RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Maybe kind of obvious, but if you copy the eyes from one photo and drop them into another, you'll probably be better off doing it one eye at a time. Also, unless the face is in EXACTLY the same position in each picture, you may have to do some other things, like rotating the eye to match orientation.

skidooman Loc: Minnesota

Exactly the reason a program like PS in needed, and the knowhow. The contrast/light may not be the same either. Doing them one eye at a time is the correct way to do it. It may sound really simple, and it probably looks ok at 4x6 to the average person. But done incorrectly, it can look really bad.

IvanF Loc: New York City

Hi Libby, sorry to disagree but Photoshop is not difficult to use. All you need is a computer and a mouse and you can do great work with it. But it is a tool that does many things for many people - it was built up over the years to respond to needs of photographers and illustrators (see what the painter, not photographer, painter Burt Monroy does with it http://www.bertmonroy.com/timessquare/timessquare.html). As any complex tool it requires effort and time to master - but even the simple sumi-e brush & ink & rice paper combination takes a lifetime. Not to mention a scalpel for surgeons...and it has no moving parts, the scalpel, not the surgeon.

The great thing is, there is a lot of software for photographers who want a simple interface for basic photographic post processing - available for free and for cheap, I'm happy to say - so there is a tool for all levels and pocket books. As an example in the hardware world, 98.62% (approximately :D) of tools at home depot are beyond me, and wonder why anyone would buy them but some of my best friends actually own them and seem to be contented. Go, figure.

And, I repeat, Photoshop is not difficult to use, but it takes some time to master because it is a very deep program and, I heard it said, there is not one human who knows everything about it.

So, I hope you will find your tool of choice that makes you happy.

Best regards and happy photography!

johnr9999 Loc: Carlton, OR

Wrong Rhino! To take somebodies intellectual property that they have copywritten without their permission is outright theft. I'm sure you wouldn't want someone doing that with your photographs. As a programmer, I know how incredibly
difficult it can be to write a program of this complexity and
while I believe that Adobe is grossly overcharging for ps, that is their option. Nobody forces us to buy it.
Your advice to someone who is trying to do the right thing and advising them to steal it is imho reprehensible.

tripsy76 Loc: Northshore, MA

[/quote]Not to throw oil in the fire but if you know how to, you can over ride the infamous adobe 'ping'. No I will not give the method.

Oh man, I am now in love with you!

The question is who is really stealing from whom? [/quote]

1. Yeah, I am aware of the in's and outs of bypass, but it is a pretty significant practical way to check. Most people aren't aware that tracker/malware is usually encoded within so they get a "bonus" when stealing their torrent copies.

2. Photography as with any of the arts is a constant learning curve, and it requires practice to develop your eye, learn your camera, and understand the basics of photography. I've been doing it for a good amount of time. My personal view wether I'm shooting, or compositing for print or film has and will always be "in camera" first. I don't believe there is a 100% substitute that can make up for not getting the shot in a reasonable amount of time.

3. I do completely understand your point of view, and it does infuriate me on both sides. But I do have to pay for upgrades as a basic expense in continuing my career. With Adobe, there are interface, operating system, and compatibility issues that require the upgrades (every time).

For example, AE After Effects is not backwards compatible at all. If I have a client and their studio is shooting, animating, or comping in the new version, I have to have that version or higher just to open the file. If not, I lose my client. What is worse, is I have to keep both CS3 and CS5 on my system just to work with certain clients. And that is much needed hardware space. Part of the pain that is associated with owning your own business, or living as a freelancer is the responsibility of client compatibility. So for me there is no argument or option (minus career change).
This does not apply to everyone, but it is a major concern to me. Which also means that as soon as my clients upgrade, I better be sure to remain compatible and upgrade for whatever the horrible cost is.

Finally, I just went to the Adobe website and looked for myself. Adobe PS 5.5 Extended (highest option) is $999 new, or $350 for the upgrade. To learn, they do offer both the 30 day trial, education versions, and now a monthly rental plan for $50-$75.

Additionally, one big reason for larger cost to upgrade is due to recently changing media formats and needs. Some plug-ins, render elements, and controls are not compatible with various operating systems, and or graphics cards. The cost to overhaul the code from scratch is enormous. Do I agree with their pricing absolutely not unless it's truly a justified cost to the upgrade.

And to wrap up this rant (at least from my end), those prices are for the MOST expensive versions. There are also at least 2 stripped down versions of the software (elements, standard). If they are still too much, there are plenty of legitimate free programs, or Coral offers a few things. You can also invest a small amount into a Wacom tablet which usually comes with a version of photoshop for free! (Just check before hand). I can complain all day about wether their "right to raise prices" is fair but all that does is make me angrier when I shell out for the upgrade so I can open the project file. And please bear in mind that it is a pro application at all levels, but that doesn't mean a photographer has to use it. There are free programs for in camera purists, and then there is always Gimp.

Just practice and do your best to take the best pictures possible and then see what you need!

johnr9999 Loc: Carlton, OR

There are pirates around for the same reason we carjackers, bank robbers, robbers of mini-marts, etc. You have something they want, so they are going to take. I'm sure you have extensive experience with software creation, which would explain your knowledgeable remarks about software. The Bible says a worker is worth his hire.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

My theory is that PS goes back to the very beginning of WYSIWYG interfaces on the Mac. User interfaces were brand new and had not evolved to where they are today. PS rapidly became the standard so Adobe had little incentive to improve the usability. Along with this, PS gives you so much control over most of the adjustments plus a lot more adjustments than you can figure out how to use. For example, how many of us have figured out all the blending modes!

Fortunately, you can find a lot of great online tutorials and other vendors have made convenient alternatives if you do not want or need all the bells and whistles of PS.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I resent Rhino's attitude. As one who purchases legitimate copies of PS and many other programs, Rhino is wrong to steal and advocate stealing programs and I do not like subsidizing people who do. Moreover, he does not understand business and his grammar and spelling are an embarrassment. He should be ashamed for his attitudes and skills.

I, for one, would like to see him booted off this forum.

DJack

Point taken. :)

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I am not a pro or anywhere close, but as I approach retirement I want to master photography and the technology surrounding it.

I'd like other pros on the forum to respond to English Wolf's statement that a real pro does not do PP.......do other pros agree with that?
Dave[/quote]
____________________________________________

NOPE! Can't say that "I" agree....

What I will say, you can post process images that are so well done that your natural eye would not know there was "any" post processing done....depends on the persons eye as to what they want accomplished....and the end use of the image.

I have worked in the film industry in one area or another most of my adult life as a photographer and a retoucher, before digital came along.....and then later as a Digital Photographer...

Where I worked we had "Professional Photographers".....who shot for the magazines....like GQ, In Style, Cosmo, Times, Sunset...I could go on an on....post processing can and is just as important as is the image shot...just depends on the extent you use it and what the end results are....Both....areas are an ART....it is in the "Eye of the Beholder" that makes the image...
This is my opinion.....as a photographer and a retoucher...[/quote]

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

I'm sorry, but to say post editing defines a non-pro versus a pro is just a naiive and baseless assumption. There are two MAJOR pros on UH that I'm aware of who are in LA and NY and I'm confident they make very healthy six figure incomes (I'd say shooting movie stars and models for major ad agencies qualifies one as professional) and both of them have discussed Photoshop and using it since back when it came out. One even used it under another name before Adobe bought it. They know it's a tool to improve their art to extreme levels.

I have a friend in Florida who makes a low six figure income doing weddings and portraiture and he shoots one day and post edits for 3 or 4 days to make his excellent compositions "POP" with vibrancy, contrast, color saturation, acne and wrinkle removal, stray hair and background clutter elimination, and blurred backgrounds. When taking 1800 photos in one day you can't worry about a single hair, something sitting in the background that should be moved, etc. To say he's not a professional is absurd. He's more professional than I even hope to ever be and Photoshop is his best friend. If anything he's MORE of a professional because he wants his clients to be totally happy because he can artistically and, to them, magically make their photos awesome beyond what they expected.

George H Loc: Brooklyn, New York

You did not fill your profile so it is hard to figure out at what level you are at. If you are a pro or nearly a pro, you should not need post processing. So software? to organize your pictures, that is all you need.

I have a profound distaste of post processed pictures are more often than not the result of sloppy work in the first place.[/quote]

English_Wolf,
Where did you ever come up with the idea that a pro or near pro should not need post processing. Post even existed when we shot film, so this is a statement that I find has no merit. As a pro, I pride myself in having to do very little in post, but if needed have no problem doing it. Hell the labs did it for me when I was shooting film. Sorry but I don't think this statement is factual or even comes close. Post can't make sloppy work look good cheaply, pros get paid to produce a photo, time is money. Post costs money but is necessary in some instances, Cropping, Color Correction, elimination of dust spots, and that happens even to pros. Need one to say more about post processing, I think not.

paco dave Loc: auburn california

I agree. Slapping on cheap effects is just that. I don't think I'm "old school" but pictures should have something to say on there own. Photo programs are great for enhancing such images. Paintshop Pro XI works well for me. Even the old Paintshop Pro 5 has nearly everything I need. I'm also a Mac user. The Apeture program is wonderful for spot checking brightness/contrast, etc.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I'm not sure what your comment is. You imply that you don't think a photo should have post editing but then you talk about all the post editing software you have used and still use. Which is it? Nobody said anything about "slapping on cheap effects".

dwightdills Loc: Charlotte, Tn.

I just bought the book on ebay for less that $10.00. I'm sure its a good read and a great learn, Thanks for the info.

johnr9999 Loc: Carlton, OR

Just read an article about the Swedish Nature Photographer of the year having that honor removed when it was discovered he had Photoshopped all of his pictures of a rare endangered lynx (I think) from a stock photo.
I don't think anyone would disagree that this Photoshopping was wrong. Almost all famous photographers have done some post processing. Ansel Adams quit producing one of his most famous photos because he was spending all of his time dodging and burning it and couldn't spend any time doing photography. Somewhere between those two lies the line.