Pentax users hate photoshop
238 posts
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 13:09
No, I would have to be one of those that is not a Pentax user that loathes Photoshop. I may use Photoshop Elements on occasion, but generally what I process in Capture One or Aperture is the extent of my edits for photos. Generally those that have to do a lot of heavy editing IMHO, are those that should really learn to use their camera properly. 
Also what is spent on the price of that software could pay for a camera every couple years.
The Photomonk
Also what is spent on the price of that software could pay for a camera every couple years.
The Photomonk
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 13:50
I like to be in control of my photo image output.
When I used film, I had a fully equiped Darkroom. With the Darkroom I could alter the straight print by manipulating exposures, superimposing, filtering, burning, dodging and re-touching.
Now that I use digital, I have and use Photoshop to manipulate the image.
As photographers we can choose how much we do ourselves, or how much we get done by commercial printers.
Photoshop is only a set of tools. This can be used for basic correction or to alter the image to extremes. However, I suspect that many extremely altered images have been subjected to Plug-ins or stand-alone programs, like Photomatix, Artizen, Topaz etc etc. I personally see nothing wrong in creating derivatives of the original file, providing the end result is enjoyed.
I love Photoshop.
You may well be right, that Pentax Users are more restrained in there use of extreme manipulations.
Friendly Regards
Graham
When I used film, I had a fully equiped Darkroom. With the Darkroom I could alter the straight print by manipulating exposures, superimposing, filtering, burning, dodging and re-touching.
Now that I use digital, I have and use Photoshop to manipulate the image.
As photographers we can choose how much we do ourselves, or how much we get done by commercial printers.
Photoshop is only a set of tools. This can be used for basic correction or to alter the image to extremes. However, I suspect that many extremely altered images have been subjected to Plug-ins or stand-alone programs, like Photomatix, Artizen, Topaz etc etc. I personally see nothing wrong in creating derivatives of the original file, providing the end result is enjoyed.
I love Photoshop.
You may well be right, that Pentax Users are more restrained in there use of extreme manipulations.
Friendly Regards
Graham
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 13:56
I think it is that we use a quality product that produces a quality image!....hence we dont have to rely so much on the likes of Photoshop!:
K20D...ist DS ,DA18/55,DA16/45.DA* 50/135,"A"1.7 50MM..."A" 70/210..M 50mm f2...Tamron 90mm macro,28/300 Tamron,200/500 Tamron 6.9....A Pentax DA*300... Sigma10/20,FA31mm 1.8 Ltd*********,FA 77mm Ltd!
K20D...ist DS ,DA18/55,DA16/45.DA* 50/135,"A"1.7 50MM..."A" 70/210..M 50mm f2...Tamron 90mm macro,28/300 Tamron,200/500 Tamron 6.9....A Pentax DA*300... Sigma10/20,FA31mm 1.8 Ltd*********,FA 77mm Ltd!
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 14:01
I can give you a few reasons, non of which may be true
Perhaps Pentax users dont have to prove to themselves that their equipment is good and are quite happy with the cameras results
Pentax DSLRs produce less saturated and more natural colours to begin with, so slight tweaking of levels and saturation dont have as much effect.
Pentax users tend to be Purists.
Pentax users are not sheep an easily lead. so wont hike up the saturation on every shot just because someone else says its a good thing to do
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link
Perhaps Pentax users dont have to prove to themselves that their equipment is good and are quite happy with the cameras results
Pentax DSLRs produce less saturated and more natural colours to begin with, so slight tweaking of levels and saturation dont have as much effect.
Pentax users tend to be Purists.
Pentax users are not sheep an easily lead. so wont hike up the saturation on every shot just because someone else says its a good thing to do
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 14:03
An interesting observation. I have noticed that most PP discussions here are concerned more with RAW processing and the relative merits of Silkypix, ACR etc. Of course, we may be a self-selecting group that will naturally lean more towards the enthusiast hobbyist, than the P&S snapper able to spend more and who naturally buys the market leader. Personally, as my pitiful attempts have progressed over the years, my use of photoshop for image changing has dwindled to almost zero.
Tony
Tony
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 14:16
Quote:
Personally, as my pitiful attempts have progressed over the years, my use of photoshop for image changing has dwindled to almost zero
Personally, as my pitiful attempts have progressed over the years, my use of photoshop for image changing has dwindled to almost zero
A very valid point Tony, I have also found my photography has improved no end with digital, the main reason is obviously the ability to experiment at no cost, strange then that a medium that lends itself so easily to manipulation shouldn't really need it
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 14:18
Photoshop is good for fixing bad images.
I like to think that users of other brands get a leg up on photoshop out of necessity.
But when you start with excellent images, the need to photoshop isn't there and photoshop then becomes a tool for taking excellent photos and making more to allow further creative expressions than physics, or camera or opportunity would otherwise allow.
So don'r kidd yourself, we pentaxians can photoshop as well as the best of the rest, we don't feel like we need to as often!
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
I like to think that users of other brands get a leg up on photoshop out of necessity.
But when you start with excellent images, the need to photoshop isn't there and photoshop then becomes a tool for taking excellent photos and making more to allow further creative expressions than physics, or camera or opportunity would otherwise allow.
So don'r kidd yourself, we pentaxians can photoshop as well as the best of the rest, we don't feel like we need to as often!
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 14:27
Personally I think Photoshop is a great application. It's the equivalent of a darkroom for digital photography. I take a lot of aerial photos, and Photoshop is the only application I have tried that will reduce haze. Sometimes just a simple Levels adjustment will improve a picture. Of course, some people go way over the top and produce completely unrealistic pictures, eg overcooked HDR's or oversaturated landscapes.
There always seems to be differences of opinion between the "purists" and those who see programs like Photoshop as just part of the process of producing a good picture.
I would be interested to know what the "purists" make of black and white. It's impossible to produce a B+W photo from a digital file without maninipulation.
Flurble
My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook
There always seems to be differences of opinion between the "purists" and those who see programs like Photoshop as just part of the process of producing a good picture.
I would be interested to know what the "purists" make of black and white. It's impossible to produce a B+W photo from a digital file without maninipulation.
Flurble
My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 14:29
I think this forum speaks little about photoshop because the vastest majority of members are not professional photographers that make a living out of photography.
When you have all the time in the world to compose, plan, study your images before shooting, (like an amateur photographer does) obviously the result will be a better one that if one doesn't have the practical time to produce photographs. A wedding photographer will need - on top of his experience in composing, capturing, being creative - also the capability of saving a necessary image that for one reason or another is not gone too well.
A fashion/glamour photographer will need photoshop skills for retouching images to the very high standard of business use, and therefore cannot go without providing that service.
This site has very few professionals and therefore the need of photoshop is merely a recreational one (to the largest extent).
Kind regards,
Nathan
'Between the lights there is always a shadow'
www.nathanservi.com & PPG
When you have all the time in the world to compose, plan, study your images before shooting, (like an amateur photographer does) obviously the result will be a better one that if one doesn't have the practical time to produce photographs. A wedding photographer will need - on top of his experience in composing, capturing, being creative - also the capability of saving a necessary image that for one reason or another is not gone too well.
A fashion/glamour photographer will need photoshop skills for retouching images to the very high standard of business use, and therefore cannot go without providing that service.
This site has very few professionals and therefore the need of photoshop is merely a recreational one (to the largest extent).
Kind regards,
Nathan
'Between the lights there is always a shadow'
www.nathanservi.com & PPG
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 14:30
I use Photoshop on every image in some form or another, becasue it's my "digital darkroom" and just I would select the right grade of paper, dodge and burn in the darkroom I do the equivalent.
Black and white is beautiful with digital - you have the colour image and then apply whatever filer effect you want in Photoshop. Brilliant.
Best regards, John
Black and white is beautiful with digital - you have the colour image and then apply whatever filer effect you want in Photoshop. Brilliant.
Best regards, John
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 14:44
Nathan
Valid point. However, I infered from the OP that he was more comenting on the use, for example, of "artistic" filters etc., which I assume most professionals would steer well clear of!
John
I believe you shoot jpeg? Given what ACR now does on PSE8/CS4 (local adjustments etc.), would you see the need to use PS that much if you were processing RAW?
Tony
Valid point. However, I infered from the OP that he was more comenting on the use, for example, of "artistic" filters etc., which I assume most professionals would steer well clear of!
John
I believe you shoot jpeg? Given what ACR now does on PSE8/CS4 (local adjustments etc.), would you see the need to use PS that much if you were processing RAW?
Tony
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 14:54
I can see that Photoshop has it's uses but I generally make an effort to avoid using it (partly because it's not installed on my latest machine)
I like Photomonk prefer to concentrate my efforts in CaptureOne with perhaps a little additional work in Helicon Filter (if required).
Regards Huw
flickr
I like Photomonk prefer to concentrate my efforts in CaptureOne with perhaps a little additional work in Helicon Filter (if required).
Regards Huw
flickr
Last Edited by Greytop on 15/01/2010 - 15:13
Link
Posted 15/01/2010 - 14:58
I know what you are saying Tony,
but very often the conversation on post processing is on the topic of photographic purity vs digital manipulation, and the moral/artistic effects and personal opinions on these.
I am quite convinced that digital photography must be post processed to some extent, much like film ALWAYS needed darkroom manipulation unless the photographer was an amateur, and would let a lab develop all their photos.
Therefore the conversation is not 'who likes images to be pure and simple vs. who likes pictures to be a product of photoshop magic" - but rather, Because we all need pp in our digital imaging, 'who is a keen amateur and will learn just for fun, vs. who is a professional and needs to provide standards of photographs that are only achievable through post production manipulation' (of any kind, being filters or cropping or retouching).
'Between the lights there is always a shadow'
www.nathanservi.com & PPG
but very often the conversation on post processing is on the topic of photographic purity vs digital manipulation, and the moral/artistic effects and personal opinions on these.
I am quite convinced that digital photography must be post processed to some extent, much like film ALWAYS needed darkroom manipulation unless the photographer was an amateur, and would let a lab develop all their photos.
Therefore the conversation is not 'who likes images to be pure and simple vs. who likes pictures to be a product of photoshop magic" - but rather, Because we all need pp in our digital imaging, 'who is a keen amateur and will learn just for fun, vs. who is a professional and needs to provide standards of photographs that are only achievable through post production manipulation' (of any kind, being filters or cropping or retouching).
'Between the lights there is always a shadow'
www.nathanservi.com & PPG
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
ripstar74
Member
Herefordshire
The shots on the gallery are more like true representations of what the photographer sees rather than some over saturated, filtered, heavily processed image that becomes more of a piece of art than a photograph.
Would be interested to hear others thoughts on this. Is this unique to Pentax users? Is there something about nikon/cannon users that makes them feel the need to heavily process every image they take?
K7,K10d,16-50 Da*,50-135 Da*. Looking for a good macro.
My Website