Photoshop CC 2020 has arrived

[Manfred M]

The newest updates to Photoshop, Bridge, Camera Raw and Lightroom Classic are now available for download and update.

Time to figure out what's new and improved over 2019...

I've just finished watching this video that highlights some of the main changes. I'm particularly impressed with some of the new and refined selection tools. These will definitely find their way into my workflow.

https://digitalsynopsis.com/design/p...-new-features/


Here's what's new in Lightroom Classic:

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cl...whats-new.html

[rpcrowe]

I downloaded my copy of Photoshop 2020 but, did not have time to work with it yet. I agree that the improved selection tools look very interesting...

[billtils]

I've just finished watching this video that highlights some of the main changes. I'm particularly impressed with some of the new and refined selection tools. These will definitely find their way into my workflow.

https://digitalsynopsis.com/design/p...-new-features/

Good video, thanks for the link Manfred.

[Donald]

The new edition hasn't hit Glenfarg yet. Updates tells me that I am up to date. We'll wait patiently, although having watched the video, there not really much new that I will use.

UPDATE - Was advised of the update available a short while ago. It and the Bridge update, now installed

[DanK]

I’m looking forward to trying the new object selection tool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mugge]

I have updated the new version of Photoshop. The object selection tool update is great. I do not care for the other updates. It may be better for people who are more interested in overly manipulating the natural world. I, for one, am not.

It is fun to manipulate the natural world and create wonderful shapes and sizes but for Adobe to concentrate on that aspect I think is disappointing. I'd rather have Adobe developing better and easier tools for people who enjoy photography.

[DanK]

I already knew that I would find the object selection tool valuable, but I watched the video and saw a few other things that I will find very helpful. Having more control over content-aware fill will be a big help. I'll use the improved subject selection much less, but I like having it in reserve.

It is fun to manipulate the natural world and create wonderful shapes and sizes but for Adobe to concentrate on that aspect I think is disappointing. I'd rather have Adobe developing better and easier tools for people who enjoy photography

To each her or his own. I enjoy photography a great deal--I started doing it half a century ago---but for me, doing photography sometimes does mean manipulating what I photograph, just as painters often paint things somewhat differently than they appear. After all, dodging, burning, and using colored filters in black and white photography--all staples of serious photographers in the film era--are all manipulating what the photographer sees.

[pschlute]

I have updated the new version of Photoshop. The object selection tool update is great. I do not care for the other updates. It may be better for people who are more interested in overly manipulating the natural world. I, for one, am not.

It is fun to manipulate the natural world and create wonderful shapes and sizes but for Adobe to concentrate on that aspect I think is disappointing. I'd rather have Adobe developing better and easier tools for people who enjoy photography.

Photoshop is not just a tool for processing photos but for creating graphic art. Many of its users do so professionally. I think they may argue with you here.

[Manfred M]

I have updated the new version of Photoshop. The object selection tool update is great. I do not care for the other updates. It may be better for people who are more interested in overly manipulating the natural world. I, for one, am not.

It is fun to manipulate the natural world and create wonderful shapes and sizes but for Adobe to concentrate on that aspect I think is disappointing. I'd rather have Adobe developing better and easier tools for people who enjoy photography.

I suggest you look at the works of some of the great photographers of the past that we look up to; Ansel Adams and Yousef Karsh. I can 100% guarantee that their images were significantly manipulated (i.e. dodging and burning) in the traditional wet darkroom. I would say that 95% of my work in Photoshop involves exactly those two operations. The selection tools, filters and tools to manipulate selections are critical to creating a strong image through dodging and burning, just as much as they were in Adams's and Karsh's time.

One of my favourite quotes from Adams is "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.". Very clearly stated and also what he put into practice.

[Manfred M]

To each her or his own. I enjoy photography a great deal--I started doing it half a century ago---but for me, doing photography sometimes does mean manipulating what I photograph, just as painters often paint things somewhat differently than they appear. After all, dodging, burning, and using colored filters in black and white photography--all staples of serious photographers in the film era--are all manipulating what the photographer sees.

To go a step farther, even film selection played a part in how the final image looked. Kodachrome vs Ektachrome vs Fujichrome choices were often made based on the specific characteristics of the film emulsions. In B&W work, I would shoot Kodak Plus X, Tri-X, Ilford FP4 or HP4 or AgfaPan 25 precisely because these films performed differently.

The film was much like the raw file of today, it gave the photographer a starting point to create an image. The tools were different, but the effects (even down to their functionality and names) are used in similar was as when we made film images versus manipulating our images in the digital world.

[mugge]

I manipulate my photos by dodging and burning and all the other tools available in Photoshop I think that Adobe is developing very exiting ways of twisting cars, people and houses out of shape which may be exiting and innovative to the graphic artist. I would like to see Adobe improving the fundamentals also.

[Donald]

Pressing the shutter is the end of the first part of making an image.

[katto]

Very good...

[DanK]

I manipulate my photos by dodging and burning and all the other tools available in Photoshop I think that Adobe is developing very exiting ways of twisting cars, people and houses out of shape which may be exiting and innovative to the graphic artist. I would like to see Adobe improving the fundamentals also.

I have to agree with you there. 50 plus years in, and I’ve never had the urge to twist things in photos. But photoshop has always been a huge, sprawling program designed for people in many visual trades, not just photography. I just ignore the many parts that are not useful to me.

The reason I am pleased by he new selection tools is that they will help me with the basics. I have always found creating clean selections difficult and a barrier to my editing.

I’m curious—which other fundamentals do you see as in need of improvement? My main complaint is that some of the tools deigned for Lightroom are more difficult to access in photoshop. Also, that it is difficult to undo crops, even if he program is set not to delete pixels.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

I manipulate my photos by dodging and burning and all the other tools available in Photoshop I think that Adobe is developing very exiting ways of twisting cars, people and houses out of shape which may be exiting and innovative to the graphic artist. I would like to see Adobe improving the fundamentals also.

I don't understand what "fundamentals" you find lacking. I would be good to understand what you are writing about here.

I do use some of these features you are complaining about. While I haven't twisted cars, I have straightened out a horizon in a pano using this tool. I've also used it to correct some distortion issues that were related to my PoV associated with the ultra-wide angle lens I had shot with.

I use Photoshop when I create graphics when I teach, so I definitely use some of these features fairly regularly. Likewise, I have done cover pieces and posters for exhibitions and other purposes. Not pure photography in that sense, but closely linked to pure photography.

Like many other here, there are a lot of Photoshop features I have never used. Sometimes this is because I have found techniques that work better for me, so I don't use some of the older tools and other times it is because I have found I do not work in the genre that the tool has been created for, for instance 3-D work. This is no different that when I use my camera. There are functions other people use all the time, but I never use them because of my shooting technique or the genres I work in. If I were a wedding photographer or sports photographer, there are functions that I would use in my daily camera work flow.

[rpcrowe]

We always manipulate the images we make. The very in-camera cropping choice (as well as choices of f/stop, shutter, speed, camera angle, etc.) as we shoot the image is a manipulation...

[pschlute]

We always manipulate the images we make. The very in-camera cropping choice (as well as choices of f/stop, shutter, speed, camera angle, etc.) as we shoot the image is a manipulation...

........ indeed....so is the choice of jpeg output Bright/Neutral/Vivid/Landscape/B+W/ the options are endless.

There is no such thing as "true colour" or "straight out of the camera"

[xpatUSA]

... There is no such thing as "true colour" or "straight out of the camera"

That's going a bit far don't you think, Peter?

Perhaps I have misunderstood. Was it tongue-in-cheek?

I speak as one who struggles to get everything right in-camera and if it seems impossible (light, etc) I usually don't take the shot.

[DanK]

That's going a bit far don't you think, Peter, especially "straight out of the camera"?

Perhaps I have misunderstood, as usual ...

There is true color rendition, but I think Peter's point is that a camera doesn't produce a rendering. One way or the other, one has to process the captured image to display colors, either by selecting an in-camera recipe or by choosing how to process the file yourself. There are exceptions--some product photography, perhaps--but virtually no one I know of simply tries to render colors--not just hue, but all the other attributes--with 100% accuracy.

[pschlute]

That's going a bit far don't you think, Peter?

Perhaps I have misunderstood. Was it tongue-in-cheek?

I speak as one who struggles to get everything right in-camera and if it seems impossible (light, etc) I usually don't take the shot.

So if I want "true colour" or "straight out of the camera colour" in a jpeg, please tell me which setting I choose. I use a Pentax K1

And tell me which other camera will deliver the exact same result.