Processing confusion

R

richardjp

Messages
1
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Help - I,m confused.
I use Photoshop CS5. All my proficient friends now swear by Lightroom, and rarely use PS, so I installed it (5.7). I find it hard going - partly the grey lettering on a black background I find difficult to read - but I am trying hard. Recently told about the advantages of the now free Google filter collection. Again installed, but was asked where - PS/Bridge/LR? - I don't know!!!!
Could an expert advise me or point to a suitable site, where I could learn the best flow for managing and processing pictures.
At present I feel that the techniques are developing faster than my little grey cells can keep up with!
Thanks
 
There is a ton old tutorials on YouTube, I learnt most of what I know from there. I'm now working through some more in depth and structured courses on Lynda.com.
As for it looking hard to see the writing, you can change the colour of your workspace in the preferences.
 
richardjp said:
Help - I,m confused.
I use Photoshop CS5. All my proficient friends now swear by Lightroom, and rarely use PS, so I installed it (5.7). I find it hard going
Click to expand...

Well the truth is whilst you can learn lightroom, it is simply a catalogue and a raw converter. If you are happy with your cataloging solutions in folders on your hard drive, and happy with ACR or your cameras RAW converter and can do everything you need in PS why bother learning LR?

PS can do loads more than LR from an editing point of view, so if you are looking to replace PS with LR then, other than the cataloging etc you are taking a backward step IMO.
 
The preceding is an oversimplification of the differences between the two systems.
Lightroom was originally designed to provide an ideal workflow for photographers processing and managing large numbers of digital images. Lightroom is different from Photoshop in that it does not actually edit photos, nor does it move your images around to different locations on your computer. The original image is therefore preserved and you can re-edit it as many times as you wish.
Photoshop, on the other hand, operates quite differently. When you edit a picture such as a JPG, PNG, or RAW file in Photoshop you are always working on the original file itself, unless you save a copy as a Photoshop PSD file that is usually several dozen megabytes in size. This PSD file contains all the changes made to a photo, and in order to share a given image it must then be saved to a final format such as JPG, PNG, etc. If you want to perform nondestructive edits in Photoshop you will end up with three separate files: the original camera RAW file, a PSD, and the final copy saved into a shareable format from the PSD.
In Lightroom all your changes for every photo are saved in one single, small, catalog file. In Photoshop all your changes are saved in unique files for every single picture you edit. This means much more space on your hard drive will be taken up as you work with multiple files in Photoshop, and you will end up with multiple versions of each image as well. So in terms of computer memory space, why would you want choose to use Photoshop instead of Lightroom?
Photoshop is a very powerful editing tool aimed at the professional graphics studios. Lightroom is the system used by 90% of professional photographers who want an organised and relatively fast method of processing their images.
There is nothing to compare in Photoshop or most elsewhere to the data base management systems in Lightroom. Lightroom has now reached the level where for all practical purposes, its editing capability makes the use of Photoshop unnecessary.
 
Using many plugins and presets available for LR, as well as creating my own presets, I now find seldom need to use PS. To say LR is little more than a cataloguing and raw converter program IMHO comes from someone who knows very little of its capabilities.
 
BrynBoru said:
The preceding is an oversimplification of the differences between the two systems.
Lightroom has now reached the level where for all practical purposes, its editing capability makes the use of Photoshop unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Yes it absolutely was an oversimplification. My post was from my phone, so brief and to the point, and designed to help our confused OP. The OP currently uses PS and is quite happy, his mates use LR and tell him it's better. The best solution is to spend the time to learn both platforms thoroughly and make his own mind up. But really, if he is happy with the way he is doing things then LR as an editing tool will reduce his options, not increase them. Regarding memory, it is cheap these days so there are plenty of reasons why I would use PS over standalone LR. For the OP a good reason might be because PS is what he knows and is happy with so the memory is a small price to pay. He may only shoot JPEG for all we know!

Sorry, but LR has not reached the level where its editing capability makes the use of PS unnecessary. Rather than arguing about it though, like I always say with these issues it is better to use the software that you enjoy using. One that achieves what you need it to and fits like a glove is the best one for you. I appreciate your points about LR's non destructive process, also advantageous because adjustments are not burnt in until you export. However, PS using adjustment layers and folders with good masking for selective editing achieves all this in a way I find far more intuitive with more control, but it is what I know.

haggis said:
Using many plugins and presets available for LR, as well as creating my own presets, I now find seldom need to use PS. To say LR is little more than a cataloguing and raw converter program IMHO comes from someone who knows very little of its capabilities.
Click to expand...

I have used LR as a standalone software for years. I have used DPP/ACR and PS as a standalone option for even more than that prior to it. Now I use LR for all my importing, cataloging and RAW conversion then use PS for all my blending and post processing. I know a heck of a lot about it's capabilities, I also know where for me it is not as good as PS and where I enjoy using PS more.

My comment, again was designed to help the OP who was confused. I stand by it though that LR is primarily a catalogue and PS is a pixel editor. Both can be used by photographers but I don't get why the OP should learn LR when other than cataloging it does nothing better than PS which he already knows. If he enjoys editing and playing around on a computer he wouldn't be asking here he would already have watched the tutorials and learnt it. He obviously enjoys getting out and taking pictures more so I see no need why he should learn LR when he already knows PS which is the superior editing program.
 
haggis said:
Using many plugins and presets available for LR, as well as creating my own presets, I now find seldom need to use PS. To say LR is little more than a cataloguing and raw converter program IMHO comes from someone who knows very little of its capabilities.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the integrated modern User Interface of Lightroom, compared to the dreadful, unfriendly, chaotic and cluttered UI of Photoshop
 
Craig_85 said:
Sorry, but LR has not reached the level where its editing capability makes the use of PS unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Your arguments are advanced very convincingly, but deliberately misquoting me by conveniently dropping out the phrase "for all practical purposes" from my post in your reply is unworthy of your case. LR does not make the use of PS unnecessary, but it sure reduces the need "for all practical purposes" for most photographers who don't need to manipulate the pixels to get a good image.
As for memory, it is not cheap for those who have hundreds of thousands of images with a minimum of dual hard drive backup requirements, if they also have to cope with the gargantuan memory requirements of PS compared to LR.
However I appreciate your views, as they have raised the discussion to a level which the OP should find helpful.
 
Craig_85 said:
Yes it absolutely was an oversimplification. My post was from my phone, so brief and to the point, and designed to help our confused OP. The OP currently uses PS and is quite happy, his mates use LR and tell him it's better. The best solution is to spend the time to learn both platforms thoroughly and make his own mind up. But really, if he is happy with the way he is doing things then LR as an editing tool will reduce his options, not increase them. Regarding memory, it is cheap these days so there are plenty of reasons why I would use PS over standalone LR. For the OP a good reason might be because PS is what he knows and is happy with so the memory is a small price to pay. He may only shoot JPEG for all we know!

Sorry, but LR has not reached the level where its editing capability makes the use of PS unnecessary. Rather than arguing about it though, like I always say with these issues it is better to use the software that you enjoy using. One that achieves what you need it to and fits like a glove is the best one for you. I appreciate your points about LR's non destructive process, also advantageous because adjustments are not burnt in until you export. However, PS using adjustment layers and folders with good masking for selective editing achieves all this in a way I find far more intuitive with more control, but it is what I know.



I have used LR as a standalone software for years. I have used DPP/ACR and PS as a standalone option for even more than that prior to it. Now I use LR for all my importing, cataloging and RAW conversion then use PS for all my blending and post processing. I know a heck of a lot about it's capabilities, I also know where for me it is not as good as PS and where I enjoy using PS more.

My comment, again was designed to help the OP who was confused. I stand by it though that LR is primarily a catalogue and PS is a pixel editor. Both can be used by photographers but I don't get why the OP should learn LR when other than cataloging it does nothing better than PS which he already knows. If he enjoys editing and playing around on a computer he wouldn't be asking here he would already have watched the tutorials and learnt it. He obviously enjoys getting out and taking pictures more so I see no need why he should learn LR when he already knows PS which is the superior editing program.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you might like to ask Adobe why they created LR as a tool primarily for photographers whereas PS was originally a graphic design tool. A very talented photographer friend has a disparaging view of photographers who resort to extensive use of PS in their editing, claiming they should spend more time getting it right in camera. Each to their own by your comments do smack a little of "I'm right" arrogance IMHO
 
BrynBoru said:
Your arguments are advanced very convincingly, but deliberately misquoting me by conveniently dropping out the phrase "for all practical purposes" from my post in your reply is unworthy of your case.
Click to expand...

I did include it in the original forum quote that I included in my reply...

BrynBoru said:
LR does not make the use of PS unnecessary, but it sure reduces the need "for all practical purposes" for most photographers who don't need to manipulate the pixels to get a good image.
Click to expand...

Ah, this is what it boils down to. Good photographers can make do with LR, bad ones need PS to polish turds. What about in the film days, was it a case that good photographers got their film developed at boots opticians and bad ones like Ansel Adams took it into the darkroom themselves to carry out more advanced processing?

haggis said:
Perhaps you might like to ask Adobe why they created LR as a tool primarily for photographers whereas PS was originally a graphic design tool. A very talented photographer friend has a disparaging view of photographers who resort to extensive use of PS in their editing, claiming they should spend more time getting it right in camera. Each to their own by your comments do smack a little of "I'm right" arrogance IMHO
Click to expand...

My comments so far have not been about which software is better, LR or PS. They have been about what is right for our OP.

richardjp said:
I find it hard going - partly the grey lettering on a black background I find difficult to read - but I am trying hard.
Click to expand...
Brian G said:
Not to mention the integrated modern User Interface of Lightroom, compared to the dreadful, unfriendly, chaotic and cluttered UI of Photoshop
Click to expand...

For example, in LR there is nothing you can do to change the colour of the font in the UI. In PS you can change the interface and font colour. Therefore it is a better program for him in that regard.

Adobe created LR because they knew it would sell, it is a good program I use it and like it. I'm not arguing with you as much as it may seem. For 90% of people it will be spot on. But like I said earlier 90% of people probably took their film for someone else to develop. The 10% that enjoyed the technical challenge of the darkroom, along with the additional possibilities it allowed, are probably the 10% that enjoy PS.

My point earlier was;

Craig_85 said:
The best solution is to spend the time to learn both platforms thoroughly and make his own mind up.

Rather than arguing about it though, like I always say with these issues it is better to use the software that you enjoy using. One that achieves what you need it to and fits like a glove is the best one for you.
Click to expand...

I don't see how this smacks of arrogance. The vast majority of us (me included) do not produce fantastic results. We might tell ourselves what we do is results driven, but really in the big scheme of things the results are relatively poor. It can still be satisfying to create an image you are happy with, but we do this for fun and as a hobby primarily. So use the software you enjoy using in the same way you use the camera system/platform you like, and shoot the genres you enjoy. The reason I have advocated PS for the OP is because he can already use it and does not seem overly interested in learning LR. If he is interested in learning it there is every chance he will be very happy with it.

I agree with your friend that a good photo is about light, composition, atmosphere, storytelling, and connection. Get these right and it matters little what camera it was taken on and how it was processed so long as it is not of obvious poor quality.

An interesting point I will make, to support your argument not mine, is I have a picture that I have sold as a mounted print at least a dozen times. It was processed in LR, and every time I sold it I was a little embarrassed. The colours were off and it was not quite right. I have re processed it beautifully in PS. Colours are now bang one, selectively edited just right, loads of texture and contrast where there should be. Got it re printed and looked at it side by side, photographer friends all agreed the older LR edit was a bit cartoon like compared to the more realistic detailed re edit. Guess what? Not sold it since :D:D:D
 
Craig_85 said:
What about in the film days, was it a case that good photographers got their film developed at boots opticians and bad ones like Ansel Adams took it into the darkroom themselves to carry out more advanced processing?
Click to expand...
Well of course nowadays being such a good photographer for tone mapping all he would need is Lightroom! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top