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

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Why ALWAYS photoshop?

Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by Shaun1970, May 25, 2011.

  1. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    Quite easily. Everyone I know in the real world (i.e., people I meet with and talk to) uses RAW. None of them use JPEG.
  2. I do - in fact I am a lifelong subscriber to AP. (How many forum "pontificates" are, I wonder?)

    So I am not a serious photographer?

    Well, just read the shutter actuations on the D700 (25,774) and on the D300 (27,117) That makes roughly 2000 photos a month for the past two years + 1000s of catalogues, magazines and camera books (plus the odd 250 cameras) I think I can safely dispute that!

    Note, I didn't say "Good Photographer!"

    RAW has its uses, but it is not a universal tool, neither is Photoshop

  3. Perhaps you need a wider circle of friends? :D:D:D

    Come off it Fen. From today keep a month's log of the people you meet and chat with. Most will have a mobile phone. Nearly all will have a camera. 90% will be casual users. Most DSLR users will not use RAW. The minority of keen photographers you talk with, will. Most of your friends will fall into the category of very casual users surely?

  4. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Do you consider people who do not use DSLRs as not being "photographers" then?

    That really is a short-sighted point of view - there are many more photographers using film SLRs, compact system cameras, digital compacts of various quality, bridge cameras, etc who consider themselves to be "photographers". Do these people not count in your elitist view of what a photographer is? The latest figures (2009) I can find on the internet shows that this excludes some 90% of camera purchasers.

    Would you like to qualify your comment?
  5. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member



    Everyone I know who takes photographs with a digital camera that is capable of shooting in RAW format, uses RAW.

    Just because you and people you know, doesn't mean I am wrong in my statement. The key words being "everyone I know". I didn't say "everyone in the world" !
  6. LargeFormat

    LargeFormat Well-Known Member

    I have no doubt that the majority of "photographers" use jpegs. Indeed I have no doubt that the majority use cameras that will only take jpegs as there isn't much in the way of compacts that do anything else and I doubt if there are any camera phones that shoot in RAW.

    For the record I always shoot RAW unless I'm stuck with a camera that won't let me.
  7. hech54

    hech54 Well-Known Member

    My main problem with Photoshop is it's users. They are getting like Mac users. That and the fact that the universal, knee-jerk response to any and all "photo manipulation or correction" questions is USE PHOTOSHOP....with complete disregard to Photoshop's complexity, learning curve and last(but not least) it's price.
    My brother bought CS3 for me and I use it quite often...but I'm not one of those people who automatically assumes that the rest of the world has and can afford Photoshop....or worse...looks down upon those who don't have Photoshop.
  8. That's really sad you know!

    In the "Good old days" I took lots & lots of photos - the children, places I went to, holidays. What did I do with them? Take the film down to the chemist/send it off for processing. Sometimes Joan would say - that's a nice one of Anna or Michael - let's have it enlarged. So we did

    Now the children are grown up and have children of their own, I still take the same type of photo plus (& it is a big plus) lots of interesting places for work. The jpegs are my snapshot equivalent of what I took in my film days

    Photography as Art? Well yes, one or two. Jon who works with me is into "Photography as an art". Put lots of time on photoshop on a particular picture - sunset & bird are from different places. Great result, but not what you want to spend your life on.

    I tell my friends "I'm a proud snapshotter - & I enjoy it!" I don't add that I have a very expensive camera, that's why they are mostly sharp!

  9. .

    Oi! Do you mind I am a proud Mac user

    I show my pictures off on my MacBook. At the presentations many say "I want one of those"

    So why do I use my Windows computer 99% of the time?

    Well, see - its difficult - I can't find anything - I have always to have a dummy run through or I can't find the pictures!

    However it does look very smart & shiny in aluminium such a nice design - however it hasn't lost a key like the one I'm typing this on!

    Paul :D:D:D
  10. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    To be fair Fen, you were using 'everyone you know' to support your point that use of raw is the prevailing methodology. The reality, as has been pointed out, is that most people shoot jpegs. Besides, you do know a fine photographer who shoots jpegs, the venerable (or is that venereal?) BrainT.

    Shooting jpegs isn't restricted to compact users; my father-in-law is a fine photographer and has been for longer than I have been alive. He only shoots jpegs on both his raw capable cameras. In fact, I've just dropped off a lovely A3 canvas print I'd had made from of a jpeg shot he'd taken with his Nikon P7000. Could anyone tell whether it had been shot with a compact as a jpeg rather than a DSLR on raw? Not a chance.

    Most sports and news togs shoot jpegs as a matter of course as they are smaller and quicker and easier to file. You'll find many top photographers wiring photos back as they shoot.

    I shoot raw, but only because I'm lazy and don't have the confidence in my only ability (and memory) to shoot jpegs. For the vast majority of my work, the only thing raw gives me is a safety net; it's easier to correct errors post capture with a raw file than jpeg. In actuality shooting jpeg would be the preferable method; smaller files clear the buffer more quickly, fill the memory cards more slowly, take less time to download to a hard-drive and require less complex and cheaper software to handle them. I would only lose out by shooting jpegs if I cock up, either with the white balance or the exposure. If I had a bigger set of balls I'd have the confidence in my own ability get white balance and exposure right at the time of the shot to shoot jpegs almost exclusively.

