Re: OT: Photoshop CS4 upgrade overpriced
If you overlook all the features that the later incarnations of Ps. have, and I have found some of them useful (though I obviously haven't used CS4 yet), the core features of the program- say, the ones most of us use to prepare our pictures for output such as the aforementioned clone/levels/saturation etc will give the same result from Ps6 as they will from CS3, which I use extensively. The Clone tool clones, just like it always did. Similarly, the other tools and features.
"And lordy, claiming that if you get "your exposure/composition and
focus right in the first place and you hardly need Photoshop other
than to print through" is neither fair to the legions of photographers
who use the wet darkroom as a place of discovery and creativity nor to
the digital photographers and artists who do the same today without
getting their hands wet. John Sexton once commented that it was not
unusual for him to spend 40 hours with a new 4x5 negative before he
had his first fine print. You can bet that he wasn't fussing with
issues of exposure, composition or focus. Please be a bit more open
minded before making proclamations like that."
There's no sinister or narrow minded assertions to be made about my statement. I believe that if you do indeed get all the technical features of your picture correct at the time of taking the photograph, and here I also include previsualising how you want the final print to look (my pictures are always taken to be printed either gum or inkjet), then there is really very little to be done in the computer. I don't see how this can be interpreted as an unfair statement.
Admittedly most images can be improved to a greater or lesser extent by using Photoshop, and indeed I have to admit guilt to "digging it out in Photoshop" or the occasional gardening, but as a photographer, my main concern is, and has always been, getting the picture right at the taking stage. As the old adage goes, "you can't polish a turd!".
Are you suggesting that one should spend 40 hours (or the digital equivalent) working on a photoshop image? My point here is that if you need to do loads of post production work to get the image ready for output then (assuming you are a photographer and not a montage artist or someone who creates in the computer) there must be something wrong at the time of taking the picture, and believe me, I have spent days working on other photographers files to produce something useable.
I am no Luddite, and have used and abused Photoshop since v2.5. It is a great program and does a splendid job but it is relied on too much to rescue poor work and to make life easier for the photographer, at the expense of experience and technical ability, but hey isn't this waaay o/t now.......?
My two penn'orth :~)