When the digital revolution started, I was not an early adopter. My friend and fellow photographer, the late Lee Carmichael, said that he was too old to start over and learn a whole new method of working. I agreed with Lee, especially since I was not using color for my own work. If I had still been trying to make any money at photography – as in my wedding shooter days – I would have had to switch, but as a hobbyist, I saw no need.
I was never really anti-digital. We’ve had a digital camera since we bought a one megapixel (count’em: one) and a series of successors including a full frame DSLR. It’s been years since I exposed a frame of color film for anything. Digital replaced color film for the vacation snaps.
However, I have reached the limits of my self-taught digital expertise. Digital is a very different way of working, and it has a steep learning curve, in spite of the myth of its simplicity. Fortunately, I have changed my mind about being to old to learn it. I’m getting serious about the transition to serious color (digital) photography. (Not replacing the black and white darkroom, but adding color to my repertoire.)
As part of the transition, I just completed a Photoshop class. I had almost forgotten that I had taken a class before, probably 12-15 years ago – early Photoshop. It was a continuing ed class at a local college, and met a couple of nights a week for several weeks, as I recall. I do remember the early class was largely made up of grandmothers who wanted to learn how to get their grandbaby pictures out of the camera and on to this new-fangled internet thing. (Photoshop is overkill for that, but …) I also remember that the instructor spent a lot of time on showing us what I still refer to as the “gadgets” in Photoshop. Use this filter and your picture will look like a painting. Here’s one that will make everything all swirly.
Beyond the gadgets, we also spent a bit of time doing retouching, or restoration, mostly with the clone and healing brush tools. Both are valuable, and I use them! Not so much the gadget filters. But very little time was spent on plain old “post-processing” of good photographs.
The just completed class has not been a waste of time, by any means, but it has also been disappointing in some ways. We met for a total of 10 hours over 4 sessions, and spent much of the time making composites, or switching out one person’s head in a group shot with their head from another exposure. But, while using layers (for everything) was heavily emphasized, not near enough time was spent on making clean selections.
And most disappointingly, very little time on color correction and absolutely no time on preparing files for printing. Dodging and burning were never mentioned. Contrast was never discussed.
What was I expecting, or more to the point, what is it I was wanting out of the class?
In spite of Adobe’s current marketing of Lightroom as the “digital darkroom”, Photoshop was the original flagship digital darkroom software and remains the industry standard. Tools in early versions were based on darkroom printing procedures; i.e., dodging and burning, contrast control, color correction, unsharp masks, etc. All of those tools remain, of course. Layers, channels, and the like facilitate more effective use of (for lack of a better word) traditional tools. I get that.
However, I have yet to find a class, including online, that really approaches using the software in the same way that one works in a darkroom. Photoshop can do so much more than “process” your photographs. I get that. And maybe for users who have never worked in a darkroom, the old terminology is foreign and confusing. I get that.
But for those of us who grew up in chemical darkrooms, and even beginning photographers who have been fortunate to have been trained in both media, is it so much to ask to have instruction tailored to us?
While I hardly mind knowing the, let’s say, graphic arts processes (perhaps a nicer name than gadgets) it is not what I do primarily. I’ve been using Photoshop for many years. I make prints. I exhibit and sell color (digital) photographs. I published a book of the same. But I am self-taught for the most part and I know there is so much more I could learn. There is more I could do with the software, or do what I already do more efficiently and effectively. Curves, levels, channels; all would come into better play if I could find the proper type of instruction for serious photographers.
I asked the instructor if perhaps I was using the wrong software (would Lightroom be better for me?) or was I just taking the wrong classes? Really could not get a satisfying answer.
Maybe it’s just the current style in photographs. HDR is a big thing. Stitching is a big thing. Heavy, often unrealistic “retouching” is a thing. Compositing perfect group shots from multiple “captures” is a thing. This class was geared toward, if anybody, a beginning photographer doing the usual weddings and portraits. But what of the “fine-art” photographer? I work hard to get it in camera, and now just wish to fine tune the image, and prepare the file for printing.
