Correcting lens issues

[dreed]

LR3 brings with it being able to correct for vertical and horizontal perspective challenges.

Whilst useful, when using these adjustments, there are very few rulers when compared with the crop angle tool.

But what I would really like to be able to do is this:

draw a collection of lines on an overlay over the picture that represent all of the verticals (or horizontals) and have lightroom correct the picture such that those "verticals" and/or "horizontals" become straight up/down and/or left/right.

Now it may be that some curved surfaces cannot be solved like this but I'm pretty sure that some are.

In a perfect world, LR would be able to detect all of the verticals and horizontals itself, letting it fix the picture automagically, but that might be a step too far and not produce the actual results desired.

[francois]

Fill a feature request on Adobe's website: https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

[stamper]

Lightroom and similar programs such as Nik Capture and DxO are meant to be stripped down versions, in monetary terms, of Photoshop. However buyers are wanting more and more added to what is available in the programs. Question: are they willing to pay more?

[john beardsworth]

Probably not! The other question is - are these tools up to scratch more than 95% of the time. Answer: yes.

John

[stamper]

The tools are certainly up to scratch quality wise  but quantity wise some people are wanting more added at no extra cost. The manufacturers won't want to add to the existing program if sales, such in this case Photoshop, of more expensive program's drop. This is why the "wish list" that you see posted on the internet is futile.

[sniper]

The tools are certainly up to scratch quality wise  but quantity wise some people are wanting more added at no extra cost. The manufacturers won't want to add to the existing program if sales, such in this case Photoshop, of more expensive program's drop. This is why the "wish list" that you see posted on the internet is futile.

That then puts Adobe in a bit of a dilemma, do they never improve Lightroom for fear of damaging sales of Photoshop? if so why bring out LR in the first place, or why have Elements which is getting closer to Photoshop with every upgrade, I suspect thats having a bigger effect on sales of PS than LR.
Personally I don't think adding things like proper curves and soft proofing to LR would seriously damage Photoshop, most pros see them as complimentary to each other.

[stamper]

At the moment you have photographers stating that LR can do 95% of what Photoshop can do. Personally I believe the gap is wider but it all boils down to how much you use in each program. Adobe will never allow PS to be relegated to a small place in processing and I think they are correct. The cost is the problem between the two. There will always be a gap.


Personally I don't think adding things like proper curves and soft proofing to LR would seriously damage Photoshop, most pros see them as complimentary to each other.


Once you do that then photographers will then say what about x and y. Never ending?

[dreed]

At present the tools for correcting lens issues in a photograph are close to equal in both LR and PS, even if the controls are slightly different.

Whether Adobe can improve one or the other or both... to be seen.

[stevebri]

This sounds familiar... before I 'discovered' Lightroom, I probably said similar things without knowing the program at all.

I have to ask guys... Stamper....

Have you ever used Lightroom...?

It has very little to do with Photoshop, it certainly isn't a stripped down Photoshop at all.

In a nutshell Lightroom is a DAM (Digital Asset Management) system, that imports, adjusts, prints, displays and uploads a photographers work.
Within one of it's five modules you have photoshop's raw processor and some very clever and time saving ways to make some corrections to images without touching the raw.  It is a program for photographers, designed by Adobe with the help of photographers.

Photoshop is a program photographers picked up on and started using, that was and is designed for graphic designers and retouchers based around working on a single image.

Where Lightroom wins again and again is in the fact that Adobe know what photographers want and in the main we want it to rename, back up, add copyright data, do general touch ups, local area adjustments, tweaks etc quickly,  with non destructive editing to the master raw, then outputting them to a client. All this to many files at once.

Photoshop doesn't do that, it's not designed for that and never will be.

If anything I see a 'Lightroom Elements' type thing happening down the road, a 99 buck program to do the core things, some spot removal etc and that's it.

Chalk and Cheese really  Lightroom and Photoshop.

steve



stevebrickles.com

[stamper]

Lightroom and similar programs such as Nik Capture and DxO are meant to be stripped down versions, in monetary terms, of Photoshop.

It has very little to do with Photoshop, it certainly isn't a stripped down Photoshop at all.


You quoted me out of context. A lot of users use it instead of Photoshop because of money constraints. It definitely is touted as a program that can be used instead of Photoshop and a lot of users state that on this forum and others. I have used LR. Photoshop Bridge can do a lot of what LR can do and the process pipeline in LR and ACR are identical, so it has more in common than it has differences.

Where Lightroom wins again and again is in the fact that Adobe know what photographers want and in the main we want it to rename, back up, add copyright data, do general touch ups, local area adjustments, tweaks etc quickly,  with non destructive editing to the master raw, then outputting them to a client. All this to many files at once.

Photoshop doesn't do that, it's not designed for that and never will be.


I think you should re think that statement. If I was going to be cynical then I would state that LR is a poor man's Photoshop, but I am not in a cynical mood.

PS have you actually used Photoshop?

[sniper]

Lightroom and similar programs such as Nik Capture and DxO are meant to be stripped down versions, in monetary terms, of Photoshop.

It has very little to do with Photoshop, it certainly isn't a stripped down Photoshop at all.


You quoted me out of context. A lot of users use it instead of Photoshop because of money constraints. It definitely is touted as a program that can be used instead of Photoshop and a lot of users state that on this forum and others. I have used LR. Photoshop Bridge can do a lot of what LR can do and the process pipeline in LR and ACR are identical, so it has more in common than it has differences.

Where Lightroom wins again and again is in the fact that Adobe know what photographers want and in the main we want it to rename, back up, add copyright data, do general touch ups, local area adjustments, tweaks etc quickly,  with non destructive editing to the master raw, then outputting them to a client. All this to many files at once.

Photoshop doesn't do that, it's not designed for that and never will be.


I think you should re think that statement. If I was going to be cynical then I would state that LR is a poor man's Photoshop, but I am not in a cynical mood.

PS have you actually used Photoshop?

That would be Elements not Lightroom, the programs are poles apart.

[dreed]

This thread is locked... the discussion no longer has anything to do with the original topic.