Photoshop Frustration for a Film Photographer

[Cricket et Minou]

It's by the grace of God, with good planning and a ready willingness to jump to a new lilypad, that I learnt about digital photography long before the first megapixel was born: about 1988 to 1990 would be when I was studying Illustrator, Photoshop and CorelDraw and the application of scanning. I attended night classes and worked my own analogue production schedule at home on alternate days and weekends. So I'm very conversant with both digital and analogue.

In my work Photoshop is used to a very minimum: replacement of sharpness from the scan step, colourimetrics, profiling and proofing (usually once, no more than twice), then final print. There is no HDR. No layering. No extravagent USM. No Disneychrome profiling. Checking of colours against my personal standard chart and final RA-4 print run with QC. If I'm happy (and most of the time I am!), it goes off to the frameshop for finishing. The amount of time spent on any digital work is very, very minimal. It always has been. I think about 30 minutes tops post-scan. And it's an old version of Photoshop that the lab and I use, too. We despise Adobe's persistent adding-on of all sorts of things that really have no place in studio work where time is often the essence, not dibbing with droplets. I am aware that older folk experience frustration and often anger when going near digital work for the first time. In my experience they don't really cotton-on and become very proficient — I'm still hammering at it with several older people grabbling with their digital cameras and trying to "make something of it" through Photoshop. So... I can only cite my case, but starting early and stickingn at it can certainly pay big dividends when you want to, or have to, straddle the so-called "great divide" of film vs digital. I work in both worlds and the entire photographic production industry, thus I see much, much more going on than digital-only or the ravenous analogue-only crowds.

 

[Cricket et Minou]

It's by the grace of God, with good planning and a ready willingness to jump to a new lilypad, that I learnt about digital photography long before the first megapixel was born: about 1988 to 1990 would be when I was studying Illustrator, Photoshop and CorelDraw and the application of scanning. I attended night classes and worked my own analogue production schedule at home on alternate days and weekends. So I'm very conversant with both digital and analogue.

In my work Photoshop is used to the very, very minimum: replacement of sharpness from the scan step, colourimetrics, profiling and proofing (usually once, no more than twice), then final print. There is no HDR. No layering. No extravagent USM. No Disneychrome profiling. Checking of colours against my personal standard chart and final RA-4 print run with QC. If I'm happy (and most of the time I am!), it goes off to the frameshop for finishing. The amount of time spent on any digital work is very, very minimal. It always has been. I think about 30 minutes tops post-scan. And it's an old version of Photoshop that the lab and I use, too. We despise Adobe's persistent adding-on of all sorts of things that really have no place in studio work where time is often the essence, not dibbing with droplets. I am aware that older folk experience frustration and often anger when going near digital work for the first time. In my experience they don't really cotton-on and become very proficient — I'm still hammering at it with several older people grabbling with their digital cameras and trying to "make something of it" through Photoshop. So... I can only cite my case, but starting early and stickingn at it can certainly pay big dividends when you want to, or have to, straddle the so-called "great divide" of film vs digital. I work in both worlds and the entire photographic production industry, thus I see much, much more going on than digital-only fanbois or the ravenous (and frankly, a lot of time plainly unknowledgeable) analogue-only crowds. Knowledge is power. Who said that...?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.
I hear your pain; just try the YouTube tutorials of Aaron Nance and You'll get what you want; his stuff is brilliant!
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 …

 

[Eric Rose]

I'm a long in the tooth darkroom guy but have been working in the digi field for the past 10 years at least. I am totally self taught and find PS easy to use, now. There are only a few functions I actually use as I try and keep to a workflow that replicates what I would have produced in a darkroom. I have used HDR when necessary but not for the over the top effects some go for. I have also used stitching to increase resolution for images I want to blow up HUGE.

It's really not the boogie man many think it is this digi stuff. I would recommend an online course from udemy.com as a start. If you live near Calgary I could sit down with you a couple of evenings and get you going.

 

[David Brown]

Sounds like you got stuck in the wrong class. I happen to believe that Ps is the ideal tool for what you are trying to do,and I also believe that PS is complex but not hard to learn;actually,knowing your way around a darkroom makes it easier to develop a successful digital workflow;so many steps are identical in execution and purpose.I'm currently working on a digital companion to 'Way Beyond Monochrome' called"Digital Monochrome",highlighting the similarities between light- and darkroom work.I may add some APUGERs as test readers,because people going from analog to digital is my target group.

Ralph:

You resurrected this year and a half old thread. Did you ever get Digital Monochrome going?

DB

 

[jeffreyg]

While it may be out of print a good reference book on PhotoShop is by Martin Evening.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Kino]

You can also try RawTherepee (http://www.rawtherapee.com/). It's an open source, free program.