It is woth to invest in an expensive photo and graphics software ?

A body´s a great gift, agree. You sure got yours. Looked into GIMP pages a bit. Already use a lot of helpful open source substitutes. Gradually I must go back to some old drawing bord. Inspiring though. Hey anyone else around? :,

:p Wow. Doing it with german too muchness: Ideally - if that was anyone´s intention, the solution could be (at least in a workshop) to sort of display a BEFORE - AFTER comparison? Whodini might say magicians don´t reveal the secret :magic <br />

LOL GT. Good quote!!

To agree or not agree...that&acute;s the question....&quot;William Photographer Shakespeare&quot; :Happy

I always have to think overnight during sleep how to react. I think I can agree with what you are saying GT :Happy

Well, I understand what Sally and Rich say, regarding the manipulation of photography, but ultimately I cannot accept it, not because I do not like it, but because it does not &quot;tell&quot; others what the photographer saw at the moment he/she pressed the camera button. <br /> <br />I think this has a lot to do with photographers that started on the analogue era, where the only way to get a proper capture, had to do with good light measurment, combining speed with apertures. And after that, if the capture was carefully taken, it could originate a good capture, otherwise, and even applying many techniiques in the darkroom, a bad capture was always a bad capture. <br /> <br />Believe me that I have photographs that took me an hell of a time to capture, mainly due to a very carefull light measurement I&acute;ve made - these will be published soon here ate SB - and once the light and shadow hits the film or sensor...its done, no more excuses to it. <br /> <br />Nowadays, and knowing that we are able to correct an infinity of parameters on digital post-processing, sometimes it could lead to a more &quot;relaxed&quot; &quot;point and shoot&quot; attitude, knowing that everything is possible to correct or to emphazise on post-processing, but then again and in my humble - a probably &quot;very old&quot; - point of view, we are not truly faithful to what made us capture the moment. The only thing I can accept - and do - is sometimes correcting the white balance and overall tonality on the digitals, as sometimes, colours are not faithfull to the original ones. <br /> <br />And is under this point of view, that I think that a photographer does not need expensive software to post-cess and good capture. In reality, he does not need any. <br /> <br />The greatest part of my BW portfolio, was taken using film and I have used at that time, Ilford films, at 400 ,200 100 and 64 ASA. I could now, when processing the 400 ASA captures, to reduce the grainy effect of it, applying for instance some &quot;selective gaussian blur&quot;, but what&acute;s the point? At that time I knew, that those pictures would be grainy so it was a trade-off I had to make, between speed and grain. Also when using colour positive film, I had to experiment in order to see what was the film that could give me the better and more faithfull colour rendition, and I sticked with Fuji at those times. <br /> <br />On the other hand,and when using digitals, I try to stick to low ISO setting in order to avoid &quot;noise&quot; (grain) but I know that in some lighting situations, it&acute;s very hard to avoid it. I had to be very careful when choosing my cameras, as the match betweem sensor and lenses is crucial. <br /> <br />Believe me that I enjoy to see manipulated photography - does not matter how much manipulated they are - but I do not do it. Its my way of being a photographer, not better or worse than others, just my way of being. :Happy

I really like seeing what the photographer sees but also like them touched up a bit. I still consider them photographs and I envy the talent of the photographers on Skinbase. You all are a special lot. I also enjoy photographs that have been manipulated to hell and back. Guess I am hitting both ends and the middle. 😂

My first camera was a Fascia &#61663; I know I butchered that name all was manual and had a 28/150 zoom with Micro. Took allot of pictures and out of them all I might of ended up with about 20% I could use or should I say show off. I would have to say yes a photograph is still a photograph even if someone like me manipulates it with a graphic program. I currently use three programs to do my work (oldies but goodies) Adobe Photo elements first edition, Microsoft Picture it, and Photo Shop 8. I guess I could not be so cheap and go out and buy one that does all in one and allot easier than what I got but I am used to them and can get around in them easy and not much on learning how to use a new program just want to play. As far as the Photograph goes it is the eye of the photographer the knowledge of the light, Shadow, and subject, that makes the picture. With out that people like me would have nothing to work with. Granted a Good graphic designer, a photographer doesn’t stand a chance. Where there wasn’t light at the time picture was taken it can be added… and so on, but the basic photograph remains in tact&#61664; moment, idea, angel, lens used, and filter if any. Those things can never be changed, all I or any other graphic designer can do as add or subtract from the original.

Thanks crae and lecrayon. And I think exactly the same as you do when you say and I quote: &quot; Is a photograph still a photograph when colours are manipulated with graphic software? Not really...&quot;... <br /> <br />GT :Happy

hey crae, long time no see 😮 <br />It is a bit comparable with watercolours :) I mean is a watercolour painting still a watercolour if you sketch first with pencil and then start filling in with watercolour? Not really...it is more mixed technique. Is a photograph still a photograph when colours are manipulated with graphic software? Not really...

I used to take pictures of everything. Until my film was full that is. My dad rewinded the thing and took it out. The trouble is, he did it in full exposure. Let&acute;s just say he&acute;s technically challenged. Never touched a camera since. <br /> <br />&acute;Till recently, when I bought a compact digital camera. But I only use it as a portable copy machine. <br /> <br />PhotoShop, to put things back on topic, indeed is the standard in graphic design land. But that doesn&acute;t mean you should abide by the standard. What works for you is good enough.

Got it, Joost.... :Happy :congrats

Must tell you Toby, biggest part of my money and montlhy allowances from my parents and when I started to work, after college, went to photography. The only &quot;gift&quot; I had, was that Nikon F2 body - a great gift by the way. <br /> <br />Photography its a kind of an addicting art, you never stop discovering and learning. :Happy

Wow u got started early. Minolta was my best xerox machine + cost another fortune those days. Even forgot I had a Voigtländer cam between the polaroid + the mamiya. The V. was small and light, did not show WYSYWIG focus but made acceptable autofucussed stuff and included flash. Dad built a tent in basement not just for developing but for the way he liked his LIGHTING when taking 3d like coin photos. What an art :fun If only I remember what he had (several) was it Leicaflex, Rolleiflex. He died at age 52, cant even ask him. In march I´m 48. Better hurry :brb

Hey Toby, my first camera was an Agfa Instamatic and at that time - i was 12 or 13 - what a GREAT camera I had. Later on,I was dreaming on a Minolta SRT303b , but I learned the first secrets of developing and enlarging BW&acute;s, with a friend of my father, that was a convinced Nikonist and....I was completely &quot;brainstormed&quot; about Nikon, so at 15, I bought myself a Nikkormat F and later on, my father offered me a Nikon F2 body, at that time the queen of all the cameras.I still have it and I won&acute;t sell it for anyprice in the world.Meanwhile,at that time, I was reading and learning all about chemicals and experimenting to make all of them at home , which i did but I spent more time making chemicals than capturing images. But was a nice school though.Meanwhile, i discovered the enchantments of the medium format, with a borrowed Hasselblad for six months in a row and...never forgot the quality of the images it produced. And now I have to decide which digital camera to buy first: a normal digital SLR or a medium format one - I will have both, for sure, if I live long enough. Time will tell - and my bank account - which one to buy first, but with two kids in college and all the family responsibilities, I guess I&acute;ll have to wait a little bit more. My wife, is my keen and most precious supporter - and a great antagonist of the digital era - &quot; I miss the sessions you used to make, 12 to 14 hours in a row, in the darkroom, with all that &quot;nice smell&quot; of the chemicals &quot; she says...Photography brings us some nostalgia... <br /> <br />Now, two weeks ago,I bought an Epson 4490 Photo scanner, - I was looking for it for two years, but now I had to go for it, and I am now passing all my &quot;analogue&quot; work to digital and memories start to pass by me. Wonderful. And it&acute;s amazing that, when seeing through the viewfinder of my actual two digitals - my Sony F717 and the excellent Canon S80 - a serious little bugger - I still see the images in black and white. I am crazy, no doubt. <br /> <br />What I see nowadays, is people that want to make digital photography in a more serious way, but they do not know or understand, the basics of it and all the technical stuff that lies beneath. I think and belive that to make the things right, we must understand deep enough how things &quot; happen&quot;. And that&acute;s what I did: re-learned everything again and understand how the &quot;analogue&quot; image can be converted to a digital one.What are the losses and what are the gains. <br /> <br />I love cars since I was a kid - I worked with them for 15 years - but no doubt that I will spend money more easily on a good camera and lenses, than with a car. <br /> <br />And that&acute;s why I started this thread: if things are done properly when capturing the image,- no matter if this analogue or a digital one - with a decent to an excellent camera - and lenses - who needs expensive software to post-process them ?I do not see the point, really.But I accept that, they can do all the difference for graphic designers but even so, and comparing PS with The Gimp, I am still missing the point, but probably I am wrong as I am not a graphics designer. <br /> <br />Many thanks for sharing with us, your thoughs and experience. I am really thrilled with yoiur comments. Many thanks. <br /> <br />GT :Happy

Np, but if I mess with spelling in opposite to deletion sometimes it messes up the whole post so I won´t :fool . Quite a link of yours with a neat enlargeable zoom. 22 million pixels sounds cool. If I converted currencies right, I should faint though considering the price. Glad they still exist though. Time flies. Was really excited about my 2 |O| s before that - they were worth almost NOTHING but for kids - and the first 1 - like getting your first bicycle wow. An instamatic - and later a b/w polaroid when they were the kick. Maybe I was 9 or 11. And it developed on the spot. Gee. But the chemicals, and it was sort of bent. Later in color. Thought of just this afternoon when reinstalling a harmless program for making calendars, gift wrappers, cards etc. Decided not to update. Whole things about 2 gigs + costs 20 Euros. Looks measly. But most people who get the present either dont care or understand my situation. <br /> <br />In the update they try to sell you additional packs with 2,000 templates ONLY for is it condolescence in English. The b/w mail you send when someone DIES? Good grief. <br /> <br />Then again, considering what people spend for cars, your camera sounds reasonable. Hopefully prices might go down later. They keep inventing new stuff though. Aggh. Scanners, even faxes used to be too expensive, so was telex unless you were a big company. Now its tempting - color printing so cheap at home, scanning - was thinking about one of those compatible Canon things for later - with digital - and the old feature where you look through the lens instead of display and see a WYSIWYG focus. Wonder if they are any good. But meanwhile, the laptop is ready for freddy. Oh well. Hey, pleasure talking to a serious |O| er <br />

Sorry for the error on the tittle: should be: Is it worth to invest.... :brb

Thanks Toby, we are in the same line of thought . By the way and talking about Mamiya-Sekor , did you know that they have just realeased their first digital medium format, the ZD ? Visit http://www.dpreview.com/news/0603/06030903mamiyazd.asp and see for yourself. I&acute;m still dreaming about to get one, as I just love the quality the medium format can achieve, - at least on film - as I do not know if the match sensor/lenses on this new one, will be the expected one. But...too expensive. :( <br /> <br />Nevertheless...still dreaming. :Happy

😎 Like the way this addresses more than 1 target group; not just rich experienced pros trying to sell something whether it´s the best or not. <br /> <br />When I was 14 - 17 I was lucky enough to have my parents treat me to a mamiya sekor (Spiegelreflex in german) which was heavy and expensive (500 German Marks was money in the late 60s/early 70s) but looked like a normal camera. Of course you sort of found you later needed a tele lens, a fish-eye, and flashlight equipment, extra films, so I was running around like it was an expedition to the Himalaya mountains while - in opposite to me - my parents and sister just enjoyed their vacation trips. <br /> <br />And my father was a professional photographer. He specialized in 3D photographry of coins he collected until they were stolen 1 day. But he had also worked for Eastman Kodak in New York at a laboratory and belonged to photo clubs, mags, etc. <br /> <br />A true photographer does not show off like I did. Ideally he knows how to draw so his eye is constantly THINKING in terms of what comes across even when NOT carrying his equipment around. So :taxi is out of the question. <br /> <br />After 40 moves between European cities, I got rid of my slide projector, the whole rig. And decided to relax. But then 1 day as a bonus in my cellphone, suddenly without much weight I could make jpg s in very bad quality. And transmit em to the pc. My neighbor didnt send us prints of our last party he took - no, suddenly it was a ROM. And when you wanted prints made at the store next door they needed all the file names and a disk. I found it fun to logon to the pc with a panaroma pic I mounted in medium quality with irfanview. Which is free. <br /> <br />And I am ashamed to say the only animations I made are with german hardcopy by siegfried weckmann. This is not free, it costs 15 $ or so for about a year of updates and extensive plugins. (Not US hardcopy, thats different). <br /> <br />All of this is not perfect at all but fun and cheap. I must admit later I try to experiment with PSP - if photoshop gets in my range 1 day, Id be curious. And there are some animation tools I would like to try bit by bit. I could also enjoy first blowing several thousand bucks on a professional font creator I KNOW I want, dreamweaver maybe, InDesign, maybe. Lifes short. <br /> <br />Whats the use of it if you dont have an artists eye and hands? So I am realistic + still enoying from my amateur viewpoint. And growing into things at a medium level which might always be my limit. However it IS good to understand a bit more of what other people are doing and why what is such a great art. ☕

I know my friend.... LOL

Agree with you!!! ;) :congrats