Photoshop is GOOD!

[garethace]

I feel that some people here, have gotten slightly away from the point of using Photoshop versus Corel Draw sofware. I believe that Corel Draw, which is really just a more user friendly, easier to use kind of 2D CAD software is useful to Planners for sure.

But however, only a quick glance at the Gallery here, or anywhere else for that matter quickly reveals one simple fact. Planners never learned how to use Photoshop, never learned how to become better Photographers, and because of this do not seem to understand why Photoshop could be useful to them at all.

If you don't believe me, just check out my tutorial here at CG Architect Photoshop forum. Any other opinions, hints, links, photos, ideas etc are welcome. I am quite open minded to any abuse, insult, criticism constructive or otherwise you care to share with me here.

http://www.cgarchitect.com/cgi-bin/u...=000028#000001

[Wannaplan?]

Originally posted by garethace
But however, only a quick glance at the Gallery here, or anywhere else for that matter quickly reveals one simple fact. Planners never learned how to use Photoshop, never learned how to become better Photographers, and because of this do not seem to understand why Photoshop could be useful to them at all.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you trying to insult some of us? I don't think you are, but the way you wrote your post isn't exactly the best way to invite some of us to engage in a productive discussion about using Photoshop and improving our technique.

I use Photoshop on a regular basis at work. I am by no means an expert. In fact, I learn while on the job. My skills aren't the best, but they'll do. While in school, I was too busy taking land use, GIS, urban design, real estate, planning theory, and studio courses to give a crap about enrolling in a superfulous Photoshop course. I have a small gallery of some before and after image-renderings at http://www.cyburbia.org/gallery/show...069&ppuser=114 if you care to take a look.

[garethace]

Architects and Planners alike have a great time always blaming there education system and its lack of this or that, for not using tools available nowadays at their disposal. You don't necessarily have to learn the program yourself - there are guys called CG Artists, alot of whom are on unemployment benefits, dead-end jobs, going nowhere fast, who would be only too glad to do Photoshop etc, for you. I have seen my employers (Architects and Planners) squander small fortunes in certain areas of their business, while often they said they could not afford to buy me Photoshop, 3DS MAX, etc to do meaningful worthwhile presentations of urban designs for them. I quite often witnessed guys using illegal copies of those softwares in an attempt to compensate for the employers lack of vision and narrow-mindedness in using computers. It got to a stage where my employer expected workers to use illegal versions of Graphics packages. Even though the jobs we were working on, were worth millions. I refused to use illegal copies of anything, and even went and bought a copy of 3DS myself to down the employers graphics work for master plans. Then i had to buy my own computer too, and then i decided i was better off not working there anymore. This is the way that you the professionals have been treating some of your best people - not giving them due attention/credit/opportunity.

I myself I lobbied my employers to change there thinking, i showed them my work, gave them tutorials, blah, blah, blah and still at the end of the day when it boils down to nuts and bolts... they seem to have more money for office parties and personal expenditure bills (including laundry and personal cell phone) than on giving people like me proper tools to work with. That is good feedback thankyou very much. I think the general outcome of the 'Photoshop for Planners' thread was a very, very incorrect one however. It basically gave the impression to anyone reading the thread that Photoshop was somehow an inferior product, not just a different product or a more difficult product to use (maybe PHotoshop is just for experts) to Corel Draw and Adobe Illustrator. This is a VERY misleading and self-centred sort of advice to give to young people or even old people trying to learn computers for work, personal use etc. I agree 100% with the statement about learning GIS/Planning methodologies etc, and not having time to worry about Photoshop classes. In fact, i don't honestly expect anyone here at Cyburbia forum IS in fact going to suddenly start uploading 'corrected versions' of their gallery pics.

However, what i am point out, is alot of digital photography and scanned photography is FAR from being optimised, to give the best impression, sense of place, environment, feeling of a space etc. You have been clever enough to use Photoshop and think at the same time - your images to provide street lighting to an otherwise bleak stretch of urban motorway is a Tour de Force, and i take my hat off to your efforts. But since, most Planners don't have time to do Photoshop classes, i considered it worth my while to make up a decent tutorial and to post it here at Cyburbia, so that Planners here could perhaps become more aware of Professionals out there who can clean up, improve, scan old collections of Planning images etc, etc. I am a CG Artist most of the time, and i appreciate how busy you planners actually are nowadays. I respect that, but i also believe that planners should encourage/use young CG Artists such as myself more frequently and to the best advantage, than simply discounting Photoshop or any other CG software totally as of no use to Planners.

You only have to look at the PDF documents from Greenbelt.org, which i myself do appreciate from both a planners perspective and also from the point of view of the CG Artist who had to produce the visuals in those documents. Without them, i think you will agree, the text would have been alot more live less and meaningless to alot of people reading it. Having said all i have to say now, i would love to hear your opinions on this guys attempts at doing an urban design visualisation: http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultim...c;f=4;t=000278 I did insult many very genuine posters/participants here in the Gallery, i am sure. But things had to be said, the discussion had to be made a lot wider than it was in the 'Photoshop for Planners' thread - otherwise guys like he who did the Utrecht visualisation and myself, would quickly find ourselves job-less.

My final words would be, Planners, don't try and restrict your presentations to what you can manage using Corel. Use the CG Artist guys, support them and make your presentation pulse with life and vitality. Otherwise, when you really want to create a nice splash visual, the artists able to do it, will not be around. I advocate Photoshop as a 'Looking and seeing' tool for all Planners. Even though the professional CG Artist will always be the top of the pile, i cannot see anything wrong with Planners playing around with a few photos either, even taking a PHotoshop class or two from the same experts who (speaking for myself) are very willing to educate all kinds of amateurs alike.

[prudence]

Originally posted by garethace
I feel that some people here, have gotten slightly away from the point of using Photoshop versus Corel Draw sofware. I believe that Corel Draw, which is really just a more user friendly, easier to use kind of 2D CAD software is useful to Planners for sure.

But however, only a quick glance at the Gallery here, or anywhere else for that matter quickly reveals one simple fact. Planners never learned how to use Photoshop, never learned how to become better Photographers, and because of this do not seem to understand why Photoshop could be useful to them at all.

I am thoroughly confused...why would I want to use Corel or Photoshop for CAD work? I have AutoCAD for CAD work.

As Alan said, planners took courses related to design, theory, statistics, engingeerng, etc. to become planners...we aren't graphic designers by trade. Many of have acquired skills with various software packages to add an element of eyecandy to our projects, but why do I need a tutorial?

I think you have generalized all planners based upon the planners you may know...at least you waited a whole two months before you insulted us....

***In my best Apu voice*** Thank you, come again.

[garethace]

AutoCAD doesn't allwo people the same use of colour fills, page layout settings, fonts etc that Corel does. And also, you really don't want your nice clean original AutoCAD files 'messed' up and becoming over-inflated in file size by fills etc. Then when you adjust a line, or move a rectangle in AutoCAD, you have to worry about the fill too. It is very simple to export a DWG to Corel and make a sophisticated presentation board quicker, better and easier. In short it does safe time. ANd Corel has much better/quicker tools for dealing with nice, neat text/images etc on the presentation board. For printing again, Corel is better than AutoCAD or Photoshop or anything else almost for quick, high quality colour visuals. Corel recognises layers no problem, and i know alot of dedicated AutoCAD users out there who have bought into Corel since version 7 or 8 and have purchased every upgrade ever since. Corel is at version Version 11 now i think. So obviously Corel has something to offer AutoCAD users, which they cannot get straight from the program.

Since the time i wanted to use computers to help out doing Planning presentations, i have gotten badly burned many, many times by the professional lack of respect for CG Artists. I have since then stopped doing CG work altogether, because of lack of cooperation and lack of vision by the professions. Your use of the word 'eye-candy' just sums it all up IMO.

But just to qualify my remarks yet again, i have now begun thanking a course in urban design, real estate, planning theory, and studio courses myself. Hence, the reason WHY is spend my time using Cyburbia so much now. I thank all of the posters here at Cyburbia for so much priceless insight and thoughts into planning matters. I don't know how i could have progressed so quickly in my course without your assistance. I am sorry i have not taken any interest in planning prior to now - for instance, when i was working for planners/architects and doing Master Plan presentations. I really could not see it from their point of view at all. I was wrong therefore out that note, but they were also wrong in undermining me because of my specialisation in Computer graphics. And quite frankly, **** them with a rough, blunt object for that.

Lets just say, i am trying to give back something to you all here, for being so helpful with discussion, ideas, opinions on how to understand urban design. I owe most of that to you people - the planners/designers of urban environments.

[Wannaplan?]

Originally posted by garethace
...i have gotten badly burned many, many times by the professional lack of respect for CG Artists...

Sometimes when "artists" (artistes?) ramble on and on and on about how the world doesn't love or respect them, the professionals have no choice but to roll their eyes, make a condescending remark, and leave the room.

[Repo Man]

garethace, are you the union rep for CG Artists? Just curous

I guess I don't understand what the point of this topic is either. Are you whining because people don't want to spend a lot of money just to re-touch some photos or because you percieve a lack of respect by planners for graphics work?

As a planner for a municipality I am bound by budget when I work on plans. For a few plans we hired people to do some photoshopping of before and after street cross sections, etc and it was very expensive and ultimatly not worth it. Recently, through learning as I go, I have been using Paint Shop Pro to do it myself. Yeah, it may not look perfect, but it gets the point across. Why pay someone a few hundred dollars to take a photo and superimpose sidewalks and street lights when I can do it myself? Pictures are important, but to be honest, stuff like color saturation and other professional touch-up effects are not.

[garethace]

Very true indeed. I imagine i was very childish and pissed off alot of fine urban designers in my early days, with ramblings off the point about computers and software. But that was a while ago now. Nowadays, i believe i have a more balanced, and broader understanding of the planner's point of view. Which means, i can enjoy reading a thread about housing densities and relate that to my own environment/city where i live. I can understand better how the concept of laneways and alleyways is a big part of my old city environment. How public transport has a big part to play.

All of these new realities i am learning to see nowadays - not many of which i could have even known about as a CG Artist working 'under' the planner. Try not to be too critical of my foolish attempts at speaking here on the forum. I mean only well, at the end of the day - i certainly don't hold any grudge against planners anymore i hope. Or rather i aspire to. Surely that's progress, no?

[garethace]

As a planner for a municipality I am bound by budget when I work on plans. For a few plans we hired people to do some photoshopping of before and after street cross sections, etc and it was very expensive and ultimatly not worth it. Recently, through learning as I go, I have been using Paint Shop Pro to do it myself. Yeah, it may not look perfect, but it gets the point across. Why pay someone a few hundred dollars to take a photo and superimpose sidewalks and street lights when I can do it myself? Pictures are impartant, but to be honest, stuff like color saturation and other professional touch-up effects are not.

The purpose of my post, was nothing more than to allow you to give me feed-back, so that i as a CG Artist can just know exactly what you might think of us. I has been a life-long ambition of mine to set up independtly as a CG Artist and earn a living from doing that. Thanks for the feed back - the more honest the better. I am doing a course in Urban Design, but ultimately i would like to become a CG Artist and provide services to architects and planners, at a reasonable cost. Not the over-inflated and inferior work you have described. I simply would not expect a planner on a budget to pay for such.

But then again, how many CG Artists out there know very much about urban planning, have taken the hours to spend reading Jane Jacobs, Kevin Lynch (lots of nice pics in his book actually), Edmund N. Bacon, Camille Sitte and others.

[Cardinal]

I can appreciate your desire to get a better understanding of how graphic arts relates to planning. (I think that is the aim of this post.) To echo the others, many planners have some ability to use image editing software like Photoshop or Photopaint, and drawing programs such as Illustrator or Corel Draw. The reality is that except in the largest of departments, there is not enough graphic design work to have a dedicated staff member, the cost of hiring that talent is usually too high for the project budget, and there is the added difficulty of trying to get someone else to understand the points you are trying to convey through an image. All of these tend to reinforce the planner in the role of graphic artist.



One favor, please. Your posts can be a bit long-winded. No offense intended, but after a few sentences I tend not to want to read any more. Please be kind to us simple planners who want to skim a thread, rather than read a longer dissertation.

[Maroon]

Originally posted by Michael Stumpf
I can appreciate your desire to get a better understanding of how graphic arts relates to planning. (I think that is the aim of this post.) To echo the others, many planners have some ability to use image editing software like Photoshop or Photopaint, and drawing programs such as Illustrator or Corel Draw. The reality is that except in the largest of departments, there is not enough graphic design work to have a dedicated staff member, the cost of hiring that talent is usually too high for the project budget, and there is the added difficulty of trying to get someone else to understand the points you are trying to convey through an image. All of these tend to reinforce the planner in the role of graphic artist.

I'd echo these comments; my office happens to have a "production" person that can do these tasks for me, but the planners share him with a number of other departments.

I would also like to thank you for your posts, and thank Alan for starting this whole Photoshop-Corel-Gimp-Etc. discussioon. I think it's been fairly instructive.

[garethace]

One favor, please. Your posts can be a bit long-winded. No offense intended, but after a few sentences I tend not to want to read any more. Please be kind to us simple planners who want to skim a thread, rather than read a longer dissertation.

Will do, thanks for the reply and opinions. I am debating whether or not to go with cg artwork as a business/employment prospect permanently, so i appreciate all opinions, comments, positive and negative alike. I am grown up enough to take criticism, as my future depends mainly upon myself now, and listening to sincerely meant advice from any of you. Alot of good cg artist btw are children of planners and architects, who work with dad or mom, and have decided just to specialise in visualisation work - but still do, as you mention have an understanding of how cg art and planning as a disipline can relate to one another. I didn't have a mom, dad or anyone else to consult, hence why i posted here.

[martini]

funny, I just finished working with PS. I was stichtching together a set of DOQS so I can use them together in ArcGIS for some mapping I'm doing right now. I'd like more training in PS, but like many others have said, I've got waaay to much other stuff on the board thats more important right now. Since I DO know some of it and fake it pretty good, I doubt I'll be farming jobs out. I preferr to do as much as I can in-house, thank you very much!

[NHPlanner]

Of course, this is the real joy of using photoshop....

[garethace]

He, he! Good comic!

Check out my new post: "Four types of dwellings"

http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showt...7673#post77673

[boiker]

Photoshop: Raster Image editing.
Useful for web graphics, and light illustrating, i.e. layouts, powerpoint type images, enhancing photos etc.

Corel or Illustrator or Freehand: VECTOR image editing

Can import a raster based image for light manipulation, spcifically designed or art layouts, widely used in advertising for magazines, newprints, etc. Not intended to manipulate photos however, will allow the use to 'overlay' vector based lines with quick editing.

AutoCAD: Specifically a design tool. not for layouts, not for photos, not for anything other than simple and effective line drawing.

each has their place.

Planners should realize the benefits of photoshop for: Light layout creation, photo manipulation, quick text overlays.

most likely, corel or illustrator or freehand is the most effective at providing tools to illustrate property lines, setbacks, encroachments, etc.

I've used all three very extensivley and currently have access to none at my current workplace.

Powerpoint barely suffices but does has enough features to get me through the pain.

[garethace]

I don't really know what i would do without PowerPoint either! I think if the Boss knew there actually was a piece of software as useful on my system as PowerPoint is to me everyday - i am sure he would just go out of his way to make sure that PowerPoint was removed permanently, and i had to draw all my diagrams using Word or something. I cannot understand people who spend huge budgets upgrading expensive hardware each year, and don't have any software to install on them. (We use all expensive MACs here, and the boss has a sinfully expensive MAC laptop, which normally just props up his newspaper in the morning at the right angle of 'tilt') Still it is useful with the Projector he just bought and a PowerPoint presentation we often do for clients and city officials etc.

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by garethace
I cannot understand people who spend huge budgets upgrading expensive hardware each year, and don't have any software to install on them.

It does seem incredible, doesn't it? Yet I see that same thing happen in many places. They purchase the computers en masse, often with identical configurations, regardless of the intended use. At the same time a few people (often the ones with the least need) seem to get high-end systems far beyond their need or even capacity to use. The problem is that so many people are enamored with technology without understanding it, and they often tend to be the people driving the purchasing decisions.

My most recent purchase was a notebook used for 1) accounting, 2) working while on the road, and 3) on-site presentations. It is a 2.0 GHz Pentium 4, 512Mb RAM, 17" monitor, sound card, firewire, video output, DC/DVD/Recordable, wireless networking, wireless keyboard/mouse/presentation device, etc. Software include Office XP Pro, CIVIC, Adobe Design Suite, Corel 10, and Video Factory. It is designed to meet the applications.

[garethace]

The problem is that so many people are enamored with technology without understanding it, and they often tend to be the people driving the purchasing decisions.

I have spent much time discussing various questions i had about computers with the good people over at www.aceshardware.com/forum I did listen to alot of common sense spoken about computers there - coming from people who manage and maintain thousands of systems, servers, networks and web hosting racks etc every year.

I was so surprised to hear of guys who practically knew ever component of a computer, and design how it all fits together - have very down to earth, common sense advice to give. Technology has become something very over-marketed nowadays, lots of products out there with very little new real innovation coming up. At least 80 percent of my everyday needs could be handled using the same modest kind of technology i owned in 1998/99.

Yet my passion and fascination for technology made me spend 10 times more, of my own hard earned money on a level of technology and equipment i will never actually learn to utilise at its best. I will gladly take back alot of what i said in this thread - i know i will have to spend less time with my passion in the immediate future. In order to go back to a time, when i actually did more work.