[rollei_list] Re: Retro: Back to the Past!
- From: Bob Shell <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:05:59 -0400
On Thursday, August 11, 2005, at 12:50 AM, Ruben wrote:
First of all you need a newer version of Photoshop than the 5.0, pref.
the Photoshop CS, but not the CS2 as it slows thing down to much
Absolutely. Photoshop 5.0 is dark ages stuff. Photoshop 7 is about the
oldest version that is well equipped.
But even better, get a copy of Photoshop Elements 3.0 . It does most
of the things Photoshop CS does, but is much simpler to learn, and
under a hundred bucks.
I just wrote a book on this, finished it in June. We talked a lot
about which version of Photoshop to include in the book and we settled
on Photoshop Elements 3.0. The book will be out in another month or
so. It is called The Complete Idiot's Guide to Digital Photography,
Fourth Edition. I think I'm a good teacher, and I think this book does
a good job of teaching the important stuff in Photoshop Elements 3.0 .
Secondly you need to see if the scanner you have can provide a scan
worthvile using hours on in photoshop - make the best scan you can and
take it someone with some good graphic equipment and a large
calibrated monitor. Get a close look at the fole -- if the is only
noise etc. and no details in the shadows perhaps the scanner is your
main concern.
The scanner may well be more than half of the problem. It is difficult
to get good scans from film on a flatbed unless it is one of the very
high-end flatbeds. You almost have to have a dedicated film scanner to
get really good results.
Back to photoshop - you need 1 gb ram in you machine and two hardisks
to run photoshop well - the second hardisk is so that you can avoid
using the harddisk were you photoshop programme is as a scratch disk.
I agree on the RAM. Two HDs is a good idea, or one big one with two
partitions, which is what I did.
Also, ditch the Windoze crap and get a real computer. We did a lot of
soul searching and research on that book project and ended up deciding
to base it on Mac. I have both Windoze and Mac computers, and would
not dream of trying to run Photoshop on Windoze. They just don't like
each other. The folks at Adobe all use Mac, and that should tell you
something.
Even though I am only going to use a picture on screen or in the size
5 x 8 I alwasy scan file sizes above 50-60 MB sometimes 120-180 MB
because it gives me more details to work with instead of pixels.
Yep. Scan at high res and resize down later if necessary.
some of the more basic things in photoretouching was explained on a
earlier version of photoshop extra CD with a guy from Adobe that
called him self the wacky professor of a Adope - cant remember his
name but when it pops up I will send it to you!
If you were in my part of the world I would gladly give you a crash
coursen in Photoshop - I dont agree with the guys saing it is not
intuitive - you could teach me to do traditional enlargements in the
darkroom - would be great as I really suck when I try to use an
enlarger.
I also don't agree that it is not intuitive. I find Photoshop very
easy and intuitive. It's only when you get into some of the more
complex features that it becomes non-intuitive.
Dont let some beginners trouble put you down there are great
opportunities with Photoshop once you get the hang of it
Yep. It's like giving up because your first roll of film didn't turn
out well when you developed it. Most of us didn't do such a great job
on that first roll.
Bob
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
