Adobe Photoshop--Observations, Questions & Stuff

[Mike Mahoney]

The Adobe site itself is quite informative, and has tutorials etc., as well as links to forums if you have a specific question.

There are almost too many PS books in print to mention, your best bet is to go to a local bookstore and browse to see which instructional style suits you.

The Adobe " Classroom in a book " series is good, and comes with a CD containing the files necessary for the lessons.

The initial learning curve is steep, but after a while becomes second nature. Try to do a little PS work every day to keep your acquired skills sharp.

PS is overkill for anyone like yourself just wanting to size files and e-mail them. But for the majority of commercial photographers, PS is the indispensible gold standard.

[Jonathan Brewer]

It has always been harder to demonstrate/explain the tools and effects/filters in Photoshop than to understand them. In the past, the manual has occaisionally left out a step in multi-step process to achieve an effect, which you only find out about after calling tech support. Photoshop is simpler to understand than it is to explain.

The quickest way to learn Photoshop bar none, is to find a friend/tutor/somebody with too much time on their hands, to show you, if you can't find anybody, you can't find anybody, but doing it reading a manual is doing it the hard way.

My brother has occasionally tutored folks in Photoshop and he says that most often than not, his students say that they had reservations about shelling out the money to be tutored, but after saving an incredible amount of time and frustration, that it was worth it.

You find somebody to show you if you can, network if you have to, and you get the benefit of not having to make the same mistakes that thay've already made, and tips on their unique ways of doing things.

A big part of the fun of Photoshop is the combining of tools/filters/effects in new ways than what they were intended, and when you're successful in doing that, you've come up with a new tool/effect.

[Dick Roadnight]

My theory is to master the basics first, which I have done: painting out backgrounds, growing a new arm, restoring 100 year old photos etc.

I scan 6x6 @ 4,000 to get 6,000 x 9,000 pixels, which fills A3 @600 dpi. 6x9 to A3+ will use nearly twice the film area.

I have ordered 7, and I believe that removing wires and poles is easier in 7, so I will not bother in 6.

STITCHING

How do you get on joining or stitching pictures? My scanner only scans up to 69 in one bite, so, with the Sinar p (yes Ellis I will back pack with it for landscape and wildlife photography) I will shift around the coverage, tiling the picture. This eliminates the distortion you would get by panning - which would work for landscapes, but not architecture. Stitching is an option in Elements, but not 6. I hope that they will include it in 7: please, everybody go to the adobe website and put in a feature request for stitching in 7.

CALIBRATION

I have not bothered to calibrate by system but, using ordinary paper for proofs it seems ok, but glossies are too dark. I have set up a spec for glossy and turned down the brightness and ink volume, so that should do the trick ? is calibration worth the trouble?

[tim atherton]

I would add that having someone (who is using it as a photographer) and who knows there way around photoshop show you the ropes is the best way to get going.

I would also say that the Blatner and Fraser Real World Photoshop books are excellent. Bruce Fraser, who is the colour management guru is also on another list I'm on and spends time to give helpful responses to questions.

[Ellis Vener]

Dick r asked "is calibration worth the trouble?" if you are a professional or just voluntarily anal-compulsive and a tech fetishist to boot (Wait! those qualities do make you a professional...hmmmm...) then yes. Professionals are advised to because they will be sharing their files with others. But what is equally important is to learn to always work in Adobe RGB (1998) and to go by the numbers.

[Sandy Sorlien]

The Visual Quickstart Guides from Peachpit Press are very good.

I say forget the boring, tedious tutorials. Instead, invent yourself a little project, such as printing up a promotional postcard with type, or restoring an old messed-up family picture, or creating some joke composite pictures to send around via email. In order to complete your project, you'll have to learn something, looking it up in your Photoshop Quickstart Guide, and it will be fun.

[Mike Mahoney]

Dick R. had a point about stitching ... there are many good, cheap, and some freeware programs which do a very good job of stitching. " Pano Tools " by Helmut Dersch (sp?) is a very good start, and it works as a PS plug in. Also is the " Panorama Factory " by Smokey City Design. But I'd also like to see a panorama facility contained within PS written by Adobe.

[George Nedleman]

I took a course from West Coast Imaging 2 mo ago but since I didn't have much of a clue re: PS 6 it was sort of a waste of money, BUT it did illustrate the magnitude of changes that can be wrought from an already "good" color image. I'm talking subtle, not adding or subtracting wires or cars. They are giving hands on courses too now. I have PS Elements and will be experimenting with it as it has all the features I need (I hope). I just bought a 1280 and 2450, but have yet to start scanning my 6x7's. George

[Andrew Ginther]

As a tutor of Digital (Photoshop 6.0) and an art photographer I've wrestled with this question too. I think the big thing about digital is that we can start with absolutely nothing and create whatever we like with the tools available. Conventional photography has restrictions such as lighting, type of camera, film stock etc... Those very restrictions have made photography what it is today. Look at what was being achieved over 100 years ago. The tedious and difficult technical challenges of yesteryear made for some of the greatest ever images. The danger also is that Photoshop can take us away from the 'photographic' moment. That brief slice of reality that sets photography apart from every other visual medium. My point is that digital is a continuation of conventional photography. Not something seperate. I thing digital is still too new and too fresh for any kind of perspective to have really occurred. The synthesiser has been around in music for about 30 years now and its still hard to gauge the overall impact. Perhaps we will have to wait for the next new thing to come along before we finally see the impact of digital photography for what it really is.

[Ellis Vener]

"The tedious and difficult technical challenges of yesteryear made for some of the greatest ever images."

Name one.