Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion

In article , Neil
wrote:


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.

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a
process
that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

that's more work than using existing solutions but suit yourself.

You haven't a clue as to what is required to automate my workflow.

since you haven't described your workflow, how could i?

One excellent reason why you should have kept quiet.

not at all. you described a process that takes hours or days. rejecting
suggestions to improve that makes no sense. newsgroups are for
exchanging ideas and learning new things which you apparently do not
want to do. your loss.

all i said was that you should investigate automation plug-ins.

And, the effort spent doing that would not be more than what is needed
to write my own apps? How do you know that?

common sense.

investigating how to automate an existing workflow will absolutely be
less effort than writing a whole new app, which i never suggested in
the first place. you're arguing over what was never said.

if you explain your workflow, then people (not just me) can give you
suggestions how to improve it.

When and if I need such help, I know where to get it. I guarantee that
it won't be from the likes of you.

good, because i have absolutely no interest in helping you whatsoever
and you couldn't afford me even if i did.

or you can live in a cave doing it the hard way. your choice.

With your admitted lack of knowledge about what is required, how did you
arrive at the conclusion that I'm doing it "the hard way"?

because of your stubbornness and flat out refusal to hear suggestions
on improving what you're doing.

that tells me that you're stuck in your ways and have *not* looked at
ways to improve it.

fresh eyes are always a good thing. worst case they say 'yep, you've
tried everything'. best case, you learn how to drastically increase
your productivity.

Your
erroneous presumption that some generic app is going to be better at
doing that than one that addresses its specific requirements is absurd.

i never said anything about using a generic app. you made that up.

Any app that would be generally available is generic, by definition.

i did not say a generally available app. you made that up.

i was specifically referring to automating whatever it is you do, which
you refuse to describe, likely because it's so primitive and you'd be
embarrassed to say.

You just can't resist making such ignorant comments, can you?

nothing ignorant about that. if you were proud of your super-optimized
workflow, you'd talk about how you've tweaked it as much as possible.

one thing is clear, however, that you lied about not using plug-ins,
given that you admitted that you write your own.

I don't write plug-ins, nor did I say so.

yes you did:
then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.



I answered your comment
suggesting "...something to automate your workflow...", which would not
be a plug-in. I do write apps, and it's solely your problem that you
don't know the difference.

i never said anything about writing apps.

automation can be done with a plug-in as well as scripts and other
techniques. there are many options, which you are clearly not aware of.

your refusal to learn something new says a lot, and none of it good.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


if you explain your workflow, then people (not just me) can give you
suggestions how to improve it.

When and if I need such help, I know where to get it. I guarantee that
it won't be from the likes of you.

Don't you think you should first read nospam's detailed description of
his workflow and see examples of his output?

Oh, wait. I see the problem.

you looked in a mirror?

On 1/23/2017 1:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:09:02 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

Actually, "cat and flower photographers" describes them better. So
many photographers go for the trite and ordinary instead of looking
for what could be interesting.



There is a difference between shooting for camera club competition and
shooting to please yourself. If you want to do well in camera club
competitions shoot the three Bs. Bugs, Buds, and Beasts, and follow the
rule of thirds. One of my friends, who is a fine art photographer, was
asked to judge a CC competition. She summed up her experience thusly: "I
will never judge another CC competition, and that club will never invite
me back.
In our club we started a creative group for those who are willing to
look outside the box.

This image was done using only the tools in PS.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Inedible.jpg

This image was done using Topaz Impressions.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/savanah_0160_1through%20Monet%27s%20Eyes.jpg

It could have been done in PS, but that process would have taken a lot
longer.


--
PeterN

On 1/23/2017 2:24 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

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.

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a process
that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.


Absolutely. An automated workflow will make spontaneous changes without
any input from the artist.
Yep! Sure it will.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a process
that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.


Absolutely. An automated workflow will make spontaneous changes without
any input from the artist.
Yep! Sure it will.

whoooooooooooooooooooosh

On 1/23/2017 3:30 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

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.

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a process
that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

that's more work than using existing solutions but suit yourself.


Not always. There are times when writing your own is quicker than
sifting through commercial apps, to see which works best.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a process
that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

that's more work than using existing solutions but suit yourself.


Not always. There are times when writing your own is quicker than
sifting through commercial apps, to see which works best.

not very many and only in the simplest of cases, and once again, i said
nothing about writing *apps*.

On 1/23/2017 5:39 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


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.

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a
process
that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

that's more work than using existing solutions but suit yourself.

You haven't a clue as to what is required to automate my workflow.

since you haven't described your workflow, how could i?

One excellent reason why you should have kept quiet.

not at all. you described a process that takes hours or days. rejecting
suggestions to improve that makes no sense. newsgroups are for
exchanging ideas and learning new things which you apparently do not
want to do. your loss.

It's another one of your erroneous assumptions that the time required is
the result of my "workflow". It's not. I have no need or interest in
discussing such things with someone who comes to conclusions steeped in
ignorance. THAT would be a waste of time that I choose not to lose.

all i said was that you should investigate automation plug-ins.

And, the effort spent doing that would not be more than what is needed
to write my own apps? How do you know that?

common sense.

Wrong. Common sense requires a knowledge of context, and you have
clearly demonstrated that you lack that knowledge.

investigating how to automate an existing workflow will absolutely be
less effort than writing a whole new app, which i never suggested in
the first place. you're arguing over what was never said.

if you explain your workflow, then people (not just me) can give you
suggestions how to improve it.

When and if I need such help, I know where to get it. I guarantee that
it won't be from the likes of you.

good, because i have absolutely no interest in helping you whatsoever
and you couldn't afford me even if i did.

You're right about that. You are an unnecessary expense, and I can't
afford that kind of thing.

or you can live in a cave doing it the hard way. your choice.

With your admitted lack of knowledge about what is required, how did you
arrive at the conclusion that I'm doing it "the hard way"?

because of your stubbornness and flat out refusal to hear suggestions
on improving what you're doing.

I simply don't need opinions based in ignorance for any reason. I will
continue to stubbornly reject such viewpoints.

that tells me that you're stuck in your ways and have *not* looked at
ways to improve it.

That is yet another assumption based in ignorance and audacity.

fresh eyes are always a good thing. worst case they say 'yep, you've
tried everything'. best case, you learn how to drastically increase
your productivity.

As I said, I have resources that actually know what they're talking
about. I don't need you.

Your
erroneous presumption that some generic app is going to be better at
doing that than one that addresses its specific requirements is absurd.

i never said anything about using a generic app. you made that up.

Any app that would be generally available is generic, by definition.

i did not say a generally available app. you made that up.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "...you need something
to automate your workflow..." that would be the equivalent of that which
I would write. If it isn't an app, what is it? If it isn't generally
available, where is it? You're just spinning and demonstrating, yet
again, that you can't admit when you're wrong. Nobody needs that kind of
input.


i was specifically referring to automating whatever it is you do, which
you refuse to describe, likely because it's so primitive and you'd be
embarrassed to say.

You just can't resist making such ignorant comments, can you?

nothing ignorant about that. if you were proud of your super-optimized
workflow, you'd talk about how you've tweaked it as much as possible.

To you? You must be kidding.

one thing is clear, however, that you lied about not using plug-ins,
given that you admitted that you write your own.

I don't write plug-ins, nor did I say so.

yes you did:
then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

Wrong. I don't write plug-ins.



I answered your comment
suggesting "...something to automate your workflow...", which would not
be a plug-in. I do write apps, and it's solely your problem that you
don't know the difference.

i never said anything about writing apps.

You responded to MY comment about writing apps. What did you think you
were talking about?

automation can be done with a plug-in as well as scripts and other
techniques. there are many options, which you are clearly not aware of.

your refusal to learn something new says a lot, and none of it good.

You have no knowledge of what I am aware of, so your attacks are
meaningless. You have nothing to offer, and are simply upset that some
of us know that about you.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 1/23/2017 6:23 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 1/23/2017 3:30 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:

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.

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a
process
that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

that's more work than using existing solutions but suit yourself.


Not always. There are times when writing your own is quicker than
sifting through commercial apps, to see which works best.

That is quite often the case, actually. If one lacks the knowledge to
write their own app, then it may be more efficient to sift through the
commercial offerings.

--
best regards,

Neil

In article , Neil
wrote:

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.

I understand, but have never found plug-ins to be useful enough to
bother with, partly because my work with graphics and images requires
enough time-consuming attention that they offer little or no economic
advantage. I don't need to save seconds or even minutes out of a
process
that takes hours or days to complete.

then you're looking at the wrong sort of plug-ins. you need something
to automate your workflow rather than twiddle bits.

When I need such a thing, I write it.

that's more work than using existing solutions but suit yourself.


Not always. There are times when writing your own is quicker than
sifting through commercial apps, to see which works best.

That is quite often the case, actually. If one lacks the knowledge to
write their own app, then it may be more efficient to sift through the
commercial offerings.

if one lacks the knowledge that there's more than just apps, then one
is likely to not have an optimal workflow.