Nothing Is Unbelievable Anymore.
News1 min ago
Adobe Lr & Ps!
13 Answers
Would it be a 'fair' comparison to say that,"Lightroom is the beautician, whilst Photoshop is the surgeon"?
I'm trying to explain the differences to a fellow ,new, member of my camera club, who doesn't know whether he should try and embrace the technology of either,seeing as how those two programs seem to be the most popular,or try another venue!
Price is of course a factor .
Advice please
Cheers
I'm trying to explain the differences to a fellow ,new, member of my camera club, who doesn't know whether he should try and embrace the technology of either,seeing as how those two programs seem to be the most popular,or try another venue!
Price is of course a factor .
Advice please
Cheers
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Photoshop is as complex (or as easy) as you want to make it. Though I hate Adobe as a company, Photoshop is the best image editing software on the market.
22:09 Fri 16th Mar 2018
I don't know about those two comparisons but I would say that Lightroom (especially the more recent versions) is more than powerful enough for most users. A fellow commuter works for an advertising agency in their photography section and uses Lightroom almost exclusively when preparing for publication. He does use Photoshop but only when combining multiple images/layering/replacing etc.
Personally, I routinely use Photoshop.
I have CC 2018, but have not even downloaded Lightroom.
I think it's a bit more than you say.
Light room is a photo management tool, as well as having a sub-set of photoshop's editing facilties.
Also, changes in Photoshop are pretty much permanent, whereas the Lightroom keeps the original when you edit it and automatically sales the changes on top of the original, so that you can easily undo.
In short, Lightroom is a bit safer and a bit less of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, of you only want to do light editing, and don't need to get down to each individual pixel.
See here:
http://
I have CC 2018, but have not even downloaded Lightroom.
I think it's a bit more than you say.
Light room is a photo management tool, as well as having a sub-set of photoshop's editing facilties.
Also, changes in Photoshop are pretty much permanent, whereas the Lightroom keeps the original when you edit it and automatically sales the changes on top of the original, so that you can easily undo.
In short, Lightroom is a bit safer and a bit less of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, of you only want to do light editing, and don't need to get down to each individual pixel.
See here:
http://
Hi Snags
Of course you can do a Save as...
But still, the changes on any given file are pretty much permanent. While working, you can step back, but that data is not saved when the file is saved.
IN lLightroom thre's no need ot Save As...
A small point, but can be important - I know plenty of people who don't do a Save As... Even in MS Word, or Excel....
Of course you can do a Save as...
But still, the changes on any given file are pretty much permanent. While working, you can step back, but that data is not saved when the file is saved.
IN lLightroom thre's no need ot Save As...
A small point, but can be important - I know plenty of people who don't do a Save As... Even in MS Word, or Excel....
I think while Snags & Kidas kick the ball about I shall advise him to try Canon Digital Photo Professional 4.8.20, after all it's free & made for his type of camera,but I believe the 'learning curve' is rather steep?
I'm aware that Photoshop will do(almost) anything, from editing a single magnified pixel to creating a masterpiece in mesmerising 3D,but that's slightly too advanced for now!
Ta!
I'm aware that Photoshop will do(almost) anything, from editing a single magnified pixel to creating a masterpiece in mesmerising 3D,but that's slightly too advanced for now!
Ta!
Hi Gromit,
I don't know who owns Adobe; but I remember a few years ago when everybody was castigating poor old Bill and swearing that they were not going down that road- Microsoft is OK,Windows Ten is OK,even Adobe is OK,provided they allow you to configure each program,etc. to your own liking. Oh! and by the way Gromit,what is the purpose of the 'shake reduction' in the Filters , is that a medical cure?
I don't know who owns Adobe; but I remember a few years ago when everybody was castigating poor old Bill and swearing that they were not going down that road- Microsoft is OK,Windows Ten is OK,even Adobe is OK,provided they allow you to configure each program,etc. to your own liking. Oh! and by the way Gromit,what is the purpose of the 'shake reduction' in the Filters , is that a medical cure?
I have been using Photoshop (CS6) for years and for me, digital photography and PS go hand in hand. I have only used Lightroom for processing JPEGS to make timelapse films, so can't comment very solidly on that other than to echo what Gromit said about it being more about catalogueing stored photos, though I do know some photographers that use it heavily for editing too.
Re your question about JPEG and raw:
JPEGs are great if you can 'get it right' in the camera, use up MUCH less memory and will generally fire off quicker in burst mode, also if you get into photomerging multiple images or 'timelapse' JPEGS will make the process faster.
I shoot raw 90% of the time because it's an uncompressed file format that contains a lot of data that allows one to 'recover' parts of images lost to under/over exposure. Shooting in raw will also let you completely sort out white balance in post production.
My routine when I've popped the card out is this:
Browse the raw files in Bridge/Tweak them in CameraRaw/Open in PS for finishing dodging/burning/cropping etc. almost like a production line, this system works very well for me and I enjoy it very much.
I carry a small Macbook Air with me when I go out photographising and wind up the day in a quiet pub where I will process stuff from the card over a couple of pints :-)
That is one cracking camera you have by the way, 100% professional quality, is it the one that has no anti-aliasing filter?
ps. Did you manage to get your button configuration sorted?
I found back button focussing to be very liberating, I do this all the time now, on my SLR anyway.
Re your question about JPEG and raw:
JPEGs are great if you can 'get it right' in the camera, use up MUCH less memory and will generally fire off quicker in burst mode, also if you get into photomerging multiple images or 'timelapse' JPEGS will make the process faster.
I shoot raw 90% of the time because it's an uncompressed file format that contains a lot of data that allows one to 'recover' parts of images lost to under/over exposure. Shooting in raw will also let you completely sort out white balance in post production.
My routine when I've popped the card out is this:
Browse the raw files in Bridge/Tweak them in CameraRaw/Open in PS for finishing dodging/burning/cropping etc. almost like a production line, this system works very well for me and I enjoy it very much.
I carry a small Macbook Air with me when I go out photographising and wind up the day in a quiet pub where I will process stuff from the card over a couple of pints :-)
That is one cracking camera you have by the way, 100% professional quality, is it the one that has no anti-aliasing filter?
ps. Did you manage to get your button configuration sorted?
I found back button focussing to be very liberating, I do this all the time now, on my SLR anyway.
1 to 13 of 13
