Judy sez:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, Beakman wrote:
> > ....to respond to
> > your concern of software obsolesence... I can assure you, that the State
> > Security Apparatus will not be breaking down your door demanding you turn
> > over your obsolete software. If you want to use the current version of
> > Photoshop 'til the day you die, you can do so, even if there are upgrades,
> > replacements, or the company goes belly up.
>
> Actually, that isn't true. I have many times had the experience that you
> have to keep everything within one or two versions of each other. For
> instance, upgrade of MSW wouldn't work on my old Mac System 6, or wouldn't
> do certain things. If for whatever reason I upgraded ancillary programs
> and my system, old Adobe Photo Shop would probably *NOT* be good...
> There's a name for this : p-l-a-n-n-e-d o-b-s-o-l-e-s-e-n-c-e !
Let's suppose you have a computer system running Photoshop 3.0. You are
happy with the set up and evrything is fine. My point is that you neither
have to sell your computer nor upgrade the software. You can continue to
work with them until the end of your years. The final file format is
TIF or .EPS which are standards and are sure to be with us for a very
long time. So long as you are able to create output in one of these
formats it doesn't matter what version of software you are running.
> Look, I'm not trying to remake the negative with dyene, but to do some
> spot corrections. Took about 10 minutes to learn..
>
> > though not all, digital manipulation, once learned, is far easier than
> > analog methods. The ability to instantly "undo" what you just did is a
> > godsend. To be able to have several versions of the same image up on the
> > screen at once so that you can compare them before deciding which
> > direction you want to go, etc.
>
> How long was it before you got your computer calibrated to the point that
> "comparing" images on screen really matched the output????
My monitor isn't calibrated. Because the screen is backlit and your image
is not, trying to get the two to match is a fruitless task. After
printing a few images I've come to know what to expect in the translation,
and just like any fine photographic process, the procedure is iterative.
If it turns out you need to "burn" this corner a bit more, you do it.
Surprisingly (and thankfully), I find extremely good correlation between
what I see and like on my monitor, and what I see and like in my prints.
And even though there are still differences between what I see on the
monitor and what I get on my print, I still find it much easier to work
on a positive image on my monitor than a negative image on a piece of film.
> > Also, I think that there are a lot of people who may have outstanding
> > artistic vision, but whose expression of that vision has been restrained
> > by their lack of technical darkroom skills. For these people, programs
> > like Photoshop allow them to finally be able to express their art.
>
> That one I'm not going to let you get away with -- the implication that
> the computer skill is easier to acquire than darkroom skills. Really!
> This week I taught 32 undergraduates, not all of them totally awake, how
> to make passable lith film in a couple of hours -- these included painting
> and architecture majors. How long would it take til they could learn to
> go from scanning to output on photoshop!!?? Like us valley girls say, give
> me a break!
I absolutely stand by my statement. I used to print silver, and I've
done my share of analog platinum, and I have to say that, without a
doubt, I do not posses the necessary printing skills to get what I can
get using Photoshop. I would have to be a virtuoso printer like Ansel
Adams or John Sexton, to be able to compete with Photoshop, and even then
there are things I can do better in Photoshop than Sexton could ever do
in the darkroom.
As for training a novice, can I assume some basic computer knowledge, such
as what a floppy disc is, how to use a mouse, and how to turn on the
computer?
Give me a complete novice, and I could teach the fundamentals of the
whole process in 1 day. Really. I've done a little teaching, so I'm not
just speaking through my hat. Now, to become a Photoshop wizard will
take longer. I can get people to make passable output in a day, but
masterpieces take longer. I could probably bring someone up to my level
in about a week of classroom time.
Personally, I've been using Photoshop for about 10 months, sporadically
(that is, maybe once a week on average for an hour). My current
Photoshop skills far exceed my analog printing skills (and I'm not a
hopeless idiot when it comes to printing in a darkroom). Maybe some of
the other readers of this list can share their experiences with us, after
all, maybe I *am* a hopeless idiot in the darkroom, but I just don't know
it! :)
> Which is to say, if you stretched it end to end, how long was your
> learning period to get to where you are now with digital!? Under oath!
> (Starting from zero, where my students were.)
In any case, it would be unfair to make the comparison. Everything I
know about Photoshop, scanning, and the whole process has been
self-taught. I figured it all out through experimentation (and some
helpful tips from some readers of this list). I could have saved *so*
much time if I had someone, with the knowledge I now have, teach me the
process. In fact, I could have gotten to where I am about 9 months and 3
weeks ago. :) Honest. No hyperbole.
Right hand raised, swearing on the grave of Captain Pizzaghelli,
David