Are we losing interest

Started Mar 3, 2012 | Discussions thread
Contributing MemberPosts: 561Gear list
Re: Hope we don't make the forum's nterests too narrow
In reply to tom60634, Mar 8, 2012

Wow Tom that's an angry post! Not sure if it's all directed at me or whether it's a scatter gun.

I see your rants re. other posters' poor use of the forum, the asking of unnecessary questions, producers of bad plug-ins, OPs who don't reply or give thanks, Lightroom, parasitic producers of ineffective software. I don't plead guilty to any of those sins.

tom60634 wrote:

Re: Hope we don't make the forum's nterests too narrow

You've hit the nail on the head, a lot maybe most, of the posters here believe that the forum topics have become much too broad and need to be narrowed . For instance look at all the posts re: Lightroom. In the News section there are two articles describing the new Lightroom, one of them a review, at this time at least 365 comments have been made in the news section. Why are people asking questions here that have been or are being answered in the DPR news section? Why are technical questions or better yet cost and payment procedure questions posted here? Please, is filled with forums that actually have knowledgeable people that are paid to answer questions and assist us. Asking technical questions on a new product,in this forum,can almost be compared to the blind leading the blind. Most answers that are given are basic speculations.

I worry that some of the present regulars would find themselves not welcome if it was made too narrow. How would you define it? Do you think HDR, OOB, smudging and other artwork would fit in?

rambler35 wrote:

I don't really understand the distinction some people here are making between the use of Photoshop (good) and Lightroom, specialist software, plug-ins (all bad). All should be up for discussion if they're used for retouching.

The distinction is a sense of craftsmanship. The older members have become knowledgeable and skillful. There is little craftsmanship in opening a file and having thousands of dollars worth of plugins edit a file. The more insulting part of this is when the plugins don't live up to expectations and people post here expecting members to assist them with their self-made problems.

LR seems to be on your dislike list but I'm sure many of our most respected retouchers must use LR or ACR to initially develop raw files.

For example, Lightroom is a 21st century program devised with photographers' workflows in mind. Both amateur and professional photographers use it to develop and retouch their photos (and some of them use it exclusively), and there are certain tools in Lightroom/ACR which are actually preferred to their equivalents in Photoshop.

At the risk of starting a shouting match, Lightroom is not all that you've made it up to be. It is Adobe Camera Raw with a clumsy library type sorting program, replacing Bridge's functions.

Yes no need to shout. You're allowed to state an opinion, as am I. But as you know, many people here have said they love LR. Others dislike it.

Likewise, some specialist software and plug-ins have, for some work, routines which are more sophisticated and effective than their counterparts in Photoshop.

Reread and rethink your statements re: sophisticated and effective. Many of these programs and plugins could not operate without Photoshop, they are almost parasitical with their dependence on Photoshop.

I'm not responsible for people spending a lot of money on, say, Nik software and telling us here how thrilled they are with it. Direct your ire to them, not me.

I see programs such as those from Topaz being derided as being composed merely of buttons to press and sliders to slide -- but surely Photoshop itself is, in effect, an assemblage of routines, plug-ins and has it's fair share of buttons and sliders to make it more user-friendly.

You've made no point.

My point is that Topaz programs get criticised for having dumbed down sliders and buttons while apparently it's OK for Photoshop to have them for similar tools > >

Yes, I appreciate the enormous power and potential of Photoshop. I admire the knowledge and skill of the experts who can squeeze the last ounce of goodness from, say, PS7. But time moves on, new techniques appear as software and computers become more powerful so we use the best resources (of which Photoshop, of course, is still a very important one) to get from A to B.

That's not to say I'm against learning these old, well-tried, respected skills -- ideally I'd like to have that knowledge to have a choice of which methods I use. But just as I might have an interest in calligraphy, it doen't mean I do all my writing with a quill pen.

You're reference to old, well-tried and respected skills and particularly the use of a quill pen borders on being disrespectful and insulting . It would be nice if you practice your veiled social media insults on your face book page.

How can "old, well-tried, respected skills" be disrespectful. Quite the opposite, and you'll see I said (in the same sentence!) that I wished I had some of that knowledge. "quill" was in a figure of speech to emphasise that I was open to using both old and new methods. You seem to be intent on finding an insult where there is none, but I apologise if you've seen it in another way.

I hope we continue to welcome the views and respect the preferred methods of everyone with a genuine interest in photo retouching/restoration etc.

That's the whole point of Ray's post. He trying to revive interest in a forum that is obviously on its last legs.

Yes, I'm aware of what Ray's good intentions are -- I read his post, though I'm not sure he said "on it's last legs".

If the forum does get sorted out for the better, there's still, judging from this thread, going to be quite a few disagreements. Can't please all of the people all of the time.
-- Richard --

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
pdqgp MOD
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow