| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
To CS, or not to CS: that is a *hell* of a question!!
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
 |
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 11:06 AM on 11.12.04 |
->> Mornin' folks —
So about 30 minutes ago my photo editor emailed me asking me for "five reasons" why we (Columbia Daily Tribune) should upgrade to Photoshop CS. At this moment, we're running version 5.xx ... I know, please contain your shock. At first, I thought to myself, that'll be easy —— time spent on Adobe's website would surely generate myriad reasons for the upgrade, no? Well, after about 24 minutes on their site (and another eight foraging for food in the pantry), I'm honestly at a road block, of sorts.
For the daily newspaper grind, what are the *real* advantages of CS over older versions of Photoshop? True, RAW file support would be nice, but at the moment I'm not too sure how many of us would have the time to add RAW to our workflows. In fact, I may be the only person on staff that's expressed an interest in shooting RAW lately, and that was (is) for a specific project. Secondly, I suppose the healing brush would be advantageous —— before getting my camera's sensor cleaned at the Luau (Thanks Nikon!), I used to seriously debate working from home (version 7) rather than spend one minute more with the near-antiquated Stamp tool. Beyond that, though, "I got nothing."
So I appeal to you, my SportsShooting brothers and sisters ... "whether 'tis nobler in the mind" to suffer through 5.xx, "Or to take arms against a sea of troubles" and doubts from the IT department and DEMAND an upgrade. And please, let's keep things nice and not get all techie-flamey-argumentative over this. I'm looking for realistic, reasonable reasons why our staff should make the upgrade. Further, I'm most interested in contributions from those of you with experience in a newspaper environment, or one with a comparable workflow.
Sincerest thanks in advance,
- gerry - |
|
Dirk Dewachter, Photographer
 |
Playa Del Rey | CA | USA | Posted: 11:12 AM on 11.12.04 |
->> 1 - raw file support
2 - awesome brush engine
3 - healing brush
4 - photo filters
5 - shadow/highlight adjustment
6 - layer comps
7 - color replacement
8 - not sure if you could do scripts in version 5.XX
9 - filter samples
10 - i forgot what it was like to work in version 5.XXX |
|
Michael Hickey, Photographer
|
Kokomo | IN | USA | Posted: 11:14 AM on 11.12.04 |
->> Color management in anything previous to version 6 is rudimentary compared to what's available today.
And most important OS X compatibility!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why anyone is dragging their feet about upgrading from OS 9 is beyond me! |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 11:16 AM on 11.12.04 |
->> PS — I should add that I'm not trying to "sell" my boss here —— he's version 7 at home as well —— but, rather, people higher up in the food chain at Tribune Publishing Company who have final say in departmental appropriations.
Thanks,
- gerry "where would I be without the 'Post Script'?" mccarthy |
|
Jerry Laizure, Photographer, Assistant
|
Norman | OK | USA | Posted: 11:18 AM on 11.12.04 |
->> GJ
What photo database software are you using?
We are using the old AP NewsLynx server software as our local photo server and have found importing CS files problematic. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 11:21 AM on 11.12.04 |
->> Man you all answer fast!!
Dirk:
Don't think we'd ever use "photo filters" ... and I wasn't too impressed with the "Highlight/Shadow" recovery demo on the Adobe website ... reminds me too much of Auto this-and-that ... inconsistent shortcuts for work that could also be done in Levels, Curves. But I could be wrong ...
Michael:
We're PC (Win2k) at the Trib ... ya, I know. Besides, we have image technicians who handle color management for pre-press. All we do is crop, tone and write cutlines. "Heavier lifting" is done by people who sit in a very dark and uninviting office ...
Thanks so far,
- gerry - |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 11:27 AM on 11.12.04 |
->> Hmmm ...
Jerry: All we do is drop edited photos into a local server that everyone can access. If I'm not mistaken, folks in the newsroom are using some version of MediaGrid to access images and what not.
I can have more specific info later today when I report for duty.
- g - |
|
Dirk Dewachter, Photographer
|
Playa Del Rey | CA | USA | Posted: 11:28 AM on 11.12.04 |
->> G.J.
I don't use it a whole lot but it has come in handy a few times to bring out some detail, however, you have to monitor your entire images as it affects your entire image unless you duplicate layers and mask other areas. |
|
Robert G. Stevens, Photographer
|
Halifax | NS | Canada | Posted: 11:30 AM on 11.12.04 |
->> G.J.:
If you are looking at quite a few copies of CS, I would suggest that they keep the existing PS 5 and spend the money on cameras or lenses instead. |
|
Randy Janoski, Photographer
|
Chapel Hill | TN | USA | Posted: 11:31 AM on 11.12.04 |
| ->> Aside from the newer features I would talk to him on his level...budget concerns. One of the best reasons to upgrade is if you wait too long and other versions are released from Adobe you might face the problem of purchasing the whole program instead of an upgrade. |
|
Jan Langsner, Photographer
 |
Lloydminster | AB | Canada | Posted: 11:32 AM on 11.12.04 |
| ->> The best reason... Noise Ninja will soon have a full plug-in for CS. It might also be compatible with 7.0 but I highly doubt it will work with 5. |
|
Matt Strasen, Photographer
|
Stillwater | OK | USA | Posted: 12:04 PM on 11.12.04 |
->> The best way to talk to newspaper management....time. You will save TIME. If you decide to start shooting dark sports in raw+jpeg mode, you can 'bring back' images a little bit more, and with the RAW workflow, you will save time. If I remember correctly, you can even do more with cropping in CS as opposed to 5.xx, like put resolution in the top, and let it crop for that.