    Finally, I had an editorial portrait commission yesterday, just a very small quick job, the shoot itself only took 12 minutes. When I got home and uploaded the files, I'd discovered that somehow quality had switched from it's default raw setting to standard jpeg. Has it ruined the shoot? No. Has it made any difference whatsoever? No. Are the shots as good and as usable as if they had been shot in raw? Absolutely.

    For the record, my personal view is that Lightroom is for photographers while Photoshop is for graphic artists. As soon as the capabilities of Lightroom are insufficient you are no longer working on an image as a photographer, but as an image manipulator. This is no different to the days of film where being a printer was seen as a completely different skill and trade to being a photographer. Of course many photographers did their own printing, but then many butchers make their own pies. Piemaking isn't butchering, just as Photoshopping and printing aren't photography.

    Now, after all that, what was the question again? :D
  11. AlexMonro

    AlexMonro Old Grand Part Deux

    I shoot RAW + JPEG in my cameras that are capable of it, the others I usually have in RAW only. However, I hardly even look at the JPEGs - sometimes as a reference point when doing my RAW conversions, that's about it. I don't have any digital camera not capable of shooting in RAW.

    At the risk of bringing this thread lurching back towards the original topic, how about AP doing the occasional article, say once or twice a year, featuring a non PS image editor (Gimp, Paintshop Pro etc.), perhaps with emphasis on ways that it works differently to Photoshop / Elements? I vaguely recall that there was something on The Gimp a few years ago, but not much recently, and other than reviews of new releases, I don't remember ever seeing anything on PSP.

    I can't remember if "What image editing program do you use?" was a question in the last reader survey, but perhaps this might be a way to get the coverage of editing technique articles more in line with the interests of the readership.
  12. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    I know BrianT via the forums, but I have never met him.
  13. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    Sounds like a super-injunction may be on the cards....:rolleyes:;)

  14. DeeJay

    DeeJay Well-Known Member

    LOL :D Don't worry some MP will or Scottish member will give the game away anyway... :D
  15. Alex1994

    Alex1994 Well-Known Member

    There was an editorial comment in a PC mag a while ago, which basically said "almost everyone I know has the full version of Photoshop on their PC which, given the price, is interesting." I find the assumption that some photo mags make that serious amateurs are using the full version rather annoying. Amazon are currently offering PS CS5 on PC for £587.50.

    I used to use a top of the range Mac, until it failed, and I'd bought the full version of PS for it. When I replaced it with a PC, I was annoyed that the only way I could get PS on the PC was to buy the full version. I can sort of understand Adobe's reasoning, but there used to be an awful lot of copies of PS on eBay (so-called 'oem' versions, which so far as I'm aware don't exist) and I wondered why they didn't clamp down on those so they could make PS more affordable. (Not to mention the price hike in the UK.)

    I still have an old version of PS LE (before it became Elements), and it has curves in it! I do think that PS is in danger of being bloat-ware. I've tried the GIMP, but I find it a bit slow and clunky in comparison.

    PS is the de facto standard, but I agree it would be nice if now and again magazines could acknowledge that there are alternatives, and that relatively few amateurs are likely to be able to justify the cost of the full blown product.
  16. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    Used to used PShop CS4, but changed to Aperture as it was many light years ahead in terms of file management and organisation, and the interface was, for me, much more intuitive and easy to use. Aperture does not have the range of tools that PShop has, but I rarely do much more than crop, level and sharpen, so it has all I need.
    The prints I get are more true to the screen version using Aperture, but that must be down to more luck than judgement as I've not calibrated the monitor.
    I think that the usability of the software is so important and Aperture makes sense to me - I love it.

    I ought to point out that I have not used Lightroom, but understand that, as a file management tool, among other things, it is great

    On the subject of RAW files, I almost always shoot RAW, but on the occasions that I have used jpegs, I have not really encountered any problems. If anyone needs to shoot RAW for the increased 'correcting' potential over jpeg, then I think they need to look at where things could be improved at the point of taking!! In this respect, I shoot RAW because of what I COULD do, rather than what I usually need to.
  17. AlecM

    AlecM MiniMe

    Do you mean Mac users look down upon the others? I get ribbed without mercy about the fact that I enthuse about Apple gear and software. I don't think I am superior in any way and I use PCs every work day, which is fine. The difference is the enjoyment and feel-good factor (for me) of using a Mac over a PC. I cannot remember the last time I really enjoyed using Windows-based software, but I enjoy using my Mac every time.
    For me, Macs do the job better, but I absolutely recognise the fact that there is more than one way to skin a cat and that we all choose what suits us best (budgets notwithstanding...).
    I really don't mean to look down, but I am passionately positive....
  18. dachs

    dachs Well-Known Member

    and I totally disagree with whoever agreed with the disagreeable. Head hurts, you lot! What of 'Jasc' - quirky but cheap & good, 'Corel' - very efficient, and as said before 'Gimp'.

    The thing with all of them (and of course Aperture on the MAC) is the colossal learning curve, it is not tactile like print dodging was, and you have to live with it. Nearly all mag articles are written for Photoshop in one form or another, so that tends to have the shortest learning curve provided you buy loads of magazines. Do we detect a money spinner here? Maybe, but CS2 was good enough for almost anything we need and if you'd bought it two years ago you'd now be expert at any reasonable improvement technique.

    Now if only I could actually find my CS2 discs.......

Share This Page