Guy Gowan processing

[Cornfield]

I would like to hear comments from anyone who has subscribed to Guy Gowan's processing site recently.  He is mentioned in a few old posts on here but an update of his current processing/workflow from a current member would be appreciated.

After spending a few hours to watch three of his free videos I think his approach could be very useful if it's as good as he implies. 

Replying to emails from potential members is not one of his priorities.

Thanks

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I never heard of the guy (Guy?), but I would be rather reluctant to let someone else's prescription on how to process my photos. My photos, my processing. Me-too movement never amounted to anything good.

[Cornfield]

In general I would agree with you.  But I think he really has something better than ACR and probably any other raw converter.

[rasworth]

In general I would agree with you.  But I think he really has something better than ACR and probably any other raw converter.

What kind of a hook is this?

I prowled around his website, found a lot of either out of date or inoperative videos.  The ones that would play seem to consist mostly of him talking without much meat.  The one video that purported to give an overview of his technique was dead, i.e. "late to the webinar" or something like that.  Apparently one has to pony up the subscription fee to find out anything of substance.

I am suspicious of your intentions in starting this thread.

Richard Southworth

[Jeremy Roussak]

I am suspicious of your intentions in starting this thread.

That is an unpleasant comment with no apparent justification.

Jeremy

[rasworth]

I wouldn't call it unpleasant, perhaps unjustified.  When somebody asks for a reference, and then without receiving such posts a positive statement such as the one I quoted, I wonder about the intent.

Richard Southworth

[mshea]

A few years ago I subscribed to his site for a year. As I recall, he offered weekly live presentations where he would also answer questions and comments from members. He was very dismissive of the whole slider based file manipulation system on which LR is based. He had/has various workflow downloads that, after you got used to them, yielded excellent images. He was always modifying and upgrading those workflow versions and one could download them for free. But I wouldn't say they produced results that were any better than LR or C1.

Merrill

[faberryman]

A few years ago I subscribed to his site for a year. As I recall, he offered weekly live presentations where he would also answer questions and comments from members. He was very dismissive of the whole slider based file manipulation system on which LR is based. He had/has various workflow downloads that, after you got used to them, yielded excellent images. He was always modifying and upgrading those workflow versions and one could download them for free. But I wouldn't say they produced results that were any better than LR or C1.

Lots of people have different workflows. Not so many try to sell them to others. By the way, you don't have to use the sliders in LR. You can input discrete numbers instead. That tip is free of charge.

[Cornfield]

Merrill, many thanks for your civil and constructive reply.  Just the sort of feedback from first-hand experience I'm looking for.

Some of the examples GG shows are impressive and quite compelling.  His demeanor and negative comments about all other raw converters raised alarms with me which led to this thread.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Some of the examples GG shows are impressive and quite compelling.  His demeanor and negative comments about all other raw converters raised alarms with me which led to this thread.

Hi,

What I remember from when I saw his free video tutorials a long time ago:
1. He has a background/bias in (Pre-)Press oriented workflow
2. He used a condescending tone towards how Lightroom's default rendering is.
3. He did have a point about Lightroom's excessive highlight compression, in order to 'recover' highlights (even when there are none to be recovered)

I forgot his method to remedy it, but it could be achieved with a simple -100 (or so) highlight slider control adjustment, instead of what he did.

I don't know if his later videos still have the same tone and advocate the same method, but there are more than one ways to skin a cat. I do think it is important to have control over highlight rendering, perhaps because I'm from the Film era where it was quite difficult to achieve without a lot of (literally) manipulation of the processing and development process.

But modern software offers just that, lots of control. In that respect, I really love the Luminosity masking capability on adjustment layers that Capture One now offers together with a linear tone-curve rendering.

Cheers,
Bart

[earlybird]

...comments about all other raw converters...

Hello,
 There have been a few references to the subject of this thread's choice of raw conversion, but the actual raw conversion application has not been identified.

 Has Mr. Gowan developed his own raw converter, or is there some publicly available product, other than those mentioned as having been dismissed, that is used in his demonstrations?

 Thank you.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I wouldn't call it unpleasant, perhaps unjustified.  When somebody asks for a reference, and then without receiving such posts a positive statement such as the one I quoted, I wonder about the intent.

Impugning the motives of a forum member, in a way which clearly implies he has acted with some ulterior motive, is unacceptable and without doubt unpleasant. It is not, I would hope, something you would have done to his face. You ought to apologise.

Jeremy

[Rhossydd]

There have been a few references to the subject of this thread's choice of raw conversion, but the actual raw conversion application has not been identified.

From the details on his web site, it's all about Photoshop, so using ACR for conversions.

I think I'd be wary of punting up £100 for someone who doesn't even have a portfolio of his images on his site.

The world's hardly short of Photoshop 'experts' or tutorials.

[rasworth]

Cornfield,

I apologize, I was out of line.

Richard Southworth

[Cornfield]

Thanks.

[TommyWeir]

His approach is that you can't just slide sliders, you should understand colour theory and how digital imaging works if you want to shoot and process your images with skill towards desired outcomes.   Nothing wrong with that.    He builds PS actions and workflows that are built upon that approach. 

He's quite a character. I attended one workshop he gave and it was, eh, bracing.   I had no desire to purchase or subscribe but from what I saw he knows his stuff and the approach/actions which are built upon the user understanding what they are doing, do what they're supposed to.   He did work, whether internally or as a consultant I am unsure, for Apple and while he spoke very highly of Aperture, he's probably not a fan of LR.  My understanding is that he would use ACR for conversion.

[earlybird]

From the details on his web site, it's all about Photoshop, so using ACR for conversions...

...I think he really has something better than ACR and probably any other raw converter.

Hi,
 I am not trying to seem contentious, but I am confused.

 Seeking further clarification...

 Thank you!

[john beardsworth]

He did work, whether internally or as a consultant I am unsure, for Apple and while he spoke very highly of Aperture, he's probably not a fan of LR.  My understanding is that he would use ACR for conversion.

He presented Aperture for Apple at its London launch back in late 2005. He had a stock answer to questions about things it couldn't do - "don't buy it for what it is now, but for what it will be at 3.0"....

[kers]

He presented Aperture for Apple at its London launch back in late 2005. He had a stock answer to questions about things it couldn't do - "don't buy it for what it is now, but for what it will be at 3.0"....

Adobe, in my view, was suddenly awake after Aperture got introduced and responded with a -then- free version of Lightroom, doing basically the same.
It is sad that Apple cannot be trusted by the Pro.... at some point they let it be and finally stopped.
That time i liked the raw conversion of Nikon's NX better than both those programs.. Now Lightroom has become a lot better, also since they introduced the enhanced DNG function that does a better job with fine detail and moiré...

[Rhossydd]

responded with a -then- free version of Lightroom, doing basically the same.

I don't think Lightroom was ever free. The closest to that was the public beta before release.