Since following the advice of several members of this forum I now use LR a lot and getting more & more used to it but still use PS for 'one off' photo edits where I don't want the image in my catalogue, ie if I edit an image for someone or need to edit an image that will not be needed the next day. I find it easier than importing, developing, viewing & then deleting (unless LR can do that as a 'one off'?).
Playing about with HDR & Panoramas I have noticed that LR does seem to make a better job than LR and with LR doing some of the work in the background allowing you to start something else quicker than PS does. Anyone else noticed this?
I did a pano yesterday, LR got it spot on but PS messed up a join/blend and it was very noticeable. A HDR from LR was quite a bit better than that of the PS HDR. Anyone noticed that?
Playing about with HDR & Panoramas I have noticed that LR does seem to make a better job than LR and with LR doing some of the work in the background allowing you to start something else quicker than PS does. Anyone else noticed this?
I did a pano yesterday, LR got it spot on but PS messed up a join/blend and it was very noticeable. A HDR from LR was quite a bit better than that of the PS HDR. Anyone noticed that?