self destructing Photoshop

[Deniz]

I begging to some experienced software engineers/programmers to create a virus that only effects photoshop folder in a computer and renders it useless..

looking at the "best" photos at photo.net i want to stab myself in the face with a pitchfork..

done ranting...

 

[bmac]

Here is something better for you. Quit wasting your time worrying about what the lemmings on photo.net like or don't like and work on your own photography

 

[Graeme Hird]

Brian's on the right track. Remove photo.net from your "favourites" folder on the web browser and your eyesight will be saved from self-inflicted harm.

Cheers,

 

[modafoto]

Here is something better for you. Quit wasting your time worrying about what the lemmings on photo.net like or don't like and work on your own photography

hear hear!

 

[Sean]

was browsing photosig the other day and found some of the images very bizarre. It's looking more and more popular to have wild colors and many objects added to the images. I saw a scene of a field and lake, and someone then added a hotair ballon, then added a fake reflection of the ballon in the lake. It really looked terrible, and many of the comments are like "great photograph!! i love what you did with making the reflection!". Had they said "great digital illustration!" I would have been happy, but "great photograph" on something that has been tweaked beyond recognition of the original, yeah, pitchfork to the face about sums it up, hehe

 

[Andy K]

 

[Deniz]

Here is something better for you. Quit wasting your time worrying about what the lemmings on photo.net like or don't like and work on your own photography

Good Advice
Will put it into use right away!!

 

[Jorge]

Here is something better for you. Quit wasting your time worrying about what the lemmings on photo.net like or don't like and work on your own photography

I don't know Brian, one of the ways one grows in photography is by looking at other people's work (at least IMO). If you visit a "photography" site and 90% of the images are PS manipulated or created, well, as nice as it could be, it is still and electronic rendition. IMO a photograph is not a photograph until it is on paper, I don't care what medium, ink jet, llfocIhrome etc, etc. I can understand Deniz's frustration, I also have been looking at PN lately and most I have seen has been digital capture and rendition, no paper.

The problem I see is that it seems to be going all that way, usefilm, photosig, etc....all are mostly digital capture images processed in PS and specifically for web sites. How is one to learn photography if all you see is digital PS images?

Unfortunately we don't see much color work here. Which is something I would like to see more, Mrcallow had some very nice images at ebay, I would have like to see some here, b.e.wilson also does some very nice work, c'mon color people get posting! you all know my preference is B&W, but it is getting boring here.

 

[roteague]

I begging to some experienced software engineers/programmers to create a virus that only effects photoshop folder in a computer and renders it useless..

looking at the "best" photos at photo.net i want to stab myself in the face with a pitchfork..

done ranting...

I understand completely. I think that the saddest thing about this is that PS takes people away from actually taking pictures and moves them in front of the computer screen. It seems this is the lazy way out. FWIW, this past weekend I was out shooting at a Hawaiian fish pond, and exploring the different compositions and viewpoints from my camera. Can't do this with PS.

 

[roteague]

Unfortunately we don't see much color work here. Which is something I would like to see more, Mrcallow had some very nice images at ebay, I would have like to see some here, b.e.wilson also does some very nice work, c'mon color people get posting! you all know my preference is B&W, but it is getting boring here.

I've just started posting images pretty recently, all in color, and I plan on posting more in the future. However, from what I've seen most APUG members seem more interested in B&W - I base this observation on the number of view and comments an image receives. As I pointed out in another thread, the B&W images in the gallery have re-awakened my desire to shoot B&W again (which I did this weekend).

 

[Aggie]

What is sad in the college level class I took on digital photography we were not taught photography. You were told to go out and just shoot what ever you wanted no matter how it turned out. What 99% of the class consisted of was coming back to the lab and being taught how to mask and fix any problen the resulting image had in photoshop. Not once were we told how to use the camera, how to shoot for the existing light, composition, etc. It was nothing more than a class on photoshop. If I want to learn another computer program, I want it called as such. Do not confuse manipulating a computer program with taking a quality picture.

 

[Dave Miller]

I begging to some experienced software engineers/programmers to create a virus that only effects photoshop folder in a computer and renders it useless..

looking at the "best" photos at photo.net i want to stab myself in the face with a pitchfork..

done ranting...

Ladies and gentlemen, we do seem to be getting ourselves into something of a lather over this Photoshop thing, do we not?
I guess stable boys and blacksmiths felt the same way when Henry Ford started knocking out Tin Lizzies at a dime a dozen, causing the horseshoe trade to bomb.
The fact is that Photoshop, like the Spinning Jenny is here, and it ain’t going away; so learn to love it, or ignore it, but please don’t keep prattling on about it. It’s boring!

 

[Aggie]

Ladies and gentlemen, we do seem to be getting ourselves into something of a lather over this Photoshop thing, do we not?
I guess stable boys and blacksmiths felt the same way when Henry Ford started knocking out Tin Lizzies at a dime a dozen, causing the horseshoe trade to bomb.
The fact is that Photoshop, like the Spinning Jenny is here, and it ain’t going away; so learn to love it, or ignore it, but please don’t keep prattling on about it. It’s boring!

My prattle is about the way it is taught in conjunction with photography. It is not photography that is being taught. That is tertirary in importance in todays photography classes dealing with digital. PS as a tool to create art in a borad sense is fine. I rile at the fact it is not the art of photography, it is the art of photoshop. Call it by its true name.

 

[anyte]

Ladies and gentlemen, we do seem to be getting ourselves into something of a lather over this Photoshop thing, do we not?
I guess stable boys and blacksmiths felt the same way when Henry Ford started knocking out Tin Lizzies at a dime a dozen, causing the horseshoe trade to bomb.
The fact is that Photoshop, like the Spinning Jenny is here, and it ain’t going away; so learn to love it, or ignore it, but please don’t keep prattling on about it. It’s boring!

It may not effect you in any way but it's definitely having a huge impact on my ability to learn. I need feed back and I can't for the life of me GET feed back because all the "critique" boards focus heavily on how to "manipulate" your images, rather than how to "photograph" good images.

More and more photography is seeming to be a fruitless effort for me. I'm sinking out here because I have no peers or I just can't get the kind of input I need to grow and improve.

No one ever tells digital users to stop beating up on analog users but people are forever telling analog users to stop complaining about the ways they are effected by the digital craze. Funny how that works.

 

[noblebeast]

It may not effect you in any way but it's definitely having a huge impact on my ability to learn. I need feed back and I can't for the life of me GET feed back because all the "critique" boards focus heavily on how to "manipulate" your images, rather than how to "photograph" good images.

That's a great point, Anyte. Often not considered in the whole debate is how the begining photographer is affected by the emphasis on digital. "Fix it in photoshop" doesn't help someone take a decent photo in the first place, including the hows and whys of composition and other important, cross-platform knowledge. With more and more schools shutting down their "wet photography" departments I imagine it is very difficult for the newbie to find good, personalized guidance. Hopefully Sean is giving serious consideration to the APUG Mentor Program I suggested a few weeks ago. And Les McLean already made the offer to help others, so maybe PM him and see if he can give you some cyber one-on-one? (And I hope he doesn't mind me volunteering him )

Joe

 

[Graeme Hird]

IMO a photograph is not a photograph until it is on paper, I don't care what medium, ink jet, llfocIhrome etc, etc.

So slides don't count Jorge? What could be more purely analogue than a tranny?

......

Unfortunately we don't see much color work here. Which is something I would like to see more, Mrcallow had some very nice images at ebay, I would have like to see some here, b.e.wilson also does some very nice work, c'mon color people get posting! you all know my preference is B&W, but it is getting boring here.

Colour work is so much more difficult to do well via analogue means, so I don't think you'll ever see a large number of posts with colour photos in this forum. A shame, but that's just the way it is these days.

I shoot colour almost exclusively, but to get from my trannies to prints, I go via the computer. That's somewhat frowned upon here, so I don't post anything at all. I could indeed show you scans of my trannies, but they would forever be doubted as "manipulated", so there's not much point.

Anyway, enjoy the B&Ws - that's what most people on APUG shoot anyway.

Cheers,
Graeme

 

[papagene]

Graeme,
If it's any consolation to you, I consider a scan of a trannie to be the equivalent to a scan of a print. If you want to post and share on a site like this, that is what you have to do.
So if you have some good scans of your color work, please post. I will view your work and enjoy doing so.
gene

 

[Graeme Hird]

Gene,

In the interests of not stirring the pot unnecessarily, I'll refrain from posting at the moment. Feel free to look at my website though (www.scenebyhird.com).

Cheers,

 

[Aggie]

Gene,

In the interests of not stirring the pot unnecessarily, I'll refrain from posting at the moment. Feel free to look at my website though (www.scenebyhird.com).

Cheers,

Beautiful work on a very nice website.

 

[Flotsam]

I admit, when doing color, I'd rather shoot color neg, scan and IJ print than to hand my negs over to some hastily trained wage slave to crank out with the rest of his production quota. If I had access to a color darkroom, I'd enjoy printing them photographically. but I couldn't begin to justify the expense for the amount of color that I shoot.
This is why I don't post any color work in the APUG galleries. Even if I didn't manipulate it, it just wouldn't seem right to post a neg scan or a scan off of an IJ print.
If I manage to find a good, cheap E-6 lab though, I'd like to shoot some slides or tranparencies this Fall.

 

[Graeme Hird]

Beautiful work on a very nice website.

Thanks Aggie.

 

[papagene]

Nice work Graeme, thanks for the link.
gene

 

[mark]

Graem said "Colour work is so much more difficult to do well via analogue means"

This is not true at all. I have always found color to be a much less demanding mistress than B/W. The best images I have shot and had printed (I am a bit color blind so printing my own is out of the question) have been color. True it takes a different set of thinking and the commercial printing of them have gone almost all digital, but it is still possible to get wet prints at places if you want them. They are more expensive though. Cole Weston shot color with no or few filters and worked his magic in a wet darkroom.

Now if you want to super impose a sky onto somthing it is easier if you do it digitally than stacking two trannies and masking. If a sky is out of your exposure range use split density filters not photoshop. Glen Rowell until his death shot film, though towards the end his out put was digital, he believed in in-camera manipulations. Many times he shot a scene with 5 stops of SPlit density filters stacked onto his lens. IMO digital is not necessary it is just easier.

 

[scootermm]

was browsing photosig the other day and found some of the images very bizarre. It's looking more and more popular to have wild colors and many objects added to the images. I saw a scene of a field and lake, and someone then added a hotair ballon, then added a fake reflection of the ballon in the lake. It really looked terrible, and many of the comments are like "great photograph!! i love what you did with making the reflection!". Had they said "great digital illustration!" I would have been happy, but "great photograph" on something that has been tweaked beyond recognition of the original, yeah, pitchfork to the face about sums it up, hehe

sean I just went over to photosig for the first time because of your post. just because curiosity drives me sometimes.

wow.
those images (notice I dont use the word photographs) are astoundingly atrocious.

 

[jovo]

I shoot colour almost exclusively, but to get from my trannies to prints, I go via the computer. That's somewhat frowned upon here, so I don't post anything at all. I could indeed show you scans of my trannies, but they would forever be doubted as "manipulated", so there's not much point.

Your site is terrific. The images are superb and, for me at least, the color work is as enjoyable as the b&w. It's my guess that b&w is prevelant here as much because it's easier to process and offers a large palette of controls for the amateur enthusiast than for any other single reason. (My excuse is that I'm just color blind enough that I could never even make a 'first' print from which to calibrate others, let alone work consistenly in that medium.) In any case there's no sensible reason to resist sharing your work with the rest of us. It would be welcome!!