Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Local ajustment brush, whats the point?  (Read 7660 times)
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 586


« on: November 28, 2008, 12:57:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm courious about the point of the local ajustment brush in ACR.   I can see the point of it in Lightroom as theres no other options for localised ajustments, but in Photoshop with it's existing options for localised ajustment is there really a need for it at the "RAW" stage, and it there any advantage in doing it then.
If the idea is to keep the ajustments with the RAW file then why not add all the basic ajustment options, like recovery etc that are missing now?.  Wayne
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7671


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2008, 01:06:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

At least one reason is that ACR needs to understand all that Lightroom can do. Another thing is that some adjustments may be better to apply before or very close to "raw-conversion", expecially before any gamma correction is applied.

Erik

Quote from: sniper
I'm courious about the point of the local ajustment brush in ACR.   I can see the point of it in Lightroom as theres no other options for localised ajustments, but in Photoshop with it's existing options for localised ajustment is there really a need for it at the "RAW" stage, and it there any advantage in doing it then.
If the idea is to keep the ajustments with the RAW file then why not add all the basic ajustment options, like recovery etc that are missing now?.  Wayne
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2008, 03:25:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
I'm courious about the point of the local ajustment brush in ACR.   I can see the point of it in Lightroom as theres no other options for localised ajustments, but in Photoshop with it's existing options for localised ajustment is there really a need for it at the "RAW" stage, and it there any advantage in doing it then.
If the idea is to keep the ajustments with the RAW file then why not add all the basic ajustment options, like recovery etc that are missing now?.  Wayne


There is always an advantage of doing things at the RAW stage, that is the point of RAW! You're working with the RAW data and as such have much more quality than doing it afterwards. For example if you have a blown out element you can recover it in ACR but once it's in PS, even as 16 bit, unless the information was sent to PS it isn't there!

Which is missing the point really, Bridge and ACR give an extremely superior workflow tool, IMO superior to LR. I can work through 1000 wedding photos, process half of them, without having to enter PS once and apply superior adjustments such as the local brushes, taking seconds rather than the minutes it would take in PS.

BTW, Recovery and Fill Light, plus the targeted adjustment tool, gradient tool and a whole bunch of others are in ACR already. The idea of ACR is to get the maximum done with the RAW data before entering PS and hopefully without the need to do so in many cases. Not just as a conduit to PS.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 03:25:57 AM by pom » Logged

sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 586


« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2008, 05:56:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the replies guys.  Where is recovery in the targeted ajustment brush?    Wayne
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2008, 08:52:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
Thanks for the replies guys.  Where is recovery in the targeted ajustment brush?    Wayne

Aaah, thought you meant in the main window. Is there a recovery slider in LR?
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6055


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2008, 09:50:01 AM »
ReplyReply

One more reason for editing as much as possible in ACR (or Lightroom) vs. Photoshop is to avoid creating an additional file, which would double, or triple, or increase multiple times (depending on the number of layers) the space needed for the second file.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2008, 07:09:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
Bridge and ACR give an extremely superior workflow tool, IMO superior to LR.

Ben, using LR 2.x, I don't see this. Could you elaborate?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2008, 12:18:26 AM »
ReplyReply

There's no local adjustment possibly with recovery at the moment.  I have made an FR to Adobe for it, though, and I know at least one person at Adobe shares my enthusiasm to have it added!

Feel free to add an FR at Adobe for this if you also think it would be useful - the more people who request it the more chance of it happening, I reckon.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2008, 07:49:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Ben, using LR 2.x, I don't see this. Could you elaborate?

I hate the database concept and send all edited RAWs through PS actions. I can understand how LR works for people who need organising, if you like things to work the way you want them then I believe that Bridge/ACR/PS is better at giving more control over the workflow.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6977


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2008, 08:29:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
I hate the database concept and send all edited RAWs through PS actions. I can understand how LR works for people who need organising, if you like things to work the way you want them then I believe that Bridge/ACR/PS is better at giving more control over the workflow.

OK, so this is all about your pesonal preferences, not the inherent qualities of the software in terms of what they were designed to achieve. Good to have that clarified.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2008, 11:07:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I did use the phrase 'IMO' to the original post  
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad