Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Suazo, Oct 22, 2007.
in for answer as well
From what i understand, Lightroom is non-destructive in its editing, whereas Photoshop always applies everything directly to the photograph. I think the idea is that you can fuck up in lightroom as much as you want and it wont hurt the photo, so you get everything as perfect in LR as possible, only using PS when its absolutely necessary.
LR is designed more for high-volume photo processing while still keeping some of the more intensive image tweaks. PS is non-destructive so long as you do everything in layers, but it does indeed fail at tweaking multiple images.
I still use DPP. I just wish it had image rotate and a vibrance slider.
The only thing I use lightroom for is colour correction. Everything else I still do in photoshop.
Lightroom = Bridge
Photoshop would be where you go after LR or Bridge.
Typically, your fine art or fashion photographer will spend much more time 'working' on an image to make it aesthetically perfect, where as a professional or journalism photographer will do much less work to an image, either in the interest of time, or photographic integrity.
For the latter, working in LR/Bridge may be sufficient. However, for the fine artist, photoshop allows for a MUCH more precise editing of the image, ranging from simple things such as removing unwanted distractions in an image, to selectively highlighting particular parts of the image, to controlling how light and color flow through the image.
Here's a good, but quick, set of 'best practices' to use when editing from a RAW file (for fine art photographers):
1: open image in Bridge/LR - edit image to be slightly flat, but with correct color balance and decent color saturation (no shadows or highlights should be clipped - all data should be usable.)
2: save raw settings to raw file (usually done automatically.)
3: open image in photoshop in 16bit, prophoto. during correction process, ensure ALL changes are made to layers OTHER than the background. label each layer based on the changes it makes. Create a layer for each different change -(I.E. black point and white points should be in seperate layers.) Mainly you're doing color/contrast/saturation/cleanup in these layers.
4: When you're happy with the image, save it as a master file. Leave it full sized, unsharpened and fully layered. Since you're happy with the way this looks, and you have all of the layers and it's full sized, you can always refer back to this as your 'perfect canvas'.
5: resize image, sharpen image, convert to required color space, and save as required file type - WITH A NEW NAME!!! Do NOT save over your 'master'.
The reason behind this, is that you can refer back to your master file for several different purposes. If you want to print something, you resize, sharpen and save for print purposes. If you want to put something on the internets, you sharpen, resize and convert to sRGB. Typically, the size, sharpening and color space for your printer and the internet are completely different, so now, with your 'master' file already in place, it takes you 2 seconds to prepare the file for different purposes. and if you realise you f'ed up the image, you can go back to the master and fix the layer that isn't right, instead of starting over...
Make sense? Questions? Comments?
I find LR useful for a first run through.
Cataloging, tagging, sorting, rating, tossing out bad ones.
Then a quick check of exposure, wb, straightening and before/after comparisons.
It's good at handling high volume.
its a digital asset management, so it manages your library
its amazing at editing multiple images at once
edit RAW or jpeg (or other formats) with out any destruction
unlimited history pallete
adjust your curves, split toning, etc faster and save a preset or sync with other photos
selectively target colors, tones etc for adjutment much easier
better printing module
decent web module
oh ok thanks for the replies, so most of you guys prefer LR?
its not really a one or the other, they work together. Though the majoirty of my time is in LR, just special retouches and finishes like sharpening are in PS. PS is also a graphic design tool so I use it more for that sort than purely editing photos
I use both...
I'm much better in PS
I prefer PS. I never got the hang of the work flow in LR.
Same here. Im still pretty new at LR, ive seen quite a few versions of photoshop in my time though.
Capture One Pro> *
Lightroom > *
nuuuu uhhhh, no you didn't.
I'm sure it's pretty cool. I like Capture one Pro 'cause I can go through hundreds of RAW files and have them edited and ready to go in a couple hours max.
but then again, I'm sure you can do the same with LR. It's just how good you get at your work flow.
you can do that and a whole lot more