Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why Leave Lightroom  (Read 4968 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8894



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2014, 09:17:02 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.
You should. It is a completely silly statement that shows real ignorance on the people who make such statements and do not understand the differences in the processing and workflow. Photoshop is a one image at a time pixel editor. LR is a parametric (instruction based) editor that produces pixels from those edits and some source data (usually raw). Built to affect dozens if not hundreds of images at a time.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2772



« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2014, 10:55:32 AM »
ReplyReply

You should. It is a completely silly statement that shows real ignorance on the people who make such statements and do not understand the differences in the processing and workflow. Photoshop is a one image at a time pixel editor. LR is a parametric (instruction based) editor that produces pixels from those edits and some source data (usually raw). Built to affect dozens if not hundreds of images at a time.

I agree, but most of the parametric editing available in LR is available in PS via ACR. LR has much better asset management, which is a great asset for pros who have many thousands of images to keep track of. Printing in LR is much easier, particularly when changing formats. Michael and his buddy Jeff Schewe are both avid users of LR and are hardly amateurs. As Michael quotes our British colleagues, horses for courses...

Bill
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8894



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2014, 11:40:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree, but most of the parametric editing available in LR is available in PS via ACR.
That's a plug-in. Remove it and let's see how well Photoshop handles those kinds of edits or that kind of (raw) data.
The people who suggest Photoshop is for grown up's and LR isn't, are by and large talking about Photoshop proper. There are some 'guru's' who suggest one zero out all settings in ACR, bring that into Photoshop and fix the ugly mess they ended up with, because again, ACR is a toy and Photoshop is for real men. Silly.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7321


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2014, 11:51:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Real men use Photoshop, smart gals use whatever is appropriate for the task at hand.

Best regards
Erik


That's a plug-in. Remove it and let's see how well Photoshop handles those kinds of edits or that kind of (raw) data.
The people who suggest Photoshop is for grown up's and LR isn't, are by and large talking about Photoshop proper. There are some 'guru's' who suggest one zero out all settings in ACR, bring that into Photoshop and fix the ugly mess they ended up with, because again, ACR is a toy and Photoshop is for real men. Silly.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8894



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2014, 11:56:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Real men use Photoshop,
And they are obviously compensating!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Sharon Van Lieu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 377


Nantucket Landscape and Architectural Photographer


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2014, 12:54:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I go to photoshop for dust spot removal. I much prefer Photoshop for that. Some perception control is easier in photoshop. Text. And printing. I know everyone says LR is much better for printing but I haven't got there yet. I prefer to go to photoshop to print.
Logged

Chris Kern
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2014, 01:06:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I go to photoshop for dust spot removal. I much prefer Photoshop for that. Some perception [perspective?] control is easier in photoshop. Text. And printing. I know everyone says LR is much better for printing but I haven't got there yet. I prefer to go to photoshop to print.

Content-aware fill.  I would guess I do 90 percent of my post-processing exclusively in Lightroom these days and make 90 percent of my round-trips to Photoshop for content-aware fill.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8894



WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2014, 01:08:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Content-aware fill.  I would guess I do 90 percent of my post-processing exclusively in Lightroom these days and make 90 percent of my round-trips to Photoshop for content-aware fill.
Ditto, that's an awesome time saving feature and technology.
I have tried doing 'retouch' work (lots of cloning of skin and such) in LR. It's not impossible but not really ideal, slows the show down, not super precise unlike a true pixel editor like Photoshop.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2014, 04:16:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom is my playground, PS is the clean up room.

Pixel level operations are all the domain in Photoshop, but the look is done on raws in LR. I can spend 1 hr on a raw in LR with pleasure, and only after I've squeezed it until it's perfectly juicy does it hit PS for a quick clean up. Always the same stuff in PS, systematic and clinical, nothing creative.

IF the brush tools where in LR and the same healing brush, I doubt that I would need Photoshop.
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1104


« Reply #29 on: February 25, 2014, 11:35:40 AM »
ReplyReply

PS for the Transform Grid tweaking to hand tweak alignment of images, sometimes to fit the frame.
PS for spot removal, as LR keeps it as instruction and can slow things down.
PS for "knocking out"/masking.


I like Neil's explanation of how the creative is in LR and the technical in PS.
I agree, although softimes I end up giving some color intensity in PS.
The pixel level adjustment is something I really need. I also like the HPass filter.

Also the fact that they are differnt, as Andrew and others point out, Pixel vs Instruction. You can "feel" this while working.
PS for detailed DodgeBurnSat (not too often).
Most all images are in LR first, and get worked on first, then Off to PS for some final pixel level touches. You can say 80-95% of the image is done in LR.

I also like how the response is in PS. If I make adjustments, they are accurate and instant.
LR feels heavy. This is likely my catalog size or disk access? (my hardware is OK).


« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 11:39:41 AM by Phil Indeblanc » Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #30 on: February 25, 2014, 12:04:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom is my playground, PS is the clean up room.

Never has so much been said, in so few words !

I think it's also worth noting that there are a number of programs that now bring layer functionality to Lr (via 'external editing'), but this means (as in Ps) leaving the parametric stage and entering the pixel editing world. At least it allows one to use 3rd party plug-ins such as Topaz, NIK, Alien Skin, Imagenomic etc without any loss of functionality.

No matter which way you turn it, though, for true high-end retouching Photoshop still rules the roost.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3941



« Reply #31 on: February 25, 2014, 02:38:01 PM »
ReplyReply

PS for spot removal, as LR keeps it as instruction and can slow things down.

You could always export as tiff and reimport.

Jeremy
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1104


« Reply #32 on: February 25, 2014, 07:18:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You could always export as tiff and reimport.

True. But then you have to delete the spots from the raw. If you don't want the bloat.
I also find selecting my own source is better than letting LR guess. Although it often does a acceptable job.
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2742



WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2014, 11:01:50 AM »
ReplyReply

True. But then you have to delete the spots from the raw. If you don't want the bloat.
I also find selecting my own source is better than letting LR guess. Although it often does a acceptable job.

In LR you can choose your source. Activate the dust spotting tool, hold down Cmd (Ctrl on Windows), click the spot and you'll see you can now point to the source.

If you need to do so much dust spotting thet LR slow, you probably need to clean your sensor.

John
Logged

Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1104


« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2014, 12:17:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes JohnBardy,

Thanks for mentioning for those that might think it is not possible. I'm aware of LR being able to select the source. I still prefer the PS pixel level spot removal when in specific situation needs.
I often find the LR tool to do a decent job for average situations of dust/spot removal.

Yes! if and when you have a sensor with lots of spots, it is surely needing a cleaning.
One must consider some outdoor situations and circumstances that you may find yourself, sensor cleaning is not as possible of an option.


Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2742



WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2014, 01:34:34 PM »
ReplyReply

No, Phil, if you're cleaning so many spots that it slows down Lightroom, it's a sure sign your sensor is desperate for a clean. You'd have to be changing lenses in a dust storm and get really, really unlucky.
Logged

HSakols
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 375


« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2014, 05:38:42 PM »
ReplyReply

For many images I find I have more control using curves in photoshop (is this just me?) and I like to work in layers.  I also think selective color is a fine tool for photographers.  A number of my images have benefited from using blending modes to lighten or darken an image.  Still I'm doing more and more in LR now that I'm getting more comfortable with the workflow. 
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1104


« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2014, 09:42:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Uhhh, Yes John, exactly! When shooting sports in storms and mud which is not a normal situation, this is not easily avoidable. And to get the time/shot with one body, you just swap the lens as need be.... Specially circumstances that you didn't intend to swap lenses when out open to the elements. I've been on choppy waters with off-shore racing boats and situations just happen.
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1104


« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2014, 09:46:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I also think selective color is a fine tool for photographers.

Yes, this I often use, as I think it is straight forward and effective in PS. Things that are "pixel aware", with the Fuzziness adjuster, in PS makes sense to use it.
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Shalimar Beekman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2014, 03:25:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Whether you use LR or Photoshop totally depends on the particular photo editing task you're trying to accomplish. In my photography studio, I use both on a regular basis and each one has it's own pros/cons.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad