Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Mac Mahon on February 18, 2014, 01:48:22 pm
-
All
I'm often told, and read on other forums, that Photoshop is for Grown-ups and LR is for, well, people like me. I generally disregard those comments.
However, I know that many dedicated LR users on this forum say they do 90+% of their work in LR and then export to PS to do the work they can't do in LR, or the work they can do better in PS.
Would people who are dedicated LR users mind telling me what it is they find it essential to go to PS for? (I understand the need for layers for compositing. I'm thinking more in terms of straight photographic post-processing)
Thanks
Tim
PS I was going to post this in DavidEdric's LR ACR feature comparison thread but didn't want to hijack his emphasis. OTOH this post is prompted by my recently having been engaged in a similar argument to his!
-
Hi Tim,
I am one of those to whom you refer.
As it happened, I was a late convert from film to digital and the launch of the first version of Lightroom coincided with my purchase of a Nikon D80. At that time, it seemed hugely more intuitive than any of the Photoshop varieties or clones to someone steeped in old-style darkroom processing.
I now use it as the hub of all my post-exposure processing. All my Raw files are imported using LR, all my cataloguing, etc is done in it and it is my Raw converter.
Initially I did, indeed, do 90% of my processing wholly in LR. That percentage has gradually dropped as I have become more familiar with processing digital files. I still do everything from within Lightroom and I always take processed images back into LR for finishing and printing (or export as Jpegs if that is what I require for a magazine of competition).
The "plug-ins" that I use from within Lightroom are Photoshop CS6, the Nik suite of products and, more occasionally, some of the Topaz products.
I use layers a lot now in CS6 - not only for compositing but also for a wide range of processing that cannot be done in Lightroom. A lot of that could be done on a single layer in PS but I tend to use duplicate layers so that I get the huge advantage of employing different blend modes and levels of opacity. The tools I use most in PS tend to be the various clone and fill tools, selective blur tools, transform and warp, etc. I tend not to use Photoshop for the things that Lightroom already handles supremely well such as exposure/highlights/shadows, clarity and vibrance, sharpening and noise reduction and the application of my camera and lens profiles.
-
in PS ... I tend to use duplicate layers so that I get the huge advantage of employing different blend modes and levels of opacity. The tools I use most in PS tend to be the various clone and fill tools, selective blur tools, transform and warp, etc.
Thanks for that.
I also export out to NIK SEP2 very frequently but it's the PS 'must have' connection that I'm trying to get my head around. I have seen the content aware fill, and cloning work, and concede that it's quicker (certainly) than trying to achieve any similar result in LR. I think you're saying that selective blur in PS is easier? more effective? more flexible? than a blur brush mask in LR?
Tim
-
The 90:10 ratio fits me well. The goal is 100:0, but so far that hasn't been possible.
The reason I still need Photoshop is for final, critical color tweaking. PS still has better and more precise tools for this. One example is Photoshop's Selective Color, which has no Lightroom equivalent, and is superior for small color adjustments along the hue axis. You can do it with the Lr HSL sliders, but they tend to break up image integrity by introducing sharp transitions, banding and other artifacts. I never touch Lightroom's Hue sliders for this reason.
Combine this with a luminosity mask (or an occasional "manual" mask), and you have a level of control not achievable in Lightroom. But the day Lightroom can offer something similar, I may well abandon PS altogether.
As for grown-ups vs. kids - take a look in the Adobe Lr and Ps forums. You'll quickly see that the pros use Lightroom, while the Photoshop forum is dominated by, well...the other kind. A few pre-press people still drop by though, for them Lightroom is obviously of no interest. But from a photography point of view, Lightroom is much more streamlined for professional use.
-
I love Lightroom. Does that me make not a grown-up? :) I did resist for years, using Photo Mechanic, Camera Raw, and Photoshop, but finally drank the Kool-Aid (or took the red pill) a couple of years ago.
