Scott Kelby's 7-Point System for PhotoShop
 

I've been going through the lessons and this is probably the most helpful Photoshop book I've read in years. Each lesson starts with a RAW or JPG image. Kelby takes you step by step through the process beginning with Adobe Camera RAW and then finishing up in Photoshop CS3.

Here are a few before and after examples from the lessons I've completed. These are not my original images. These images we're provided as part of the book.

][img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/2185919808_2870047e1a.jpg[/img
][img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2079/2169406335_4eb039596d.jpg[/img
][img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2204/2185136225_fbd5fd91cc.jpg[/img

Wow thats pretty impressive... Just goes to show how much I still have to learn about PS :)

Those pictures look great, thanks for the tip.

My question, what is the ease of readability? I find the biggest obstacle for me with these tutorials is that they're complicated and read like a text book. I realize this is a complicated software program but I'm looking for a book that will make the process of learning easier.

Couldn't be simpler. The text explains the steps and adjoining images show what you expect to see on the PhotoShop controls and the edited image.

I suppose that depends on how much you already know about the program, I'm a total beginner, just got the program from a friend last week. Sill going to be simple? I worked on Essentials a little but always got turned off by the boring tutorials... even tried some podcasts but just didn't find it easy to understand.

I've been using PhotoShop for over ten years, but mostly to edit web type graphics. In the past year, I've used it heavily for photographs, so in this regard I think I'm still a beginner.

In the lessons, it's almost too elementary. Click this, select that, and almost always followed by whatever hot key works (for both mac or pc).

The problem with videos and podcasts is that they're going at their speed, not yours. I think lessons like this really work better when read.

The one thing that might be missing is that he doesn't always explain why an adjustment is needed. He just does it. I'm hoping that by the end of the book, I'll have a sense for when a certain adjustment is required.

Here's one of my own, now that I've finished the book.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2208867228/" title="Sun and Signs by .: sandman, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2168/2208867228_b5ccdca0be.jpg" width="500" height="335" alt="Sun and Signs" /></a>

It's not realistic. I darkened the sky quite a bit and tweaked the color.

Yeah, but it looks good.

I'll have to check that book out.

Thanks. :)

One more from an outing today:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2211375356/" title="Tufa Sunset by .: sandman, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2339/2211375356_2dfe9ca2fe.jpg" width="500" height="324" alt="Tufa Sunset" /></a>

You should also download the Photoshop TV podcast that he's on every week.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/2216083086/" title="Desert Castle Magic (revisited) by .: sandman, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2252/2216083086_1dac5406dd.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Desert Castle Magic (revisited)" /></a>

Those are some pretty nice results for someone who lacks the ability to get the camera adjusted right in the first place, like me, for instance. You, on the other hand, seem to come out with these beautiful, surreal pictures in every post. I don't see any discernible improvement in these shots compared to your other posts, IMHO.

Thanks. :)

What you don't know is that I throw 90% or more of the images away before I ever bother to edit.

Hey fnaqzna, I have looked at and enjoyed your photographs on several of these pages and I have been wondering the same thing as others do and your reponses give me a lot of hope...esp the one about throwing away 90% of the "drafts".

Thanks Annapolis. I really appreciate it. I have to say... I've been using PhotoShop for quite a long time, but until a year or more ago, I never did anything with photos. It was always graphic-type images. So, it's been a fun year. I've done a lot of reading, both books and on the web and I've learned a lot, I think. The images that I was satisfied with last year, I'd probably throw away today.

Perfect example:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dotdoubledot/355307095/" title="Stormy (365-012) by .: sandman, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/355307095_40b41b6bc7.jpg" width="330" height="500" alt="Stormy (365-012)" /></a>

I can remember being rather pleased with this at the time. Today, I'd pitch it. It's crap.

I'm hoping that in a years time, I'll look at the images that I'm doing right now today and that I'll be completely dissatisfied with them.

Absolutely fantastic shots. Just fantastic.

what YOU may not know is that professional photographers do the exact same thing. It's not like everything we shoot is gold. After all I do probably..oh. ..400-500 stories per year and only submit 3 or 4 of them for awards ;)

Shakran and Salaam, Shakran! Gives all of us ams some hope!!