IceBone
Blue Wheel Hipster
Anything you can do in lightroom you can basically do to film in a darkroom (apart from spot removal, of course). Photoshop takes manipulation to another level.
Requests!!
- Thread starter Shadowness
- Start date
Cold Fussion
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,444
- Car(s)
- 1988 Ford Laser Ghia
Just because i have a glock 17 doesn't mean i go around shooting people in the streets with it.
BerserkerCatSplat
Hormone Induced
I can't be bothered to use Lightroom, I do most PP in Camera Raw, but if I'm doing serious retouching then there's no substitute for Photoshop.
I'm also going to point out that saying "retouching = hack" is incredibly stupid. Ansel Adams used masking when retouching his film shots, does that make him a hack as well? All that matters is the final image. Overprocessing hurts the final image, proper retouching improves it beyond what the camera can create. I normally have a vision of what shot I want to create, and many times that's just not possible with the controls available to me with a camera. Adjusting microcontrast cannot be done in-camera, why should that limit me from making what I consider to be the best image possible?
I'm also going to point out that saying "retouching = hack" is incredibly stupid. Ansel Adams used masking when retouching his film shots, does that make him a hack as well? All that matters is the final image. Overprocessing hurts the final image, proper retouching improves it beyond what the camera can create. I normally have a vision of what shot I want to create, and many times that's just not possible with the controls available to me with a camera. Adjusting microcontrast cannot be done in-camera, why should that limit me from making what I consider to be the best image possible?
BerserkerCatSplat
Hormone Induced
Regardless of smileys, saying that retouching is bad because "you get it right in the camera" is laughable at best and usually said by people who don't know how to retouch well.
Most of the time, you can get it 95% right in-camera, but sometimes the situation or the goal demands more.
Most of the time, you can get it 95% right in-camera, but sometimes the situation or the goal demands more.
Did i say that? Because i sure as hell don't remember typing anything like that. The remark was meant more as a tongue-in-cheek-remark that most pictures don't require heavy editing or retouching, thus IMHO making photoshop hugely overkill when compared to lightroom. I'm sorry i hurt anyones oversensitive feelings.
BerserkerCatSplat
Hormone Induced
Sorry Adu, but I've seen that same "I don't do much editing, I get it right in-camera" comment made by way too many people not to see it for what it is.
IceBone
Blue Wheel Hipster
Hey, i've been using lightroom for yonks now and photoshop for 9 yonks, so don't lecture me about it. All i'm saying is that i don't just go point and shoot, i compose my shots, i wait for the right moment, i get the exposure/aperture settings the way i want them, so i have to do as little in lightroom as possible. That doesn't mean I don't do any PP. Just ask Alok, i'm quite meticulous about my (and bitchy about his) PP. 
Cold Fussion
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,444
- Car(s)
- 1988 Ford Laser Ghia
If you have been using photoshop for years then you wont gain anything out of lightroom. To see if you like lightroom then open up a raw photo in photoshop and only use the camera raw settings to adjust your photo.
Hey, i've been using lightroom for yonks now and photoshop for 9 yonks, so don't lecture me about it. All i'm saying is that i don't just go point and shoot, i compose my shots, i wait for the right moment, i get the exposure/aperture settings the way i want them, so i have to do as little in lightroom as possible. That doesn't mean I don't do any PP. Just ask Alok, i'm quite meticulous about my (and bitchy about his) PP.
So the ones you don't get right out of the camera you throw away?
Wrong. Lightroom can do more than that. If you decide to hate on something, at least do it for the right reasons. If you know jack shit about something, keep your mouth shut, so you don't sound like an utter tool.
