Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, is Photoshop (regular program)THAT good? Is it better than Photo Go 1.0 or the old Adobe Photo Deluxe we have now? Can I do everything with Photoshop that I can with Photo Go 1.0 and that old Adobe Photo Deluxe combined. I would rather have one program to use instead of two.
Due to arthritis, some older folks can spend that much time on a computer doing editing of a photo. Tell that "62 is young" to my muscles/bones when they ache from too much walking or cold weather sets in (even here in FL).
"62" isn't 40 or 50 anymore! When I was in my 40's/early 50's, I could still swing a rope and catch a steer in an arena......not anymore!
But the question was what's age got to do with whether you should post process or not?
If age makes a computer keyboard difficult, operating a camera will also be difficult. (Incidentally, my age is greater than 62, and clearly you are right about the fact that we aren't 40 or 50 anymore!)
The question for post processing really is one of what do you want out of photography, and what are your interests and skills. Post processing isn't a skill everyone can enjoy, afford, or desires to have. There are very reasonable economic and personal reasons to do little or no post processing.
But there are few valid technical reasons to avoid post processing. Two that do exist are for high frame rates where writing RAW files reduces the frame rate, and issues with photojournalism or forensics where an camera generated JPEG is required. Everything else is generally somebody's way to justifying their lower skill or economic levels and it has more to do with ego than photography.
Getting it right in the camera is just as valid for those who post process as it is for those who don't, because post processing is not a way to "fix" mistakes. Post processing is a way to get the best possible picture from the data captured by the sensor. It is technically more accurate and more precise than the processing that can be done with the less able processor built into the camera.
Personally I would rather be a photographer who knows how to use all of his tools synergistically to create the best images possible.
+1
I just can't imagine making the effort to get everything as correct as possible with the camera configuration, and then not doing the best possible job of processing to produce the best possible image. Stopping half way and accepting it as "good enough" isn't what gives me any real sense of accomplishment.
But different people have different goals, and reach their goals with different results. For example we see a huge range of both artistic and technical accomplishments in the images posted to these forums, but it is safe to say (because they do get posted) that every over exposed moon shot, every over exposed yellow flower, and every oversaturated and downright ugly composition ever posted did make somebody relatively happy!
So, is Photoshop (regular program)THAT good? Is it better than Photo Go 1.0 or the old Adobe Photo Deluxe we have now? Can I do everything with Photoshop that I can with Photo Go 1.0 and that old Adobe Photo Deluxe combined. I would rather have one program to use instead of two.
Photoshop can do anything and is the most widely used industry standard for image processing tools. Every release of Photoshop contains important new features that make certain manipulations far easier than previous versions. So you really can't compare Photoshop to anything else. Now there are competitive tools like Gimp and Aperture that are also widely used and can arguably do much of the same things that Photoshop can. But still, you will find more internet tutorials and books written on Photoshop than anything else because it is the industry standard.
That being said, it requires a large investment in money and time to learn it. I'm also guessing it's serious overkill for what you want to do. I would take a serious look at Photoshop Elements which can probably give you everything you need for quite a while to come at a much cheaper price point, and less time to learn.
So, is Photoshop (regular program)THAT good? Is it better than Photo Go 1.0 or the old Adobe Photo Deluxe we have now? Can I do everything with Photoshop that I can with Photo Go 1.0 and that old Adobe Photo Deluxe combined. I would rather have one program to use instead of two.
Well, Photoshop is the benchmark today. Even now it is a powerful tool to make a casual photographer look exceptionally good than their on-field capabilities would otherwise dictate. You can put moon, sun, mountains, reflections and what not where they didn't exist (or showed up poorly).
And rumors are, soon to come is a feature that will transform even blurry shots into reasonably sharp ones. It is an investment though. I upgraded to CS5 a month ago, but haven't put it to use yet.
Well, Photoshop is the benchmark today. Even now it is a powerful tool to make a casual photographer look exceptionally good than their on-field capabilities would otherwise dictate.
That's like saying a car is a powerful tool for getting away after a bank robbery.
I'm not for or against Photoshop or any other PP tool, I dont use any(I don't know how to...yet) but it's because I have not put in the time or effort to learn how to use any of them yet. And since I got my new camera I have been to busy learning how to use it properly, to even consider learning Photoshop too.
That's like saying a car is a powerful tool for getting away after a bank robbery.
For Bonnie and Clyde, it was. But my point being more along the lines of a purist's idea of a sports car versus someone who would rather be chauffeured around.
For Bonnie and Clyde, it was. But my point being more along the lines of a purist's idea of a sports car versus someone who would rather be chauffeured around.
Didn't Bonnie and Clyde get shot to death trying to escape by car? Your points on this topic don't seem to be well thought out. Using only the limited post processing options engineered into a camera is the same as being chauffeured by the design engineers. The high performance of a sports car equates to the equally high performance of post camera image processing tools that you eschew and sully with regularity.
The fact is that all digital photographs are processed from raw sensor data. You can do that with the relatively simple and crude software and computer built into a digital camera, or use more able and technically superior external computers and software. The first way is not as difficult to work with... but produces less versatile results.
If good enough (blown highlights on moon shots, clipping yellow flowers, and bokeh only as good as the lens) is enough to be satisfied, go for it! There is no need to do more than what works well enough for your needs.
But lets not be claiming you are some how a purist and doing anything as well as or better than anyone else by not learning and not using the extensive tools that are available for making better products. It doesn't work that way...
whether the camera adds the look you want or your software does it with digital someone has to do it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
