Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: lightroom to replace photoshop for photographers?  (Read 11931 times)
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2006, 06:28:54 PM »
ReplyReply

LR is not a program for Stock Photographers. Read Michael's review, watch the videos on LR and listen the the podcast. If you don't know what LR is after that, well then...
Logged
miamitom
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2006, 10:08:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting, those videos are.
I can see that all my early upsets were of "not knowing" by baseing my opion on what reviewer said on the Luminous web sit and other places.
Now a question, why not have it as a choice of either a HUGE plug or a standalone.
Because of what it now does and what is hoped for in the future is it TOO large for a plugin??
I can now understand the comment that photoshop, inspite of its name, did not start nor was intended for photographers in the beginning, where as Lightroom is definately aimed at the working photographer of any level.
The biggest upset I have is the whole propriatary raw file idea.
This transistion from analogue/film to digital shure does put me in a bind. I really like the new technology for what it can do that film could never do or did with great difficulty and time investments.
The potential for NOT being able to read/print my digital files/negs in the future coupled with film being phased out is upsetting.
I guess every generation has this problem, and by generation I mean 40 to 50 year windows. I started photography in 1945 in grade school and I can still print my negatives, but evan that is disapearing because of companies like Kodak just not making paper and eventually film, and not making the chemicals to print out the negs.
Meanwhile I will shot important jobs on film (for as long as the materials are available).  
Meanwhile I have work to do.
Yours,
Tom
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad