Love digital photography ~ hate computers!!
 

Am I the only one who feels this way?

As much as I love the convenience and speed of digital photography I don't like the computer aspect of it, being something of a technophobe!!!

Photography (as I see it) has changed from the art of film and chemistry to computer files/downloads and photoshop...nothing really wrong with that as there are some incredible images being produced by these new technologies.

Matt

I enjoy the processing side very much but I have been into computers from the 1980's so using a PC is second nature to me.

I'd never touched a computer until I bought one for my son about 9 years ago. He showed me the basics of how to use it but I still only really 'know' what I've needed to learn along the way. At about the same time the photo magazines were giving step-by-step guides to the basics of photo image manipulation - the essentials such as Levels, USM, etc., so I kept these until I got firstly, a scanner and then a digital camera.

Provided you've got it 'about right' in the camera then you only need these few essentials to make a decent print. Everything else will come with time and experience and I've only touched a small part of Photoshop so far - part of the fun is finding new options along the way, either by chance or by reading articles, picking up tips here on WPF, etc.

Film/chemistry is all very well but it's a sight more inconvenient if you haven't got a permanent darkroom. For most of us, adapting another room temporarily was the only option and this causes problems with dust as you move things around (no matter how clean you think your house is!), plus all the wasted time blacking-out, moving stuff around, etc. 'Nearly' full black-out is acceptable at the printing stage and a safelight means you can see what you're doing, but with films you have to load them into the developing tank in complete darkness, so whether you use a changing bag or go under the bedsheets at night, you've got to do everything by 'feel.'

Black and White was more or less the order of the day as, without a proper set-up, colour-printing is far more difficult and not much fun (developing your first slide film is exciting when you first take the film out of the reel, though!).

Take a colour negative into half a dozen different shops and have a reprint made and you'll more than likely get 6 different prints back with varying exposure/colour balance - if they can't get it right with their expensive automatically set-up equipment what chance have you got fumbling around in the dark!

This is where digital scores - you can get it looking how you want before printing it and you only need to pay for those shots that you want to keep - no more fuzzy out-of-focus/badly-exposed shots to bore other people with. Every shot you show to your friends will be a good 'un and your reputation as a photographer will go up in leaps and bounds!

Hi there, I'm lucky because my house has a four room cellar - so creating a permanent darkroom wasn't a problem for me. I used to love the darkroom phase of creating prints, colour and B/W and slides. However it all came to an abrupt end in 1986 with a burglary that robbed me of all my photographic gear - 20 years of Nikon collecting disappeared in a couple of hours.

Outside factors then virtually stopped my serious photography and I just dabbled. But I did start on computers - Apple Macs. And work had me start on their computerization program - converting a paper record system to a computer one and liaising with a national database. On the side I started to dabble with Digital Photography to enable photographs to be added to the database, and scanners to add negatives as well.

As I approached retirement I started taking up serious photography again and once more got infected by NAS ( Nikon Acquisition Syndrome ).

I have found that programs such as Photoshop enable me to have as much fun on the computer as I used to have in the darkroom. Playing with the various filters and plugins enable me to see on screen, the effects I used to create on paper. They have the advantage however of being reversible and non-destructive to the original - something you can never do on paper in a darkroom - once you have exposed negative/paper to light for a length of time you cannot go backwards. In the computer you can - before you make the final print.

Technophobia may be a curse for some but it is worth while persevering as the results are most rewarding. There are several good books that can give instruction and also I would recommend www.lynda.com - This site is a collection of short video based demos which take you through the basics of many useful programs such as Photoshop, Lightroom, Mac OSX, Microsoft, Aperture etc.

Follow the online tutorials and see how much fun you can have.

May 2008 be a year of photographic joy to us all - God Bless.

Never got into home processing with film so I really like being able to put my pictures onto my laptop and play around with them. As my photos are strictly amateur I've never felt the need to pay out vast sums for software - never spent time on tutorials or had a 'workflow'. If you try and get it right in camera then a few tweaks and a bit of cropping is probably all you need. I think the point is to do as much or as a little as you like - and if your main interest is in the taking of the photos don't waste your money on Photoshop but get a better lens instead!

I enjoy using computers and I do like the processing aspect of digital photography. I love it when a otherwise unimpressive photo suddenly springs to life with a few tweaks.

The two go together. Machines are not just dumb hardware - their designers give them very different characterists and part of the game is to find camera and software that were designed by folks with similar thought patterns to yourself. I thought I had done this pretty well with Canon 350D & Digital Photo Professional until I got Nikon D80 and Capture NX; now I know I have really arrived, tho no good pretending that NX interface has been translated well from its (assume) Japanese origin. Until recently mac computers have also made computer use painless, tho since OS 10.2 a policy of convergence with MS and/or catering for illiterate iPoders or something has steadily taken it downhill.

Matt in a way,I 100% agree with you.This pc stuff is very time consuming,but very rewarding when one has struggled with a certain technique,then suddenly it all starts to take shape.I have never before ,been able to make a Xmas card for the BF comp by adding birds to a card.This year I have sussed out the basics,and i have just spent the last couple of hrs,making my card for next year.Also,I have compiled my own website.
But yes,very little needed for image manipulation,as one can see at a glance if the shot is a keeper,and just needs the basic crop,enhancement,and re-size.A couple of years ago,I struggled to try to make all images keepers,but not any more.
But this pc stuff really is so very time consuming.I used to play Scrabble,do crosswords,read at least 2 books per week,but no more.Insufficient hrs in the day!!!

Love computers and was exposed to them before many at an early age. I think we had a computer when I was about 7 years old (1980-ish). Then a computer represented fun with learning in the background. Now a computer represents work, migrating the home computers to Apple mac has relieved the situation a little. Photography on the other-hand forces the photographer to go out, experiment and try new things - fun with learning in the background all over again. The airshow photography I enjoy in Summer is processed mainly in Winter and can represent that work thing again. Not that I hate it but its more of a chore unless working on that magic photo you really think is your best.

I would not even consider DPP as a image editor Chris. It is however, a very good RAW converter. I would have thought that most people who use it would also use something like CS2 for the image editing. The sharperning, Noise reduction and shadows/highlights recovery is basic to say the least.
I personally use DPP to Crop and tweak the exposure before exporting to CS2 where the real editing begins.
If you have been using DPP as your main editor I can understand why you were dissapointed.

It's taken me a while to get round to using it in earnest, but I've been busy cataloguing my images in Lightroom and to say I'm impressed is an understatement.

I can now find my images quickly, make quick adjustments (which to be honest is all 90% of my images should ever need) and if I need more control send them to Photoshop. Brilliant management software, I just need to learn how to use it to it's best ability.

Your doing well Derek, I have had Lightroom for over 3 months now but have still not got around to the daunting task of cataloging my images. Once the backlog is cleared it should be plain sailing (only about 20,000 to go :) ) . I agree with you that it is a good piece of software and of course you have got the same RAW converter as the latest ACR version.

I didn't even bother to mention the previous combination of Pana FZ7 and PSE4. I think its called p***ing into the wind. Fortunately the PS monopoly is now being systematically broken and, at least with versions upto CS2/PSE4 it was what gave postprocessing a bad name. As I say there are now many choices and I dare say even people for whom PS is the first choice, but no longer any need to be put off if you find yourself putting a fist through the screen when trying to use it.

What are you trying to say Chris, that you find PS to difficult to use, if so that does not make it a bad piece of software. As said before "If you have been using DPP as your main editor I can understand why you were disappointed"

Perfect!!
Spot on again. BUT, my understanding is this: Photoshop is a pretty tricky tool to play around with. As there's no fixed process to follow. To each his own.

I don't mind software being difficult to use if the results justify the effort. While using DPP, I re-edited some of my old favourites taken at places I may never get to again and never felt I had done justice to when using PSE4 - the results were far better and achieved in a quarter of the time and using virtually no extra disc space to keep open for further editing. Using Capture NX, I can get better results still. In both cases working on images already reduced to .jpg by (a) Nikon E4500 (b) Pana FZ7. Working on RAW better still.

For Matt's benefit we should make it clear that we have different boundaries of what we regard as 'editing' and beyond which lies 'manipulation'. IMO PS also encourages manipulation beyond a sensible threshold; obviously people who want to play with images so as to achieve effects (such as simulating oils on canvas) beyond the strictly photographic are free to do so.

