Brendan - I've always felt that Photoshop was not a photographer's tool. I started with Picture Window Pro and moved to Photoshop when I needed to do raw conversion. I've read the latest version of Picture Window Pro handles batches of files and does raw conversion and I'm considering moving back. I'll also be considering how Lightroom will fit into the mix.
We're blessed and cursed to have so many choices. -gs- <www.georgesphotos.net> On 4/13/07, Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good point, Mark. > > In fact, I could really care less about it except that > I've had some rejections because of it. Now, are the > inspectors looking past 100%? I have no idea, but > probably so. > > For my own peace of mind, I'm trying to get to the > bottom of something that will, in the end, make me a > more competent "fixer" of images, as opposed to let's > say, a better photographer. It is, unfortunately, part > and parcel of the digital capture world in which we > wish to function. > > To go little further with this, I have been reading a > few Photoshop books and visiting forums recently and > I've come away with the feeling that Photoshop, as > great and wonderful a tool as it is, is also the bane > of my existence. It is not really a photographer's > tool; it is a designers tool. Probably 80% of what PS > can do I want absolutely no part of. I cringe at even > needing to learn the 20% I MUST learn. But forge ahead > I will. > > So, your point is very well received. I would so much > rather be out shooting. But if I want to move forward > with my images I have to dig a bit deeper into some of > the mundane issues that I would normally ignore with > pleasure. > > -Brendan > --- Mark Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Brendan's post and the response bring up an > > interesting issue that seems to > > increasingly dominate the digital photography > > world--pixel peeping and > > hunting for defects. It is easy to zoom up to 200% > > and tear apart an image, > > but how much of the defects we observe will actually > > show up in real world > > applications? > > > > For example, the DPReview Pentax SLR forum has had > > several VPN (vertical > > pattern noise) threads lately. Basically, if you > > crank the ISO way up, > > shoot in very low light, then amplify the shadow > > areas in Photoshop you'll > > see patterns in the noise. My *ist-Ds does it, but > > I never noticed it until > > I went looking for it. My ultimate conclusion is, > > "So what?" It's like the > > old joke where the patient says, "Doctor, it hurts > > when I do XXXX," and the > > doctor responds, "So don't do XXXX". > > > > I know that blooming and CA can be pretty obvious in > > certain situations > > (e.g., backlit tree branches in winter). In less > > contrasty cases, you may > > be able to find it if you go looking for it. If > > it's not obtrusive, > > however, why worry so much about it? > > > > Just a thought.... > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
