing skills are HUGE helps in digital printing, make everything far easier.

dmr
09-02-2005, 17:57
GIMP has a lot going for it but the primary attraction is the price... free.

If monetary concerns keep anyone from using PhotoShop, there are many *legal* ways around that obstacle. Many local Colleges and Jr. Colleges have PhotoShop classes available and along with your student ID you can get the full, uncrippled, version of PhotoShop at a VERY good price.

One of the most worthwhile investments I've ever made in this avocation is to get a full legal copy of Photoshop. (There is a running joke at work saying that there is no such thing as a legal copy of Photoshop.) :) This is version 5, but I'm thinking of upgrading since I've finally seen something (the healing brush) that would make that worthwhile.

I'm really glad to see the interest in a Photoshop (and related topics, of course) area here. When I first saw this thread and poll earlier this afternoon I wasn't so sure how it would be received, since my impression is that the "wet" darkroom is the preferred method here.

The combination of a negative scanner, Photoshop, and learning how to properly use it with a so-so digital printer, has given me the ability to do my own "enlarging" and to use the tools, dodging, burning, not to mention the unsharp mask (I could NEVER do that in a wet darkroom although they say it can be done) when I don't have the equipment or skill to do it the wet way. I can now make quite presentable 8+x10+ prints in full color and at a reasonable cost, something I could never do just a few years ago, and It's helped to renew my interest in photography.

I'm sure others share similar feelings.

Anyway, I'm glad to see the interest and I hope such a forum gets started. :)

Fedzilla_Bob
09-02-2005, 18:08
I would love it.

I use Photoshop daily for Web design and illustration. But I would like to know more about it's use in photography.

I have used it for retouching photos for commercial use. Yet I feel as though I still don't know enough about photographic applications for Photoshop.

For instance, I had recently joined a thread about "clipping" and found that my understanding of the issue was not in sync with that of another member. Sharing this info would allow me to better understand some of the vagaries that I have encountered.

Plus- I have a very cool sharpening technique I learned at a Canon digital user's forum. It allows for much better control over the sharpening effect. Wicked.

MP Guy
09-02-2005, 19:15
Ask and you shall receive.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61

Skinny McGee
09-02-2005, 20:06
the only thing I personally use photoshop for is to size . If I can't get it right with the camera I don't want it.

jlw
09-02-2005, 21:19
I use Photoshop a lot and usually find it useful to offer and receive tips on using it -- but I'd just as soon not see such a forum here.

It doesn't really have anything to do specifically with rangefinder cameras or rangefinder camera photography, does it?

I realize that many of us use it -- but many of us also use flush toilets, and I'm sure most of us would agree that a toilet forum wouldn't be apropos to RFF.

I also realize that the reason many people would like to see such a forum HERE is that this is such a nice, friendly place with helpful, knowledgeable people. But that's largely because rangefinder-camera photography is something of a "niche" pursuit, and niche occupants tend to be motivated to want to help those with whom they share something in common.

If RFF eventually were to morph into an "everything-about-photography" platform -- a direction in which a Photoshop forum certainly would be a step -- then it would attract a larger number of people who do not share our persecuted-minority (or at least neglected-minority) esprit de corps.

Sooner or later it would just turn into a clone of Photo.Net -- too big, too rude, too disputatious, too much. And then Jorge would have to go to all the trouble of starting it all over again!

So, sorry, I just don't think this is a good idea. In fact, I even wonder if we haven't strayed too far from the purpose of RFF in having a darkroom forum; I'm not advocating killing the darkroom forum, since many members find it useful, but I certainly don't think we want to stray any farther from our concentration on using, buying, selling, fixing, and enjoying rangefinder cameras and the style of photography they facilitate.

(And I say this even though I just bagged a good Photoshop tip off RFF! I just don't think we want to let the camel's nose any farther into the tent.)

T_om
09-03-2005, 13:34
the only thing I personally use photoshop for is to size . If I can't get it right with the camera I don't want it.


Skinny, this is in no way a slam at you but statements like this are just so far out of whack they absolutely must not be left unanswered because of the damage they can do to beginners in both digital AND wet darkrooms.

Do you REALLY think the 'wet' masters like Adams, Weston, Cunningham, etc. adhered to this creed? Of course not. They manipulated both the negative and the print to achieve the end product they "saw" in their mind's eye. Even shooters that did not process their own stuff relied on master printers to get the best from their negatives. Do you really think those master printers just stuck the negative in the carrier, clicked on the enlarger light for 15 seconds on #2 paper, and left it at that? Of course not.

And as for digital capture and image production, it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to make certain adjustments to control the final output or you are NOT producing the best quality image from your digital capture or scan. Period. There is no arguing this, the requirement is there and it is an inescapable and essential part of the digital workflow.

Anyway, I again hope you do not consider this in any way a personal attack on you or your photographic principals but I strongly disagree with the technical foundations of your comment.

