PercepTool

[kwalsh]

With regards to the overall article the idea of the visual system being able to tell the difference between edges that are from the light source (shadows) and the reflectivity of objects (shapes) and then enhancing them differently in the print is a good idea.  He covers this in his book as well which is a good read.  I never gathered how the PercepTool did any such thing, it can't in fact.  That said, some find it gives them a good starting point.  It just doesn't do anything at all like what he writes is the important difference in "presence" as it has no way to distinguish lighting and reflection edges.  I think this may be why a lot of people thought the tool was BS - it doesn't do what George goes on and on about.  That doesn't necessarily make it useless though!

I've never understood what he's on about with the history brush.  His contrived and inept demonstration of the difference between it and layers/masks here just demonstrates such a stunning lack of understanding at the basics of layers and masks in Photoshop that I have to think something got lost in the writing and the example.  It doesn't seem possible George could be as clueless about layer editing as the article make him out to be, must just be poor writing or something.

The history brush is destructive editing, and that's fine if you like to edit that way.  But you can trivially use masks and layers (and adjustment layers) to do exactly the same things he is doing just as easily with a non-destructive work flow that allows for later fine tuning and iteration.  His comments about the History brush vs. layer editing make no sense.  That said, it is a nice tutorial on the history brush - though I've always thought it to be a defunct tool compared to the non-destructive tools that are more functional and easier to use these days.  What matters really is what the artist is comfortable with and there is nothing wrong with choices, so it is nice to see a history brush tutorial.

Ken

EDIT: I should also add, with regards to the History Brush section it certainly could be ineptitude on the part of the reader as well, maybe I'm just missing something

[Kirk Gittings]

he history brush is destructive editing, and that's fine if you like to edit that way.  But you can trivially use masks and layers (and adjustment layers) to do exactly the same things he is doing just as easily with a non-destructive work flow that allows for later fine tuning and iteration.  His comments about the History brush vs. layer editing make no sense.  That said, it is a nice tutorial on the history brush - though I've always thought it to be a defunct tool compared to the non-destructive tools that are more functional and easier to use these days.  What matters really is what the artist is comfortable with and there is nothing wrong with choices, so it is nice to see a history brush tutorial.

IME this has always been the main complaint about George's workflow. It goes against the current party line. I appreciate that about George. I do use it sometimes even though it is destructive-I save a version before using it-usually to fine tune tones as the final final step before resizing for printing. I simply like the way it feels. As George says, I think in the book, it is more a painterly act-you are committed.

[RBM]

DeWolfe’s approach certainly contradicts the approach used by many other photographers and workshop teachers. I have taken his workshops and those of Dan Burkholder, a photographer who is famous for creating copious numbers of layers .
Each approach has value. One may argue that Burkholder plays it safe by always providing a way to correct/revise or delete a considered change. Burkholder admits this, often saying that he is afraid of commitment. Hence the use of layers
 One can argue that DeWolfe’s approach is very traditional to the art of printing.. Like master black and white printers he starts with the negative and “performs” to create an interpretation of the image. If he errs, he is happy to delete it, just as many traditional printers trashed prints that fell short of their goals or that were failures due to user error.
DeWolfe states clearly in his workshops and texts that he thinks an artist should act decisively. It seems that decisive for him means operating apparently with no safety net (layers). But one must recall that like the traditional darkroom printers he always has the negative. Part of his protocol is to copy and save the original.

As far as the PercepTool is concerned, well a free trial is a good deal. One may find the percepTool valuable all the time, or one may find that it has limited value. I have never got the impression that the PercepTool is a magic wand; instead it is a piece of software, like Lightroom or Photoshop or the Nik system that s photographer may find valuable, or may use occasionally or never..
That is the key, isn’t it? What you or I find valuable is good; what we don’t find valuable is bad? Maybe not. Maybe we need to be a bit more tolerant of software and approaches we have yet to try.