The brushes are alot easier to use, when dodging and burning. No pre-set sizes. You just use the size that you need.
A usable browser program. There are others that are much better, but it is usable. Browsers, they, well, save time.
In my struggle at my last stop, I was basically told everything comes down to time spent working, and how much they have to pay you do it. The faster you can do something, the less they have to pay you for it. Hopefully, all paper's don't think like that. That is why they bought us a new computer after 9 months of asking, because using a 6-year old MAC takes too much time. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 11.12.04 |
| ->> CS will allow you to do bulk captioning and rename entire directories of files to your specs. That and the RAW convertor would be why I would consider moving up to CS if I had the option. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 11.12.04 |
->> G.J. I really like the (MUCH) improved file browser for flipping quickly through a lot of photos. The fact that the previews are clear no matter what size has saved me lots of time opening photos that weren't quite sharp. I can now see this before opening.
That, plus the Shadows and Highlight tool makes it worth it too me. The shadows and highlight tool is far from "auto", there are many settings you can manually adjust. I very rarely just click on "shadows and Highlights" and go with what the computer picks.
I also use the healing tool at times when my sensor gets dirty, and also for some ad work at the paper. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada L8S3W5 | Posted: 4:58 PM on 11.12.04 |
->> Hi Gerry,
What version of PS are the guys in prepress using?
Even though it is their responsibility to 'manage' color for good reproduction, it's important that files supplied by staff photographers are also properly color managed.
I'd say, depending on your workflow, there are two good ways to go:
1- stick with Photoshop for all your needs and upgrade to CS (might as well upgrade now - better than later IMO)
2- totally avoid Photoshop and use a captioning app such as Photo Mechanic
It's been a long time since I've used version 5, so I really can't remember what, if any, color management it supports. But an argument could be that as the digital workflow evolves, applications that incorporate up-to-date color management along with supporting a streamlined workflow are essential to preserving the rendition of images as intended by the photographer.
One issue that should be of high importance to management is how the newspaper looks - specifically color reproduction. Naturally, photographers are a key factor in this regard. Working with 'antiquated' software that has limited, or no color management, may inadvertently degrade the quality of the final product. It's an issue that has been a struggle at the paper here at home where all photographers are supposed set cameras to color space 'X', but a few might revert to 'Y' for whatever reason and forget to change that back.... Once in the system, color profiles are stripped from the files thanks to a color blind archive/browser application... so, when a file comes to me in prepress, and the color looks odd, I'm left to guess if it's a profile mismatch or plain bad photography... Some of the others in prepress don't even bother to try to figure out if it's a profile problem. They just push it through, and the image in print often suffers. But that's the unique problem we face...
As someone coming from the prepress side of things as well as being a photographer, I can appreciate the POV from both sides. One view often expressed by prepress is that photographers can be their own worst enemy when it concerns image quality. A little bit of PS knowledge can sometimes do a lot of damage - of which I have seen my fair share. (Not to imply all photographers are inept with PS.)
So, this is where option 2 comes in: Ditch Photoshop from the photographers' workflow completely in favor of something like Photo Mechanic version 4. As you may know, it is color managed, so it won't mess with profiles. It is a fast browser and great for editing, cropping and captioning. Additionally, it could really streamline workflow by leaving image managment (toning) for prepress, which is exactly what they are paid to do. As a photographer, I know it is very difficult to give up control over the look of one's images to a person sitting in front of a computer all day... But for the sake of saving time (so you can actually concentrate more on photography and less time in front of a computer - or go home on time), it may not be such a bad option to just edit, caption, crop and file images using PM without being dragged into the potential timewarp of image adjustment/enhancement with PS. Hey, as we all know, it's still best to get the exposure right in camera. If we can do that most of the time, PS becomes less of a necessity.
Perhaps not exactly the kind of suggestion you were looking for, but hopefully it's a line of thought relevant to the task put before you.
Ron |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 5:38 PM on 11.12.04 |
->> Well, this is definitely *way* more information and help than I was expecting to get ... especially on a Friday. Sincerest thanks to all who replied —— I will pass this information along to my editor, and hopefully it will do some good. I'll let you all know how it turns out.
Yet again it's proven to me that —— aside form the a**less chaps I picked up in L.A. —— my SportsShooter.com fee is the best money I've spent in years.
Regards,
- gerry "never turns down a good spanking" mccarthy - |
|
Trent Nelson, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 11:50 AM on 11.13.04 |
| ->> do it. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|