Cold Fussion
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,444
- Car(s)
- 1988 Ford Laser Ghia
What other post processing tools does it have other then the camera raw stuff and the few correction tools? Maybe you should prove me wrong rather say im wrong and calling me a tool? Why do you have a wish for this debate to turn to verbal abuse?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2003
- Messages
- 31,044
- Location
- Portland, Oregon
- Car(s)
- 2008 Dodge Viper, 2006 MB CLS55 AMG
IceBone
Blue Wheel Hipster
It doesn't have any other post processing tools, but it does make using them a lot easier than photoshop. It's a program dedicated to editing and PP-ing a LOT of images using the ACR tools, Photoshop doesn't do it nearly as well. Once you're done with it, you have to close it and there's no way to bring back the catalogue you had open, unless you re-open the images again and re-do all the PP you did. Stop comparing photoshop and lightroom, they're two programs designed for two completely different things. Yes, you can do PP on photos in photoshop, but you can also drive the Nordschleife blindfolded. But why would you?
Dr_Q
Well-Known Member
I don't see why there is such an argument for completely different tools. I see Lightroom as an organizational tool not so much a post processing tool (although of course you could if you wanted to). It was designed to work along with not compete against PhotoShop. Then again I have almost certainly missed out most of the points in this topic. Hey ho .
*EDIT*
Getting back on topic a nice topic about the ins and outs of flash would be pretty awesome. Nothing too detailed I just need to get my head around the basics and hopefully work out the rest for myself.
.*EDIT*
Getting back on topic a nice topic about the ins and outs of flash would be pretty awesome. Nothing too detailed I just need to get my head around the basics and hopefully work out the rest for myself.
Last edited:
Cold Fussion
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,444
- Car(s)
- 1988 Ford Laser Ghia
Or you cave the psd file? Saying photoshop isn't useful for pp is preposterous because it can do every form of digital image processing. What did people do for pp last year when there was no light room? Photoshop is faster because you can do batch editing. I can put put 5000 images in a folder and drag the folder onto a .exe file and have it run through an action of 200 commands. Extremely useful if you only want to apply some sharpening and a contrast boost.
Camera flash or adobe flash?
BerserkerCatSplat
Hormone Induced
LOL WUT
Quick, you'd better tell all those professionals that the software they've been using for the past decade is bad and that they have to switch. :lol:
Okay, i admit i was wrong, but due to the crappy interface of Camera raw, something most Adobe suites suffer from IMO, i found only half of them. And yes, for the amount of PP i like to do on 99.99999% of my photographs it is enough. Couple that with a work laptop that is a bit tight on RAM (only 1 gig, will be doubled tomorrow, still too little), my hate for it's (lack of) user interface, and you understand why i avoid using it if i can.
And for the record, saying someone sounds like an utter tool is sth entirely different than saying someone *IS* an utter tool.
Last edited:
Zuhaib
Well-Known Member
Umm.. Yeah, I can see i started a full fun thread just by asking tips on lightroom. I was just looking for maybe a site or a write up that talks about some basic things you can do with your photos as post processing and maybe explain what half the things in Lightroom do and why I should even use them (or not).
I might be a total newbie to messing with photography, I dont see the debate everyone is making Photoshop vs Lightroom when for one thing they seem to be made to complement each other. The way I view it when I made the move to Lightroom was that it was a replacement to the Adobe Bridge + Photoshop method of handling photos. That is what i used on my PC before and when I switched to Mac I got hooked by iPhoto and its easy in storing photos. And since I did nothing to my photos afterward I did not need the power of photoshop.
Lightroom to me is a bit of a step up from iPhoto but seems to be right below Photoshop. Also you can still edit your photo with Photoshop in Lightroom as I have found out so stop the stupid debating and ANSWER MY QUESTION =) .
I might be a total newbie to messing with photography, I dont see the debate everyone is making Photoshop vs Lightroom when for one thing they seem to be made to complement each other. The way I view it when I made the move to Lightroom was that it was a replacement to the Adobe Bridge + Photoshop method of handling photos. That is what i used on my PC before and when I switched to Mac I got hooked by iPhoto and its easy in storing photos. And since I did nothing to my photos afterward I did not need the power of photoshop.
Lightroom to me is a bit of a step up from iPhoto but seems to be right below Photoshop. Also you can still edit your photo with Photoshop in Lightroom as I have found out so stop the stupid debating and ANSWER MY QUESTION =) .
Top Geek
Forum Addict
*makes some popcorn and sits back*