Are you shooting in RAW mode??

 

Pencil and Crayons for me







Photoshop Elements

 

We ask the digital photographers that supply us photos to give them to us in Adobe RGB 1998 format actually. We do not want them to send it to us in camera raw mode because there are just far too many different photographers and different cameras being used, so it's better for them to send it to us in the same format like this because of our color management system.

 

After digital retouching appeared in the early 1980s, photographers became and remain really lazy -- iffy color quality, focus and flaws that need to be removed.

 

Using the original CS, can't bring myself to pay for the newer ones for what I actually use it for. Although....just bought a Canon scanner last night that has Adobe Photoshop Elements packaged with it.........is that any good?

 

that is what I use

 

CS3 Premium Design Suite here.

Adobe Certified Expert/Adobe Certified Instructor

 

Not true! I have been a full time pro since 1981. I have not become lazy. If anything, I am now working harder to produce the best possible image using photoshop where as in the 80s we were depending upon photographic artist for retouching.

 

I only use 7, I have had a copy of it since it was new and don't really feel like upgrading and learning a new version of the program.

I have a copy of CS2, but never have used it, don't know I guess I just like 7.

 

I applaud you for being the exception to the rule, but in my experience in this industry the quality of the photographs we get now that they are mostly digital has definitely gone downhill. I think part of it is due to the fact that a lot of the images supplied to us are now from more novice photographers, since it's a little bit easier for someone to take pictures with a cheap digital camera, as opposed to the old days when you needed an expensive camera. Some of the stuff we get is real bad, such as one story for Style at Home magazine I just did where I had to color correct the walls in every shot because the lighting was so bad. The color wasn't even close to the swatch provided to me (which was the actual color that those walls were painted) In some shots the walls looked blue, in other shots they were too warm, and in others they were just dull grey. The actual color was more of a tan color.

Another common thing we get is that when photographers are shooting people, the lighting is often too dark to see the fine details such as their hair. Luckily Photoshop comes to the rescue! (I love the shadow/highlight feature they added in CS2, it works wonders on dark shots with no details!) We also get a ton of pictures of people and their skin is way too warm! They end up looking like tomatoes.

But at the same time, if every picture was sent to us absolutely perfect, I wouldn't have much work to do! (although truth be told, even when we make the pictures look perfect, the art directors/editors of the magazines want them even more perfect, so there are always changes to be made)

 

I hear what you are saying and I see both sides of this issue. One of my clients hires me to produce a quarterly international magazine in which I receive approximately 200+ photos from an average of about 50 sources for each issue - some of those sources are professional photographers, but the majority are amateurs with digital cameras - and "yes" in many cases the quality is so bad I simply have to reject the entire lot as being unusable. Most of what I get from professionals is at least good enough to correct, but a great many are not very well versed in the CMYK color space (as one would expect).

I don't think the quality of photo-taking in general has gone down - it has always been horrible among amateurs - it is just that in the past most of those horrible photos stayed buried in their shoe boxes where they belonged. With everyone now going digital, every time they pull the shutter the whole world gets to instantly "share" in their lack of ability. To make things worse, professional labs and color correction facilities have been taken out of the loop almost entirely as even most "professional" photographers now attempt that activity themselves. Some professionals have invested enormous amounts of time and money to set up a fully calibrated, color-managed workflow (like myself) and can now produce extraordinary results with many hours of ongoing training and practice, but a lot of the problem is that the great majority of people (professionals and amateurs) are evaluating and correcting on relatively low-end equipment and even rely on their uncalibrated LCD screens to make color corrections which are actually damaging the file data further that they are saving to disc without knowing any better.

The first time I attended a Photoshop World Convention, I was in shock that so many Professional Photographers were so lost when it came to understanding the digital workflow. As I also "teach" some of these teachers on nearly every phase of the process, I see the constant frustration that many professionals have. Overall, I would guess that professional photographers are as dedicated as ever to getting pristine results, but many are having a really hard time making the transition from film to digital and even many of the digital-from-the-ground-up photographers are making evaluations on equipment where "only they" will see the results of their efforts - as only their computer screen can properly interpret their actions. In the past most professionals only concentrated on "getting the shot" (which can be a full-time quest) and then turning the film over to the labs to interpret, but now with the advent of digital the vast majority now want total control over that aspect as well which obviously takes away valuable time from their primary craft. "Some" of the highest end pros still refuse to get into interpreting their digital negatives - not because they could not do it themselves, but they make more money for "getting the shots" than wasting time "perfecting" one shot that they can simply hire someone like me to do and know it will be as good as it can be. So it really comes down to a matter of control.

The very best equipment - even properly calibrated and color-managed is still no substitute for a good eye and experience, but thanks to desktop-digital even the best eye cannot overcome low-end devices that are out of sync and that is the state-of-the-art. A recent survey showed that the number one reason most people liked their "digital" camera, was because it allowed them to instantly throw away shots they did not like without have to wait for film developing - they apparently just need to concentrate on throwing more away.

 

Wow. Major league discussion going on! Me? I use Photoshop CS (just because for what I need, I haven't gotten around to upgrading) and InDesign CS2. Except for a huge master plan we've been doing in InDesign (which, frankly, I haven't touched on the production end so really haven't used the program much), I just use Photoshop to touch up pictures, increase saturation, and make it look like I've used 15 coats of Zaino on my car..... just kidding.

 

I sincerely wish that more contemporary professional photographers had photoguy's attitude, but from what I've seen, that is not the case.

Digital retouching has become a crutch that redeems flawed lighting, indifferent styling and sloppy makeup (I work extensively in the retail fashion areas).

Since the digital bandaid has been around for over 25 years, maybe the industry paradigm has changed -- perhaps the digital manipulation phase is now just as (or more) important as the original photographic session.