Photoshop recommendations
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
:: E-mail to friend 
in <gja521$mn0$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>KatWoman wrote:
>
>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>> to see just what to do.
>>
>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
>
>That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
>doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
>find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
>of them have any idea what they're talking about.
I've personally found it pretty easy to look at a few video tutorials
and pick out which ones are the more credible and useful. My experience
with books has all too often been worse.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
  |
  |
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:24:53 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
> in <gja521$mn0$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>
>> KatWoman wrote:
>>
>>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>>> to see just what to do.
>>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
>> That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
>> doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
>> find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
>> of them have any idea what they're talking about.
>
> I've personally found it pretty easy to look at a few video tutorials
> and pick out which ones are the more credible and useful. My experience
> with books has all too often been worse.
YOU have... some n00b who plugs "photoshop tutorial" into a YouTube
search, though... maybe not so much.
| |
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:05:03 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
in <gjasgd$7bp$2@reader.motzarella.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:24:53 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <gja521$mn0$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>
>>> KatWoman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>>>> to see just what to do.
>>>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
>>> That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
>>> doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
>>> find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
>>> of them have any idea what they're talking about.
>>
>> I've personally found it pretty easy to look at a few video tutorials
>> and pick out which ones are the more credible and useful. My experience
>> with books has all too often been worse.
>
>YOU have... some n00b who plugs "photoshop tutorial" into a YouTube
>search, though... maybe not so much.
All I can say is that newbies I've referred to YouTube have learned
much, and without any real problems.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
in <gjasgd$7bp$2@reader.motzarella.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:24:53 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <gja521$mn0$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>
>>> KatWoman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>>>> to see just what to do.
>>>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
>>> That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
>>> doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
>>> find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
>>> of them have any idea what they're talking about.
>>
>> I've personally found it pretty easy to look at a few video tutorials
>> and pick out which ones are the more credible and useful. My experience
>> with books has all too often been worse.
>
>YOU have... some n00b who plugs "photoshop tutorial" into a YouTube
>search, though... maybe not so much.
All I can say is that newbies I've referred to YouTube have learned
much, and without any real problems.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org> wrote:
> In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
> "intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
> the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
> business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
> start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
> the best software available.
Professionals are very intelligent and support those products that
support them. They usually know one of the developers on a first name
basis and help guide the product toward their specific use.
Professionals use products that were there for them from day one and
stay there for them. For example, if you go to a major media event, the
major suppliers for professional photographers have support people there
to help the professional photographers.
In the US, Nikon has been the most common professional system because
Nikon has a major presence at all major media events. In Japan, Canon
is the most common professional system for the same reason there.
There have been a lot of great programs but where are they now?
Programs like SuperPaint. Photoshop has been the standard by which all
other programs are judged since day one. If photoshop won't do
something, there is a Photoshop plugin that will. It gets very
expensive to buy Photoshop and all of the Plugins, but if you are truly
a professional, you can't afford to not use them. Most Plugins are a
way to buy time. And if you are a professional, your time is worth
money.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net
> In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
> "intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
> the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
> business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
> start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
> the best software available.
Professionals are very intelligent and support those products that
support them. They usually know one of the developers on a first name
basis and help guide the product toward their specific use.
Professionals use products that were there for them from day one and
stay there for them. For example, if you go to a major media event, the
major suppliers for professional photographers have support people there
to help the professional photographers.
In the US, Nikon has been the most common professional system because
Nikon has a major presence at all major media events. In Japan, Canon
is the most common professional system for the same reason there.
There have been a lot of great programs but where are they now?
Programs like SuperPaint. Photoshop has been the standard by which all
other programs are judged since day one. If photoshop won't do
something, there is a Photoshop plugin that will. It gets very
expensive to buy Photoshop and all of the Plugins, but if you are truly
a professional, you can't afford to not use them. Most Plugins are a
way to buy time. And if you are a professional, your time is worth
money.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net
| |
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:03:07 -0500, Neil Jones
<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
<xdW5l.40014$sC4.10935@newsfe04.iad>:
>Leo Lichtman wrote:
>> "John Navas" wrote: $28 is too much?
>>> Thanks for wasting our time. (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I think you're being a little harsh, John.
It does sound harsher than I intended on re-reading -- my apologies --
but it still seems to me that in fairness to responders it should have
been made more clear at the beginning of the long thread that this was
little more than idle curiosity.
>> The posters to this thread were
>> not only responding to the OP, but also exchanging ideas among themselves.
That's a nice way to put it. LOL
>> I think many questions raised in such newsgroups, and this is a good
>> example, are informative to many others--they provide answers to questions
>> that many did not know how to ask.
There was certainly value to some, but to others it was a waste of time.
>Thanks for pointing this out. To John's credit who participated in a
>seperate thread, I ended up buying a Panasonic Lumix FZ28S which I love.
Good for you -- great camera!
> The pictures that I get from this camera are amazing. Suddenly, I
>decided to get more creative and started exploring Photoshop products.
>Ultimately, since I am the "Decider" ;-) I have to be careful about
>pocket busting software products. Even if it only costs $28. The
>hidden expense from jumping into new software is the learning curve and
>the time sink that is created. Lot of people don't realize the time
>sink in software products.
>My .02 cents.
>Thank you for the suggestions though.
I'm afraid I can't follow that logic -- it's dirt cheap and easy to
learn and use; you spent many times that time and money on the camera;
and you presumably need image processing software, so how could it be a
real obstacle? Regardless, I think that should have been made clear at
the beginning as a matter of respect to those you are asking to help
you.
>PS - BTW, John you are really good at searching products at discount
>sites which I never knew existed!
Thanks. Glad it worked out.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
<xdW5l.40014$sC4.10935@newsfe04.iad>:
>Leo Lichtman wrote:
>> "John Navas" wrote: $28 is too much?
>>> Thanks for wasting our time. (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I think you're being a little harsh, John.
It does sound harsher than I intended on re-reading -- my apologies --
but it still seems to me that in fairness to responders it should have
been made more clear at the beginning of the long thread that this was
little more than idle curiosity.
>> The posters to this thread were
>> not only responding to the OP, but also exchanging ideas among themselves.
That's a nice way to put it. LOL
>> I think many questions raised in such newsgroups, and this is a good
>> example, are informative to many others--they provide answers to questions
>> that many did not know how to ask.
There was certainly value to some, but to others it was a waste of time.
>Thanks for pointing this out. To John's credit who participated in a
>seperate thread, I ended up buying a Panasonic Lumix FZ28S which I love.
Good for you -- great camera!
> The pictures that I get from this camera are amazing. Suddenly, I
>decided to get more creative and started exploring Photoshop products.
>Ultimately, since I am the "Decider" ;-) I have to be careful about
>pocket busting software products. Even if it only costs $28. The
>hidden expense from jumping into new software is the learning curve and
>the time sink that is created. Lot of people don't realize the time
>sink in software products.
>My .02 cents.
>Thank you for the suggestions though.
I'm afraid I can't follow that logic -- it's dirt cheap and easy to
learn and use; you spent many times that time and money on the camera;
and you presumably need image processing software, so how could it be a
real obstacle? Regardless, I think that should have been made clear at
the beginning as a matter of respect to those you are asking to help
you.
>PS - BTW, John you are really good at searching products at discount
>sites which I never knew existed!
Thanks. Glad it worked out.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:48:34 -0500, Stephen Henning <pighash@aol.com>
wrote in <pighash-23EC99.11483429122008@news.isp.giganews.com>:
> BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org> wrote:
>
>> In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
>> "intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
>> the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
>> business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
>> start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
>> the best software available.
>
>Professionals are very intelligent and support those products that
>support them. They usually know one of the developers on a first name
>basis and help guide the product toward their specific use.
>Professionals use products that were there for them from day one and
>stay there for them. For example, if you go to a major media event, the
>major suppliers for professional photographers have support people there
>to help the professional photographers.
>
>In the US, Nikon has been the most common professional system because
>Nikon has a major presence at all major media events. In Japan, Canon
>is the most common professional system for the same reason there.
Canon dominates pro sports photography in the USA -- note all those
"white" lenses on the sidelines.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
wrote in <pighash-23EC99.11483429122008@news.isp.giganews.com>:
> BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org> wrote:
>
>> In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
>> "intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
>> the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
>> business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
>> start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
>> the best software available.
>
>Professionals are very intelligent and support those products that
>support them. They usually know one of the developers on a first name
>basis and help guide the product toward their specific use.
>Professionals use products that were there for them from day one and
>stay there for them. For example, if you go to a major media event, the
>major suppliers for professional photographers have support people there
>to help the professional photographers.
>
>In the US, Nikon has been the most common professional system because
>Nikon has a major presence at all major media events. In Japan, Canon
>is the most common professional system for the same reason there.
Canon dominates pro sports photography in the USA -- note all those
"white" lenses on the sidelines.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:05:03 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
> in <gjasgd$7bp$2@reader.motzarella.org>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:24:53 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>>> in <gja521$mn0$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>>
>>>> KatWoman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>>>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>>>>> to see just what to do.
>>>>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
>>>> That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
>>>> doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
>>>> find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
>>>> of them have any idea what they're talking about.
>>> I've personally found it pretty easy to look at a few video tutorials
>>> and pick out which ones are the more credible and useful. My experience
>>> with books has all too often been worse.
>> YOU have... some n00b who plugs "photoshop tutorial" into a YouTube
>> search, though... maybe not so much.
>
> All I can say is that newbies I've referred to YouTube have learned
> much, and without any real problems.
Yes, but you're probably referring them to videos that you've already
vetted. The original point quoted above was not that people have
problems learning from the videos, but that many of the videos they'll
stumble across are teaching poor techniques.
So now that person learns poor techniques, hacks together a few of his
own, creates his own video to teach those to others... and around it goes.
It's like someone being taught to drive by an uncle who has a stack of
moving violations as tall as he is... yeah, he'll still learn to drive,
but he's gonna pick up some bad habits and wrong ideas in the process.
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:05:03 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
> in <gjasgd$7bp$2@reader.motzarella.org>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:24:53 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>>> in <gja521$mn0$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>>
>>>> KatWoman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>>>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>>>>> to see just what to do.
>>>>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
>>>> That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
>>>> doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
>>>> find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
>>>> of them have any idea what they're talking about.
>>> I've personally found it pretty easy to look at a few video tutorials
>>> and pick out which ones are the more credible and useful. My experience
>>> with books has all too often been worse.
>> YOU have... some n00b who plugs "photoshop tutorial" into a YouTube
>> search, though... maybe not so much.
>
> All I can say is that newbies I've referred to YouTube have learned
> much, and without any real problems.
Yes, but you're probably referring them to videos that you've already
vetted. The original point quoted above was not that people have
problems learning from the videos, but that many of the videos they'll
stumble across are teaching poor techniques.
So now that person learns poor techniques, hacks together a few of his
own, creates his own video to teach those to others... and around it goes.
It's like someone being taught to drive by an uncle who has a stack of
moving violations as tall as he is... yeah, he'll still learn to drive,
but he's gonna pick up some bad habits and wrong ideas in the process.
| |
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:14:59 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
in <gjbeli$fa9$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:05:03 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <gjasgd$7bp$2@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:24:53 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> in <gja521$mn0$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> KatWoman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>>>>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>>>>>> to see just what to do.
>>>>>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
>>>>> That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
>>>>> doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
>>>>> find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
>>>>> of them have any idea what they're talking about.
>>>> I've personally found it pretty easy to look at a few video tutorials
>>>> and pick out which ones are the more credible and useful. My experience
>>>> with books has all too often been worse.
>>> YOU have... some n00b who plugs "photoshop tutorial" into a YouTube
>>> search, though... maybe not so much.
>>
>> All I can say is that newbies I've referred to YouTube have learned
>> much, and without any real problems.
>
>Yes, but you're probably referring them to videos that you've already
>vetted. The original point quoted above was not that people have
>problems learning from the videos, but that many of the videos they'll
>stumble across are teaching poor techniques.
Examples please.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
in <gjbeli$fa9$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:05:03 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <gjasgd$7bp$2@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:24:53 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> in <gja521$mn0$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> KatWoman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>>>>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>>>>>> to see just what to do.
>>>>>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
>>>>> That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
>>>>> doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
>>>>> find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
>>>>> of them have any idea what they're talking about.
>>>> I've personally found it pretty easy to look at a few video tutorials
>>>> and pick out which ones are the more credible and useful. My experience
>>>> with books has all too often been worse.
>>> YOU have... some n00b who plugs "photoshop tutorial" into a YouTube
>>> search, though... maybe not so much.
>>
>> All I can say is that newbies I've referred to YouTube have learned
>> much, and without any real problems.
>
>Yes, but you're probably referring them to videos that you've already
>vetted. The original point quoted above was not that people have
>problems learning from the videos, but that many of the videos they'll
>stumble across are teaching poor techniques.
Examples please.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:14:59 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:05:03 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <gjasgd$7bp$2@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:24:53 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> in <gja521$mn0$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> KatWoman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>>>>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>>>>>> to see just what to do.
>>>>>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
>>>>> That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
>>>>> doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
>>>>> find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
>>>>> of them have any idea what they're talking about.
>>>> I've personally found it pretty easy to look at a few video tutorials
>>>> and pick out which ones are the more credible and useful. My experience
>>>> with books has all too often been worse.
>>> YOU have... some n00b who plugs "photoshop tutorial" into a YouTube
>>> search, though... maybe not so much.
>>
>> All I can say is that newbies I've referred to YouTube have learned
>> much, and without any real problems.
>
>Yes, but you're probably referring them to videos that you've already
>vetted. The original point quoted above was not that people have
>problems learning from the videos, but that many of the videos they'll
>stumble across are teaching poor techniques.
>
>So now that person learns poor techniques, hacks together a few of his
>own, creates his own video to teach those to others... and around it goes.
>
>It's like someone being taught to drive by an uncle who has a stack of
>moving violations as tall as he is... yeah, he'll still learn to drive,
>but he's gonna pick up some bad habits and wrong ideas in the process.
This is true of any learning experience. I have downloaded quite a few pirated
photography books. I wanted to see what is being "taught" out there in
contemporary photography books on the store shelves. They only pirate and upload
the most expensive and comprehensive ones, making it worth the pirate's effort.
I deleted them all after reading through them. I wouldn't want anyone that I
know to learn from those authors. The authors were wrong 90% of the time on all
subjects they covered. I guess if they can't sell their photography then they
write books on how to do photography, finally making use of all their
unmarketable "example" photos. If they can't sell their photos as a
photographer, apart from putting them in "how to" books, then there's a good
reason it shouldn't be in a book on teaching photography either.
"Those who can't, teach."
This is probably why I also find the very best editing software. I don't depend
on others to teach me how to use any software. I'm not stuck in a last century
software-rut just because everyone else uses the same outdated thing. I'm
willing to try any new editor that comes along. Many of them easily surpass what
is "popular" or considered "best" by all others. (I'd share my list of new
favorites but ... it's more fun watching all these online amateurs wallow in
what they think is still "best".)
Those who learn best and know best are those who have the capability to explore
on their own and teach themselves. In the creative arts you don't hone your
creativity by mindlessly aping others.
"Learning creativity from others" is about as oxymoronic as it gets.
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:05:03 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <gjasgd$7bp$2@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:24:53 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> in <gja521$mn0$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> KatWoman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>>>>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>>>>>> to see just what to do.
>>>>>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
>>>>> That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
>>>>> doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
>>>>> find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
>>>>> of them have any idea what they're talking about.
>>>> I've personally found it pretty easy to look at a few video tutorials
>>>> and pick out which ones are the more credible and useful. My experience
>>>> with books has all too often been worse.
>>> YOU have... some n00b who plugs "photoshop tutorial" into a YouTube
>>> search, though... maybe not so much.
>>
>> All I can say is that newbies I've referred to YouTube have learned
>> much, and without any real problems.
>
>Yes, but you're probably referring them to videos that you've already
>vetted. The original point quoted above was not that people have
>problems learning from the videos, but that many of the videos they'll
>stumble across are teaching poor techniques.
>
>So now that person learns poor techniques, hacks together a few of his
>own, creates his own video to teach those to others... and around it goes.
>
>It's like someone being taught to drive by an uncle who has a stack of
>moving violations as tall as he is... yeah, he'll still learn to drive,
>but he's gonna pick up some bad habits and wrong ideas in the process.
This is true of any learning experience. I have downloaded quite a few pirated
photography books. I wanted to see what is being "taught" out there in
contemporary photography books on the store shelves. They only pirate and upload
the most expensive and comprehensive ones, making it worth the pirate's effort.
I deleted them all after reading through them. I wouldn't want anyone that I
know to learn from those authors. The authors were wrong 90% of the time on all
subjects they covered. I guess if they can't sell their photography then they
write books on how to do photography, finally making use of all their
unmarketable "example" photos. If they can't sell their photos as a
photographer, apart from putting them in "how to" books, then there's a good
reason it shouldn't be in a book on teaching photography either.
"Those who can't, teach."
This is probably why I also find the very best editing software. I don't depend
on others to teach me how to use any software. I'm not stuck in a last century
software-rut just because everyone else uses the same outdated thing. I'm
willing to try any new editor that comes along. Many of them easily surpass what
is "popular" or considered "best" by all others. (I'd share my list of new
favorites but ... it's more fun watching all these online amateurs wallow in
what they think is still "best".)
Those who learn best and know best are those who have the capability to explore
on their own and teach themselves. In the creative arts you don't hone your
creativity by mindlessly aping others.
"Learning creativity from others" is about as oxymoronic as it gets.
| |
|
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:48:34 -0500, Stephen Henning <pighash@aol.com> wrote:
> BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org> wrote:
>
>> In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
>> "intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
>> the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
>> business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
>> start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
>> the best software available.
>
>Professionals are very intelligent and support those products that
>support them. They usually know one of the developers on a first name
>basis and help guide the product toward their specific use.
>Professionals use products that were there for them from day one and
>stay there for them. For example, if you go to a major media event, the
>major suppliers for professional photographers have support people there
>to help the professional photographers.
>
>In the US, Nikon has been the most common professional system because
>Nikon has a major presence at all major media events. In Japan, Canon
>is the most common professional system for the same reason there.
>
>There have been a lot of great programs but where are they now?
>Programs like SuperPaint. Photoshop has been the standard by which all
>other programs are judged since day one. If photoshop won't do
>something, there is a Photoshop plugin that will. It gets very
>expensive to buy Photoshop and all of the Plugins, but if you are truly
>a professional, you can't afford to not use them. Most Plugins are a
>way to buy time. And if you are a professional, your time is worth
>money.
I don't think I've ever read a bigger crock of nonsense conveyed in so few words
before.
> BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org> wrote:
>
>> In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
>> "intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
>> the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
>> business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
>> start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
>> the best software available.
>
>Professionals are very intelligent and support those products that
>support them. They usually know one of the developers on a first name
>basis and help guide the product toward their specific use.
>Professionals use products that were there for them from day one and
>stay there for them. For example, if you go to a major media event, the
>major suppliers for professional photographers have support people there
>to help the professional photographers.
>
>In the US, Nikon has been the most common professional system because
>Nikon has a major presence at all major media events. In Japan, Canon
>is the most common professional system for the same reason there.
>
>There have been a lot of great programs but where are they now?
>Programs like SuperPaint. Photoshop has been the standard by which all
>other programs are judged since day one. If photoshop won't do
>something, there is a Photoshop plugin that will. It gets very
>expensive to buy Photoshop and all of the Plugins, but if you are truly
>a professional, you can't afford to not use them. Most Plugins are a
>way to buy time. And if you are a professional, your time is worth
>money.
I don't think I've ever read a bigger crock of nonsense conveyed in so few words
before.
| |
|
Yup, try GIMP before you rush out and pay, it may do everything you
want and more. It's basically a clone of Photoshop 6.
Go to http://www.GIMP.org
-------------------
http://www.FotoTrix.com (Photo Tricks)
want and more. It's basically a clone of Photoshop 6.
Go to http://www.GIMP.org
-------------------
http://www.FotoTrix.com (Photo Tricks)
| |
|
In article
<b6618cea-3155-492e-9b95-d21024ab8a43@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Foto Trix <nerdful@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yup, try GIMP before you rush out and pay, it may do everything you
> want and more. It's basically a clone of Photoshop 6.
photoshop 6 is about ten years old. nothing like being on the cutting
edge.
<b6618cea-3155-492e-9b95-d21024ab8a43@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Foto Trix <nerdful@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yup, try GIMP before you rush out and pay, it may do everything you
> want and more. It's basically a clone of Photoshop 6.
photoshop 6 is about ten years old. nothing like being on the cutting
edge.
| |
|
nospam wrote:
> In article
> <b6618cea-3155-492e-9b95-d21024ab8a43@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Foto Trix <nerdful@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yup, try GIMP before you rush out and pay, it may do everything you
>> want and more. It's basically a clone of Photoshop 6.
>
> photoshop 6 is about ten years old. nothing like being on the cutting
> edge.
Just depends on what you need. For many, Picasa (from google, free and very
easy) is overkill.
--
Cheers, Bev
*****************************************************
Nothing is so stupid that you can't find somebody who
did it at least once if you look hard enough.
> In article
> <b6618cea-3155-492e-9b95-d21024ab8a43@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Foto Trix <nerdful@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yup, try GIMP before you rush out and pay, it may do everything you
>> want and more. It's basically a clone of Photoshop 6.
>
> photoshop 6 is about ten years old. nothing like being on the cutting
> edge.
Just depends on what you need. For many, Picasa (from google, free and very
easy) is overkill.
--
Cheers, Bev
*****************************************************
Nothing is so stupid that you can't find somebody who
did it at least once if you look hard enough.
| |
|
Neil Jones wrote:
> harikeo wrote:
>> harikeo wrote:
>>> Neil Jones wrote:
>>>> Always Has An Opinion wrote:
>>>>> Go cheap. Photoshop CS2 (if you can find it) or CS3 will be
>>>>> sufficient. There's a ton of plugins which make things easier, but
>>>>> I've never needed them. I've retouched photos, created 3D art and
>>>>> much more with just the basic package.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can find a lot of tutorials on YouTube as well.
>>>>
>>>> Great idea! I went to Amazon and looked up for CS3 but found that it
>>>> costs as much as CS4 (even in the used section). They were listed at
>>>> $649 (USD). Some of the craigslist sellers listed it for $100 to $150.
>>>> I don't know if these are bootlegged packed with trojans in them. I am
>>>> suspicious because of the price difference between the new version and
>>>> used version.
>>>>
>>>> What are some good sources to buy cheap/used software like CS3?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you once again.
>>>>
>>>> NJ
>>> Howabout Photoshop Elements 7 unless you want/need the full-blown PS CSx?
>>>
>>> <mind the rap on the earl>
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65026616-Photoshop-Elements-7/dp /B001DMBWXS/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1 230128042&sr=8-1
>>>
>>>
>> I forgot to mention Gimp 2 which is free http://www.gimp.org/
>
> I do have GIMP 2 but haven't done much with it. Photoshop seems to be
> have a big following and easier to get some help.
>
> NJ
>
> PS - My digital camera also comes with some software which most people
> (including myself) haven't heard of before. The software seems to be ok
> but difficult to get any help.
If I were you, I would buy Photoshop Elements 7.
It has practically all of the features of full PS that a novice needs.
In fact it is made for Novices. Whereas, full PS is made for
Professionals. The look and feel of Elements and PS is very similar.
So if, and when, you decide to go with full PS, the transition is
painless.
You are right that one of the advantages of PS (or Elements) is that a
lot of Help and Tutorials are available on the internet.
Even So, I would purchase a self help book on the subject like
"Classroom in a Book", by the Adobe Staff. Photo Editors, especially
powerful and versatile ones are mystifying to the novice. It helps a lot
to learn the jargon and how to use the editing TOOLS corectly.
A good book will get you started on the right foot.
WARNING: Photo Editing can be addictive.
Bob Williams
> harikeo wrote:
>> harikeo wrote:
>>> Neil Jones wrote:
>>>> Always Has An Opinion wrote:
>>>>> Go cheap. Photoshop CS2 (if you can find it) or CS3 will be
>>>>> sufficient. There's a ton of plugins which make things easier, but
>>>>> I've never needed them. I've retouched photos, created 3D art and
>>>>> much more with just the basic package.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can find a lot of tutorials on YouTube as well.
>>>>
>>>> Great idea! I went to Amazon and looked up for CS3 but found that it
>>>> costs as much as CS4 (even in the used section). They were listed at
>>>> $649 (USD). Some of the craigslist sellers listed it for $100 to $150.
>>>> I don't know if these are bootlegged packed with trojans in them. I am
>>>> suspicious because of the price difference between the new version and
>>>> used version.
>>>>
>>>> What are some good sources to buy cheap/used software like CS3?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you once again.
>>>>
>>>> NJ
>>> Howabout Photoshop Elements 7 unless you want/need the full-blown PS CSx?
>>>
>>> <mind the rap on the earl>
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65026616-Photoshop-Elements-7/dp /B001DMBWXS/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1 230128042&sr=8-1
>>>
>>>
>> I forgot to mention Gimp 2 which is free http://www.gimp.org/
>
> I do have GIMP 2 but haven't done much with it. Photoshop seems to be
> have a big following and easier to get some help.
>
> NJ
>
> PS - My digital camera also comes with some software which most people
> (including myself) haven't heard of before. The software seems to be ok
> but difficult to get any help.
If I were you, I would buy Photoshop Elements 7.
It has practically all of the features of full PS that a novice needs.
In fact it is made for Novices. Whereas, full PS is made for
Professionals. The look and feel of Elements and PS is very similar.
So if, and when, you decide to go with full PS, the transition is
painless.
You are right that one of the advantages of PS (or Elements) is that a
lot of Help and Tutorials are available on the internet.
Even So, I would purchase a self help book on the subject like
"Classroom in a Book", by the Adobe Staff. Photo Editors, especially
powerful and versatile ones are mystifying to the novice. It helps a lot
to learn the jargon and how to use the editing TOOLS corectly.
A good book will get you started on the right foot.
WARNING: Photo Editing can be addictive.
Bob Williams
| |
|
In rec.photo.digital Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote:
> KatWoman wrote:
>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>> to see just what to do.
>>
>>
>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
> That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
> doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
> find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
> of them have any idea what they're talking about.
Just like cameras :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
> KatWoman wrote:
>>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>>> to see just what to do.
>>
>>
>> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
> That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
> doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
> find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
> of them have any idea what they're talking about.
Just like cameras :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
| |
|
In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
> are saved.
>
> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
> photos? What would be the price range?
>
> Thank you in advance for any help.
>
> Happy Holidays!
>
> NJ
>
> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from Photoshop?
You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
Suggest you start off with that, and be sure to buy the book "Photoshop
Elements 9 for Digital Photographers
I reckon those two will keep you busy for a year or more at least, and
probably much much longer
David
Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
> are saved.
>
> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
> photos? What would be the price range?
>
> Thank you in advance for any help.
>
> Happy Holidays!
>
> NJ
>
> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from Photoshop?
You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
Suggest you start off with that, and be sure to buy the book "Photoshop
Elements 9 for Digital Photographers
I reckon those two will keep you busy for a year or more at least, and
probably much much longer
David
| |
|
David escribió:
> In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
> Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
>> are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>
>> Thank you in advance for any help.
>>
>> Happy Holidays!
>>
>> NJ
>>
>> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from
>> Photoshop?
>
> You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
> want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
UFRaw + The Gimp will cost you nothing but are a tad harder to learn, I
believe.
--
Pablo
> In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
> Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
>> are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>
>> Thank you in advance for any help.
>>
>> Happy Holidays!
>>
>> NJ
>>
>> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from
>> Photoshop?
>
> You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
> want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
UFRaw + The Gimp will cost you nothing but are a tad harder to learn, I
believe.
--
Pablo
| |
|
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:50:07 +1000, David <admin@confidential.com.au>
wrote:
>In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
> Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
>> are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>
>> Thank you in advance for any help.
>>
>> Happy Holidays!
>>
>> NJ
>>
>> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from Photoshop?
>
>You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
>want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
>
>Suggest you start off with that, and be sure to buy the book "Photoshop
>Elements 9 for Digital Photographers
>
>I reckon those two will keep you busy for a year or more at least, and
>probably much much longer
>
Those of us who use Adobe Photoshop (full version), and have done so
for years, will admit - if we are honest - that we only use half to
two-thirds of the tools and techniques available. There are
drop-downs we never open.
Adobe Elements now has almost all of the tools we routinely use in the
full version. The problem has been that there has always been a lag
between what is offered in the full version and what is offered in
Elements. All the new toys (think "content aware") are in the full
version, and Elements gets them a few years later.
However, unless you are going to use the program for professional
reasons, I think Adobe Elements is the best choice for the
photographer's first foray into advanced post-processing. "Advanced"
in that the basic post work can be done in IrfanView or any number of
free, basic programs.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
wrote:
>In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
> Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
>> are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>
>> Thank you in advance for any help.
>>
>> Happy Holidays!
>>
>> NJ
>>
>> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from Photoshop?
>
>You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
>want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
>
>Suggest you start off with that, and be sure to buy the book "Photoshop
>Elements 9 for Digital Photographers
>
>I reckon those two will keep you busy for a year or more at least, and
>probably much much longer
>
Those of us who use Adobe Photoshop (full version), and have done so
for years, will admit - if we are honest - that we only use half to
two-thirds of the tools and techniques available. There are
drop-downs we never open.
Adobe Elements now has almost all of the tools we routinely use in the
full version. The problem has been that there has always been a lag
between what is offered in the full version and what is offered in
Elements. All the new toys (think "content aware") are in the full
version, and Elements gets them a few years later.
However, unless you are going to use the program for professional
reasons, I think Adobe Elements is the best choice for the
photographer's first foray into advanced post-processing. "Advanced"
in that the basic post work can be done in IrfanView or any number of
free, basic programs.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
| |
|
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:50:07 +1000, David wrote:
> In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
> Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures.
>> For the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them
>> with touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and
>> the rest are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>
>> Thank you in advance for any help.
>>
>> Happy Holidays!
>>
>> NJ
>>
>> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from
>> Photoshop?
