tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722364592267293957.post8362775269651846361..comments2024-03-25T13:07:05.846-07:00Comments on L U C I M A blog: Tip of the Day: Photoshop - The Choice is Yours Charles Lucimahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13960242106614495688noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6722364592267293957.post-91541871083961413502012-08-31T13:17:15.164-07:002012-08-31T13:17:15.164-07:00Beautifully written. Having played with Photoshop ...Beautifully written. Having played with Photoshop as well as GIMP basically since their creation in the 90s, and then going on to graphic design in college, as well as having a bit of a photography background since I was a child, I fell into a job with a professional photographer a while ago for a couple years and that's all I've been doing since. Computers have always been part of my world as well and yes I completely do not understand the lack of autosave in photoshop, if you're in the zone with editing, there's no difference in sense of time from 1 - 8 hours since your last save, until it's too late.... and round two, if you muster it, won't be as good since you're already a bit frustrated to say the least. <br /><br />With as much as I agree with everything you say, I do actually still use gimp for things when getting into the more graphic side of photo editing. There is no replacement for GIMPs color to alpha when trying to crop out a detailed subject to paste somewhere it needs to look real, (when the gods have lined up a situation when that works with the background colors), but photoshop only has a half assed version of that and it doesn't look anywhere near as natural without a ton of subtle work. I do tend to use photoshop about 100 times more than I use GIMP but there's those times I just know I can save a couple hours by using GIMP for a minute.<br /><br />Though I also have to add, photoshop and gimp are both graphic design tools, that is what they're made for. They have so many options that should probably never be used on a photograph. They were not made for photo editing the way tools such as Aperture and Lightroom were. I tend to never drop a photo out of Aperture unless something is messed up bad or I need to stitch together an HDR or a panoramic (which the free program from Hugin does better when photoshop screws up round one on the stitching, but it takes a lot more practice and actual technical knowledge of your lens and sensor size on your camera) or if I have to merge parts of pictures or switch a face from one picture to another. Photoshop has its purpose. Having discovered Aperture was like a dream come true for editing thousands of pictures a month for clients if you can shoot things right the first time and not need any major edits.<br /><br />BUT again, if you're doing photographic art, where blending and bluring and cutting and pasting and custom brushes and textures are required, nothing is better than Photoshop, that is where its infinite abilities are priceless.<br /><br />I also shoot in RAW, which are uneditable, so by the time i get to a photoshop file which must export something that isn't RAW, if I burn actual pixels and not a separate layer and ever decide I want to go back and start from scratch with the original, I just reopen the RAW file from aperture. It will always be there and perfectly unchanged just as it was shot. Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10322301148389340070noreply@blogger.com