It's time to abandon PhotoShop

Started Jan 9, 2013 | Discussions
kb2zuz Veteran Member • Posts: 3,202
Re: Elements has now Adjustment Layers?

When was the last time you checked? PSE does support adjustment layers and 16bit images, however support is not completely consistant. There are some adjustment layers that the full photoshop has that it does not, and there are some functions where PSE will ask you to convert to 8bit in order to use.

To know if it's good for you, the best recommendation I would have is to download it and try it out, like many adobe programs, you can try it for 14 days for free. The full version of photoshop has many many features that most people do not need. I can't say for certain that Elements will be enough for you but considering it costs $520 less than Photoshop, it might be worth doing a trial to see if it's good enough for your needs.

-- hide signature --

\~K

 kb2zuz's gear list:kb2zuz's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Epson Stylus Pro 4880 +6 more
Conchita Veteran Member • Posts: 9,914
Re: Elements has now Adjustment Layers?

Alas, while it's true that PSE has some 16-bit support and Adjustment Layers, it doesn't have any 16-bit Adjustment Layers.That seems to be one of the ridiculous lines in the sand that adobe is adamant about keeping as a difference between PS and PSE.

Conchita Veteran Member • Posts: 9,914
Re: Have a look at PhotoLine

Well, there are tons of Pixelmator tutorials on the web, but unfortunately many are not very well done (skip important steps, for example).

Conchita Veteran Member • Posts: 9,914
Thank you. (nt)

Conchita

Anthony McCallister Contributing Member • Posts: 909
Re: It's time to abandon PhotoShop

You don't have to go the rental route.  If all you use is PS, then buy that alone.  The rental option allows you to use all the other Adobe products in addition to PS.

-- hide signature --

Mac

KRR Regular Member • Posts: 110
Re: It's time to abandon PhotoShop

You may not need layers, nowadays.

graybalanced Veteran Member • Posts: 5,668
Re: It's time to abandon PhotoShop

Anthony McCallister wrote:

You don't have to go the rental route. If all you use is PS, then buy that alone. The rental option allows you to use all the other Adobe products in addition to PS.

Not just that. I just looked and they do have subscription plans not just for all the products (that's Creative Cloud) but also for individual products. The Photoshop-only rental is $19.99/mo if paid annually. That's actually not too bad for a working professional who can cover that in less than 1 hour labor per month if they're charging realistically.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
An Intriguing Take On Elements 11... And Elements+ Is Worth A Close Look

http://www.mattk.com/2012/09/26/why-photoshop-elements-11-is-the-best-version-of-elements-yet/

For $12 Elements+ unlocks a slew of CS6 functions hidden in Elements 11.

I decided to forgo upgrading to CS6 from CS3. Aperture, NX2, Topaz plugins and now Elements 11 with Elements+ does everything that I need.

I've used Photoshop since PS4 and I have never needed the pre-press and other functions that aren't available in the software that I listed. It was a photographic revelation when I discovered Nik Control Point technology. For the first time I could do edits in under a minute that previously required layers and masks as well as significantly more skill and knowledge to accomplish.

I enjoy making pictures, not futzing around on my computer. We photographers are truly blessed to have so many reasonably priced image editing options in 2013. Adobe should be worried... very worried.

KRR Regular Member • Posts: 110
Graphic Artists or Photographers
2

This thread indicates that the "art" of photography is being overwhelmed by graphic artists. Anybody out there who recalls the days of film when artists needed to have good equipment and then accepted the reality that--for good photos--all you needed was good light and proper camera settings. That's it.

This photoshop dance is contrary to my way of thinking. Why not put your effort into taking better photographs to begin with; then you would not need 1000 exposures, a database, editing, correction, layers, etc. With Aperture's intuitive design, I just crop and save a TIFF. Easy. Simple. Fast. Cheap. Come on people, let's get back to basics and let the graphic artists do their thing without corrupting our thing.

Leon Wittwer Forum Pro • Posts: 13,243
Re: Graphic Artists or Photographers

KRR wrote:

This photoshop dance is contrary to my way of thinking. Why not put your effort into taking better photographs to begin with; then you would not need 1000 exposures, a database, editing, correction, layers, etc. With Aperture's intuitive design, I just crop and save a TIFF. Easy. Simple. Fast. Cheap. Come on people, let's get back to basics and let the graphic artists do their thing without corrupting our thing.

It think it depends on what you are shooting.  For landscapes that encompass significant distances, differences in sun angles and/or deep shadows, significantly more PP is required that a scene that is more limited in scope.  For example, I do a lot of panos and they pose some interesting challenges.

Rkelac Regular Member • Posts: 466
Re: Graphic Artists or Photographers

KRR wrote:

This thread indicates that the "art" of photography is being overwhelmed by graphic artists. Anybody out there who recalls the days of film when artists needed to have good equipment and then accepted the reality that--for good photos--all you needed was good light and proper camera settings. That's it.

