1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Lost in translation .. A filter for all occasions June 15th edition.

Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by PeteRob, Jun 11, 2019.

  1. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I got lost reading this article about processing jpgs using Camera Raw.

    I primarily use Lightroom and have processed some jpgs with it, dating from the early days before I swapped to saving raw file data. I have installed (not used) Photoshop so "how to" beginner articles are interesting to look at.

    Unfortunately the article lost me more or less totally, especially the box under "filter individual channels" which meant not a jot. It seems that if you know enough about photoshop to understand then the article itself is redundant.

    Also the lead picture, used again as example in "Perspective Corrections". What is it? A photograph? Graphic Art? It looks like a double exposure that has been painted over with a crayon leaving only the sky looking as if it came out of a camera. It is quite nice but I don't see what it has to do with the article.
  2. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    I suspect that all the AP articles like this assume we all have the latest version of the software being discussed, when this is probably wrong. It might be more helpful to discuss features that are not new, but have been available for years, and would still benefit from the AP 'tells you how' approach.
  3. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I think AP has got locked into using Photoshop, and who can blame them they are in the target market for the software. Whilst Photoshop may be the default for the professional it certainly isn't anything like as commonly used by the amateur. There are many other options available and I suspect others that are no longer available but still in regular use.

    I looked at the article in question and, likewise couldn't make anything of it. Not a problem as I don't use Photoshop, I tried it about 10 years ago and couldn't get on with it. My normal response to these "how to" articles on software is to simply turn the page and move on.
  4. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    At least I know what channels are.
    Photoshop has become too staple to be ignored. Bollocks to that
    There are good alternatives , and some are not expensive. One of them is even British.
    This week's AP mentioned an update to Affinity Photo. Under £50 and presently on offer for less. It would seem that they are going after volume. Their first product was a vector based design program, then came Photo , and now a publisher. Files can be swapped between the programmes.I am very impressed indeed. In spite of the low prices these products are powerful and I think well designed. All that is missing in their suite is a photo database(DAM for the initiated) for those who want it. My impression is that this company is founded and run by people who are extremely creative . Their software provides tools far beyond my own requirements, but has much to encourage me to do more than I ever did in LR. The trouble is that so far I have used my familiarity with LR to use LR when I should have been learning Affinity. I also publish a newsletter for a group of volunteers and use MS publisher. I intend using Affinity's publisher for the next but one newsletter.
  5. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    I'm using a copy Adobe Photoshop Elements 7 purchased in 2009. It does everything I need, and lots that I don't, and works happily with Windows 10 as it did with XP and Windows 7. If I read the AP articles carefully without falling asleep or losing the will to live, I often notice that all the new exciting enhancements are just automated versions of what I can do in 2 or 3 steps with my 10 year old software. Since I get Adobe DNG format RAW files from my Pentax DSLR, I've never needed to update the software for other RAW formats and can open RAW files taken with a camera body that is younger than the software.

    Is it possible that as more editing functions are 'automated' or use 'pre-set' adjustments, more images look so similar?
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Not really. In camera jpgs use standardised profiles and you can't say that two people with the same equipment will produce similar images, even if they try.

    The current trend for pre-sets/profiles does undermine rather the point of raw processing. Personally I don't get the point of finessing the standard-portrait-landscape-neutral-faithful options that go with the camera with umpteen variants when it is perfectly simple to fine tune any of these starting points.

    For mono I think the same applies but arguably most beginners may need help to understand how traditional filters work.
  7. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    If you have a look on YouTube, there are many videos which cannot praise it highly enough.
    One in particular which stood out was a comparison between PS and Affinity in how they handle object removal. Aff is easier, quicker, requires fewer steps and makes a better job.
    Having said all that, I find it to be next to useless on an iPad. Not the fault of the software, just that the iPad is useless for photo editing.

  8. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Also there are tutorial videos. https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/tutorials/photo/desktop/
    And articles. Here is a mixture of stuff about using Designer and Photo.
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019 at 2:14 PM
    steveandthedogs likes this.

Share This Page