Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion
This is an interesting take on the state of post processing/photo
editing in 2017 from Matt Kloskowski. https://mattk.com/state-post-processing-photo-editing-2017/ -- Regards, Savageduck |
Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion
On 1/23/2017 10:06 AM, Savageduck wrote:
This is an interesting take on the state of post processing/photo editing in 2017 from Matt Kloskowski. https://mattk.com/state-post-processing-photo-editing-2017/ Following his directions, I had to stop reading after his disclaimer. ;-) -- best regards, Neil |
Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion
On 2017-01-23 15:19:27 +0000, Neil said:
On 1/23/2017 10:06 AM, Savageduck wrote: This is an interesting take on the state of post processing/photo editing in 2017 from Matt Kloskowski. https://mattk.com/state-post-processing-photo-editing-2017/ Following his directions, I had to stop reading after his disclaimer. ;-) You should take his disclaimer with a pinch of salt and continue reading, it is, as I said an interesting opinion. Particularly coming from an individual who has made a career of promoting post processing/photo editing software and various plugins. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion
On 1/23/2017 10:54 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-01-23 15:19:27 +0000, Neil said: On 1/23/2017 10:06 AM, Savageduck wrote: This is an interesting take on the state of post processing/photo editing in 2017 from Matt Kloskowski. https://mattk.com/state-post-processing-photo-editing-2017/ Following his directions, I had to stop reading after his disclaimer. ;-) You should take his disclaimer with a pinch of salt and continue reading, it is, as I said an interesting opinion. Particularly coming from an individual who has made a career of promoting post processing/photo editing software and various plugins. Well, I did start reading beyond his disclaimer, and soon realized that it was an article abut the use of plug-ins. So, he was right, the article isn't intended for folks like me who have been editing images digitally for at least a decade before the first plug-in was introduced. So, I don't use them at all. -- best regards, Neil |
Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion
In article 2017012307544224134-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: This is an interesting take on the state of post processing/photo editing in 2017 from Matt Kloskowski. https://mattk.com/state-post-processing-photo-editing-2017/ Following his directions, I had to stop reading after his disclaimer. ;-) You should take his disclaimer with a pinch of salt and continue reading, it is, as I said an interesting opinion. Particularly coming from an individual who has made a career of promoting post processing/photo editing software and various plugins. i went into skim mode when he wrote 'bayre'. he made the same mistake further down, at which point he lost all credibility. that's a *very* fundamental error. however, his disclaimer is wise. those who pixel peep can (and should) be ignored. normal people enjoy photos for what they are, not for which app or plug-in was used to process them. |
Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion
Neil:
Following his directions, I had to stop reading after his disclaimer. ;-) Exactly so. The guy shows by his title that he knows it's 2017, yet he expects us to read for 10 minutes. So unfair. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion
In article , Davoud
wrote: Neil: Following his directions, I had to stop reading after his disclaimer. ;-) Exactly so. The guy shows by his title that he knows it's 2017, yet he expects us to read for 10 minutes. So unfair. Do the title indicate that he understands the inner meaning of 2017 statement? I think so not! -- teleportation kills |
Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion
On 2017-01-23 16:19:43 +0000, Neil said:
On 1/23/2017 10:54 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2017-01-23 15:19:27 +0000, Neil said: On 1/23/2017 10:06 AM, Savageduck wrote: This is an interesting take on the state of post processing/photo editing in 2017 from Matt Kloskowski. https://mattk.com/state-post-processing-photo-editing-2017/ Following his directions, I had to stop reading after his disclaimer. ;-) You should take his disclaimer with a pinch of salt and continue reading, it is, as I said an interesting opinion. Particularly coming from an individual who has made a career of promoting post processing/photo editing software and various plugins. Well, I did start reading beyond his disclaimer, and soon realized that it was an article abut the use of plug-ins. So, he was right, the article isn't intended for folks like me who have been editing images digitally for at least a decade before the first plug-in was introduced. So, I don't use them at all. It is a bit more than that considering where some software has gone and that many of the RAW processors do much the same thing. Today digital photographers have a much wider software choice when it comes to processing and editing their digital images. The trick is simplifying the workflow so as not to create a quagmire to be bogged down with. I have been as guilty of this as the next guy, but I have been controlling myself to simplify my workflow and only use specific plugins if I have something in mind for a particular image. Many plugins are very useful, but some such as On1 Photo RAW are making an attempt to take on the entire RAW workflow and have yet, in my opinion, to get the bugs wringed out. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion
On 2017-01-23 16:13:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 07:06:02 -0800, Savageduck wrote: This is an interesting take on the state of post processing/photo editing in 2017 from Matt Kloskowski. https://mattk.com/state-post-processing-photo-editing-2017/ I read part of it, and stopped after reading about the "plug-in bloat" part. So far, I'm in agreement with him. I found some validity with what he had to say. One is better off keeping things as simple as possible. However, there are times that a fix or enhancement that only a specific plug-in can achieve is needed. I've decided that if I can't post-process an image without relying on plug-ins, the problem is with my subject choice. If it's an interesting subject, I don't need to tart it up with special effects. For the most part my Lightroom+Photoshop workflow is all I need. That's not to say that I don't occasionally want to create something beyond what was there for dramatic effect. I'm content, though, to use the available Photoshop tools to do this. Agreed. I do use NIK for black and white conversions. I've got some pre-sets and standard steps that I use. I can do the same thing in Photoshop, but it takes me longer. I have become a tad disenchanted with NIK lately as they have not fixed some compatibility issues with the latest Mac OS, and the support provided by Google is non-existent. I am also not happy with the way On1 is going with their new Photo RAW 2017 effort. As a matter of personal preference I have never been a fan of the Topaz stuff, I know Peter has a fondness for some of their offerings. These days if I want to make B&W conversions outside of Lightroom I will use AlienSkin ExposureX (stand-alone and/or plugin) which I find to be one of the best of the options out there. I have also explored some of the Adobe complete processing/editing alternatives, primarily for Mac, and I could live with at least three of them if I ever dropped Adobe CC. To me, the ability to "see" a photograph is the paramount challenge. There are people who can walk by a photographic opportunity because they don't see the photograph. They don't see that a different angle, a close-up, or the inclusion or exclusion of something in the frame can make the photograph. Post and plug-ins can't help them. Yup! Having an eye for the photo opportunity is key. There are members of my camera clubs that I call "cat and squirrel photographers". They take excellent shots of certain subjects, but they don't have the imagination to see a photograph in something off-beat or not normally subject matter. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion
On 2017-01-23 17:29:33 +0000, Davoud said:
Neil: Following his directions, I had to stop reading after his disclaimer. ;-) Exactly so. The guy shows by his title that he knows it's 2017, yet he expects us to read for 10 minutes. So unfair. Yet there is some validity to what he has to say. It took me a lot less than 10 minutes to read the entire article. However, the choice to read further or not is all yours. -- Regards, Savageduck |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com