This photoshop dance is contrary to my way of thinking. Why not put your effort into taking better photographs to begin with; then you would not need 1000 exposures, a database, editing, correction, layers, etc. With Aperture's intuitive design, I just crop and save a TIFF. Easy. Simple. Fast. Cheap. Come on people, let's get back to basics and let the graphic artists do their thing without corrupting our thing.

I just read the book "Looking at Ansel Adams" by Andrea Stillman. So I guess what you are saying is that photographers like Ansel Adams didn't have to spend time in the darkroom post processing his photos? Or, maybe you are saying that he didn't produce "good photos"?

Here's a quote from the book:

"'There is no such thing as the ideal or perfect negative.'  Therefore he needed to do 'a certain amount of dodging and burning' in the darkroom 'to achieve the tonal balance' he envisioned."

 Rkelac's gear list:Rkelac's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: Graphic Artists or Photographers
2

Ansel created the darkroom equivalent of extensive digital post-processing: The Zone System.

Ansel combined camera exposure, film development and darkroom techniques to produce his iconic images. Many if not all of his most famous images were only possible because of his extensive "post-processing."

Years ago I had the opportunity to see one of his negatives and a straight print from the negative. The print was awful: it had zero contrast and it was muddy and gray in appearance. But Ansel knew what he was doing; it wasn't a mistake. He knew what he wanted in the final print so he exposed the 8X10 film and developed it so he would have the best foundation for working his magic in the darkroom. If he exposed the film to achieve the best possible result in the camera it would not have been possible to produce the image that he had pre-visualized.

I'm all for getting it as right as possible in the camera; post-processing is no replacement for poor technique. But there are times when the subject requires lens filters, skilled post-processing, etc. in order to obtain what the photographer wants and there is nothing wrong with it.

Photography has always had inherent technological limitations. Skilled photographers develop techniques using the available tools (film, chemicals, printing paper, software...) to get the most out of the medium.

RobBobW Contributing Member • Posts: 729
Re: Graphic Artists or Photographers

MrMojo wrote:

Ansel created the darkroom equivalent of extensive digital post-processing: The Zone System.

Ansel combined camera exposure, film development and darkroom techniques to produce his iconic images. Many if not all of his most famous images were only possible because of his extensive "post-processing."

Years ago I had the opportunity to see one of his negatives and a straight print from the negative. The print was awful: it had zero contrast and it was muddy and gray in appearance. But Ansel knew what he was doing; it wasn't a mistake. He knew what he wanted in the final print so he exposed the 8X10 film and developed it so he would have the best foundation for working his magic in the darkroom. If he exposed the film to achieve the best possible result in the camera it would not have been possible to produce the image that he had pre-visualized.

I'm all for getting it as right as possible in the camera; post-processing is no replacement for poor technique. But there are times when the subject requires lens filters, skilled post-processing, etc. in order to obtain what the photographer wants and there is nothing wrong with it.

Photography has always had inherent technological limitations. Skilled photographers develop techniques using the available tools (film, chemicals, printing paper, software...) to get the most out of the medium.

I could not agree more.  Truly great film based prints always involved lots of work in the back ground.  Pushing/pulling the exposure/development of the negatives to dodging/burning the print exposure to selecting the correct paper contrast etc.  Thankfully I can do most of that digitally now with a combination of camera adjustments and post processing of the RAW image file without having to come in contact with all those nasty chemicals anymore.  I guess part of this argument depends upon what is meant by "getting the exposure correct out of the camera."  In my definition, getting the exposure "correct" allows me to do what I need in PP, but that exposure will not necessarily mean  a direct print of the file without PP will look good.

 RobBobW's gear list:RobBobW's gear list
Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical Samyang 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC
KRR Regular Member • Posts: 110
Simpleton

Oh, how clever.

noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,337
Re: Graphic Artists or Photographers

RobBobW wrote:

MrMojo wrote:

Ansel created the darkroom equivalent of extensive digital post-processing: The Zone System.

Ansel combined camera exposure, film development and darkroom techniques to produce his iconic images. Many if not all of his most famous images were only possible because of his extensive "post-processing."

Years ago I had the opportunity to see one of his negatives and a straight print from the negative. The print was awful: it had zero contrast and it was muddy and gray in appearance. But Ansel knew what he was doing; it wasn't a mistake. He knew what he wanted in the final print so he exposed the 8X10 film and developed it so he would have the best foundation for working his magic in the darkroom. If he exposed the film to achieve the best possible result in the camera it would not have been possible to produce the image that he had pre-visualized.

I'm all for getting it as right as possible in the camera; post-processing is no replacement for poor technique. But there are times when the subject requires lens filters, skilled post-processing, etc. in order to obtain what the photographer wants and there is nothing wrong with it.

Photography has always had inherent technological limitations. Skilled photographers develop techniques using the available tools (film, chemicals, printing paper, software...) to get the most out of the medium.

I could not agree more. Truly great film based prints always involved lots of work in the back ground. Pushing/pulling the exposure/development of the negatives to dodging/burning the print exposure to selecting the correct paper contrast etc. Thankfully I can do most of that digitally now with a combination of camera adjustments and post processing of the RAW image file without having to come in contact with all those nasty chemicals anymore. I guess part of this argument depends upon what is meant by "getting the exposure correct out of the camera." In my definition, getting the exposure "correct" allows me to do what I need in PP, but that exposure will not necessarily mean a direct print of the file without PP will look good.

I think a line can be drawn at local adjustments though some correctly done dynamic range compression (eg, make a window in an inside shot darker) requires local adjustments. But once I have multiple windows in a scene and make one of them darker or brighter but not the others you go beyond making the perception of the scene different (something very central to photography) to changing the scene.

Imagine a photo of a building with a lots of windows, if you were to make some of the windows darker or brighter so that they form letters, you have created something that was not there.

CarlC
CarlC Contributing Member • Posts: 969
Re: An Intriguing Take On Elements 11... And Elements+ Is Worth A Close Look

MrMojo wrote:

http://www.mattk.com/2012/09/26/why-photoshop-elements-11-is-the-best-version-of-elements-yet/

For $12 Elements+ unlocks a slew of CS6 functions hidden in Elements 11.

I decided to forgo upgrading to CS6 from CS3. Aperture, NX2, Topaz plugins and now Elements 11 with Elements+ does everything that I need.

I've used Photoshop since PS4 and I have never needed the pre-press and other functions that aren't available in the software that I listed. It was a photographic revelation when I discovered Nik Control Point technology. For the first time I could do edits in under a minute that previously required layers and masks as well as significantly more skill and knowledge to accomplish.

I enjoy making pictures, not futzing around on my computer. We photographers are truly blessed to have so many reasonably priced image editing options in 2013. Adobe should be worried... very worried.

Thank you for the post and this reply... LR4 is here to stay for me but I am questioning going to CS6 from CS3 which means a complete purchase not an upgrade or Elements. I want something that is integrated to LR.    I which elements had HDR which I do not do now but it looks like it is is pretty good.

-- hide signature --
wklee Veteran Member • Posts: 6,573
Shareware alternatives

There are some shareware alternatives besides GIMP.
PhotoLine
GraphicConverter

I have used GraphicConverter occasionally on an old iMac G4 but never tried PhotoLine.

There's also ImageMagick (free) which has to be installed from Terminal.

-- hide signature --

Never buy version 1.0 of anything.

danieljcox
danieljcox Contributing Member • Posts: 797
Re: It's time to abandon PhotoShop

I've never been a fan of Photoshop. Too costly and bloated. It's a great program for designers or those who want to manipulate a photograph but for general photography it's overkill.  A great alternative is Pixelmator. Does nearly the same job at a fraction of the price. See more on the Natural Exposures Corkboard/Blog

Daniel J. Cox
www.naturalexposures.com

 danieljcox's gear list:danieljcox's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic G85 +17 more
graybalanced Veteran Member • Posts: 5,668
Re: Graphic Artists or Photographers
1

MrMojo wrote:

Ansel created the darkroom equivalent of extensive digital post-processing: The Zone System.

Ansel combined camera exposure, film development and darkroom techniques to produce his iconic images. Many if not all of his most famous images were only possible because of his extensive "post-processing."

Years ago I had the opportunity to see one of his negatives and a straight print from the negative. The print was awful: it had zero contrast and it was muddy and gray in appearance. But Ansel knew what he was doing; it wasn't a mistake. He knew what he wanted in the final print so he exposed the 8X10 film and developed it so he would have the best foundation for working his magic in the darkroom. If he exposed the film to achieve the best possible result in the camera it would not have been possible to produce the image that he had pre-visualized.

Great post. So many anti-digital/anti-post-processing/film snobs simply reveal how little they knew about Ansel Adams. I would go as far as to say that Ansel Adams was the HDR artist of his day (since there are few things anti-post-proc snobs hate more than digital HDR).

Your third paragraph about seeing an original Ansel negative is extremely important. It reminds me of people who complain and complain because raw photos don't look as nice and snappy as it did on the back of the camera. I don't want it to look as snappy as it did on the back of the camera! The raw is supposed to be the low-contrast (literal) raw material from which to make the image you really wanted.

If it was the law that a photographer was only allowed to "get it right in camera," Ansel Adams would have been imprisoned for life.

EricWN Senior Member • Posts: 2,097
Re: Graphic Artists or Photographers

KRR wrote:

This thread indicates that the "art" of photography is being overwhelmed by graphic artists. Anybody out there who recalls the days of film when artists needed to have good equipment and then accepted the reality that--for good photos--all you needed was good light and proper camera settings. That's it.

This photoshop dance is contrary to my way of thinking. Why not put your effort into taking better photographs to begin with; then you would not need 1000 exposures, a database, editing, correction, layers, etc. With Aperture's intuitive design, I just crop and save a TIFF. Easy. Simple. Fast. Cheap. Come on people, let's get back to basics and let the graphic artists do their thing without corrupting our thing.

Interesting comment, but completely off topic. Please don't try to make a discussion or argument  about post processing because other people discuss Photoshop alternatives.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads