The manipulation of digital photos using Photoshop can of course produce unreal reults, but this was always the case with film photography and the myriads of dark room techniques available – paper grades, filters, dodging, burning. The difference with Photoshop is that it is even more versatile and a lot easier to use (or misuse). So for both digital and film the key is the taste of the photographer, and tastes vary enormously.

Digital has a surpising advantage over film; it is better for black and white photos, thanks to the range of greyscale options on offer – red, green and blue channels and different proportions of them.

Regarding software I don’t think anyone has mentioned Photoshop Elements, which is much cheaper (10 times) than the full Photoshop but contains most of the tools that a photographer might want, except that is for the indispensible Curves feature (it has Curves but not as a reversible layer).

As to DSLR v Compact, the pros and cons are much the same as for film SLR v Compact. I am sold on DSLR: more intuitive to use, better quality (larger) lenses, greater depth of field effect, you see what you get (and can see it in bright conditions), bigger and better sensors, better quality and control in general. DSLRs are more expensive, but probably better value for money, especially if you get a slightly older version. They are heavier but getting lighter all the time.

Regards Ted Spiller

George: You are right, you don’t need a DSLR to produce quality photos, but they do represent a step up and offer many advatanges.

Martin: Photoshop is just a tool. Of course, you can manipulate colours and the image but there are many ways of looking at this. Firstly, as Chris says, you could use this to bring the picture back to the original scene – cameras do not produce accurate reproductions of nature. But you could always see Photoshop as part of a wider, creative, process. Is photography an art. Well for some now, but for others yes.

I could manipulate images in a darkroom – and many people did. All Photoshop is – is a digital darkroom.

George is right in pointing to open source alternatives. Many of these are being developed with the support of the arts community.

If you want to step up your photography then Photoshop – or equivalent – is worth the investment. There are cheaper manipulation programmes but they don’t – in my view – come up to my digital darkroom criteria. I’ll try and illustrate all of this later in the series.

Remember, this is for this is for those people who want to explore further. Many of you will be quite happy doing what you’re doing — and that’s fine as well!

I’ve just traded up. I don’t know enough yet about SLRs to be able to attempt a sophisticated answer, but the main, readily accessible difference for me is the ability to focus clearly on small things with the DSLR: flowers, insects etc. With my wee compact it was almost impossible to do that. It could well be that I was doing something wrong, but if so then I was doing it wrong with three compacts on the trot, and the DSLR has made it possible for me to get it right. In fact, it seems to be impossible to get it wrong.

I also hope for greater depth when taking landscape pics, and look forward to being able to try out interesting new lenses, providing different sorts of perspectives (when I’ve saved up to buy one, anyway).

Personally I don’t think you have to have a Dslr; there are many good compacts on the market that with give you the same manual control over the camera as a Dslr.

I started out with a Zenith then move on to olympus and nikon camera but always hated having to lug around lens and all the extras.

Nowadays I have a small canon compact and a larger (but not to large fuji which allow me the same freedom as my old slr.

At present I can’t see me going back down the slr route.

As for editors; photoshop is the daddy but there are also some good alternatives on the market, photoshop elements is normally good enough for the editing that most of us would want to do.

Another one is GIMP it works similar to PS and best of all it’s open source so completely free

I look forward to new series

George

Any way Andy I like this photo idea: so get writing and its appreciated.

Thanks.

Taking it a step further, though, I suppose even that (i.e. significant alteration of trip report photos) is okay as long as people are honest about what they’ve done. I remember a few years ago seeing a series of pictures of Scottish mountains, and it was obvious that they’d been significantly fiddled with. As it happens, I found them rather ’samey’ after the first few, and I prefer things to look natural unless they set out to be something entirely different, but clearly the bloke who made them liked them that way.

I hear what you say about colours, Martin, and changing them, but I saw some photos the other day that blew me away. They don’t purport to be straighforward representations of a scene’s original appearance, so to that extent the photographer is aiming for something different from what we’re after when we seek, for instance, to capture a landscape, but WOW! Were they vibrant and exciting! When I saw them I began to think again about how long it might take me to save up for Photoshop

They’re here: http://sttp.smugmug.com/gallery/4748584_Gebsy/1/355368718_bZnMn#355368718_bZnMn