>
> You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
> want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
>
> Suggest you start off with that, and be sure to buy the book "Photoshop
> Elements 9 for Digital Photographers
>
> I reckon those two will keep you busy for a year or more at least, and
> probably much much longer
>
> David
Second the suggestion to try GIMP (and UFRAW if you're doing raw
conversions) before you buy photoshop. You may very well find that they
will do all you need - at least for some time. Won't cost you a penny to
try them - won't even cost a penny if you decide to use them forever.
plugins are additional applications to add more capabilities or make
various processes easier to apply. At least in the case of GIMP, they
won't cost you anything either.
> In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
> Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures.
>> For the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them
>> with touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and
>> the rest are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>
>> Thank you in advance for any help.
>>
>> Happy Holidays!
>>
>> NJ
>>
>> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from
>> Photoshop?
>
> You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
> want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
>
> Suggest you start off with that, and be sure to buy the book "Photoshop
> Elements 9 for Digital Photographers
>
> I reckon those two will keep you busy for a year or more at least, and
> probably much much longer
>
> David
Second the suggestion to try GIMP (and UFRAW if you're doing raw
conversions) before you buy photoshop. You may very well find that they
will do all you need - at least for some time. Won't cost you a penny to
try them - won't even cost a penny if you decide to use them forever.
plugins are additional applications to add more capabilities or make
various processes easier to apply. At least in the case of GIMP, they
won't cost you anything either.
| |
|
On Jun 21, 9:25 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:50:07 +1000, David <ad...@confidential.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1...@newsfe13.iad>,
> > Neil Jones <castellan2004-nsc...@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hi,
>
> >> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
> >> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
> >> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
> >> are saved.
>
> >> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
> >> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
> >> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost..
> >> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
> >> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
> >> photos? What would be the price range?
>
> >> Thank you in advance for any help.
>
> >> Happy Holidays!
>
> >> NJ
>
> >> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from Photoshop?
>
> >You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
> >want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
>
> >Suggest you start off with that, and be sure to buy the book "Photoshop
> >Elements 9 for Digital Photographers
>
> >I reckon those two will keep you busy for a year or more at least, and
> >probably much much longer
>
> Those of us who use Adobe Photoshop (full version), and have done so
> for years, will admit - if we are honest - that we only use half to
> two-thirds of the tools and techniques available. There are
> drop-downs we never open.
That's true. I haven't touched "levels" in years, for example.
And the font tools have nothing to do with photography.
But it's a different set for each of us; and most serious users
use a bunch of things that aren't in Elements or the Gimp,
I'm afraid.
At least that was true in the past; which is how I ended
up being a Photoshop user (I've used Corel Photo Paint,
Paint Shop Pro, The Gimp, and Picture Window Pro,
but at this point Photoshop has displaced all of
those. I use Bibble Pro for batch processing larger
sets of photos.)
For me, adjustment layers, and 16-bit adjustment
layers at that, were the killer ap. I really like the
lossless editing approach, and those (with layer
masks) are the thing that really make it possible.
This is, if anything, MORE important to a
beginner -- the ability to rethink some earlier
choices without throwing out all the work since is
more valuable while you're learning.
I believe adjustment layers has made it into Elements
now. Not sure if handles 16-bit yet. If I were starting
today, that might be just the thing.
Looks like the Gimp developers keep talking
about adjustment layers, but haven't done
anything about them yet (at least haven't
released anything yet).
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:50:07 +1000, David <ad...@confidential.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1...@newsfe13.iad>,
> > Neil Jones <castellan2004-nsc...@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hi,
>
> >> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
> >> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
> >> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
> >> are saved.
>
> >> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
> >> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
> >> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost..
> >> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
> >> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
> >> photos? What would be the price range?
>
> >> Thank you in advance for any help.
>
> >> Happy Holidays!
>
> >> NJ
>
> >> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from Photoshop?
>
> >You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
> >want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
>
> >Suggest you start off with that, and be sure to buy the book "Photoshop
> >Elements 9 for Digital Photographers
>
> >I reckon those two will keep you busy for a year or more at least, and
> >probably much much longer
>
> Those of us who use Adobe Photoshop (full version), and have done so
> for years, will admit - if we are honest - that we only use half to
> two-thirds of the tools and techniques available. There are
> drop-downs we never open.
That's true. I haven't touched "levels" in years, for example.
And the font tools have nothing to do with photography.
But it's a different set for each of us; and most serious users
use a bunch of things that aren't in Elements or the Gimp,
I'm afraid.
At least that was true in the past; which is how I ended
up being a Photoshop user (I've used Corel Photo Paint,
Paint Shop Pro, The Gimp, and Picture Window Pro,
but at this point Photoshop has displaced all of
those. I use Bibble Pro for batch processing larger
sets of photos.)
For me, adjustment layers, and 16-bit adjustment
layers at that, were the killer ap. I really like the
lossless editing approach, and those (with layer
masks) are the thing that really make it possible.
This is, if anything, MORE important to a
beginner -- the ability to rethink some earlier
choices without throwing out all the work since is
more valuable while you're learning.
I believe adjustment layers has made it into Elements
now. Not sure if handles 16-bit yet. If I were starting
today, that might be just the thing.
