Curves: Lightroom vs. Photoshop
just bob
metadata templates and scripting, to name a few biggies. And I've always
felt CS did everything Lightroom did until I happen to come across this
article and the excerpt below, saying "In Lightroom, unlike Photoshop,
Curves is nearly foolproof". I admit I've struggled to put Curves to good
use.
"In Lightroom, unlike Photoshop, Curves is nearly foolproof. Just grab that
little donut in the upper left corner, and mouse over an area of your image.
Tap the down arrow to darken that tone, up to brighten. The Curves will
follow."
Full article:
http://www.popphoto.com/Features/How-And-Why-You-Should-Use-Adobe-Lightroom
Lightroom should suit my style a lot more: import files, review/select/sort,
export, is all I do in my Sports and PJ work. But I don't like the "flow" in
LR, besides the metadata and scripting shortcomings. The whole idea of
"Modules" and you can't do that in this module just puts a cramp in my
style. Bridge and CS4 just work for me much better, but in the back of my
mind I keep thinking LR is where I should be working.
Just waiting for something special to sway me to LR....
John Passaneau
photo manipulation second. If you are someone who takes a lot photo and
doesn't do a lot of manipulation of them, then Lightroom is the best for
you.
John Passaneau
just bob
"John Passaneau" <jx...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:4A3924DC...@psu.edu...
> CS4 has that also. Lightroom is intended as a cataloging system first,
> photo manipulation second. If you are someone who takes a lot photo and
> doesn't do a lot of manipulation of them, then Lightroom is the best for
> you.
Agreed. Just cannot do the metadata and filtering and scripting in LR. And
the module thing annoys the heck out of me. Also I love ACR in Bridge,
though most hate it. Been working in with it since CS2. CS3 Bridge and ACR
were horrible but it's all come right again with CS4.
John Passaneau
stink. But someday someone will need to help me see why I have any need
to even look at metadata. I haven't felt the need yet. I don't shoot
large numbers of photos at one time so scripting is not something I use
often also.
John Passsaneau
botox
conditions that require minimal and identical processing Lightroom I could
never understand why one would use Lightroom.
That is not a large group of users.
I believe Lightroom exists to compete with Aperture as in and of itself it
is a very limited program. Aperture is not much different.
I do not know of any worthwhile function in Lightroom that a knowledgeable
user cannot perform in Bridge/ACR, granting that Bridge still contains a few
structural bugs.
Lightroom exists because Adobe still caters to Mac users although they are
an ever shrinking group of imaging professionals.
There are too many Mac users out there who are abysmally ignorant about how
platform neutral imaging software really is and how imaging software is
somewhat crippled on the current Mac OS due to the OS itself as well as
software and driver developers simply ignoring the Mac platform and its 3%
market share. The most glaring example of the mess that is the Mac OS is
that even Adobe, which is staffed by orthodox Mac fanboys, could not develop
a 64 bit version of CS4 because the development tools do not exist. The
Adobe dodge was to tell Mac CS4 users they can print a 16 bit image
directly, and if you do not understand what nonsense that is you are
probably using a Mac.
Anyway, apart from having to learn some arbitrarily different names for the
same thing, I have never noted any advantage in using PS on a Mac or a
Microsoft platform (except that Microsoft hardware is much cheaper and an
order of magnitude faster because you can get what you want instead of what
Apple sells).
Snowleopard, or whatever Apple is labeling the next service pack sold as new
OS (see Win7 for a similar example), primarily exists to take the Mac OS
into the 64 bit world but it is already many years behind Microsoft in this
regard.
Yes, just as it trailed Microsoft in memory management the Mac OS is years
behind Microsoft in 64 bit development. People who pay twice or more what
their hardware is worth do not want to know the truth about their OS of
choice: in many ways it is structurally inferior to the abomination that is
Vista.
The point of the anti-Mac screed is that Lightroom is mostly a sop to the
Mac base and is the kind of crippleware that is the essence of the Mac OS
and hardware. Simplicity/minimalism too often disguises inferiority. Sizzle
sans steak.
Does anyone use a Mac outside of the U.S. in numbers larger than you can
count on one hand? Does any other civilized country rely on private health
insurers?
Mike Russell
...
> style. Bridge and CS4 just work for me much better, but in the back of my
> mind I keep thinking LR is where I should be working.
Curves, as it exists now in LR, is not a reason to switch. There is no
access to individual channels in LR, which limits their usefulness
tremendously. This could change in the future.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
Misifus
> I own both LR v2 and CS4 but have many reason why CS4 works better for me,
> metadata templates and scripting, to name a few biggies. And I've always
> felt CS did everything Lightroom did until I happen to come across this
> article and the excerpt below, saying "In Lightroom, unlike Photoshop,
> Curves is nearly foolproof". I admit I've struggled to put Curves to good
> use.
>
I've not used LR since the beta version and I use CS3, rather than 4,
but I find curves quite useful in a number of ways, both in RGB and in
LAB modes.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com