The Photoshop CS Rip-off

[Mike]

Originally Posted by tom langford

Mike,

For me the value of shooting in Raw is that you could perform all basic image editing afterwards to maintain the highest quality file possible. You could then convert to Tiff, or whatever the client specifies. I believe some Raw formats can also hold greater highlight detail. My clients usually specify 300ppi Tiffs or high-quality 300ppi Jpegs, and I shoot accordingly.

My own digital camera is a bit old and does not record Raw files, but I see my work in print every week and quality has never been an issue.

I have seen some photographers do is shoot in Raw and then simply convert to Tiff without ever using the advantages that Raw has to offer. They did not mention anything about quality (or colour temperature) being the reason, and would not have the time to use the advantages Raw has to offer, anyway.

I have only met one photographer, so far, who shoots in Raw because he has a client who specifies it.

Tom.

OK, now I see where you are going. I shoot mostly people, and RAW is a very handy tool for me. However if one has the technical ability (and some times the the time) to do the job correctly then RAW would not be necessary.

I have never had a customer request that I shoot in RAW, I would think that it would never happen because the reason I am being hired is because I have the ability to do the job and they do not. Trying to explain it to them is just way more information that they need, I just want them to write the check!

Thanks for the reply

Mike

[Photo678]

photoshop is NOT a jack of all trades...it is not a DTP tool...if you need bleeds, use something for that job, like indesign, or quark. That's like saying, "why can't i html code in paint".

[tom langford]

Originally Posted by Mike

I have never had a customer request that I shoot in RAW, I would think that it would never happen because the reason I am being hired is because I have the ability to do the job and they do not. Trying to explain it to them is just way more information that they need, I just want them to write the check!

Thanks for the reply

Mike,
Yes, I'm with you all the way: I do the job, they write the cheque - a perfect combination of talents!

Tom.

[Swampy]

Originally Posted by Photo678

photoshop is NOT a jack of all trades...it is not a DTP tool...if you need bleeds, use something for that job, like indesign, or quark. That's like saying, "why can't i html code in paint".

I beg to differ. Apparently you dont actually work in the prepress trades. If you did you would know that PhotoShop is a basic tool for preparing photos for inclusion in books, brochures, print ads and other printed materials. Color correction, cropping, sharpening, masking etc. are all done in Photoshop prior to placement in a page layout program.

I recently did a full page ad that called for 1/2 inch bleed at the left margin and a 1/8 bleed on the other three sides with all text and other graphic elements to fall within 1/4 inch of the inside bleed margins. It would have been very helpful if Photoshop could show me the full size document on screen with the bleed areas defined in a color of my choice. It can get very confusing when you have to do the math to draw out guides to match the parameters. Converting fractions to decimals can result in errors.

If you think Photoshop's relationship to DTP programs is just scan, crop and plunk the result into Quark or InDesign it's obvious you don't do high end DTP.

[Photo678]

nope, have to disagree with you...photoshop/illustrator to indesign...plop your psd's or eps files right into indesign...set your bleeds in there...you can set your ink flow...spot colors...plus its got that nifty preflight, packaging tool, as opposed to running around and making sure you have collected all of your fonts, all of your files, etc etc.

As I said, it is ridiculously clunky to do layouts for press in photoshop...

You shouldn't need to draw out your bleeds in photoshop...make your corrections in photoshop, and position according to bleeds in Indesign.

You are kind of contradicting yourself, unless i misunderstand you. You want to put bleeds and slugs on the photo, prior to putting it in the layout?


But no, I have never done high end design or anything like that

[Swampy]

>You are kind of contradicting yourself, unless i misunderstand you. You want to put bleeds and slugs on the photo, prior to putting it in the layout?

Most of the time *I* am not the one who plunks the finished work into Quark or InDesign. I must complete the work in Photoshop with the bleeds in place and provide the file as a CMYK TIFF for a magazine or newspaper's prepress folks to plunk into *their* DTP program.

The sample below shows a project that I had yesterday requiring two different specs. One 7.25 x 5 with no bleed and the second requiring 7.25 x 5.125 for a 1/8th inch bleed at the top only. The red area indicates the bleed area that had to be added. And I've shown, on the left, parts of the sky that I added to fill this new bleed area. I generally use red or lime green (on a lower layer) to indicate the bleed area. It just makes it easier to see any gaps when filling in (sky in this case).

Also note that there was a lot of compositing necessary in this piece (Illustrator files, additional photos etc.) and the text had to be in place when I sent the file on to the newspaper and magazine that were running the article.

So yes, PhotoShop is a DTP tool in the sense that I have to put it all together and send a flat file to the publisher.

[Photo678]

See, I would just do that in indesign, drop the background photo in, stretch beyond bleeds, add the text, etc etc...

as i said, i wouldn't have the patience to do that in photoshop, what took you "maybe" an hour in PS to do, could have been done in indesign in about 15 minutes.

what would happen if you had a multi page ad to do? would you send two files? What would happen if they needed to readjust the bleeds/slug/safety zones, all of that stuff is easily remedied in indesign and would, seem to me anyway, to be a huge pain in the rump to do in photoshop. if you did it all in indesign, they could easily add the indd file to the magazine layout or whatever.

I don't disagree that you "can" use ps as a dtp tool, you can also use paint, or word as well, but doesn't mean it is the best tool for the job.

I guess what my point is, is that photoshop wasn't really designed to be a page layout program...in fact you would have an easier time doing what you are doing in illustrator, you can add bleeds, you can add slugs, everything is a live layer without having to click, click, click on that stupid layers palette.

[Swampy]

Okay, Photo... What happens if I plunk it into InDesign and send the publisher an InDesign file figuring they can "adjust the bleeds" etc. then they come back and say... "We use Quark and cannot accept an InDesign file"?

The only way I have total control over the layout, yet maintain compatibility with everyone is to output a TIFF file with everything in place.

I might add that I've needed to put a layout together and send the same file to two different publishers. One using Quark and the other using InDesign.

[Photo678]

lol...a good publisher should accept what you send, you as the designer are the one doing all the work...and when hired im sure they would ask what program you would be doing this in.

Also, in the case of two publishers...pdf's are the best route, tiffs are an image that cannot be manipulated easily once flattened, pdfs on the other hand allow for post output editing on the fly. I've done it before. PS doesn't have the levels of adjustment for outputting to pdf that indesign does.

Im just saying that with all the hoohaa i've had to put up with with publishers and printhouses over the years...indesign and quark are the way to go.

and you can VERY easily convert indd files to qex files and vice versa.

[Swampy]

Been doing DTP for 24 years, Photo. (How well I remember the days of Atari Page Stream). Every job is different and calls for it's own tools and work flow. When I'm doing my own work, InDesign, PhotoShop and Illustrator are the tools of choice. And yes, it would be nice if I could drop an InD file on my local newspaper, but they are stuck in Quark. We have no ad agency in our area. I'm about as close as anyone can get so folks ask me to do creative work for them and leave the details to me.

Then there are cross platform issues and dealing with middle men who don't have a clue. They just broker the print work to someone else and can't even give you decent specs and have no idea what DTP programs their publisher uses.

And the sales people that say.."just email me the file" and when you do it bounces back because their email box has a size limit restriction. I maintain my own server space and have sent a direct link to publishers with instructions to just click the link and the file will download to their hard drive. They click and click, see nothing happening then call me and say, "The link didn't go to a web page." When I ask them to check their desktop they have three or four copies of the file sitting there waiting for them.

Then there was the guy (a broker) who told me to send a Mac Tiff file. I did and he tried to open it on his PC (he wanted to look at it before sending it off to his printer). Of course it had a Mac preview, not DOS, and he kept telling me the file was "broken".

I've seen about everything on this end. The thing that pi$$es me off the most is when I send the file link to my server and ask for a reply to let me know that it will work, I never hear from them and the file sits there clogging up my server.

[RooB]

Not that I'm into publishing or anything, but if you're hired to do a lot of jobs which involve a specific program and you spend a lot of frustrating time doing something in Photoshop that can be done in a mere fraction of the time in the proper program, why not purchase the software? Wouldn't it be a worthwhile investment? Is your time worth the price of purchase?

Personally, if I find a tool that lets me do my a job faster and more efficiently, I'll invest in it-- to not buy it isn't good business sense to me, especially if it's something that saves me a lot of time.

In the end, regardless of how people choose to use it-- Photoshop's intended target is photography, and just that.

[Swampy]

RooB

If that message was directed to me, I spent the big bucks for the Adobe CS2 Premium upgrade, but three large color printers that I deal with are still at CS1. My point was that the end user may not have them so I have to prepare pieces based on what they require for their work flow.

>n the end, regardless of how people choose to use it-- Photoshop's intended target is photography, and just that.

Most four color process projects that I deal with contain photographic elements and, depending on the project it is often easier to assemble a piece in Photoshop than in InDesign, especially if it is a stand alone graphic (such as a spot ad or, as in the case of my sample above, a graphic to accompany an article in a county wide directory).

If Photoshops "intended target" is strictly photography, why would Adobe include text capabilities (with a dictionary even!) and the ablility to import EPS elements? Photoshop is such a staple "tool" in ad agencies, it's strange that you would imply that it should be confined to studio photography.

[Richard_Lynch]

Originally Posted by RooB

In the end, regardless of how people choose to use it-- Photoshop's intended target is photography, and just that.

Really? I don't think so.

Depending on who you are and what level you are at (professionally and as a hobbyist) there are things that Photoshop will do quite substantially for prepress. It will satisfy the creative professional needs of many groups of artists. And in fact it seems quite overkill to me for people processing images at home for a photo-quality printer (which some would consider as Photography). Photoshop Elements will serve most people having to do with the latter (http://aps8.com/elements3.html). There is a lot more that Elements can do than is suggested by even professionals who call it a 'dumbed-down' version of Photoshop.

If you want to compare Photoshop to other packages, please name them so we can see what arena you are making this comment from. Then we can compare products in a sensible manner. There are just too many variables to make clear sense of that commentary.

[Richard_Lynch]

Originally Posted by Photo678

photoshop is NOT a jack of all trades...it is not a DTP tool...if you need bleeds, use something for that job, like indesign, or quark. That's like saying, "why can't i html code in paint".

Well, an extreme example, but I certainly agree Photoshop is not the best place to handle bleeds--unless, of course, one is using the program to extend the boundaries of a too-closely-cropped image.

[RooB]

"Adobe® Photoshop® CS2 software, the professional image-editing standard and leader of the Photoshop digital imaging line." -- Adobe.com

It's an image editor-- that's what it was designed for, and that's what its marketed for, but what people actually *use* it for and what its intended market is, are two seperate things.

However, I wouldn't make french fries out of apples.