Looks like the Gimp developers keep talking
about adjustment layers, but haven't done
anything about them yet (at least haven't
released anything yet).
| |
|
On 2011-06-21 00:50 , David wrote:
> In article<eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
> Neil Jones<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
>> are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
Photoshop Elements will cover you well.
You can download and try it for free for a month.
Ignore The GIMP. Seductive pricing for software worth the price.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
> In article<eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
> Neil Jones<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
>> are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
Photoshop Elements will cover you well.
You can download and try it for free for a month.
Ignore The GIMP. Seductive pricing for software worth the price.
--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
| |
|
> Neil Jones<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
>> are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>
>> Thank you in advance for any help.
If you have a gmail account, you might want to try picasa. It's free,
it does most basic things really well, and you get a 1-GB website to
post them for each gmail account. I'd like more 'straightening'
capability, but I'm unwilling to feed photos through gimp in order to
get it.
I normally upload photos from my SD card to my computer, and then copy
all the untouched originals to a separate subdirectory. Easy peasy!
Give it a shot, it might do everything you want.
--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
because I have a pet halibut? --Monty Python
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
>> are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>
>> Thank you in advance for any help.
If you have a gmail account, you might want to try picasa. It's free,
it does most basic things really well, and you get a 1-GB website to
post them for each gmail account. I'd like more 'straightening'
capability, but I'm unwilling to feed photos through gimp in order to
get it.
I normally upload photos from my SD card to my computer, and then copy
all the untouched originals to a separate subdirectory. Easy peasy!
Give it a shot, it might do everything you want.
--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why should I be tarred with the epithet "loony" merely
because I have a pet halibut? --Monty Python
| |
|
Alan Browne escribió:
> Ignore The GIMP.
Is that it? Or do you have something intelligent to add?
--
Pablo
> Ignore The GIMP.
Is that it? Or do you have something intelligent to add?
--
Pablo
| |
|
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--8323328-386121485-1308677140=:26502
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Pablo wrote:
> David escribi=C3=B3:
>
>> In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
>> Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. Fo=
r
>>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them wit=
h
>>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the res=
t
>>> are saved.
>>>
>>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance for any help.
>>>
>>> Happy Holidays!
>>>
>>> NJ
>>>
>>> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from
>>> Photoshop?
>>
>> You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
>> want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
>
> UFRaw + The Gimp will cost you nothing but are a tad harder to learn, I
> believe.
>
GIMP is fine for me, but I've never used anything else. I suspect one
complication is that most people have experience first with Photoshop, so
at the very least they have to deal with the unfamiliar if moving to GIMP.
I don't find anything lacking with GIMP, but I'm hardly the type to do all
that much with it. I oddly enough bought at a used booksale a while back
a "Dummies Guide to Photoshop", not to learn Photoshop, but to get a
handle on what one might do with photo manipulation, if you haven't done
it you can't miss it. I know I found one "neat thing" and was promptly
able to find a plugin for GIMP to do that, so I imagine there is much out
there just waiting for people to need it.
Michael
--8323328-386121485-1308677140=:26502--
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--8323328-386121485-1308677140=:26502
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Pablo wrote:
> David escribi=C3=B3:
>
>> In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
>> Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. Fo=
r
>>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them wit=
h
>>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the res=
t
>>> are saved.
>>>
>>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance for any help.
>>>
>>> Happy Holidays!
>>>
>>> NJ
>>>
>>> PS - What are plugins? Do you need to buy them separately from
>>> Photoshop?
>>
>> You might find that Photoshop Elements will do just about everything you
>> want, and its about a thousand dollars cheaper.
>
> UFRaw + The Gimp will cost you nothing but are a tad harder to learn, I
> believe.
>
GIMP is fine for me, but I've never used anything else. I suspect one
complication is that most people have experience first with Photoshop, so
at the very least they have to deal with the unfamiliar if moving to GIMP.
I don't find anything lacking with GIMP, but I'm hardly the type to do all
that much with it. I oddly enough bought at a used booksale a while back
a "Dummies Guide to Photoshop", not to learn Photoshop, but to get a
handle on what one might do with photo manipulation, if you haven't done
it you can't miss it. I know I found one "neat thing" and was promptly
able to find a plugin for GIMP to do that, so I imagine there is much out
there just waiting for people to need it.
Michael
--8323328-386121485-1308677140=:26502--
| |
|
Alan Browne wrote:
> Ignore The GIMP. Seductive pricing for software worth the price.
Trying to justify to yourself the ridiculous price that you'll pay for
software that is no more capable for 99% of users than the free alternatives
again, eh Alan.
--
sid
RLU 300284
2010.2
> Ignore The GIMP. Seductive pricing for software worth the price.
Trying to justify to yourself the ridiculous price that you'll pay for
software that is no more capable for 99% of users than the free alternatives
again, eh Alan.
--
sid
RLU 300284
2010.2
| |
|
| Pages (4): [ « ‹ 1 2 3 4] | |
| Previous Topic: | BRUSH |
| Next Topic: | Changing background color -- erase tool (PS, CS4) |
Adobe Photoshop plug-ins, tools, tutorials and user discussions