LOL - I am sure if you say so Chris then it must be right :D

I was given Andy Rouse's "Understanding Raw Photography" for Christmas and in it Andy basically tells all serious amateur photographers to buy Photoshop. He considers there to be nothing to touch it. He likens it to any other piece of camera equipment. Why spend hundreds if not thousands of pounds on a digital camera then not spend on the one piece of equipment that will enhance your shots like no other.

I also got this book (it is excellent btw) and it persuaded me to get my act together and sort out my workflow. I don't believe Photoshop is difficult to use, as you can choose how deep you want to go. Afterall there is more than enough information out there to help you and if I can learn it, then anyone can. :eek:

I also agree with Mr Rouse, Photoshop is much more than just another bit of software and if you're serious about your photography it is a must have bit of kit. I started learning it a couple of months ago from magazine CD's and internet tutorials and already I've signed up to run tutorials for our camera club - it really is not difficult to pick it up. OK there is a lot it can do that maybe I'll never learn - but do I need to as I'm also someone who likes to get it as right as I can in the camera? However it's good to know the features are there if and when I need them. :)

Photoshop - when paid for in full [!]- may be the best photo editor there is but can be overkill for most amateurs. It may be the best and the 'industry standard' but there sometimes seems to be a bit of 'must have' about it rather than really needing it. Great if your hobby is centred round pc work and you enjoy all that editing and manipulation but certainly not essential for everyone. I sometimes feel the way we're all supposed to spend hours converting RAW files and improving our results is a bit of a let off for the camera makers - digital cameras should be capable of giving you what you want direct from camera if you spend a bit of time on setting up your shots. All DSLRs should be able to give you good JPEGs - if you'd rather shoot RAW fine, but you should'nt have to if you don't want to.

Spending time setting up your shots or even shooting in jpeg is ok for static objects but if you are, say, a bird photographer you very often have a second or two before the bird has come and gone and in these situations I defy anyone to get it right all the time. This is where shooting in RAW is a must. Also in Bird photography there is almost always some cropping to do as the focal length is never enough and when you start to crop you then run into other problems like a severe enhancement of noise. I think the type of photography you do plays a big part in it. I know that with my Landscapes I normally do very little in the way of editing but with my bird shots it is a different kettle of fish.

There's a difference between a bit of cropping and tweaking and full scale processing. All my pictures are cropped a bit and tweaked but that can be done with free software. Having spent time shooting almost exclusively in RAW when i had a 30D I found I did'nt actually do much other than tweak shots as I'd do with JPEGs. After a year with Olympus whose cameras can usually be relied on to produce good JPEGs then swapping to a 40D I was relieved to find the 40D can produce JPEGs that are OK for me. But this is getting perilously close to another of those boring JPEG v RAW discussions!

I couldn't agree more :)

I agree about the Jpeg v Raw, each to their own. In a way the better photographer you are then the less you would need to use RAW because you would have got it right without too much tweaking . I am a novice who is in need of all the help I can get, so for me it is RAW. Maybe when I reach the level of some of the fine Photographers on this site I will be able to shoot jpeg only :)

This thread has gone way off what Matt was wanting comment on and is also introducing some misconceptions and feel it should be stopped

I love my computer: it gives me the chance to try to make my images as attractive as I can (but generally with not much success). Some photographers believe that they do not need PS or similar. However, I think that they are not self-critical enough to get the best from from their photos - near-blown highlights, colour casts, lack of sharpness, and lack of contrast are all common faults that are easily remedied with the magic of the computer.

Not sure that it has gone far off. It is evident that those who enjoy computers and processing are far more likely use it for things like RAW and PS whereas those who view the PC as a necessary evil are more likely to shoot in jpeg and do minimal processing.
I really enjoy processing .With some of the weather I have been trudging around in lately I have enjoyed the processing more than actually taking the shots.

I think the thread is still addressing the main point. What's important is to as much or as little pc work as you want and not feel pressed to lay out cash on the most super powerful software just because others use it. If it's your hobby then do it the way that gives you most enjoyment. I count my pictures as snapshots and don't very often take anything that's worth spending hours manipulating - sad but true!

What misconceptions?

Very nicely put Mike. Everything I believe but was incapable in putting into words. I some times feel very frusterated when I see a shot that can be made so much better with a very simple tweak ( very often as little as 20 seconds or so).

And I sell (some of) my images and can count on one hand the times I have spent more than 15 minutes manipulating them. I can't see where you get this idea that many photographers using photoshop spend hours with their images.

It's about having the flexibility to 'tweak' if and when needed and having Photoshop as my PP software means not looking around for more than one package to do the different jobs. It may well be 'overkill', but I figure if I'm serious about my photography, then it does not make sense to scrimp on software and certainly when one package will do everything I need.

However I've already stated I try to get it right at the 'taking' stage - as I just don't have the time to spend 'manipulating' all my images.

If you're 'serious' and if you make use of the full Photoshop package then it's obviously the one for you, fair enough. I also 'tweak' but just don't feel the need for more than an old version of PSP or a couple of free programmes because they're quite enough for tweaking.

Well I am certainly not a computer buff. I got into computers at work. Took the first one home for the weekend to try and learn something of how one program worked and returned on the Monday in the same state of ignorance. It all appeared totally baffling. Once I understood how to do things and I was getting out of the machine what I wanted then confidence grew. Within a couple of years I was wizzing around Excel and doing all manner of fancy stuff.

When I got into digital photography I was shooting jpeg and using Paint Shop Pro 7. Initially a huge struggle. I tend to crash and bash around and not read the various books. That program took me quite a while to get to where I was happy. In the sales I saw PSP 8 rated as a significant advance on PSP 7 so I got it. Lots of changes so nearly back to square 1. In the end I used features in both as the easier route.

Then WPF started up. Initially, and there is a long thread on it, I carried on as before in the zone I was comfortable with and used jpeg and PSP7 & 8. Then along came Foxy and I was dragged into RAW and yet another program to try to get to grips with, Nikon Capture 4. Initially that did my head in until I was getting better results than previously. Next was a camera upgrade that required more processing power so I got a new PC. Having spent years with and so comfortable with Windows 2000 the new machine had XP as the operating system. So another learning curve.

Next up was NX and CS2. ............... brain drain. NX I found very easy so it was a quick win. CS2 is a different story, and is still a bit of a brain drain.

To relate all that back to Matts original post [ " Photography (as I see it) has changed from the art of film and chemistry to computer files/downloads and photoshop...nothing really wrong with that as there are some incredible images being produced by these new technologies. " ] and Adeys comment [ " Black and White was more or less the order of the day as, without a proper set-up, colour-printing is far more difficult and not much fun (developing your first slide film is exciting when you first take the film out of the reel, though!). "]

B&W was easy and satisfying as it was easy wins. A good few prints could be made in a session.
Colour negative drove me mad, as each time I went to print the enlager filter pack had to be resorted. Sometimes I could only get one good print in an evening so quickly gave up on that and moved to Cibachrome as the paper was more stable. Never the less, mixing up the chemicals, and working in near pitch black, processing prints in a bit of old drainpipe rolled on the bench. While satisfying next day when the prints had dried, was in reality all a bit of a pain in the butt. A whole evening might yield half a dozen prints. 50 the same could take nearly all night.

So my experience is it come down to wins.
In the old days I prefered B&W printing as wins were easier to achieve, and each win inspired going for another.
Computers and photo programs may take time to learn, well those bits of the program that will satisfy your need, but if you take some of the romance out of the old days make for a preferable processing experience. Therefore once mastered provide quick wins.

Quite a number of professionals have returned to film, and have it processed and printed for them as they could not keep pace with the everchanging Digital Darkroom so anyone struggling is not alone.

As I type this I see Derekb's new post and chuckle to myself as often I spend 1/2 an hour or more on an image ( small change by comparison with the old days ). Sorting out my last but one gallery job to satisfy my mentor took over an hour, and I think I know what I am doing in a flash environment. So nothing to do with exposure correction issues.

Perhaps thats because I hop the image around various programs using those bits I understand.
Don

Well I first had a taster using a computer back in 1973 at Warwick University. I recall it was playing "Bulls and Cows". In 1978 I bought my first 'puter and started to get to grips with programming the thing as a hobby. In 1992 I was made redundant and went at got a degree in software engineering. In 1996 I started at my present place of work developing CAD/CAM software. You probably see the results of our design and manufacturing software everyday of your life. Actually our software is used by both Canon and Nikon, probably most of the other camera makers too. Canadians see the result every time they get given change, quite a few other countries too. I know how to make a CPU do things, that doesn't mean to say that I know how some random piece of software (word, excel, etc) does something, nor why the damn stupid machine keeps crashing. Though I may have a general idea as to which part of it needs to be thumped. As for photoshop well there is a connection here:
http://www.doctorgavin.com/

Mostly I have a set sequence of things I do using PhotoImpact, and NeatImage. Probably takes 10 - 15 minutes per image. Sometimes I do a bit of fiddling about and occasionally discover some new technique. I no longer try converting some PS tutorial into PI as I just get frustrated. I've given up on photographic magazines as my impression is that they are mostly useless twaddle, adverts masquerading as editorial as trying to sell you something.

As I have mentioned in previous threads, I was a photographic printer for 10 years (hand black and white mostly) and even back then it would be common practice to take 2, 3 or even 4 hours over one print until it was good enough to send to a client. Using Photoshop seems exactly the same to me.

Hi all - I agree you either love or hate computers but for all of us -----

For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way
computers have enhanced our lives, read on.

At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the
computer industry with the auto industry and stated,

"If General Motors had kept up with technology like the computer
industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the
gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
stating:

If General Motors had developed technology like Microsoft, we would
all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash........

Twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to
buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You
would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut
off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue.
For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause
your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to
reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable,
five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only
five percent of the roads.

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would
all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation"
warning light.

7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.

8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you
out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle,
turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn
how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in
the same manner as the old car.

10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.

Very very Funny Andy, Maybe I shouldn't laugh as I use MICROSOFT windows.
As for Computers, I'm more into Hardware than software as I'm on the third PC that I have built at home, Which gives me a great sense of achievement,
being self taught,(like doing jigsaw puzzles):D, And like most I muddle my way with CS2.

LOL! very funny Andy..nice one!

Matt, I couldn't agree with you more!....As a recent digi convert I do somehow miss the faint lingering wiff of the previous nights colour fixer in the morning as I brush my teeth!...


But might I just add...the processor hasn't been packed away just yet...I'm still holding on, and I still have 'umpteen gallons of chemical and half a billion rolls of velvia. Safe in the knowledge that if there were a massive worldwide electrical storm, and every circuit in the world failed, I would still be able to take a good ol' fashioned photograph with my manual FM. LOL!

DSLR=optics+sensor/interpreter+pre-programmed internal computer and comes with a cable you can put into a printer and internal tweak buttons so you can go straight to print. Pana FZ50 is similar if you don't need different lenses.

But you need a 'proper' computer to connect to internet & WPF and optimise images for screen viewing.

You can choose to take over human control after the sensor/interpreter stage, in which case you have a RAW image, which contains all the information the sensor picked up while the shutter was open. Or, you can choose among the pre-programmed modes within the camera and transfer a correspondingly pre-programmed and irreversibly compressed JPG image to the 'proper' computer. It can still be tweaked, but not so much and with more risk of introducing noise and halos.

RAW images that, because light and exposure were correct, need only slight tweak or optimisation, need never be converted. DPP & NX (maybe also CS in .PNG?) save in RAW including the information used in the optimisation and can be printed from direct and used to generate a reduced JPG for forums without affecting the original.

Choice of software and computer become important for difficult images where more processing is needed to get a machine captured image back to what the human eye+brain originally thought worth preserving and sharing. If you want to do that, you have to come to terms with computers.

The choice of camera, computer and software are very personal. Reading reviews and forum debates helps, but maybe not as much as identifying folks whose images are what one aspires to oneself and finding out why they use the particular camera etc they do. WPF is really superb for that.

Chris, nicely explained. I thought that by 'misconceptions' you meant that computers and tweaking were not needed.