A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 23rd 17, 03:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

  #2  
Old January 23rd 17, 03:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default 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
  #3  
Old January 23rd 17, 03:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

  #4  
Old January 23rd 17, 04:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default 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
  #5  
Old January 23rd 17, 04:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Photo Editing 2017 - An Opinion

In article [email protected],
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.
  #6  
Old January 23rd 17, 05:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default 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
  #7  
Old January 23rd 17, 05:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default 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
  #8  
Old January 23rd 17, 05:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

  #9  
Old January 23rd 17, 06:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

  #10  
Old January 23rd 17, 06:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photo editing software for editing lotsa pics Bob Haar Digital SLR Cameras 14 December 17th 08 10:25 PM
Photo editing software for editing lotsa pics Eric Stevens Digital SLR Cameras 0 December 15th 08 09:47 AM
Photo editing software for editing lotsa pics nospam Digital SLR Cameras 0 December 15th 08 03:14 AM
my photo-homepage - your opinion? Michael Damb?ck Digital Photography 0 February 10th 05 01:24 PM
what is your honest opinion of this photo? Ron Hunter Digital Photography 0 February 6th 05 02:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.