N
NOTNIKON!
Guest
Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.
NOTNIKON! said:Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.
Maui5150 said:NOTNIKON! said:Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.
Depends what you are doing.
I use both. I use lightroom to work with general exposure and adjustments, especially when doing global changes like applying color management across all photos shot (see ColorChecker Passport)
I will then use photoshop to do my editing, especially when working with fashion or beauty shots, tools like clone, patch, etc can do wonders with skin blemishes, etc. that are far easier in photoshop than lightroom, and I find lightroom much more capable at doing things like lens correction, dealing with shadows, blacks, highlights, etc.
This, for me, too.neuroanatomist said:LR for light image editing and library management. Photoshop for serious image editing.
Ouch... is this a fact? It's not something I've considered, but at present I use smart objects quite often with Photoshop/ACR.unfocused said:One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom.
unfocused said:Mine is definitely a minority opinion, but as a non-professional who only has to manage his personal photo files, I say stick to Photoshop.
I bought Lightroom, tried it a few times, just couldn't get excited about it. (Okay, maybe I need to give it another shot, but I didn't find it all that useful for me).
My point: I can do everything in Adobe Camera Raw that I can do in Lightroom. They are the exact same tools, just different interface. I'm used to the ACR interface after several years of using it, so I'm comfortable with it. I do a lot of work with smart objects. Going back and forth between Photoshop and Camera Raw. (As an aside, I believe smart objects are absolutely the best way to dodge, burn and adjust image areas.)
One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom. Instead, you end up back in ACR. So, since at least half the work is going to be done in Camera Raw anyway, what's the point of processing some in Lightroom and some in Camera Raw? None that I have found.
For file organization, I've used Bridge for so long that I'm pretty comfortable with it. Not as sophisticated as Lightroom, but it works fine for me.
NOTNIKON! said:Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.
Z said:Ouch... is this a fact? It's not something I've considered, but at present I use smart objects quite often with Photoshop/ACR.unfocused said:One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom.
LR has quite a few extra options than ACR in CS4. CS4 narrowed the gap though compared to CS3, so CS5 may have narrowed it further. The one thing that swayed me towards LR2 (which I since upgraded to LR3) was the CA correction, it was the only system that worked most of the time to remove the worst of it out of everything I tested.pdirestajr said:unfocused said:Mine is definitely a minority opinion, but as a non-professional who only has to manage his personal photo files, I say stick to Photoshop.
I bought Lightroom, tried it a few times, just couldn't get excited about it. (Okay, maybe I need to give it another shot, but I didn't find it all that useful for me).
My point: I can do everything in Adobe Camera Raw that I can do in Lightroom. They are the exact same tools, just different interface. I'm used to the ACR interface after several years of using it, so I'm comfortable with it. I do a lot of work with smart objects. Going back and forth between Photoshop and Camera Raw. (As an aside, I believe smart objects are absolutely the best way to dodge, burn and adjust image areas.)
One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom. Instead, you end up back in ACR. So, since at least half the work is going to be done in Camera Raw anyway, what's the point of processing some in Lightroom and some in Camera Raw? None that I have found.
For file organization, I've used Bridge for so long that I'm pretty comfortable with it. Not as sophisticated as Lightroom, but it works fine for me.
My workflow is exactly the same. ACR + PS CS5. I see so many people talking about Lightroom that I wonder if I am missing out on something. Is there any editing benefits to using LR over ACR? I have used ACR for years and have my own file management system that I don't know what benefits LR offer.