[Closed] Taking photography to the 'next level'.....

surely if I close a file that's a reasonable indication I've finished with it for now ?

that's irrelevant. the history states will go if you close an image but the point of purging is to clear cache's and tempory files used by photoshop, if you have been working on images for a while you may notice a slowdown in performance if you don't have a decent computer.
not having a dedicated scratch disk slows things down too.

but the point of purging is to clear cache's and tempory files used by photoshop

and my point is that I've paid enough for the program to do that for me!

if you have been working on images for a while you may notice a slowdown in performance if you don't have a decent computer.

I have a 3GHz 4 core CPU with 6GB of high speed memory, but still experience a slowdown when Photoshop gobbles all the spare memory even with no images loaded 🙁

a matter of personal preference, but if you spend too much time thinking about the mechanics of 'perfect' exposure and composition the moment may be lost or the subject downgraded...

But equally if you leave the camera on auto or f8 or something, you may capture the image in a rather unimaginative way. As you say personal preference, I prefer losing an image than having a regular image that anyone could take. When eveything falls into place, you choose the right location to improve your chances of a good shot, you set up correctly for the light, you wait patiently then you have a chance of getting a good shot.
I've missed loads of good photos, but you learn to live with the fact that you can't be everywhere all the time.

I've also taken quite a few nice photos too. 😆

I'm more a fan of the simple image as it's initially captured.

Yeah but don't get dogmatic about it. Cropping is not a fancy technical thing. £000s on a zoom lens? Break your neck scrambling to the best vantage point? Or just crop it?

Plus, using photoshop can be done at leisure. You don't just have one fraction of a second to get it right.

Later on when paper, canvas or boards were used, it was a purely practical matter to use a rectanglar shape, not related to artistic merit.

Hmm.. heard of the golden rectangle?

To the OP - a DSLR does allow you to do more than a compact, typically. I never saw the point until a mate showed me some of his pics. He had one action shot of a pigeon that was beautiful, captured so much action, and I'd never have got that with my compact in a million years. DSLRs are faster, which makes a huge difference to anything with movement in it.

Having got one now, I just love using it. And it has more features than my compact did - like being able to select the focus point; more metering options; raw shooting; continuous focusing; image stabiliser etc etc etc. These things DEFINITELY give you the opportunity to get a few more shots in a few more situations than you would with a compact.

It's true that you can take fabulous pics with a compact - I've not taken anything with my SLR yet that I'd put on the wall, unlike my compact - but you have the chance to get that one shot you'd not have made with a compact.

I have a 3GHz 4 core CPU with 6GB of high speed memory, but still experience a slowdown when Photoshop gobbles all the spare memory even with no images loaded

fast processor but not much ram and no separate scratch disk that's why it's slowing down, plus you may not have changed any of the defaults so not optimised for your system, you may be better off running as 64 not 32 bit and you may want openGL turned off.
seeing as you work with computers you probably knew all this already.

fast processor but not much ram and no separate scratch disk that's why it's slowing down

with respect, it's slowing down other applications due to using all the free RAM, even when Photoshop is idle. If I close PS everything returns to normal. A 'scratch disc', whatever that is, cannot be relevant to other programs

seeing as you work with computers you probably knew all this already.

'working with computers' is not the same as knowing all Adobe's bizarre design choices. I'm already running 64 bit everything.

Hmm.. heard of the golden rectangle?

yes of course, and no camera I have ever heard of uses that aspect ratio, but having a nicely shaped border doesn't make a fine photograph 🙂

but having a nicely shaped border doesn't make a fine photograph

Well quite spectacularly obviously!

My point was that simple things like the shape of the image can help a lot. I've lost count of the number of landscapes I've taken where a simple crop of top and bottom have transformed the image.

Your brain focuses differently in different situations in real life; I think cropping photos to reflect this is perfectly acceptable. After all, a photograph is always a terrible compromise. You can't replicate what it was like to be there, so you might as well use what you've got to best effect.

You can't replicate what it was like to be there, so you might as well use what you've got to best effect.

moley, I think we're actually agreeing on something :o) I think the shape (or rather, confining the photo to the things I was looking at) matters far more than fitting to some predefined norm, which is why I crop 99% of all my shots in postprocessing.

One....

...Hundred.

So, Simonfbarnes, what shape should a photograph be, then? Eh? Come on.

which is why I crop 99% of all my shots in postprocessing.

Maybe you're just rubbish then. 😉

I think the vast majority of photographers are happy to crop images. Just some purist up there ^^^ who said it was bad.

It's not inherently 'bad', but if you're cropping big chunks of the pictures you take on a regular basis, then you're either not particularly skilled/talented, or you don't have adequate kit. Most viewfinders will only give you 90% or so coverage of what the camera will actually photograph, so a little bit around the edges is ok. Sometimes you might want a narrower rectangle or a more square frame, for best effect. Fair enough. But most images tend to work best with the classic rectangular format.

with respect, it's slowing down other applications due to using all the free RAM, even when Photoshop is idle. If I close PS everything returns to normal. A 'scratch disc', whatever that is, cannot be relevant to other programs

it will use the free ram, all the ram you can give it. 6gb is not much if you are using PS a lot (even my little laptop has 8gb).
limit the amount of apps when using photoshop or close it when doing other things.
a scratch disk isn't relevant to other programs but is important to how photoshop works if you want it to work better you may need to find out what one is.
if you have no separate scratch disk then things will slow down. computers set up for intensive image editing/processing will have a separate scratch disk (a SSD if specced recently) and a separate drive for the actual files you are working on.
i guess it's only important if you work on a lot of files and get impatient waiting for the computer to catch up.

So, Simonfbarnes, what shape should a photograph be, then? Eh? Come on.

the shape dictated by the effect of the content on the photographer and their visualisation

Maybe you're just rubbish then.

what I can and cannot do isn't relevant to the ideas involved

then you're either not particularly skilled/talented, or you don't have adequate kit. Most viewfinders will only give you 90% or so coverage of what the camera will actually photograph

my D300 has 100% coverage, but usually the things I point the camera at don't fit the 3:2 format of the sensor, and in general I prefer a widescreen format closer to the 180° x 70° field of view of the eye 🙂

I have a 3GHz 4 core CPU with 6GB of high speed memory, but still experience a slowdown when Photoshop gobbles all the spare memory even with no images loaded
fast processor but not much ram and no separate scratch disk that's why it's slowing down, plus you may not have changed any of the defaults so not optimised for your system, you may be better off running as 64 not 32 bit and you may want openGL turned off.
seeing as you work with computers you probably knew all this already.

over 100mb!
try working on 50mpixel 300mb files then having a few more layers plus adjustment layers. it's not difficult to end up with files of 1-2gb
i doubt you old mac would open them

if you're cropping big chunks of the pictures you take on a regular basis, then you're either not particularly skilled/talented, or you don't have adequate kit

That's bullcrap. If you take a lot of landscapes, the interesting bit tends to be in the middle, does it not?

Gonna tell me off for zooming in next?

It's not inherently 'bad', but if you're cropping big chunks of the pictures you take on a regular basis, then you're either not particularly skilled/talented, or you don't have adequate kit.

What a load of bollox.

if you have no separate scratch disk then things will slow down. computers set up for intensive image editing/processing will have a separate scratch disk (a SSD if specced recently) and a separate drive for the actual files you are working on.

with the RAM available there shouldn't be any need for disk other than reading the original file

That's bullcrap. If you take a lot of landscapes, the interesting bit tends to be in the middle, does it not?

Only if that's how you frame it.... If you think that, then with respect, you don't know diddly squat! 🙂

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

with the RAM available there shouldn't be any need for disk other than reading the original file

if you click on the bottom left hand corner of an image window and choose 'efficiency' this will tell you if you have enough ram and are not using scratch disk (which is the same disk as your applications if you have no separate disk) the value will change as you work on the image. if it dips below 100% you will reading/writing swap files to your system disk as there is insufficient ram. if you are only having 1-2 layers of 8bit 30mb files it should be o.k. if it's still slow or is less than 100% you have probably set your preferences wrong.

