you need to 'purge'

for £600+ I'd like that to be automatic…

Oh, and I wonder how long it will take me to find out how to "purge" in the eccentric "help" system ?

it's in the edit menu about 2/3 way down.
there is probably a shortcut but as i have never had to use it (lots of ram and dedicated scratch disk) i don't know it.

obviously be aware of not purging history as well as caches if you need to maintain your history states. no idea if it will delete a snapshot? it shouldn't do. this would be a good way of clearing your history but maintaining access to important history states.

but you're talking about dragging photography down to a commodity, not raising the bar…

No, I'm talking about taking the best picture that I can and not fixing it later. There's a difference in my mind. And my hit rate is getting better, I'm not deleting anywhere near as many as I used to. And my camera is now set to 'single shot' as I've found that trying to take 4,5,6 shots of action in the hope of getting the right one is too vague. But that's just me.
I'm even starting to think about where the light is coming from when I choose my shot, FFS….. 😉

I'm using it all the time now, with my misgivings on hold, though still present. For such an expensive program so many things don't work well. For instance, I created a button bar (panel in Adobe-speak), and every 3rd time I invoke the program it forgets how wide I set it and gets 3 times wider. It never seems to give up any memory it allocates, so after using it for a few hours it'll have 3GB even with no images loaded I still don't understand how copy&paste works as it often has no visible effect at all unless you use "copy merged" or "paste special…"

I believe I could write some UI stuff as it supports ActionScript but I got bored with the copious documentation. The underlying tools are good. If it cost under £100 I would have few complaints.

Aww, now if only you could do away with the need for Photoshop…….Hmmm……How could one do that I wonder…? Let's see now….

😉 🙂

obviously be aware of not purging history as well as caches if you need to maintain your history states

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

you need to 'purge'

. But as PeterPoddy says, it's much harder to get things right in camera, than sort them out after. There's also nothing wrong in using Photoshop etc to do things to a picture, but I think if you need to do that to improve weak pictures, then your photographic skills maybe aren't up to much.

Completely agree with the first point and always try to get things right in the camera.
Also agree with the second point, I have photoshop and try not to (don't know how to) use it!!

But taking into account how the photo was taken, does the client/person viewing the photo really care if it was taken fully manualy/with photoshop/full frame/cropped etc?

My random views about improving as a photographer are:

Look at other photographers work- go to exhibitions & get some books out of the library etc. Allow your work to be influenced and experiment. I love William Eggleston's work and spent half my post uni european travels taking photos (with a super sexy Contax T3) of ceilings and under beds etc…

A course is a good idea, personally I'd go for a film course. Buy an SLR and learn how to develop and print photos. This will improve you as a photographer.

I want to say buying a new camera won't improve you as a photographer- but I kind of think swapping between a few cameras and learning to get the best out of them does improve your photography.

A course is a good idea, personally I'd go for a film course. Buy an SLR and learn how to develop and print photos. This will improve you as a photographer.

Christ I was trying to avoid this, for fear of incurring the wrath of the Digitally Correct Brigade, but it's true…

Being forced to work within a rigid set of constraints can encourage you to get the best out of yourself and your equipment. I was taught using just a simple Praktika SLR with a 50mm lens, Ilford HP5 and a basic darkroom. I am always grateful I wasn't spoiled by technology.

(Sits back and awaits SFB's rebuttal…)

Completely agree with the first point and always try to get things right in the camera.
Also agree with the second point, I have photoshop and try not to (don't know how to) use it!!

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…

(Sits back and awaits SFB's rebuttal…)

at the root, what pleases you is all that matters. I prefer to take 5 bracketted exposures and merge or select and to crop heavily down to what I was looking at, as after all, those looking at a picture don't give a fig about how it was made 🙂

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.

Sweet Baby Jesus! 6Gb of RAM insufficient? It's a damn good thing I didn't know that when I was photoshopping scanned files for clients on a 475MHz twin-processor Mac with a gig of RAM, I'd have never gotten any work done. And some of my files were over 100Mb. Photoshop and Illustrator are, frankly, vastly more complicated than they need to be, and like Flash, use far more of your CPU than should be neccessary. I read somewhere recently that Photoshop is based directly on Flash, so it shouldn't be surprising.

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! 🙂

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!