I still use Photoshop for pixel-level edits that I can't do easily or at all in LR. Mostly this is portrait retouching, but I do some compositing and dropping out of backgrounds and the like for publications sometimes, too. (Art director: "Please take out the trash can from this landscape." Me: "Okay.")
I'm sure I open less than 10% of my final images in Photoshop. Maybe less than 5%.
-
All
I'm often told, and read on other forums, that Photoshop is for Grown-ups and LR is for, well, people like me. I generally disregard those comments.
However, I know that many dedicated LR users on this forum say they do 90+% of their work in LR and then export to PS to do the work they can't do in LR, or the work they can do better in PS.
Would people who are dedicated LR users mind telling me what it is they find it essential to go to PS for? (I understand the need for layers for compositing. I'm thinking more in terms of straight photographic post-processing)
Thanks
Tim
PS I was going to post this in DavidEdric's LR ACR feature comparison thread but didn't want to hijack his emphasis. OTOH this post is prompted by my recently having been engaged in a similar argument to his!
Drop Jeff Schewe's name in to the conversation.
A world-renowned expert in Photoshop prefers to use Lightroom a lot of the time.
In concert with most of us he uses when Photoshop when required.
Not many Photoshop fanboys will get very far accusing Jeff of being an boy/adolescent in the context of the debate.
There are several threads on various forums debating this issue currently.
Lightroom was never mean't to be a direct competitor for Photoshop - they are complementary applications.
Tony Jay
-
Different photographers have different styles and require different level of control. LR provides best practices for many basic operations like sharpening, color management, resampling for print and others. I found that it is enough for my photography work. Perhaps I could sometimes get 5% better results with PS, but I have only limited time to spend on my hobbies and I can use it elsewhere. I still keep a copy of PS, mostly for self-education, but I am considering dropping off the subscription.
-
Hi,
I essentially use PS for:
- Background aware fill, in cases the healing brush doesn't work.
- Quick and dirty panos
- HDR (based on multiple images)
- Some plugin based work
- Experimental work
But there is an incredible amount of stuff LR can do well
Best regards
Erik
All
I'm often told, and read on other forums, that Photoshop is for Grown-ups and LR is for, well, people like me. I generally disregard those comments.
However, I know that many dedicated LR users on this forum say they do 90+% of their work in LR and then export to PS to do the work they can't do in LR, or the work they can do better in PS.
Would people who are dedicated LR users mind telling me what it is they find it essential to go to PS for? (I understand the need for layers for compositing. I'm thinking more in terms of straight photographic post-processing)
Thanks
Tim
PS I was going to post this in DavidEdric's LR ACR feature comparison thread but didn't want to hijack his emphasis. OTOH this post is prompted by my recently having been engaged in a similar argument to his!
-
I think you're saying that selective blur in PS is easier? more effective? more flexible? than a blur brush mask in LR?
Tim
Much more flexible, Tim. (But that may be my ignorance - I don't know a way of getting true radial blur or true motion blur in Lightroom with the controls on direction, etc that are available in CS6.
You mention SEP2. I almost always use that direct from within Lightroom. But, conversely, I tend to use ColorEfexPro4 in Photoshop. That way, the CEP4 opens as a new layer. If, as I often do, I tend to go slightly over the top in CEP4, I can then reduce the opacity of that layer to provide a more subtle rendition. I can also use the full range of blend modes in applying that layer which opens all sorts of possibilities.
-
I'm often told, and read on other forums, that Photoshop is for Grown-ups and LR is for, well, people like me. I generally disregard those comments.
I think it is wise to disregard such comments.
However, I know that many dedicated LR users on this forum say they do 90+% of their work in LR and then export to PS to do the work they can't do in LR, or the work they can do better in PS.
I mainly export to do HDR, to a lesser degree stitching. I don't use Photoshop, though.
