Pentax users hate photoshop

Gwyn,

To be quite honest I haven't really got into the differences fron PSE 6. But it's been said that more functions from the full-blown Photoshop are now included in the PSE version. Presumably, PSE is better on layers now, which is something I will have to learn properly one of these days.

And the integration between the Editor and Organizer works very smoothly.

Sorry I cannot be more specific at this time, my praise of PSE is just as valid for version 6 as it is for version 8.

However, a couple of handling issues (like the full screen view in Organizer) are not to my liking. But there you are, some changes are probably done by user requests, and there are as many opinions on user interfaces as there are users

(Quick aside, back to the OP)

I wonder if it's anything to do with the fact that Pentax' heyday was 20+ years ago. So the Pentax demographic contains a higher than average number of 40+ blokes like me, who a) possibly have a lot of experience so don't need much PP work, b) possibly own fine older glass so don't feel a need to post process & c) don't really want to master another set of tools.

Fow what it's worth, I've been in marketing many years and part of this has been the use of photoshow for web development work. I've been using it for 10 or so years so I know how it works etc - and of course I use it with RAW. In moderation.

Thanks Terry!
I think I'll hang on to PSE6 a bit longer. It does most things I need, and I have learned a lot of workarounds for it too.

I disagree with the thought that all photos need post processing. If the image needs to be post processed, Film or Digital, it was not a quality photo in the first place. I have made a living doing this with film.

Steven

I'm afraid we have to disagree on this, Steven.

In film days, yes. But digital photography is different, especially on sharpness. The sensor introduces a small amount of fuzziness which, according to most experts, needs a sharpening. And I would rather have full control of this process than having the camera doing it.

Um...that about says it all for me.

I also like toning, duotone, vignetting, collage, selective levelling and, of course, because I can't hold a camera properly - straightening my horizons in seascapes!

Regards,

Andrew

I'm sorry Steve,
I have to disagree with your statement also.

Please show a raw files(untouched), PEF,NEF,ORF or whatever that needs no PP whatsoever. Even a perfectly exposed Raw file needs slight adjustments.

And.....in case you shoot JPEG's direct out of the camera. .......
Its baked, cooked and processed by the in camera software, instead of you in post processing.
The latter(you) most certain capable of doing a much a better job at it, then the camera ever can achieve.

The only true out of the camera result is achieved by slides. The purest form.
Negative colour film is processed and colour corrected by the lab, and B&W home made prints are adjusted to taste by the photog. self.(during development or printing)

Don't make the mistake confusing basic post processing with image manipulation or changing pixels.The latter being a whole different topic.
Here is a thought to consider:
Are all of you aware Photoshop was aimed and invented as a tool to manipulate images.(Editors.web-design etc....)
Only after the integration of ACR the general purpose shifted towards photography.
Why do you think there are so much tools implemented that are never used by the average photographer?

Just my 2 cents,

So you only ever shot slide film and never had them printed? As soon as you print a neg (or a slide) what do you do? Make a test strip to determine exposure, decide on the grade/type of paper you are going to use or dial in the appropriate filter for multigrade etc. Did you always have the easel exactly square with the head of the enlarger? Did you never zoom in a little bit to crop out some extraneous bits?

"Post processing" is a rather broad catch all term which goes from the sort of things you would do in a darkroom which are always necessary to get a good final print, to the way out art filters and graphic design tools. One has to be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

Best wishes, Kris.

I think Martin and I were thinking much the same thoughts at much the same time!

K.

I think the same

Fyi: Photoshop was aimed and invented as a tool to manipulate film - invented by Industrial Light & Magic.

Totally agree with the rest of your post btw.

Try convincing that to Thomas Knoll and Mark Hamburg Tell me.....which software program is capable to manipulate a chemical process like film. Only after digitising PS comes into play.
And that game in those early days of Photoshop was played by Editing studio's, Web designers who needed a program like PS.

Suggest you read up on the history . Obviously they've developed the heck out of it since, but its roots lie in film =)

Us web developers have used it since about version 3/4 or so, that's the earliest version I remember using. It was always the only non-vector graphics programme in town other than Paintshop & FW when it came out.

I did.That's why I said; convince Thomas Knoll and Mark Hamburg of that.
Take attention to the first paragraph, specially the part of renaming the program to Photoshop and deal with Barneyscan to distribute copies of the program with a slide scanner;

But let's not start a row, in general we agree i think.