Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why Leave Lightroom  (Read 6257 times)
Mac Mahon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« on: February 18, 2014, 12:48:22 PM »
ReplyReply

All

I'm often told, and read on other forums, that Photoshop is for Grown-ups and LR is for, well, people like me.  I generally disregard those comments.

However, I know that many dedicated LR users on this forum say they do 90+% of their work in LR and then export to PS to do the work they can't do in LR, or the work they can do better in PS.

Would people who are dedicated LR users mind telling me what it is they find it essential to go to PS for?  (I understand the need for layers for compositing.  I'm thinking more in terms of straight photographic post-processing)

Thanks

Tim


PS I was going to post this in DavidEdric's LR ACR feature comparison thread but didn't want to hijack his emphasis.  OTOH this post is prompted by my recently having been engaged in a similar argument to his!
Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 667



« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2014, 01:27:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Tim,

I am one of those to whom you refer.

As it happened, I was a late convert from film to digital and the launch of the first version of Lightroom coincided with my purchase of a Nikon D80. At that time, it seemed hugely more intuitive than any of the Photoshop varieties or clones to someone steeped in old-style darkroom processing.

I now use it as the hub of all my post-exposure processing. All my Raw files are imported using LR, all my cataloguing, etc is done in it and it is my Raw converter.

Initially I did, indeed, do 90% of my processing wholly in LR. That percentage has gradually dropped as I have become more familiar with processing digital files. I still do everything from within Lightroom and I always take processed images back into LR for finishing and printing (or export as Jpegs if that is what I require for a magazine of competition).

The "plug-ins" that I use from within Lightroom are Photoshop CS6, the Nik suite of products and, more occasionally, some of the Topaz products.

I use layers a lot now in CS6 - not only for compositing but also for a wide range of processing that cannot be done in Lightroom. A lot of that could be done on a single layer in PS but I tend to use duplicate layers so that I get the huge advantage of employing different blend modes and levels of opacity. The tools I use most in PS tend to be the various clone and fill tools, selective blur tools, transform and warp, etc. I tend not to use Photoshop for the things that Lightroom already handles supremely well such as exposure/highlights/shadows, clarity and vibrance, sharpening and noise reduction and the application of my camera and lens profiles.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
Mac Mahon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2014, 01:44:13 PM »
ReplyReply

in PS ... I tend to use duplicate layers so that I get the huge advantage of employing different blend modes and levels of opacity. The tools I use most in PS tend to be the various clone and fill tools, selective blur tools, transform and warp, etc.

Thanks for that.

I also export out to NIK SEP2 very frequently but it's the PS 'must have' connection that I'm trying to get my head around.  I have seen the content aware fill, and cloning work, and concede that it's quicker (certainly) than trying to achieve any similar result in LR.  I think you're saying that selective blur in PS is easier? more effective? more flexible?  than a blur brush mask in LR?

Tim
Logged
D Fosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 389



« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2014, 02:52:01 PM »
ReplyReply

The 90:10 ratio fits me well. The goal is 100:0, but so far that hasn't been possible.

The reason I still need Photoshop is for final, critical color tweaking. PS still has better and more precise tools for this. One example is Photoshop's Selective Color, which has no Lightroom equivalent, and is superior for small color adjustments along the hue axis. You can do it with the Lr HSL sliders, but they tend to break up image integrity by introducing sharp transitions, banding and other artifacts. I never touch Lightroom's Hue sliders for this reason.

Combine this with a luminosity mask (or an occasional "manual" mask), and you have a level of control not achievable in Lightroom. But the day Lightroom can offer something similar, I may well abandon PS altogether.

As for grown-ups vs. kids - take a look in the Adobe Lr and Ps forums. You'll quickly see that the pros use Lightroom, while the Photoshop forum is dominated by, well...the other kind. A few pre-press people still drop by though, for them Lightroom is obviously of no interest. But from a photography point of view, Lightroom is much more streamlined for professional use.
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1491


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2014, 03:12:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I love Lightroom. Does that me make not a grown-up? Smiley I did resist for years, using Photo Mechanic, Camera Raw, and Photoshop, but finally drank the Kool-Aid (or took the red pill) a couple of years ago.

I still use Photoshop for pixel-level edits that I can't do easily or at all in LR. Mostly this is portrait retouching, but I do some compositing and dropping out of backgrounds and the like for publications sometimes, too. (Art director: "Please take out the trash can from this landscape." Me: "Okay.")

I'm sure I open less than 10% of my final images in Photoshop. Maybe less than 5%.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2162


« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2014, 04:58:36 PM »
ReplyReply

All

I'm often told, and read on other forums, that Photoshop is for Grown-ups and LR is for, well, people like me.  I generally disregard those comments.

However, I know that many dedicated LR users on this forum say they do 90+% of their work in LR and then export to PS to do the work they can't do in LR, or the work they can do better in PS.

Would people who are dedicated LR users mind telling me what it is they find it essential to go to PS for?  (I understand the need for layers for compositing.  I'm thinking more in terms of straight photographic post-processing)

Thanks

Tim


PS I was going to post this in DavidEdric's LR ACR feature comparison thread but didn't want to hijack his emphasis.  OTOH this post is prompted by my recently having been engaged in a similar argument to his!
Drop Jeff Schewe's name in to the conversation.
A world-renowned expert in Photoshop prefers to use Lightroom a lot of the time.
In concert with most of us he uses when Photoshop when required.

Not many Photoshop fanboys will get very far accusing Jeff of being an boy/adolescent in the context of the debate.

There are several threads on various forums debating this issue currently.
Lightroom was never mean't to be a direct competitor for Photoshop - they are complementary applications.

Tony Jay
Logged
MirekElsner
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2014, 11:03:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Different photographers have different styles and require different level of control. LR provides best practices for many basic operations like sharpening, color management, resampling for print and others. I found that it is enough for my photography work. Perhaps I could sometimes get 5% better results with PS, but I have only limited time to spend on my hobbies and I can use it elsewhere. I still keep a copy of PS, mostly for self-education, but I am considering dropping off the subscription.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8015


WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2014, 11:35:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I essentially use PS for:

- Background aware fill, in cases the healing brush doesn't work.
- Quick and dirty panos
- HDR (based on multiple images)
- Some plugin based work
- Experimental work

But there is an incredible amount of stuff LR can do well

Best regards
Erik

All

I'm often told, and read on other forums, that Photoshop is for Grown-ups and LR is for, well, people like me.  I generally disregard those comments.

However, I know that many dedicated LR users on this forum say they do 90+% of their work in LR and then export to PS to do the work they can't do in LR, or the work they can do better in PS.

Would people who are dedicated LR users mind telling me what it is they find it essential to go to PS for?  (I understand the need for layers for compositing.  I'm thinking more in terms of straight photographic post-processing)

Thanks

Tim


PS I was going to post this in DavidEdric's LR ACR feature comparison thread but didn't want to hijack his emphasis.  OTOH this post is prompted by my recently having been engaged in a similar argument to his!
Logged

PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 667



« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2014, 03:42:22 AM »
ReplyReply

  I think you're saying that selective blur in PS is easier? more effective? more flexible?  than a blur brush mask in LR?

Tim

Much more flexible, Tim. (But that may be my ignorance - I don't know a way of getting true radial blur or true motion blur in Lightroom with the controls on direction, etc that are available in CS6.

You mention SEP2. I almost always use that direct from within Lightroom. But, conversely, I tend to use ColorEfexPro4 in Photoshop. That way, the CEP4 opens as a new layer. If, as I often do, I tend to go slightly over the top in CEP4, I can then reduce the opacity of that layer to provide a more subtle rendition. I can also use the full range of blend modes in applying that layer which opens all sorts of possibilities.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2014, 04:02:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm often told, and read on other forums, that Photoshop is for Grown-ups and LR is for, well, people like me.  I generally disregard those comments.
I think it is wise to disregard such comments.
Quote
However, I know that many dedicated LR users on this forum say they do 90+% of their work in LR and then export to PS to do the work they can't do in LR, or the work they can do better in PS.
I mainly export to do HDR, to a lesser degree stitching. I don't use Photoshop, though.

-h
Logged
LawrenceBraunstein
Jr. Member
**
Online Online

Posts: 54


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2014, 06:27:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I prefer to do as much of my work in Lightroom as possible. PS (CS6) is only opened when I need to, and generally towards the end of my workflow. Photoshop’s ‘content aware’ technology which is incorporated in several tools is so much better - and more versatile - than anything LR offers. HDR is another reason. Now that LR supports 32-bit files, I generally merge my HDR shots in PS and re-import the 32-bit image back into LR for further processing. Also, as some have already mentioned, I prefer to have my plugins installed in PS so the work I do in them is kept in a separate layer. Though Adobe sees LR and PS as complimentary applications, truth is with each new version of LR I am spending less and less time seeking other (or better...) solutions in PS. I wonder how far this trend can go?

Best to you all,

Larry
Logged

D Fosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 389



« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2014, 06:52:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Stitching used to be a big deal for me, just to get enough resolution, until I got the D800. Now it's rarely needed.

As for content-aware fill, I make it my business to not need it as a matter of policy. That sounds like an arrogant luxury statement, but what I mean is that I try to do whatever it takes to get it right in-camera. I believe the end result always benefits from the extra time and effort. I feel like a lousy photographer every time I reach for CAF, like I didn't do the job properly. So the less the better, and preferably not at all.

So the Photoshop domain is steadily shrinking.
Logged
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2014, 09:57:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom is excellent at dealing with large numbers of images in a short time (relatively).  However Photoshop is essential for most photographers for a relatively few operations.  Some photographers will need  Photoshop for every picture - some none.  The variety of users is such that they will always co-exist.

For me its 99% Lightroom - Photoshop for moving heads!

Jim
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8015


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2014, 10:51:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

There are better programs for both stitching and HDR than Photoshop. For stitching I prefer Autopano Pro, but using Photoshop is convenient. Regarding HDR I do exposure blending in Photoshop and tone mapping in LR. I feel that the blending function in PS is pretty good, better (or rather less worse) than  other tools I have tested. Tone mapping in LR is first class, far beyond PS.

;-) Regarding content aware fill, it is far safer than either chainsaw or dynamite ;-)

I will probably drop Photoshop and start looking at GIMP or Photoline 32.

Best regards
Erik


I mainly export to do HDR, to a lesser degree stitching. I don't use Photoshop, though.

-h
« Last Edit: February 19, 2014, 10:53:09 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

D Fosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 389



« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2014, 11:10:01 AM »
ReplyReply

;-) Regarding content aware fill, it is far safer than either chainsaw or dynamite ;-)

 Grin

So that's what they mean by non-destructive editing. No dynamite...

 Grin
Logged
Mac Mahon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2014, 02:32:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been with LR since ver 1, and consider myself reasonably good, if not expert, with it.  Between LR and a couple of plugins I've not been unhappy with the prints I've made.  (I could wish that my source images are better, but we can't all be Ansel Adams, can we?)

I've never missed Photoshop.  But the old saying that you never miss what you didn't know you could have had, applies.  

Thanks to everyone who contributed something here I now have a feel for the kinds of p-p work that folk go to PS for.  One of the prospects that has arisen from your suggestions is the possibility of using layers when making SEP adjustments so that one could potentially go back and re-adjust a change to, say one control point, without having to re-export from RAW and try to recreate all the SEP adjustments.

I guess I'll never know how much use I may make of PS, unless I try.  Will probably jump into the subscription thing for a year and see whether I too come to find bits of it sufficiently indispensable for the last 5% to make the additional investment justifiable.

Thanks again.  LuLa is our friend!

Tim
« Last Edit: February 19, 2014, 04:23:09 PM by Mac Mahon » Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2014, 01:05:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Regarding HDR I do exposure blending in Photoshop and tone mapping in LR. I feel that the blending function in PS is pretty good, better (or rather less worse) than  other tools I have tested. Tone mapping in LR is first class, far beyond PS.

Erik: For $29 you can do your exposure blending in LR and skip PS for that altogether: http://hdrsoft.com/download/merge_lrplugin.html

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 667



« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2014, 03:41:53 AM »
ReplyReply



I guess I'll never know how much use I may make of PS, unless I try.  Will probably jump into the subscription thing for a year and see whether I too come to find bits of it sufficiently indispensable for the last 5% to make the additional investment justifiable.

Thanks again.  LuLa is our friend!

Tim


Rather than try PS on subscription for a year, Tim, I would suggest getting a legit copy of CS5 or CS6 on eBay (or even the latest version of Elements, which is not expensive) - that way you will still have the program at the end of your year. You may well decide that PS is useful occasionally, but not worth enough to justify a continuing subscription and, with the CC model, you would be left with nothing.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
davidedric
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2014, 06:07:44 AM »
ReplyReply

FWIW there is now a plug-in available ElementsXXL at www.thepluginsite.com which opens up the use of layers in PS Elements as a vehicle for passing images to SEP and other Nik plug-ins, in other words the same facility that has been available in PS/CS,  but at the lower cost of PSE
Logged
brianrybolt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 226


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2014, 08:21:11 AM »
ReplyReply

FWIW there is now a plug-in available ElementsXXL at www.thepluginsite.com which opens up the use of layers in PS Elements as a vehicle for passing images to SEP and other Nik plug-ins, in other words the same facility that has been available in PS/CS,  but at the lower cost of PSE

"Only on Window machines"
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad