PHOTO_ _ _ _

[akjack]

Photoshop or Photo _ _ _ _ I know some of you will go crazy, but when will some nerd come out with a photo imaging program that is not redundant, crash, burn and be a pain. Many of you will say it's great just because the program is like an old cranky wife...(you are used to it, nothing more), but no one with a wit of sense wants it.

Yes, it's the standard, yes, it's available, yes, it overpriced, yes, there is not much else out there (why?)

But lets get real...this thing is outdated and hard to use for beginners, which I'm not.... haveing lived with the growgram for many moons !

[andrys]

Photoshop or Photo _ _ _ _
But lets get real...this thing is outdated and hard to use for beginners, which I'm not.... haveing lived with the growgram for many moons !

So you say! And 'many moon's means 'many months'...

Maybe "let's get real" and see some actual photos from you unless you
think they're nondescript or something!

Or, you just want people to talk with about being bored about everything?''''

[dougj]

I think you're making too much out of this. Many folks are happy with the processing done automatically in their camera. Some will try a program like Elements that came bundled with their camera for post processing, and either stay with the program or look for additional capabilities in other programs.

You may be surprised to learn that many photographers use their image editing program(s) based on their informed and experienced choice. However there are a number of programs other than Photoshop, ones that are easy to use, have limited but decent functionality, and many of these are free or request a small contribution.

I suggest you do a simple search, I’m sure you find a program that matches your needs and abilities.

BTW, PBase support is only $23/yr for 500MB, an excellent deal.

[jellophoto]

Can't see your point at all akjack

There are many programs out there ranging from simple to very sophisticated. Photoshop may be hard for beginers, but then most professional programs are. Beginers need to build up to them. If the beginer does not know the basics then there is no chance of learning the rest. There are other programs out there including Photopaint which works very similar to photoshop and in my opinion is underrated. Next in line is probably Paintshop Pro. Below that there a series of low end programs which allow most shooters to do minor alterations and many people are happy with these. It really depends on what the individual wants or needs!

As to it being outdated and redundant what do you base this comment on. What do you want from an image editing program. I would suggest the high end programs provide everything and more than most people need or use. What is missing. Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your own experience!

[madlights]

The only thing I wished Photoshop would do is make a version available in Linux. If Adobe would do that it would give a great boost to anti-monopoly forces....and would put a good crimp in the Evil-Empire(Microsoft). That Empire to me is what is outdated...cumbersome...monopolistic...and has hindered the evolution of computers. Of course there is something to be said for sameness and universality ...but there should be a choice...or at least more choices in OS. I do find there are other choices than Photoshop. I've got an older version of Photoimpact also that does 'some' things better (but not most). Irfanview and Gimp (Linux compatible version available) are getting better all along. It's too bad that Adobe bought out RawShooter from pixmantec. I heard they used the engine in Lightroom....but don't know how true it is. Yeah and the photos; there's that old saying about "putting your money where your mouth is" Most of us may not be the photographer you are...seriously...but least we've got the guts to show that we aren't.

[sean_mcr]

I do think Akjack makes some good points, there is great deal in photoshop that your average user is never going to need .


Michael Reichmann gave some background on photoshop when taking a first look at Lightroom.


"Photoshop is arguably the 800 pound gorilla of the digital photography world, and these days digital means photography. Now in its 18th year, the brainchild of Thomas and John Knoll has gone from being a tool primarily for graphic artists and pre-press people, to the dominant program used by photographers around the world.

It is not without its problems though. Now on Version #9 (dubbed Photoshop CS2), the program has been described by pundits as something of a Frankenstein. No, not because its evil, but because it has grown with a part from here, and a part from there – with a feature designed for this constituency, and another for that one. In trying to become all things to all people (at least those in the imaging arena), it has become a heavyweight product, but also one encumbered by a lot of baggage"

Read on

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... oom1.shtml

[pinemikey]

Paintshop Pro ...free here: http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=psp [I purchased mine on Ebay for 20 bucks or so]

Note to readers: Once a program goes from numbers to letters for versions, that's a real first clue that innovation was not priority with the "new" release.

RAW Shooter Essentials ...free here: http://www.photo-freeware.net/raw-shoot ... ntials.php [ As long as Adobe allows it to breath]

Very useful programs and you won't have to hock your camera to pay for the software.

[akjack]

Sean, It seems to me that Lightroom is just more Adobe Hoop-la and more complication and of course more sales hype and mumbo-jumbo to add to the already too many cooks and books and experts spoiling the pot. This is why I have ignored it, but maybe at my peril !

Read the article and others may find it interesting also although the download is not free anymore except maybe the 30 day trial.

I don't and won't shoot Raw and have stopped shooting for stock agencies that want it. Digital takes up so much time as it is you don't have time for photography anymore. The Nerds need to get busy and develope a camera that is simple...and what's up...how come a photo from a space platform can see a dime on the ground and we are stuck with these lame, limited, costly prime and zoom lens that seem to be technology from the 20th century...(the very early part)! is this just more crap to make $ from lens sales...probably...I want one lens that covers all focal lengths and etc....I bet the technology exists !

I took a very cool sunset photo yesterday...but then I deleated it as I remembered that others have taken 12000000000000000 billion google of them already !!!!! Well, maybe mine was different ? I though I saw GOD poking his head through the clouds !