Remember printing? Is that not a thing, anymore. Perhaps I’m on to something …
I was never really anti-digital. We’ve had a digital camera since we bought a one megapixel (count’em: one) and a series of successors including a full frame DSLR. It’s been years since I exposed a frame of color film for anything. Digital replaced color film for the vacation snaps.
However, I have reached the limits of my self-taught digital expertise. Digital is a very different way of working, and it has a steep learning curve, in spite of the myth of its simplicity. Fortunately, I have changed my mind about being to old to learn it. I’m getting serious about the transition to serious color (digital) photography. (Not replacing the black and white darkroom, but adding color to my repertoire.)
As part of the transition, I just completed a Photoshop class. I had almost forgotten that I had taken a class before, probably 12-15 years ago – early Photoshop. It was a continuing ed class at a local college, and met a couple of nights a week for several weeks, as I recall. I do remember the early class was largely made up of grandmothers who wanted to learn how to get their grandbaby pictures out of the camera and on to this new-fangled internet thing. (Photoshop is overkill for that, but …) I also remember that the instructor spent a lot of time on showing us what I still refer to as the “gadgets” in Photoshop. Use this filter and your picture will look like a painting. Here’s one that will make everything all swirly.
Beyond the gadgets, we also spent a bit of time doing retouching, or restoration, mostly with the clone and healing brush tools. Both are valuable, and I use them! Not so much the gadget filters. But very little time was spent on plain old “post-processing” of good photographs.
The just completed class has not been a waste of time, by any means, but it has also been disappointing in some ways. We met for a total of 10 hours over 4 sessions, and spent much of the time making composites, or switching out one person’s head in a group shot with their head from another exposure. But, while using layers (for everything) was heavily emphasized, not near enough time was spent on making clean selections.
And most disappointingly, very little time on color correction and absolutely no time on preparing files for printing. Dodging and burning were never mentioned. Contrast was never discussed.
What was I expecting, or more to the point, what is it I was wanting out of the class?
In spite of Adobe’s current marketing of Lightroom as the “digital darkroom”, Photoshop was the original flagship digital darkroom software and remains the industry standard. Tools in early versions were based on darkroom printing procedures; i.e., dodging and burning, contrast control, color correction, unsharp masks, etc. All of those tools remain, of course. Layers, channels, and the like facilitate more effective use of (for lack of a better word) traditional tools. I get that.
However, I have yet to find a class, including online, that really approaches using the software in the same way that one works in a darkroom. Photoshop can do so much more than “process” your photographs. I get that. And maybe for users who have never worked in a darkroom, the old terminology is foreign and confusing. I get that.
But for those of us who grew up in chemical darkrooms, and even beginning photographers who have been fortunate to have been trained in both media, is it so much to ask to have instruction tailored to us?
While I hardly mind knowing the, let’s say, graphic arts processes (perhaps a nicer name than gadgets) it is not what I do primarily. I’ve been using Photoshop for many years. I make prints. I exhibit and sell color (digital) photographs. I published a book of the same. But I am self-taught for the most part and I know there is so much more I could learn. There is more I could do with the software, or do what I already do more efficiently and effectively. Curves, levels, channels; all would come into better play if I could find the proper type of instruction for serious photographers.
I asked the instructor if perhaps I was using the wrong software (would Lightroom be better for me?) or was I just taking the wrong classes? Really could not get a satisfying answer.
Maybe it’s just the current style in photographs. HDR is a big thing. Stitching is a big thing. Heavy, often unrealistic “retouching” is a thing. Compositing perfect group shots from multiple “captures” is a thing. This class was geared toward, if anybody, a beginning photographer doing the usual weddings and portraits. But what of the “fine-art” photographer? I work hard to get it in camera, and now just wish to fine tune the image, and prepare the file for printing.
Remember printing? Is that not a thing, anymore. Perhaps I’m on to something …
