Reading mode: Light Dark

photoshop 6 the best? no way

Go to last post
I have no idea what you are trying to say. When I refer to a 'pro', I mean those who do it as a trade. Their job. It's been my job for over 15 years. I will agree, a lot of people who own cameras and get a few jobs here and there label themselves as a pro. But this in no way puts down an amatuer. I guess in todays world, we seem to think 'amateur' as one who is not very good and a 'pro' as someone who is. Beleive me, I know a lot of 'pros' who shouldn't be and a lot of amateurs who should.

I do look at other programs. But because I like working in Photoshop, it's my program of choice. And so do the people I work with.

Also, I do use one brand of cameras, Nikon. Yes, a painter may use different brushes, but they usually prefer a certain brand they know they can trust. Canon and some others are great. I prefer Nikon. I also choose Mamiya for my med. format and Sinar for my large format. When I shoot film, I use one brand. Kodak. Fuji makes wondeful film also. I just know what the film I do use can do and know what to expect. You'll find a lot of pro's brand loyal. We do look at new items all the time. But I also know some of the best in the business who still use an 8x10 view camera to take portraits. Pro's use what they know. And in the end, it's all about how the final image looks and if the client is pleased. Not how you created it.
 
Laurentiu Todie said:
Check this out about compression (about half way down the page).

http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-09/lw-09-vcontrol_3.html

And read between the lines, please.

It looks like you know what you're doing, but the Adobe programmers
may have their own priorities. What they don't do, I don't care
much about, but what they do, is up my alley.
Click to expand...
Suppose you tell me exactly what I am supposed to read between the lines. PNG is implemented by the free zlib compression library and therefore does does not infringe on any patent. I am no lawyer, but, furthermore it is my understanding that patents expire in 17 years. Any current legal risk should soon disappear.

Anyway, this argument as it relates to PS6 is completely irrelevant because PS6 already supports 8 bit/channel PNG which uses the same compression as 16 bit/channel PNG. Shame on Adobe for not supporting 16 bit/channel PNG!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is that PNG is free -- completely free. In Roelof's words, "PNG itself is not covered by any licenses or patents -- with one caveat. PNG's compression engine is the same as that in gzip, Zip, PKZIP and other utilities. The algorithm is known as deflate, and while it is possible to infringe on at least three patents while implementing it (one held by PKWARE, two by Stac), the implementation in the free zlib compression library does not infringe on any of these. For the 99 percent of developers who end up using zlib, there is no need to worry about it. But for those who choose to implement the deflate algorithm on their own, it will be necessary to be mindful of these patents.
 
Aruzinsky,

I don't know what implementation of PNG you use (obviously not Photoshop's), but that's what I was referring to when I said that you should read between the lines. First you said that PNG uses no compression, than you said that free code is used for compression, than you acknowledged that a percentage of the developers use the "deflate" algorithm which is not free.When someone says 99%, my alarm starts buzzing and I read between the lines.

Adobe has nothing to be ashamed of for prioritizing features.

At best, you can be proud of using a better solution than what Photoshop offers for your needs.

Can you show me some of your images that benefit from the higher bit depth and explain in what consists the advantage?
 
Steve D said:
I am a fairly experienced and open minded when it comes to photo
editing tools and am at a loss to understand why Adobe Photoshop 6
is considered the best there is. Aside from snob appeal, it simply
is NOT superior to Paint Shop Pro. I have PS 6, as well as PSP 7,
Corel, MGI, Picture it, Photoshop Elements, and others, so I am
familiar wth most popular software.
Click to expand...
Hey Steve,

I would have to disagree.... I started using Paint Shop Pro back on version 3.14 I think (long time ago). I bought it and even paid for the upates through version 7. I used it religiously until 3 weeks ago.

I also bought Photo Shop 6 this past fall. It had some nice features but I mostly used PSP7 (especially love the browse option) and then PS6 when I needed to do some automated work.

Then I started learning how much faster and easier PS6 could make my life. Creating my own actions, droplets, etc... The added functionality in Marquee, Crop, Curves, etc. The auto levels or contrast often fix many of my images without me having to do custom edits to the curves. Setting constrained aspect ratio for C and M, the eyedroppers used to set points in curves, and many more things.

So what changed? In 6 weeks, I shot over 21,000 pictures at dance events AND I started reading this forum more... I began to learn better how to do things I wanted to improve in my pictures from people's messages here. After a little bit of experimenting, I could comfortably do everything in PS6 which I use to do in PSP7 and better (for example - eyedroppers in Curves, love them!). Having to set up a consistent workflow for fulfilling orders from thousands of pictures... well, that's where I started to test the real strengths of the tools.

I still like PSP7 and I use it once in a while for some things, but it is less and less these days. If you really take the time to learn PS6, I think you will find that it has a lot of tools which make working with thousands of pictures go faster, smoother and povide a greater depth of control.

Of course, not everyone needs that, so for many people, PSP7 is a far better choice (based on price, speed and easy of use). I am just not one of them.

All of this of course in just in my own humble opinion....Everything varies with experience, needs, preferences etc. :-)

Take care,

-Ray
[email protected] http://www.RayBowersPhotography.com
 
An interesting response Mike. Please please dont take this as criticism.. But your last sentence proves my point? Dont you find saying.. (and I'll paraphrase).. "I use PS because it is the best... BUT OF COURSE.. you should use .. WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD"... rather condescending? i sure do and I can afford anything I chose to use.

i know you did not intend it to be that way... this is a agreat forum and I just wanted to find out how others felt.. it is a mixed bag.. but. just ebcause something costs more does not make it the best.
Mike Collins said:
The word amateur has nothing to do with ones ability. I love how
some people take it to mean 'not as good.' or un-professional. It
just means that one doesn't do it as a profession. When I use the
word pro, I mean to refer to those who do this for a living. Not
dabble in it, or do it part-time. I mean whose lively hood depends
on it. And not everyone who labels himself as a pro is a great
photographer. Beleive me, I know plenty of bad pros also. But
coming from a pro-fessional photographer who does a lot of
commercial work, I have learned to use what my industry uses as a
standard. I don't have time to see if another program is 'just
like it'. I know what PS can do and know how to use it through all
the support I mentioned before. When your under a deadline, you
need to use what you know and not get confused on which program you
should use. You go with what you know and what works. So far, PS
has never let me down.

Yes, a painter does use a lot of different brushes, but usaully he
likes a certain brand. When I shoot film, I don't keep changing
the brand, I stick to what I know works. I know my tools and I
know how to use them.

And one other thing, this whole debate on imaging programs is
stupid, I wonder why people always bring it up. I find it's
usually the non-PS users who do this so they can claim they can do
everything PS can do for a cheaper price. Great. Wonderful. I've
never heard once a PS user say how bad any other program was. If
anything, they always say to use what you can afford.

Mike
Click to expand...
 
Steve D said:
An interesting response Mike. Please please dont take this as
criticism.. But your last sentence proves my point? Dont you find
saying.. (and I'll paraphrase).. "I use PS because it is the
best... BUT OF COURSE.. you should use .. WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD"...
rather condescending? i sure do and I can afford anything I chose
to use.
Click to expand...
Steve,

If your going to quote me, please don't 'paraphrase', especially when 'you' say something that I never said. I re-read all my post's and not once did I say PS was the best, as you so accuratley 'paraphrased'. Please highlight and post my words as I wrote them.

Also, there is nothing condscending about anything I said. Even if I did say PS was the best (which I didn't), that is my opinion. And to say to someone to buy what they can afford is not condescending. They are two completly different statements. If someone getting into digital imaging was to ask what I thought was the best imaging program, I would say Photoshop. Again, just my opinion. They may say they can't afford the program. I would say fine, buy what you can afford. I might suggest Photoshop Elements or perhaps PSP. I see nothing condescending about any of this.
 
Thanks Ray.. yours is a wonderfully thoughtful response without all the emotion that i normally see from PS fans.. I appreciate it.

Steve
Ray Bowers said:
Steve D said:
I am a fairly experienced and open minded when it comes to photo
editing tools and am at a loss to understand why Adobe Photoshop 6
is considered the best there is. Aside from snob appeal, it simply
is NOT superior to Paint Shop Pro. I have PS 6, as well as PSP 7,
Corel, MGI, Picture it, Photoshop Elements, and others, so I am
familiar wth most popular software.
Click to expand...
Hey Steve,

I would have to disagree.... I started using Paint Shop Pro back on
version 3.14 I think (long time ago). I bought it and even paid
for the upates through version 7. I used it religiously until 3
weeks ago.

I also bought Photo Shop 6 this past fall. It had some nice
features but I mostly used PSP7 (especially love the browse option)
and then PS6 when I needed to do some automated work.

Then I started learning how much faster and easier PS6 could make
my life. Creating my own actions, droplets, etc... The added
functionality in Marquee, Crop, Curves, etc. The auto levels or
contrast often fix many of my images without me having to do custom
edits to the curves. Setting constrained aspect ratio for C and M,
the eyedroppers used to set points in curves, and many more things.

So what changed? In 6 weeks, I shot over 21,000 pictures at dance
events AND I started reading this forum more... I began to learn
better how to do things I wanted to improve in my pictures from
people's messages here. After a little bit of experimenting, I
could comfortably do everything in PS6 which I use to do in PSP7
and better (for example - eyedroppers in Curves, love them!).
Having to set up a consistent workflow for fulfilling orders from
thousands of pictures... well, that's where I started to test the
real strengths of the tools.

I still like PSP7 and I use it once in a while for some things, but
it is less and less these days. If you really take the time to
learn PS6, I think you will find that it has a lot of tools which
make working with thousands of pictures go faster, smoother and
povide a greater depth of control.

Of course, not everyone needs that, so for many people, PSP7 is a
far better choice (based on price, speed and easy of use). I am
just not one of them.

All of this of course in just in my own humble
opinion....Everything varies with experience, needs, preferences
etc. :-)

Take care,

-Ray

--
[email protected]
http://www.RayBowersPhotography.com
Click to expand...
 
Laurentiu Todie said:
Aruzinsky,

First you said that PNG uses no
compression, than you said that free code is used for compression,
Click to expand...
I never said PNG uses no compression. I said, "PNG does NOT use patented compression code." The compression code is not patented, the compression algorithm is patented. You may think that I am splitting hairs here, but the bottom line is that when properly implemented, PNG is free completely free!
Laurentiu Todie said:
than you acknowledged that a percentage of the developers use the
"deflate" algorithm which is not free.When someone says 99%, my
alarm starts buzzing and I read between the lines.

Adobe has nothing to be ashamed of for prioritizing features.

At best, you can be proud of using a better solution than what
Photoshop offers for your needs.
Click to expand...
As for this alarm of yours, did it go off when you posted this GIF?:



GIF format is not free and the company that owns the compression patent GIF wants all GIF users to get written permission from them to use any software that reads or writes GIF even if the company producing the software that you use pays royalties. That includes your browser. Now that sets off an alarm for me.
Laurentiu Todie said:
Can you show me some of your images that benefit from the higher bit > depth and explain in what consists the advantage?
Click to expand...
Not easily.
 
Laurentiu Todie said:
Aruzinsky,

Can you show me some of your images that benefit from the higher
bit depth and explain in what consists the advantage?
Click to expand...
When testing algorithms, it is important that test images be saved in at least 16 bits/channel format. To demonstrate this, I have posted two versions of the otherwise exact same test image, one 48 bit PNG and the other 24 bit PNG. Then I have posted two results from applying the exact same algorithm, Van Cittert Deconvolution, to the two versions of the test image (after reading the files into a floating point buffer).

These images will be deleted after one week:

48 Bit Test Image:



24 Bit Test Image:



Van Cittert Deconvolution Applied to 48 Bit Test Image:



Van Cittert Deconvolution Applied to 24 Bit Test Image:

 
Okay, is it just me or is there something not quite right about that images in the last post about PNG? I'm not trying argue with anyone, but everyone of those images look out of focus and the last one has a really neat colorful design on it. If this is what the PNG format does, I'll stick to my jpeg's, gif's, and tiffs.

Mike
 
Aruzinsky,

I have a higher resolution version of the animated GIF you (graciously) posted:

http://colorcollage.com/reanimat.html

The original is a 350MB 24bit Lab file. At 700MB this file would not be better for any practical purpose.

It was optimized in Adobe ImageReady, from a Photoshop format layered file.

Asa long as I use Photoshop, I don't have to listen to my alarm, I just assume that Adobe (owner of TIFF and EPS) does the right thing by those who hold rights to other formats.

I had a feeling that you write your own applications to use PNG and I posted the Linux link to warn you of what's going on with the patent issues.

Have a Happy New Year!
 
Steve D said:
Thanks Ray.. yours is a wonderfully thoughtful response without all
the emotion that i normally see from PS fans.. I appreciate it.
Click to expand...
chuckle My pleasure! After all, we should be photography fanatics here, not tool fanatics...

The cameras, lenses, programs, printers and other tools will always change. Good technique won't and that is what we come here to share. That is what has driven me to change and improve how I use the tools...

-Ray
[email protected] http://www.RayBowersPhotography.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top