Tom

T_om
09-03-2005, 13:47
I use Photoshop a lot and usually find it useful to offer and receive tips on using it -- but I'd just as soon not see such a forum here.

It doesn't really have anything to do specifically with rangefinder cameras or rangefinder camera photography, does it?

Sure it does. Not a single gallery on this website contains a wet print, every photo you see here is a digital image. The digital workflow *requires* that you manipulate the image to achieve the best quality end product.

Why would you not want to learn better ways to present your work in a digital medium?



I realize that many of us use it -- but many of us also use flush toilets, and I'm sure most of us would agree that a toilet forum wouldn't be apropos to RFF.Non sequitur. When flush toilets have an effect on what you display here I am certain that discussions of flush toilets will pop up in the forums.



So, sorry, I just don't think this is a good idea. In fact, I even wonder if we haven't strayed too far from the purpose of RFF in having a darkroom forum; I'm not advocating killing the darkroom forum, since many members find it useful, but I certainly don't think we want to stray any farther from our concentration on using, buying, selling, fixing, and enjoying rangefinder cameras and the style of photography they facilitate.
Read your last sentence again. The part about "using" these delightful cameras. Part of the "using" process is producing an image to actually look at and enjoy. Digital manipulation is required to accomplish that on this (and every other Internet) forum.

I would hope that members here would keep in mind the goal of photography, rangefinder, large format, digital, et al is to produce an image and not have this forum degenerate into an engineering discussion solely devoted to shutter wrinkles and CLA'ing old cameras.

To me, the essence of rangefinder photography is not the cameras themselves but the style of images they produce.

Tom

Stephan
09-03-2005, 13:49
I haven't read all of the thread but I'm definitely in favour of a photoshop section. Then I can point people there who really really need to be told how to resize their damn pictures for my screen for a start :D

And also we could maybe initiate a debate about how editing your photographs isn't dirty, and how its happens to all photographers once they hit puberty, even back in the blessed days of enlargers.

Stephan
09-03-2005, 13:58
I haven't voted because I don't think PhotoShop should be the only software included. I use Corel Photo-Paint 12 and like it. Bill has indicated a preference for GIMP.

I'd be in favor of a non-specific section devoted to digital picture manipulation programs rather than one aimed only toward PhotoShop. I realize that PhotoShop will be the major program discussed but it shouldn't be exclusive.

Just my opinion.

Walker

I agree, but photoshop has become a vernacular term to the point where I've heard it used on television here, whereas "corel photopainted images" arent something most people can identify.

And The Gimp is nice too :D

TPPhotog
09-03-2005, 14:00
Maybe a forum with a more generic title as there's PS, GIMP, PSP, NeatImage .... and that's just off the top of my head ;)

Stephan
09-03-2005, 14:03
Maybe a forum with a more generic title as there's PS, GIMP, PSP, NeatImage .... and that's just off the top of my head ;)

Yep, how about simply calling it "software" ? not very imaginative, but covers everything from MS Paint to DxO Raw ...

TPPhotog
09-03-2005, 14:07
I don't mind what it's called as long as it's obvious to people what it is.

I'm useless at coming up with names, just look at my login name :( LOL

jlw
09-03-2005, 14:48
I would hope that members here would keep in mind the goal of photography, rangefinder, large format, digital, et al is to produce an image and not have this forum degenerate into an engineering discussion solely devoted to shutter wrinkles and CLA'ing old cameras.

That may be the goal of photography, but it's not the goal of RFF.

To reiterate, one of the reasons this place works so well is that it does NOT try to be everything to everybody.


To me, the essence of rangefinder photography is not the cameras themselves but the style of images they produce.

Whatever that might be. If we were maintaining a traditional-process-photography forum, or a photography-with-nonstandard-cameras forum, or a documentary-photography forum, this viewpoint would be extremely apropos.

But we aren't. This is supposed to be a site about photography with rangefinder cameras, allowing us to concentrate on sharing solutions for the unique problems they raise and celebrating the unique opportunities they create.

That certainly does include discussions of CLAs and shutter wrinkles, when applied to specific models of RF cameras, because that clearly falls under the heading of 'solutions for unique problems.'

I'd say it would even include software discussions specific to digital cameras, such as the ongoing comparison we've got going on in the R-D 1 forum about various raw conversion options that might help us get the most out of that specific camera.

But when we get into Photoshop tutorials that could just as well apply to any type of digital image, and have nothing specific to do with rangefinder-camera photography, then I feel we've drifted off-topic and that we'll be diluting the benefits of RFF by doing so.

There are scads and scads of sites and forums devoted to nothing but using Photoshop, and there is a lot of great information on them. We can never do as good a job as those sites of presenting Photoshop info.

But those sites can never do as good a job as we can of presenting rangefinder-camera-photography info.

I feel we'll be more useful and beneficial to the photography community if we stick to what we're good at, and let others stick to what they're good at.

Natalia
09-03-2005, 15:37
Doesn't matter to me....I am sure there are folks who'd love to pick up a PS tip or two, but that can be found elsewhere. What sets this forum aside IMHO is the film photography in its purest form.....But whatever the big cheeses decide:)

Skinny McGee
09-03-2005, 17:08
Hey Tom,

I don't at all take it as a slam... I am a where of what the great photographers did or had done... When I had my dark room set up (before my daughter was born, which I hope I will do soon again ) I would do my dodging and burning and all that jazz.
Right now I am concentrating on getting it right in the camera.. In my opinion that is what using a manual rangefinder camera is about.... (This maybe just me), But I do enjoy going thru my neg. for what they are worth coming out of the camrea... I certainly do not condem anyone for using photoshop... I do not like superimposing and altering things away from the original photo....I think that it must have some place in ad's and such but not in realism rangefinder photography...



If film products become so digitaly altered then why not go to digital?

Skinny

T_om
09-03-2005, 20:15
First, thanks for understanding my comments were not in any way attacks on your shooting philosophy. That is one of the reasons I like this forum so much... we can debate ideas without attacking the people.

Second, this quote:
Right now I am concentrating on getting it right in the camera..
... is WAY different than this one "If I can't get it right with the camera I don't want it." :)

I, too, concentrate on getting it right "in camera". However, in a digital world getting it right in camera is not enough. It won't LOOK right unless it is further manipulated to correct the technical discrepancies that creep into the process from Capture->Presentation. It is just as much a 'nature of the beast' problem as dealing with film base fog, developer performance, or any other technical impediments in wet processes to producing the image you "saw" in your mind when you made the shot.

Tom

PS: Hope the recent unpleasant weather down your way caused you no problems. We had no adverse effects here in the Jacksonville area at all.

T_om
09-03-2005, 20:17
If film products become so digitaly altered then why not go to digital?

Skinny


Oops, I missed that one...

You already WENT 'digital' as soon as you posted a shot to your gallery. :)

Tom

djon
09-04-2005, 11:13
I've changed my mind, Vs poll. I think there should NOT be any sort of specific digital Forum.

There's a tremendous amount online already, Photo.net in particular. I've noticed that smaller forums are more likely to peddle products or false info because there aren't enough participants ready to jump in and correct them.

I happen to shoot old Canons and Leica, mostly very fast negative film (color & b&w), scan with Nikon V and Vuescan and with an Epson 3200 for medium/large format (not much), printing with an Epson 2200 and Epson pigments, mostly on Moab Entrada. I buy everything I can from www.inkjetart.com which has excellent tech support for Epson printing and scanning. Whew. I do everything the old fashioned way, by eyeball.

I think there are hundreds on RFF with valid questions and valid answers, but I think it'd be destructive to let this degenerate into digital product-specific topics/Forums. Whew. My opinion. :bang:

John Kelly
Albuquerque :bang:

Skinny McGee
09-04-2005, 11:54
Yes, Tom but I did not alter with photo shop

shaaktiman
09-11-2005, 01:14
Wow, this is clearly a topic that some people feel really strongly about. I am really impressed though, (as I always am) that despite differing viewpoints and strong opinions everyone in this forum is consistently polite and respectful.

One of the reasons that I participate here, as opposed to photo.net is precisely because of that shared enthusiasm and respect. I don't come here merely for the tips about rangefinder techniques but because we happen to have a good group of interesting and considerate posters, something that photo.net (and many other photo sites) are often lacking.

I do think that Jlw makes a good point, this is primarily a forum for rangefinder topics but I think that the line between rangefinder photography and other photographic subjects is very blurry. Personally I shoot film exclusively, process in my kitchen by hand and then scan it in and edit it in photoshop before making final b/w inkjet prints. If we are going to allow discussions of film preferences, processing tips and darkroom information then I don't see why photoshop is any less relevant. (I wouldn't be opposed to discussing Corel or any of the other applications, but psd is really the industry standard. In any case, most information regarding psd can be used in the other apps as most utilize the same principals; psd is just a convenient starting point.)

This sort of site will never attract hardcore psd users. The point has already been made that there are already adequate web resources for those people. But I would personally love to have a section of this forum that is devoted to exploring how psd can best be utilized to assist rangefinder users. (Just as we do with many other general photographic topics.)

It's inarguable that psd is becoming a standard tool that many photographers use daily. I am relatively new to photography as a hobby, but I have been using psd professionally for nearly 10 years. (Which is the main reason I chose to do my retouching and printing digitally instead of starting from scratch learning darkroom techniques, and I am sure that I'm not alone.) I am considered to be a pretty proficient psd user but am still constantly being taught new things by friends, forum posters and colleagues, some of them old pros, but many of them brand new interns or hobbyists. Photoshop's cool like that, there are 20 ways to do everything and there's always something worth learning that you never knew about before.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling post. Um... mark me down for "in favor." After all, this isn't the "film forum" or the "luddite photographers association" or anything, is it?

adam