Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Decision time for Adobe  (Read 14036 times)
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #60 on: November 28, 2007, 01:49:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps but with all due respect, there is a very large cohort of users who need somewhat more than is available at present
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Part of the issue may be familiarity and experience.  Here is a link to a post from the Lightroom-news blog that describes a technique that you might normally think would require a trip to photoshop....

[a href=\"http://lightroom-news.com/2007/11/23/muted-colours-and-other-fashionable-looks/]http://lightroom-news.com/2007/11/23/muted...hionable-looks/[/url]

I think Jeff's reply simply highlights the fact that MOST photographers don't even use Photoshop - so it goes without saying that their needs would be more than adequately served by LR.  Anything beyond that ends up being a slippery slope. The question how much is enough? can be debated endlessly.  The other aspect to the slippery slope metaphor is that as soon as you open it up to a itsy bitsy teeny weeny bit of selective editing...  - well the arguement would be that the entire application architecture would have to change to support that.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2007, 01:50:32 PM by Tim Gray » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #61 on: November 28, 2007, 03:16:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think Jeff's reply simply highlights the fact that MOST photographers don't even use Photoshop - so it goes without saying that their needs would be more than adequately served by LR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think it might be a bit more accurate to say the MOST photographers don't need MOST of Photoshop...

Lightroom was designed to try to address about 80% of a typical photographer's workflow...
Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 685


« Reply #62 on: November 28, 2007, 03:38:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, in view of that, is it fair to assume that as things stand, Lightroom 's design will always be governed by the 80% limit?
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #63 on: November 28, 2007, 03:50:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, in view of that, is it fair to assume that as things stand, Lightroom 's design will always be governed by the 80% limit?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156753\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Who knows...(well, some us do, but can't say).

Workflows change, adapt or die...
« Last Edit: November 28, 2007, 03:50:36 PM by Schewe » Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 549


« Reply #64 on: November 28, 2007, 06:11:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I can only speak for myself, and more than a few fellow photographers I know well. And I get the feel that LR really is enough for most of their work.

There will always be some need for a pixel level editor, to some, even I sometimes use one. But overall, LR is saving me lots of time, and its doing the same for most people I know who also use it.

That isnt to say there are not some things to tweak and add..but its def on the right track.

I hardly ever use anything else..bar the odd retouch job...
Logged
AjantaKVS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #65 on: November 28, 2007, 10:53:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lightroom is designed for working with multiple images efficiently, Photoshop is designed for working intensely with single images. Pretty sure those design principles will continue down those relatively divergent paths.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From the above quote it makes me think that  a common pro photographer will need both PS and LR,

As a common  pro photographer,in some assignments you may land up in processing large number images in shortest possible amount time with best possible quality  with the above time constraint, in that case you need LR.

And the same pro photographer in some other assignment  may land up in the situation of intensely tweaking very few images, in that case he needs  to fall back on PS.

So, the moral of the story is YOU need both LR and PS, as of now! or may be forever !!!
and the simple trick is choosing the right tool and right work flow for the job at hand.

AjantaKVS
« Last Edit: November 28, 2007, 10:54:55 PM by AjantaKVS » Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 685


« Reply #66 on: November 29, 2007, 03:28:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Schewe: 'Who knows...(well, some  (of) us do, but can't say).
Workflows change, adapt or die'

And Schewe again: 'You might want to quit holding your breath there bud...it's gonna take a while ya know? Which is why I come back to this idea of spending your time wisely, telling Adobe what you need/want and quit worrying about what Adobe is gonna do with Lightroom & Photoshop. They're in good hands, believe me...'


Firstly, Jeff - I'm not holding my  breath here, bud. And I thought I WAS telling Adobe what I - and many others - want. A better Lightroom which, judging from your enigmatic reply about who knows what, means it's on the way only it will take time. No problems with that. I'm a very reasonable and patient person. Better some time than never.

I don't want to go down the road of specifying particular needs - that just ends up in useless, endless wish lists, which are available elsewhere anyway. And I'm quite sure Adobe already knows precisely what people want and in due course will decide what and what not to deliver in V2.

Anyway, the best of luck with the new book.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2007, 04:09:58 AM by seamus finn » Logged

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad