How much time do you spend in Photoshop?

[John_SD]

I won't hijack the other guy's thread asking if there is a stigma attached to using Photoshop (no idea where he would get that idea anyway). But I am curious about how much time people spend in Ps to begin with. I don't have Ps, but I do use Gimp (rarely), after I've done what I can do in DPP. I could see myself one day biting the bullet and making a move to Lr, as I progress with the hobby. But I just dont have many occassions to use Ps. Now, if I needed to remove a light pole, or replace a house with a meadow, or put a nice rainbow over a scene, or remove a bunch of clutter from the backgroud, Ps might be useful to me. Do you guys really spend a lot of time in Ps? Do you use it daily in your workflow?

[John_SD]

Very nice photos, Waddizzle. Colorizing it has added some punch to the picture, for sure. That gilded mirror might fetch you a pretty penny on eBay if you still have it. There is a niche of collectors who seek out old mirrors and they pay good money for them if they are in good shape.

As for Ps, I have no doubt as to its power, but I can't yet bring myself to pay for a subscription at this point. While Gimp is a challenge to learn due to the mostly amateurish documentation that supports it, I have been able to do some things with it. If I find myself using it more than I anticipate, I'd consider buying a copy of Photoshop lite instead (Elements, that is). 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@cicopo wrote:

Something I've been asked to use it for that can really be helpful is for old photo repair. I won't claim to be very good at it but I've done it a few different times to resurect really old or neglected photos of either my wife's family or old black & white school photos from the early 60's. Fixing cracks & blending in areas that have discoloured isn't too tough nor very time consuming. I haven't tried on any colour photos though.

---

Nicely done. But why didn't you get rid of the flare spot on the wall to the right of the window while you were at it?

[cicopo]

I knew that question was coming & the answer is simple. I cropped tighter. The photos were needed for a family photo swap between several on my 91 year old mother in laws brothers & sisters or remaining spouces where each member swapped a few of their old photo collection but only as 4X6 or 5X7 sized prints. The photos I repaied actually printed very well considering what took them back in the day & how they had been handled etc since then. 

[ebiggs1]

What you are doing is really pretty interesting.  I got a job from a large genealogy outfit to restore a few old photos. It is amazing what PS can do on those old photos. Some of the photos from the 1860's to 1900's are extremely sharp.

[ebiggs1]

Bob said, "... those who don't do so are ignorant, incompetent, or unprofessional" and unsuccessful. Well in the case of people that are making it a career, a business, a living. If you are a hobby shooter, a for fun shooter, a Mom, you can use just about anything or nothing!

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Bob said, "... those who don't do so are ignorant, incompetent, or unprofessional" and unsuccessful. Well in the case of people that are making it a career, a business, a living. If you are a hobby shooter, a for fun shooter, a Mom, you can use just about anything or nothing!

---

"a Mom"??! How sexist is that, Ernie? My wife is a mom (and a five-time grandmother), and this summer she had pictures accepted for the juried show at the Griffin Museum (q.v.) and for a rather selective regional calendar. I had edited both of those pictures for her using DPP.

I don't know where you got this idea that only full-time professionals have to produce acceptable results, meet demanding deadlines, etc.; but I can tell you from personal experience that it isn't true. During the eight or ten years in which photography was part (albeit a minor part) of my job, there were many occasions where underperformance was not an option. I wouldn't have been fired if I had screwed up, but it would have been extremely embarrassing.

[ebiggs1]

"I had edited both of those pictures for her using DPP."  ...you can use just about anything or nothing!"

You made my point.  If it is not you livelihood, any post editor will do. And, I suppose, if you look hard enough, you can find a successful pro that doesn't use PS but I have not met one.

BTW, we are a nine time grandparents!  

[ebiggs1]

Let me be clear. I am not a PS or LR fan. I don't like them any more or less than anybody does. And, I really, really don't like Adobe. Although Adobe doesn't really care, I am sure, I have told them so as many of us have. I use PS and LR because they are the best. Period, get over it.

[John_SD]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I use PS and LR because they are the best. Period, get over it.

---

That may be true of Ps, but Lightroom is facing increasingly stiff competition and its days as the go-to top-flight RAW converter may be numbered. Several of those competing products are increasingly gaining serious ground, such as Capture One Pro. You pay a flat fee, and it's yours, period. Because really, who wants to be consigned to paying a monthly tribute to Adobe for a lifetime so that they permit you to continue working on your own images? Well, not me. And a lot of others have also learned that Lightroom is no longer the only game in town. Threre's some great products out there. 

[ebiggs1]

John everything you said is true.  The difference is with the real full time pro shops.  The subscription to Adobe is just an entry on the ledger sheet. Beyond that out of sight, out of mind.  LR has no competition there. For part timers, hobbyists, amateur pros, Robert, etc, use what you like best. No harm, no foul.