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
    steveandthedogs likes this.
  9. Nigel_Atherton

    Nigel_Atherton Group Editor

    Last time we did a reader survey Adobe software was completely dominant, led by Photoshop. But that was before Affinity Photo and Skylum Luminar became available. We are about to do a new survey which will give us more up to date info on what readers are using which will help us when planning content.

    Attached Files:

    Learning and steveandthedogs like this.
  10. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    The basic very important actions are available in all the applications. In a series aimed at newcomers to photo editing, and those of us who have self taught bad habits, it might be possible to show how to carry out those actions in Adobe, Affinity and Skylum (just to refer to your examples).
    By the way, I have no connection with Affinity other than as a new purchaser and user. It is pure coincidence that they are based very close to where I live.
  11. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Thanks for that Nigel, I hadn't realised how all pervading Adobe software was in photographic circles, particularly as Photoshop was rather expensive prior to the subscription version.

    I would be interested to know how things have changed with the new products. DXO's editor looks attractive and The Gimp worked well for me until I upgraded the operating system and it hung on opening. A feature on photo editing software might be useful and interesting.
  12. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Having decided to give PS a go, seeing as it comes "free" with my Lightoom subscription, I bought Martin Evening's book Adobe Photoshop CC for photographers (2018).

    On page 320 of this massive tome it says "If you intend bringing your images in [to PS] via Camera Raw, it can be argued that Photoshop Image adjustments are unneccesary, since Camera Raw provides you with everything you need to produce perfectly optimized photos."

    So that's one up for Lightrrom then.
  13. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    Pete, I've been using PS for nearly twenty years (various releases, but only up to CS5), and LR for about three years. IMO, the raw conversion/lighting/colour/saturation in LR is superb, and I find it superior to CS5 (I accept that later releases of PS will probably have improved, of course).

    However, the capabilities in PS for selective editing of detail and geometry is truly excellent - way beyond LR - and therefore, for me, they both have their strengths. I wouldn't regard them as competing with each other.

    Since you have access to both, you have the best of both worlds. :)
  14. Nigel_Atherton

    Nigel_Atherton Group Editor

    The problem with software tutorials is that there isn't just one software that everyone uses. Even the most popular, Photoshop, will include multiple versions all with different features or features that have been moved to a different place, so it will only be relevant to a small percentage of the readers. By the time you've added the likes of Capture One, DxO, and proprietary offerings like Canon's DPP - you can see it's impossible for these to be relevant to everyone.
    I'm also fairly sure that a percentage of Photoshop owners got their copies before CC was introduced, when it was relatively easy to get hold of dodgy pirated versions.
  15. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    There are basic principles. Why do all decent applications have curves and layers to mention two? Sure some people want key by key instructions for their chosen software. Let them go elsewhere. There is a well known down market monthly publication for people who wish they could afford PS .When we have to have instructional stuff then keep it general in editorial. If some companies want to push their product with specific key presses then let them do so in clearly identified advertorial, and pay a lot of money to AP for the privilege. Even if we do not use their product, their instructions give very big hints to users of similar products.
    Think that if you want. Raw conversion is the same in both products. Sure PS has far more creative abilities than LR. I once created some pseudo sketch maps in PS. There were hidden layers from several sources of aerial photography and mapping. Nothing imported showed on the finished image.. PS can be used purely as a design application if you really must.
    Adobe's Big advantage is the database within LR. DAM is not just for business. It helps you find stuff,
  16. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    No, it isn't. If you had read my post properly, you'd have seen that I was referring to PS only up to CS5. Photoshop CS5 uses ACR 6.x, which can use up to 2010 Process, whereas LR 6.x can use up to 2012 Process.
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
  17. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head there. Photoshop is a lot more than photographic editing software it is a suite of graphics tools, most of what it can do is beyond anything I will ever need, I doubt I am alone in this. Now that Adobe only offer a subscription model for Photoshop you can have the privilege of paying monthly for features that you will never use.

    I tried Photoshop many years ago when I used Windows and I really didn't get on with it, probably my fault, I did however find Nikon's Capture NX, with the UPoint technology, very much easier to use so I stuck with that. You can get it in DXO's editing software now. I like the method of correcting white balance, find a point thst should be white, select white control point and click on what should be white, it may not be sophisticated but, for me, it works.

    The best camera is the one you have with you, the best editing software is the one that does what you need.
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  18. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    ...and it need cost you nothing: https://www.gimp.org/ (but they always appreciate a donation)
  19. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Nikon's latest Capture NX-D is also free though obviously won't process other raw files than Nikon's own.

    I have used The GIMP and it is very good, I used it to produce some graphics to work with a touch screen, as far as I know they are still in use.
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019

Share This Page