I'm totally flusterated by you guys.

It just used to be in the darkroom.

I have almost never seen an image ( from anyone) that would not benefit from some enhancement in post.

Michael Edward Rudge said:

If you set the camera correctly in the first place, there would be no need for P.P.

Click to expand...

I see this assertion very often, but AFAICT taken at face value, it is no more than a statement of unsupported faith.

I can't think of any justification for claiming that with every single picture , some hypothetical combination selected from a fairly restricted range of camera settings, HAS always to be able to deliver the intended result directly. What would ensure this?

It's really more of a non-literal folk saying IMO - like saying, "if you eat right and exercise, you will never have to go to the doctor". A good diet and physical activity will certainly help (though with no guarantees), and a very poor diet with no activity, will probably take you to the doctor more often (though it may not). That's about the extent of it.

It will never be possible to have some perfect diet and some perfect form of exercise, which ensures that you will never in your life get injured or suffer any ailment. Furthermore, going to the doctor (like using PP) is not always a sign of failure. It may sometimes be the pre-condition for success. You may need your doctor's advice, and involvement in other measures, as part of ensuring that your diet and exercise are always the most suitable for you.

RP

Do you have just one camera, one lens, one filter, one computer, one TV, one phone, one car, etc. If so I guess you really must be frustrated? :0)
Murry
--
http://www.grigsbys.smugmug.com/

I need two pieces, GIMP and a raw converter. I've installed a ton of plug-ins and use some of them regularly, how are you counting that? Also, when an absolute beginner comes on with a question, I'll try to show them how to do something with an online editor (like fotoflexer), if it's possible.

Steve Bingham said:

Would a pro photographer use . . .
1- One camera?
2- One lens?
3- One filter?
4- One flash?

A pro needs many tools. He or she needs the right tool for the job.

An infrequent snapshooter need only carry his cell phone!

Me, I use every tool that makes my work more fun . . . and easier. Can I do 99% of it in PS CS5? You bet.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

Click to expand...

I would Agree with Steve you use whatever software gets the job done, 99% of the time I use Photoshop CS5 in conjunction with Lightroom, It's just like masking Plug-Ins you use whichever one does the best job.

Regards Patsym

I'm kind of on the fence with this one...well, sort of...I think! I feel that sometimes we jump, prematurely, to using certain plug-ins that in the long run keep us from learning techniques available within our primary editing software. Those techniques that we fail to learn could have lead to performing other tasks that we aren't even aware of. That being said, I'm going to give in one of these days and buy Imagenomic Portraiture!

Ronny

Equating Photoshop to being "one lens" "one camera" or "one brush" doesn't apply. Photoshop is more like a room full of cameras, a trunk full of brushes and a cabinet full of lenses. Photoshop can do almost anything if you want to take the time to learn and execute. Most plugins, filters and actions merely make short time and decreased effort to do something that is possible to do in Phtotoshop.

Learning how to achieve a special effect with just Photoshop and going through the many steps and layers to produce that effect eat up time. Filters and plugins save time, increase flexibility, and give you more time to shoot more images.

its not about which program or plug-in

its about your skills you market

time retouching is money in your pocket or money out the window

Michael Edward Rudge said:

If you set the camera correctly in the first place, there would be no need for P.P.

Click to expand...

About as wrong as you can get. Ansel Adams was famous for his "post processing", however it consisted of controlled film developing, controlled print developing, extensive dodging and burning, along with a half dozen secret tricks such as his use of potassium ferrocynide as a disproportionate reducer. And trust me on this one - he got it right in camera!!!!!!! Lugging a wooden tripod and a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera up difficult terrain - along with necessary film holders was a LOT of work.

Pride goeth before the fall.

Michael Edward Rudge said:

but do not rely on me ,, I am novice, and proud of it .





--



http://s185.photobucket.com/albums/x223/eirianfa2002/?albumview=slideshow&mediafilter=images

http://s185.photobucket.com/albums/x223/eirianfa2002/Komandoo%202008/?albumview=grid

Click to expand...

--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

asoftwind said:

Errol Gibbs wrote

Member said:

If your life really depended on it, which package could you survive alone with

Click to expand...

--
Claude

Click to expand...

Ah, thank you, thank you, thank you! ! ! ! ! !
--
Vaya Con Dios
Errol

Ronny Harris said:

That being said, I'm going to give in one of these days and buy Imagenomic Portraiture!

Ronny

Click to expand...

I have it and never use it. I like my Skin Fix and Wrinkle/Blemish actions MUCH more and they look more natural. IP gives men a feminine look.

...And to the original post...

Seems like most people try every plugin they can get their hands on when they first delve into editing but eventually narrow them down to a few.

Thanks, Chip. I needed that! You slapped me back to my senses! Truth is, if I haven't bought it by now, I probably never would. You never know for sure, though. I could have a weak moment, drenched in too much Guinness, and wind up wasting a lot of money. Can I have your copy?

Ronny

Think about it a bit... even a film camera using slide stock is not capturing the image as-is. I used to shoot velvia on an SLR because I enjoyed HOW it interpreted the scene. Now, I can buy a plug-in that can convert my raw to something similar.

The moment you release the shutter, if you are capturing RAW, you're storing something that you can't actually see UNLESS you apply filtering of some kind to it that represents it in a viewable format.

JPG is once again a representation of what the sensor captured.

Contrast curves, softening, noise reduction, image compression, colour balance, DR compression are all applied in-camera for JPG and sometimes also for RAW to some degree.

Software and plug-in use in my world can be divided into 3 use categories - experimentation by which we learn about the effects, conscious application whereby we decide that we want something that the plug-in offers and finally speeding up how we obtain a desired result.

To say that there are lots of packages and software that allow us to achieve desirable outcomes is an understatement. The choice is huge but it's just that - choice. Choose to do something or not to. We choose to take photographs and process them as best as we can.

Back to shooting film, you have the choice of film, the choice of paper, the choice of how to process them and also the choice to make corrections (The lab would do this and you could certainly tell which labs were good and bad).

I don't see the difference - except that we now view most of the photos on-screen and therefore don't have the skills of a lab professional to rely on in producing a good colour balance - we need to do that ourselves.

cb

Keith Reeder said:

drh681 said:

For me, bridge and photoshop do the job.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that simply indicates that you have lower standards and/or shoot unchallenging (in IQ terms) subject matter?

Click to expand...

Perhaps.
Or maybe I am more skilled with the tool than you are.

--
Photons by the bag.
Gravitons no longer shipped outside US or Canada



-----.....------

if I mock you, it may be well deserved.

Claude, true but there it begins, people get overwhelmed by the fast number of features in photoshop and look for other simpler tools.

In time, if they persevere, they see the benefits of knowing what to do and understand the real power of photoshop.

WineO said:

I like Ralph's post about should the artist use only one brush. However beginners should understand what they can do with the software they have before buying plugins and additional packages.
Claude

Click to expand...

No you haven't

Chocolate does not go with beer.

Maybe you forgot the prezels though (sensible, must have plugin)