leica dream Posted August 11, 2017 Share #1 Posted August 11, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) As a casual amateur I use PS CS5 or elements to manage my images. I have been offered a course based on ON1. I have looked at that on the internet but it looks to me to offer pretty much the same as PS. Does anyone have any experience with ON1 - or views? Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 11, 2017 Posted August 11, 2017 Hi leica dream, Take a look here ON1 Software. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted August 11, 2017 Share #2 Posted August 11, 2017 Works fine. If you're used to Adobe it's a bit of a learning curve. On the upside there is no mercenary subscription. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 11, 2017 Share #3 Posted August 11, 2017 As a casual amateur I use PS CS5 .... Me, too and I pray it continues to work as OS upgrades continue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 11, 2017 Share #4 Posted August 11, 2017 It is more similar to Lightroom than PS, in a way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted August 11, 2017 Share #5 Posted August 11, 2017 Me, too and I pray it continues to work as OS upgrades continue. I am still on CS3 ! Hardly use it though (mainly for merge and for some difficult high DR pictures). I am sure CS5 will last longer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 12, 2017 Share #6 Posted August 12, 2017 How are you handling the raw conversions? I don't think the CS3 version of ACR can be updated to convert the files from newer cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 12, 2017 Share #7 Posted August 12, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Still using CS3 as well. Not for raw conversion of course but for the rest i don't need more. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2017 Share #8 Posted August 13, 2017 One doesn't need what one is not aware of... ;)I would have called it nonsense before, but nowadays content-aware technology is an essential part of my workflow, for instance for cropping outside the frame to improve composition, and fast and easy spotting and object removal. And quite a bit more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 13, 2017 Share #9 Posted August 13, 2017 One doesn't need what one is not aware of... ;)I would have called it nonsense before, but nowadays content-aware technology is an essential part of my workflow, for instance for cropping outside the frame to improve composition, and fast and easy spotting and object removal. And quite a bit more. IOW, the ability to make fake photos. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2017 Share #10 Posted August 13, 2017 Indeed. I do not believe that a photograph represents the real world. It represents the vision of the photographer. All photographs are fake. Only reproductions. journalistic reportage, documentary wildlife, etc.(i.o.w. photography which pretends to show reality), may not be manipulated. -Not that that makes them really objective-. For the rest, freedom reigns in my book. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 13, 2017 Share #11 Posted August 13, 2017 One doesn't need what one is not aware of... ;)I would have called it nonsense before, but nowadays content-aware technology is an essential part of my workflow, for instance for cropping outside the frame to improve composition, and fast and easy spotting and object removal. And quite a bit more. Indeed i don't even know the meaning of "content-aware technology". Now those manipulations don't interest me i must say. If my composition was poor i just forget it but it's just me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 13, 2017 Share #12 Posted August 13, 2017 IOW, the ability to make fake photos. . Yes. All photos are fake (manipulated). The moment you compose through a VF, you are editing. The moment you trip the shutter, you have manipulated. All good stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2017 Share #13 Posted August 13, 2017 Indeed i don't even know the meaning of "content-aware technology". Now those manipulations don't interest me i must say. If my composition was poor i just forget it but it's just me. For instance, you have positioned your subject wrongly in a way that you cannot correct by normal cropping. With content-aware technology you can crop outside the image and Photoshop will fill the missing background with an indistinguishable extension. Or there is a perspective problem in your image. With content-aware technology, you can reposition certain elements without the repair being visible. Is it perfect? - no, not always, with highly specific backgrounds, but it is pretty amazing in 95% of the cases and saves hours of masking and cloning with far better results. It is meant to make photographs that you don't want to forget good ones and to make good photographs perfect. BTW, the face-correcting feature in the newest Photoshop is a blessing for portraits with perspective distortion, and even if you happen to have caught a wrong expression or grimace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2017 Share #14 Posted August 13, 2017 Yes. All photos are fake (manipulated). The moment you compose through a VF, you are editing. The moment you trip the shutter, you have manipulated. All good stuff. And if you set the mood by exposure, or dodge and burn for emphasis, or choose a wide aperture to get rid of a background, or use motion blur, a gradient filter to emphasize a sky, a wide-angle lens to get a prominent foreground, a telelens to compress perspective, a long shutter time to remove people from an architectural shot or freeze water, etc... Painters have known for a long time that an image is more realistic when you edit reality. -Or simply better- Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 13, 2017 Share #15 Posted August 13, 2017 I dare not recall the decisive moment. Outdated philosophy i guess. A duty in my job and a pleasure otherwise but i cheat from time to time (not for legal photos of course) and others' manipulations don't bother me anyway . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted August 13, 2017 Share #16 Posted August 13, 2017 BTW, the face-correcting feature in the newest Photoshop is a blessing for portraits with perspective distortion, and even if you happen to have caught a wrong expression or grimace. Jaap - is it ok if I quote this sentence in the "I like film" thread, as yet another reason not to use digital Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica dream Posted August 13, 2017 Author Share #17 Posted August 13, 2017 Thank you for the input everyone......................I think I have got the message..................stick with what I know. Richard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 14, 2017 Share #18 Posted August 14, 2017 Jaap - is it ok if I quote this sentence in the "I like film" thread, as yet another reason not to use digital I can't wait to see some of the reactions 'over there'! What a hoot. I'm already guessing who will say what. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.