So anyway, once everyone's finished waving their RAM and playing whose most like henri cartier bresson...

Justa, I agree with whoever suggested picking up a cheap film slr and getting to know how that works - with only 36 shots to play with and with each one costing money to be developed you'll end up forcing yourself to find 'the right shot'. That done the controls on a dslr will make more sense and you can use them intuitively rather than struggling against them or ignoring them.

Only if that's how you frame it.... If you think that, then with respect, you don't know diddly squat!

That first one's not a landscape, and the other two are shots with stuff in the foreground lower down. So obviously no cropping required 🙄

I said the interesting stuff TENDS to be in the middle, and you found two shots where it wasn't. Doesn't prove a fat lot 🙂

I've got lovely landscape shots where it's all in the distance, and cropping makes them look lovely.

Except I'm sure they're not really lovely since I don't know diddly squat 😉

I agree with whoever suggested picking up a cheap film slr and getting to know how that works - with only 36 shots to play with and with each one costing money to be developed you'll end up forcing yourself to find 'the right shot'.

I don't agree. You'll teach yourself how to take a hobby really really slowly, since you'll rattle off 36 shots and it'll take you a week to get any feedback as to what you did.

Far better to snap, look, tweak, snap, look, tweak etc as you go - you only have to wait a second to see if you're doing it right instead of a week.

careful you don't criticise Peter's work or he goes "ballistic" :o) All great snappers do it seems...

Ignoring the willy-waving and bickering...

I'm not convinced a film SLR is much help to be honest.
With a DSLR (or decent compact with manusl controls) you get instant feedback on what works, rather than waiting a week for prints then having to consult your notes to figure out what your exposure settings and shoot conditions were at the time.

Heh. Just judging by my time scales of juggling work, family, bikes, etc - I only tend to grab moments here and there so there's not much 'waiting' involved in teh average week 🙂

But yeah, I can see the other side of teh argument.

I'm too tired to type out a considered, thoughtful and reasoned response as I've just come in from football and I'm knackered. I think I may also have sustained a broken foot, 'cos it hurts like a bastard and is swelling up. Probably not the ideal state to be in to tackle Simonfbarnes really. Best I have a Valium and an early night to be honest.

Poor Justa is probably sitting there crying to themselves, sobbing 'I only wanted a bit of advice'. 🙁

Heathen: But, ignoring the wait factor, when you do get your print can you really remember what your exposure settings and conditions were?

Ooh! Clockwork Orange is on!

Only if that's how you frame it....

Last one appears to have a post or something in the bottom right that you should have cropped out really. 😉

chasing the SLR with 25 bizzilion pixels is like insisting on spending £5k on a 7" travel 25lb trail bike.

why not do the true STW thing, and go single speed?

seriously.

get yo'self a little dark room setup in the bathroom (its easy peasy) and do it yourself?
My old man was a photography lecturer for most of his working life.

year one of the course involved getting the students to make a wooden box, with a 1" window in the front, and a mount for a sheet of photographic paper in the back.
a piece of beer can went in the 1" window, with a hole nailed in it

PROPER camera :p

Heathen: But, ignoring the wait factor, when you do get your print can you really remember what your exposure settings and conditions were?

You're absolutely right - there's very few people who will take the time to log every shot. I never took one note when I was using a SLR but still got the hang of it - wish I could remember *how* lol. But all the lessons I learnt from using it still hold true now. [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photographers-Handbook-Comprehensively-generation-photographers/dp/0330390139 ]The 35mm Photographer's Handbook[/url] certainly helped along the way. For a penny, it can't be bad.

there's very few people who will take the time to log every shot

I'm not sure what use it would be anyway. The eyes are so non linear that you cannot accurately assess the light level, or the speed of a moving object or the depth of a scene

why not do the true STW thing, and go single speed?

seriously

Cos it's stupid 🙂

Well a light meter would give you accurate light levels, and if you are going old school with fully manual on 35mm film then you may well be using for one for exactly that reason.

My point was more that shooting digitally can aid learning because you get instant feedback on whether your exposure is half-decent or not, and later when reviewing your images in more detail on a monitor, you have a perfect record of all the various camera settings.

Conversely I agree that the cost of film and limited number of exposures probably makes people more rigorous and disciplined, but it also means they are less likely to just experiment and try things that might not work.

So on the whole I'm not convinced by the whole "you must learn on film" argument.

Last one appears to have a post or something in the bottom right that you should have cropped out really.

🙂
I think that's probably my handebar. Schoolboy error!

Molgrips, are you saying a landscape shot can't have anything in the foreground? I'd post some more but the oudated browser on my work PC here won't work with Flickr any more and I can't get the links.

Sure, some landscape shots look better cropped wide, but if they mostly look like that then they'll all look the same. I do like some foreground to give depth to landscapes.
That top one of mine there was shot very, very quickly on an old compact as Kirsty came past me, literally without even looking at the viewfinder, from the hip if you like. That was a lovely day's riding, we were all alone seemingly in the middle of nowhere and it's the shot that describes the day best. Couldn't have wished for a better pic TBH. I might print it and frame it at some point. 🙂

So on the whole I'm not convinced by the
whole "you must learn on film" argument.

Having said that, I learnt on digital and my images are distinctly average, so maybe I shouldn't spout off like I am some kind of authority! 😳

but if they mostly look like that then they'll all look the same.

unless you look at the actual scene portrayed ? You might just as well say there are only 7 bike shots: going left, going right, going away, coming towards, mid air, upside down and underwater 🙂 I suppose some people might judge a picture "too square" or "not square enough" as if that mattered...

One thing that I have seen recommended quite a lot, which I feel helped me learn, is that to start with I only had one fixed focal length lens. I still quite often go out with just one prime lens attached and see what I can do with it.

They say zoom makes you lazy, and having just a fixed focal length makes you think about your composition a bit more, and gets you moving around more. Dunno if it's true for everyone but I think it helps me.

Couldn't have wished for a better pic TBH.

To me it just has far too much blown highlights, but horses for courses eh - good example of why a photograph isn't just about technical correctness and often capturing memories is at least as important I suppose.

They say zoom makes you lazy

rubbish 🙂 It's handy if you ARE lazy, but otherwise it just allows you to shoot things around you which may be near or far, big or little or just innaccessible - it's not "lazy" not to swim a river or jump a canyon, and also, by the time you get to the ideal spot the moment may be gone 🙂 I often find myself walking *away* from the subject to flatten the perspective, which a fixed focal length would not allow...

Molgrips, are you saying a landscape shot can't have anything in the foreground?

Clearly not! However, many don't. And if you want to capture a wide open vista, then cropping is useful - or a panorama tool.

God forbid I might use anything so high-tech and automated as that tho!

But going out with just a prime lens on does force you to think about the shots you can take, and it pushes you to experiment with different framing and think more about composition because you can't just "lazily" dial in the one you are comfortable with.

(i.e. I think grum means mentally "lazy", rather than physically, simon)

They say zoom makes you lazy

"They" spout a hell of a lot of bollocks.

Take the tools you want and go and take pictures. All you have to do is think about what you're doing. Never mind all this stupid 'advice' and 'rules'.

Photography is more about doing your own thing than just about anything else, now that cameras are so good at automating the tech side of it.

Imagine if someone out there was telling you you had to ride a certain kind of bridleway to get a 'pure' riding experience, or that there's a formula for the correct amount of singletrack vs fire-road and number of jumps in a ride to get it properly satisfying. Total bolx.

(i.e. I think grum means mentally "lazy", rather than physically, simon)

as evidenced by his remark :o)