Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
I'm not getting hung up on it Im purely defending my point that I don't consider lightroom to be an editing package that I could use non destructively.
Is Lightroom worth using over Photoshop & Bridge
- Thread starter TheBigCheese
- Start date
I'm not getting hung up on it Im purely defending my point that I don't consider lightroom to be an editing package that I could use non destructively.
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 3,781
Wow this thread has provoked some really interesting debate, thanks to all of you involved, it's fascinating reading!
I think my wants/needs of Lightroom are probably quite basic compared to what it's probably capable of...
First and foremost I want an organisational tool and an easy way of converting RAWs to TIFFs, I think anything other than that I would use Photoshop for...having said that I'm not versed with all of the functions of Lightroom as yet so I have a book winging it's way to me tonight and a trial of Lightroom should give me a good idea what I'm looking at and whether it's right for me.
The other thing I have found interesting in this thread is talk of workflow, I don't shoot anywhere near enough high quality work (yet!
) to have a tried and tested workflow for my photography, but some of you clearly do.
Do you consider your workflow (including processing) of images, such as how to get great black and whites common knowledge that you would share or do you consider it business 'tricks of the trade'?
This isn't the thread for that but it might be interesting to have a thread dedicated to processing techniques for those that are interested.
I think my wants/needs of Lightroom are probably quite basic compared to what it's probably capable of...
First and foremost I want an organisational tool and an easy way of converting RAWs to TIFFs, I think anything other than that I would use Photoshop for...having said that I'm not versed with all of the functions of Lightroom as yet so I have a book winging it's way to me tonight and a trial of Lightroom should give me a good idea what I'm looking at and whether it's right for me.
The other thing I have found interesting in this thread is talk of workflow, I don't shoot anywhere near enough high quality work (yet!
) to have a tried and tested workflow for my photography, but some of you clearly do.Do you consider your workflow (including processing) of images, such as how to get great black and whites common knowledge that you would share or do you consider it business 'tricks of the trade'?
This isn't the thread for that but it might be interesting to have a thread dedicated to processing techniques for those that are interested.
I think that this thread shows that "workflow" means different things to different people. Have a look at Johnny's desktop. I'm guessing:
30 layers, mostly with masks.
A professional model
A client paying top dollar for an image for an advert
And that this is what he does every day.
I'd guess that he is spending something between an hour and a day working on one image. Photoshop is absolutely the right tool for him.
Compare that to a sports photographer, where the job is to rip through hundreds of shots, pick the best, apply some minor fixing to angles, levels, add a caption and get them off to the picture desk before the guy sitting next to you. This is a job for Lightroom. Indeed most of the reasons you might drop into Photoshop are forbidden in press photography.
And Johnny's view on "destructive" and "non-destructive" is interesting. Whilst photoshop is destructive on the image edited, the process is non-destructive. The whole "layers" process enables the user to bring effects in and out with ease. On the other hand, while lightroom doesn't touch your original file, the process tends to be linear. You pile adjustment after adjustment onto the image in sequence. Sure, you can undo specific adjustments but there is nothing like the flexibility of layers in photoshop. If I mess up an edit in lightroom, I tend to hit reset and start again. that's reasonable for an edit that has taken a couple of minutes but wouldn't be acceptable in Johnny's world where he has been working on an image for a few hours.
Andrew
I think what Johhny is trying to say is you can often live without Lightroom if you have Photoshop and Bridge, but seldom the other way around. His point about not being able to substitute Photoshop is also a very good (and valid) one. Anything, and I do mean anything, of any visual note that's been printed or displayed anywhere in the world right now (magazines, billboards, web advertisments, anything with someone's money involved) would almost certainly have been through Photoshop at some stage of it's life. If you make digital images, it's a bit daft NOT having a copy of Photoshop.
I'm also struggling to think of an area of industry other than event photography where Photoshop isn't used to finalize or just generally retouch the file either. If you're whittling down hundreds or thousands of images to a few marketable ones, you're likely using PS to finish them. The only time I can think not (though granted I don't know about every area, I'm happy to accept examples!) would be where you have a very high volume of imagery in, and a very high volume of imagery out. Which even in the case of say, fashion lookbooks, all that is still finalized in PS. I know of photographers who only use LR when shooting a test, but as soon as any of their images is being used for something it's usually straight off to the retouch house, and they'll almost certainly still have a copy of PS 'just in case'.
The reason I'm not keen on the Aperture comparison shown above is this. All they've done with that file is basic clean-up, and a b&w conversion. Relatively simple procedures, obviously do-able in Aperture, LR or PS. Now say I wan't to do something a little more advanced, liquify some features, shift some hair around - Oh look, I'm back in Photoshop. Why didn't I just start there from the beginning and have my entire file progress in one nice organised layer stack? Means if the client ever wants something changing I'm not having to remember which program changed which element for one. It's just neater keeping it all in PS.
I use Lightroom as my sort of Bridge now but with a few more features. I've still not used it on a job as a tethering program as every one is too used to Capture 1 (and it supports everything unlike LR) but it seems to have nice enough functionality for it. That said, I could still always drop it from my life and get on without it. With regards to what to process where, beyond the basic RAW conversion (and unless you're dealing with hundreds of images from the same event) I say stick to PS for everything. In for a penny in for a pound, IMHO
In the micostock industry, which is a large percentage of the overall industry, Lightroom is the default software, as a photographer you don't have time and shouldn't spend significant time editing each photo due to chances of rejections and often low returns per image. It is about quantity. The aim is to get the photo right in the camera, use high quality glass etc, and do minimal exposure/WB/contrast/sharpening/crop and straight out to a jpeg, key-worded and online. Now graphics designs will usually use Photshop with their microstock images, but a great many of MS sales goes straight into magazines and web sites. I know because a lot of my sales I have tracked down and found as is.
Similar for most editoral work, lightroom used to select the best, do basic exposure/crop/WB type work, and then upload or send to the newspapers. No time to be using photoshop and its not needed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
absolutely nailed it.
going back to the hours of work spent on an image its actually a case of several mins. What I have spent hours doing is constructing an automation action sequence that builds me layers based on portraiture, landscape and product etc. I may of spent hours initially building a workflow like this but now I have perfected it its now a matter of mins for adjustments dependant on how much is needed and how precise.
I could absolutely whoop the stopwatch in photoshop compared to lightroom for an end result no question.
Man of Honour
Certainly I don't have a problem discussing generally, my workflow is almost entirely about selecting and rating images, then I quickly fake up edits of everything that's a possible, possibly present a few options to the client to see what they like and what they're looking for (depends on my relationship with the client if this happens), then do the final editing in Aperture or Photoshop. I only go to Photoshop if I need it's features (masking is what takes me there most often) or if I'm not quite happy with what Aperture is giving me and I want more control.
I have a few specific workflows mentally stored for high contrast b&w and the like but in general everything gets my house style (strong colours, high contrast, moderate vignette) and work from there until I'm happy.
It's not terribly efficient as it goes and is actually what I need to focus on now, I'm doing enough commercial work to make it financially worthwhile but the time I'm spending processing those shoots is debilitating currently.
Soldato
Lightroom looks the biz to me. I guess people do get hung up on a name such as Photoshop!
Even Adobe it seems, as it's technically called Adobe Photoshop Lightroom
Regarding workflow, as I spend most of my time retouching other peoples images it's more isolated to Photoshop. Though for any personal work I produce it usually follows the same rules. Shoot, asses (usually done at the shooting stage first in C1), balance, process, retouch.
Really though one of the biggest barriers isn't knowing how to do something, it's knowing where and why. Looking at an image before you've even started and saying "Right, that needs fixing, that doesn't". That's too far, that's too little. That's something you'll always be learning and often at the mercy of the client anyway (Either an individual client or the general public - Whoever is likely to decide if it's worth anything). But it's a skill often overlooked and generally more important than the how.
OT: Johnny I hope in that Skin soften layer you're not blurring anything!
Associate
Very interesting!
I use a combo box of Photoshop, Irfanview and XNView.
Rarely if ever use RAW files as the images I get are tailored in cam using custom settings and generally hit the nail on the head for what Im looking for.
Diffrent strokes and all that
I use a combo box of Photoshop, Irfanview and XNView.
Rarely if ever use RAW files as the images I get are tailored in cam using custom settings and generally hit the nail on the head for what Im looking for.
Diffrent strokes and all that
I am only just starting out in digital SLR photography, but have been using GiMP and UFRaw as there is no way on earth I can afford Photoshop, and consider £200 too much at the moment for Lightroom.
I guess I really need to get to grips with layers, which I haven't yet, in order to make this work properly. I convert pretty much everything to Black and White so am currently exploring all the different ways to do that. GiMP is a massive tool and very daunting. I think that's one of the attractions of Lightroom and similar software, because it does the developing style stuff easily and quickly.
I guess I really need to get to grips with layers, which I haven't yet, in order to make this work properly. I convert pretty much everything to Black and White so am currently exploring all the different ways to do that. GiMP is a massive tool and very daunting. I think that's one of the attractions of Lightroom and similar software, because it does the developing style stuff easily and quickly.