Love digital photography ~ hate computers!!

[Derekb]

Originally Posted by greypoint

I count my pictures as snapshots and don't very often take anything that's worth spending hours manipulating - sad but true!

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.

[greypoint]

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.

[Don Hoey]

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

[walwyn]

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.

[greenbunion]

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.

[andy153]

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.

[Lello]

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), And like most I muddle my way with CS2.

[Joe]

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!

Originally Posted by birdsnapper

What misconceptions?

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.

[Birdsnapper]

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