Photoshop trick
Jan 20, 2019 23:02:49 #
Attend a workshop or two in basic photo-editing with Photoshop. You will gain a foundation and confidence. Believe me, you will later thank yourself for this learning.
LCD wrote:
So far PS has defeated my attempts to acquire a little bit of knowledge to let me start to work in it and build from there. PS Elements, and then LR, allowed me to readily get started with a basic knowledge. I haven't exhausted LR potential yet for my uses, but there are times I wish for the power of PS. So maybe I should commit to get on the ground floor of PS.
Jan 22, 2019 18:07:26 #
There has always been trick photography. It's just gotten a whole lot easier
and more difficult to detect, thanks to PhotoShop and similar software.
It's gone way beyond removing pimples with an air brush--now one can easily affix
the head of celebrity to a naked torso. Or remove a politician from a photo of a meeting.
And increasingly, images re composites: panaramas, focal stacking, HDRs, etc.
Whether it's done in the camera or in post-processing is not the issue: whether
its done optically or via algorithm, pencil or airbrush is. Photography is inherently
optical--it is only chemical, elecrical, electronic or digtital if you want it to be.
Software processing's contribution to photography has been to eliminate the distinction
between straight photography and special effects photography. Whether or not this was
the intention of those selling these packages, it is the inevitable result.
But the digital artist--who is limited only by his imagination--will always have
the edge over the special effects photographer. And the photojouirnalism cannot
exist unless images are good evidence.
Publishers of processing software don't want to talk about what kinds of processing
are approrpriate for different uses: journalism, documentary, fine art, etc.
They don't even want to let the user now whether or not a particular digital filter loses
information from the image. But surely users have a right to know this?
In the world of film-making, "we'll fix it in post!" is a laugh line---something said by
directors of B-movies when running short of funds. At least they have a legitimate
excuse.
So the next time you are tempted to let something go and plan to "fix it in PhotoSlop",
just remember that the ghost of Gregg Toland is sitting on your right shoulder, and
the ghost of Ed Wood on your left. It's your chioce which to listen to.
and more difficult to detect, thanks to PhotoShop and similar software.
It's gone way beyond removing pimples with an air brush--now one can easily affix
the head of celebrity to a naked torso. Or remove a politician from a photo of a meeting.
And increasingly, images re composites: panaramas, focal stacking, HDRs, etc.
Whether it's done in the camera or in post-processing is not the issue: whether
its done optically or via algorithm, pencil or airbrush is. Photography is inherently
optical--it is only chemical, elecrical, electronic or digtital if you want it to be.
Software processing's contribution to photography has been to eliminate the distinction
between straight photography and special effects photography. Whether or not this was
the intention of those selling these packages, it is the inevitable result.
But the digital artist--who is limited only by his imagination--will always have
the edge over the special effects photographer. And the photojouirnalism cannot
exist unless images are good evidence.
Publishers of processing software don't want to talk about what kinds of processing
are approrpriate for different uses: journalism, documentary, fine art, etc.
They don't even want to let the user now whether or not a particular digital filter loses
information from the image. But surely users have a right to know this?
In the world of film-making, "we'll fix it in post!" is a laugh line---something said by
directors of B-movies when running short of funds. At least they have a legitimate
excuse.
So the next time you are tempted to let something go and plan to "fix it in PhotoSlop",
just remember that the ghost of Gregg Toland is sitting on your right shoulder, and
the ghost of Ed Wood on your left. It's your chioce which to listen to.
Jan 24, 2019 16:04:04 #
MT Shooter wrote:
PS just has WAY more tools and functionality than LR. It just takes longer to master and most people are not interested, or too lazy to put in the time to learn it so they settle for LR since its easier to learn.
Lightroom and Photoshop have different ends. Wile you can do everything that you can do in Lightroom in photoshop, it takes a lot of extra and lawyers to do it.
Some things like photomanipulation you can't do in Lightroom and that is by design. I have no problem using both together, as they were designed to be used.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.