-h
-
I prefer to do as much of my work in Lightroom as possible. PS (CS6) is only opened when I need to, and generally towards the end of my workflow. Photoshop’s ‘content aware’ technology which is incorporated in several tools is so much better - and more versatile - than anything LR offers. HDR is another reason. Now that LR supports 32-bit files, I generally merge my HDR shots in PS and re-import the 32-bit image back into LR for further processing. Also, as some have already mentioned, I prefer to have my plugins installed in PS so the work I do in them is kept in a separate layer. Though Adobe sees LR and PS as complimentary applications, truth is with each new version of LR I am spending less and less time seeking other (or better...) solutions in PS. I wonder how far this trend can go?
Best to you all,
Larry
-
Stitching used to be a big deal for me, just to get enough resolution, until I got the D800. Now it's rarely needed.
As for content-aware fill, I make it my business to not need it as a matter of policy. That sounds like an arrogant luxury statement, but what I mean is that I try to do whatever it takes to get it right in-camera. I believe the end result always benefits from the extra time and effort. I feel like a lousy photographer every time I reach for CAF, like I didn't do the job properly. So the less the better, and preferably not at all.
So the Photoshop domain is steadily shrinking.
-
Lightroom is excellent at dealing with large numbers of images in a short time (relatively). However Photoshop is essential for most photographers for a relatively few operations. Some photographers will need Photoshop for every picture - some none. The variety of users is such that they will always co-exist.
For me its 99% Lightroom - Photoshop for moving heads!
Jim
-
Hi,
There are better programs for both stitching and HDR than Photoshop. For stitching I prefer Autopano Pro, but using Photoshop is convenient. Regarding HDR I do exposure blending in Photoshop and tone mapping in LR. I feel that the blending function in PS is pretty good, better (or rather less worse) than other tools I have tested. Tone mapping in LR is first class, far beyond PS.
;-) Regarding content aware fill, it is far safer than either chainsaw or dynamite ;-)
I will probably drop Photoshop and start looking at GIMP or Photoline 32.
Best regards
Erik
I mainly export to do HDR, to a lesser degree stitching. I don't use Photoshop, though.
-h
-
;-) Regarding content aware fill, it is far safer than either chainsaw or dynamite ;-)
;D
So that's what they mean by non-destructive editing. No dynamite...
;D
-
I've been with LR since ver 1, and consider myself reasonably good, if not expert, with it. Between LR and a couple of plugins I've not been unhappy with the prints I've made. (I could wish that my source images are better, but we can't all be Ansel Adams, can we?)
I've never missed Photoshop. But the old saying that you never miss what you didn't know you could have had, applies.
Thanks to everyone who contributed something here I now have a feel for the kinds of p-p work that folk go to PS for. One of the prospects that has arisen from your suggestions is the possibility of using layers when making SEP adjustments so that one could potentially go back and re-adjust a change to, say one control point, without having to re-export from RAW and try to recreate all the SEP adjustments.
I guess I'll never know how much use I may make of PS, unless I try. Will probably jump into the subscription thing for a year and see whether I too come to find bits of it sufficiently indispensable for the last 5% to make the additional investment justifiable.
Thanks again. LuLa is our friend!
Tim
-
Regarding HDR I do exposure blending in Photoshop and tone mapping in LR. I feel that the blending function in PS is pretty good, better (or rather less worse) than other tools I have tested. Tone mapping in LR is first class, far beyond PS.
Erik: For $29 you can do your exposure blending in LR and skip PS for that altogether: http://hdrsoft.com/download/merge_lrplugin.html
Mike.
-
I guess I'll never know how much use I may make of PS, unless I try. Will probably jump into the subscription thing for a year and see whether I too come to find bits of it sufficiently indispensable for the last 5% to make the additional investment justifiable.
Thanks again. LuLa is our friend!
Tim
Rather than try PS on subscription for a year, Tim, I would suggest getting a legit copy of CS5 or CS6 on eBay (or even the latest version of Elements, which is not expensive) - that way you will still have the program at the end of your year. You may well decide that PS is useful occasionally, but not worth enough to justify a continuing subscription and, with the CC model, you would be left with nothing.
-
FWIW there is now a plug-in available ElementsXXL at www.thepluginsite.com which opens up the use of layers in PS Elements as a vehicle for passing images to SEP and other Nik plug-ins, in other words the same facility that has been available in PS/CS, but at the lower cost of PSE
-
FWIW there is now a plug-in available ElementsXXL at www.thepluginsite.com which opens up the use of layers in PS Elements as a vehicle for passing images to SEP and other Nik plug-ins, in other words the same facility that has been available in PS/CS, but at the lower cost of PSE
"Only on Window machines"
-
I'm often told, and read on other forums, that Photoshop is for Grown-ups and LR is for, well, people like me. I generally disregard those comments.
You should. It is a completely silly statement that shows real ignorance on the people who make such statements and do not understand the differences in the processing and workflow. Photoshop is a one image at a time pixel editor. LR is a parametric (instruction based) editor that produces pixels from those edits and some source data (usually raw). Built to affect dozens if not hundreds of images at a time.
-
You should. It is a completely silly statement that shows real ignorance on the people who make such statements and do not understand the differences in the processing and workflow. Photoshop is a one image at a time pixel editor. LR is a parametric (instruction based) editor that produces pixels from those edits and some source data (usually raw). Built to affect dozens if not hundreds of images at a time.
I agree, but most of the parametric editing available in LR is available in PS via ACR. LR has much better asset management, which is a great asset for pros who have many thousands of images to keep track of. Printing in LR is much easier, particularly when changing formats. Michael and his buddy Jeff Schewe are both avid users of LR and are hardly amateurs. As Michael quotes our British colleagues, horses for courses...
Bill
-
I agree, but most of the parametric editing available in LR is available in PS via ACR.
That's a plug-in. Remove it and let's see how well Photoshop handles those kinds of edits or that kind of (raw) data.
The people who suggest Photoshop is for grown up's and LR isn't, are by and large talking about Photoshop proper. There are some 'guru's' who suggest one zero out all settings in ACR, bring that into Photoshop and fix the ugly mess they ended up with, because again, ACR is a toy and Photoshop is for real men. Silly.
-
Hi,
Real men use Photoshop, smart gals use whatever is appropriate for the task at hand.
Best regards
Erik
That's a plug-in. Remove it and let's see how well Photoshop handles those kinds of edits or that kind of (raw) data.
The people who suggest Photoshop is for grown up's and LR isn't, are by and large talking about Photoshop proper. There are some 'guru's' who suggest one zero out all settings in ACR, bring that into Photoshop and fix the ugly mess they ended up with, because again, ACR is a toy and Photoshop is for real men. Silly.
-
Real men use Photoshop,
And they are obviously compensating!
-
I go to photoshop for dust spot removal. I much prefer Photoshop for that. Some perception [perspective?] control is easier in photoshop. Text. And printing. I know everyone says LR is much better for printing but I haven't got there yet. I prefer to go to photoshop to print.
Content-aware fill. I would guess I do 90 percent of my post-processing exclusively in Lightroom these days and make 90 percent of my round-trips to Photoshop for content-aware fill.
-
Content-aware fill. I would guess I do 90 percent of my post-processing exclusively in Lightroom these days and make 90 percent of my round-trips to Photoshop for content-aware fill.
Ditto, that's an awesome time saving feature and technology.
I have tried doing 'retouch' work (lots of cloning of skin and such) in LR. It's not impossible but not really ideal, slows the show down, not super precise unlike a true pixel editor like Photoshop.
-
Lightroom is my playground, PS is the clean up room.
Pixel level operations are all the domain in Photoshop, but the look is done on raws in LR. I can spend 1 hr on a raw in LR with pleasure, and only after I've squeezed it until it's perfectly juicy does it hit PS for a quick clean up. Always the same stuff in PS, systematic and clinical, nothing creative.
IF the brush tools where in LR and the same healing brush, I doubt that I would need Photoshop.
-
PS for the Transform Grid tweaking to hand tweak alignment of images, sometimes to fit the frame.
PS for spot removal, as LR keeps it as instruction and can slow things down.
PS for "knocking out"/masking.
I like Neil's explanation of how the creative is in LR and the technical in PS.
I agree, although softimes I end up giving some color intensity in PS.
The pixel level adjustment is something I really need. I also like the HPass filter.
Also the fact that they are differnt, as Andrew and others point out, Pixel vs Instruction. You can "feel" this while working.
PS for detailed DodgeBurnSat (not too often).
Most all images are in LR first, and get worked on first, then Off to PS for some final pixel level touches. You can say 80-95% of the image is done in LR.
I also like how the response is in PS. If I make adjustments, they are accurate and instant.
LR feels heavy. This is likely my catalog size or disk access? (my hardware is OK).
-
Lightroom is my playground, PS is the clean up room.
Never has so much been said, in so few words !
I think it's also worth noting that there are a number of programs that now bring layer functionality to Lr (via 'external editing'), but this means (as in Ps) leaving the parametric stage and entering the pixel editing world. At least it allows one to use 3rd party plug-ins such as Topaz, NIK, Alien Skin, Imagenomic etc without any loss of functionality.
No matter which way you turn it, though, for true high-end retouching Photoshop still rules the roost.
-
PS for spot removal, as LR keeps it as instruction and can slow things down.
You could always export as tiff and reimport.
Jeremy
-
You could always export as tiff and reimport.
True. But then you have to delete the spots from the raw. If you don't want the bloat.
I also find selecting my own source is better than letting LR guess. Although it often does a acceptable job.
-
True. But then you have to delete the spots from the raw. If you don't want the bloat.
I also find selecting my own source is better than letting LR guess. Although it often does a acceptable job.
In LR you can choose your source. Activate the dust spotting tool, hold down Cmd (Ctrl on Windows), click the spot and you'll see you can now point to the source.
If you need to do so much dust spotting thet LR slow, you probably need to clean your sensor.
John
-
Yes JohnBardy,
Thanks for mentioning for those that might think it is not possible. I'm aware of LR being able to select the source. I still prefer the PS pixel level spot removal when in specific situation needs.
I often find the LR tool to do a decent job for average situations of dust/spot removal.
Yes! if and when you have a sensor with lots of spots, it is surely needing a cleaning.
One must consider some outdoor situations and circumstances that you may find yourself, sensor cleaning is not as possible of an option.
-
No, Phil, if you're cleaning so many spots that it slows down Lightroom, it's a sure sign your sensor is desperate for a clean. You'd have to be changing lenses in a dust storm and get really, really unlucky.
-
For many images I find I have more control using curves in photoshop (is this just me?) and I like to work in layers. I also think selective color is a fine tool for photographers. A number of my images have benefited from using blending modes to lighten or darken an image. Still I'm doing more and more in LR now that I'm getting more comfortable with the workflow.
-
Uhhh, Yes John, exactly! When shooting sports in storms and mud which is not a normal situation, this is not easily avoidable. And to get the time/shot with one body, you just swap the lens as need be.... Specially circumstances that you didn't intend to swap lenses when out open to the elements. I've been on choppy waters with off-shore racing boats and situations just happen.
-
I also think selective color is a fine tool for photographers.
Yes, this I often use, as I think it is straight forward and effective in PS. Things that are "pixel aware", with the Fuzziness adjuster, in PS makes sense to use it.
-
Whether you use LR or Photoshop totally depends on the particular photo (http://www.shalimarbphotography.com) editing task you're trying to accomplish. In my photography studio (https://plus.google.com/113001012143441341895/about), I use both on a regular basis and each one has it's own pros/cons.
-
Troll Alert ^
-
I will go to PS to mask and apply tone adjustments to hard edged objects, much faster that trying to use the adjustment brush in LR. Occasionally I have to use content aware at the edge of the image. I also uprez for printing in PS using photozoom pro which gives me better results than just printing straight from LR. I otherwise do as much of the PP as I can in LR.