LR vs. PS for dodge/burn, LCE etc.

[nagaraj]

I am wondering about dodging/burning and Local contrast enhancement in LR vs. PS.  You can do these in LR (2.x) non-destructively with the adjustment brush.  You can also do these non-destructively in PS using layers/masks.  For me doing in LR seems to be easier vs. PS and also the fact that we can do it on a RAW file in LR vs. on a rendered image in PS (CS2) sounds to me as "better", because it is being done before rendering it.  Similarly Local Contrast Enhancement (LCE) can be done in LR with adjustment brush (with Clarity and Sharpness sliders adjusted appropriately)? Is there any downside in doing these in LR vs. doing these in PS? AFAIK, any adjustments one makes in RAW, before image rendering are less destructive than doing after rendering (even with layers/masks etc). in PS.  Am I wrong? Or is the answer "It depends"?  If yes, what does it depend on?

Nagaraj

[digitaldog]

I like to do as much of this in the raw processor because, as you point out, its really is non destructive (not really so in PS). But I like the ability to paint the dodge or burn and be rough about the “exposure”, then, when I have the brush strokes just as I like it, tweak the effect with the sliders. Its easier for me to produce a very subtle effect this way.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Also, LR has an automasking feature which is very useful.

BR
Erik

I like to do as much of this in the raw processor because, as you point out, its really is non destructive (not really so in PS). But I like the ability to paint the dodge or burn and be rough about the “exposure”, then, when I have the brush strokes just as I like it, tweak the effect with the sliders. Its easier for me to produce a very subtle effect this way.

[BobFisher]

I also like doing these things in LR (or ACR for that matter) as much as possible.  I find the Brightness brush very good for dodging/burning in LR.  

A separate dodge/burn layer in PS works well too.

Not sure either is a whole lot better than the other in terms of effectiveness but doing it in LR or ACR helps keep file sizes down and in LR, you always retain the history of what you've done, can create snapshots, etc., which puts LR over the top.

[nagaraj]

A bit of history as to why I asked my original questions in this forum, is that when I posted very closely similar questions to Alain Briot on his blog which you can read his response (both my questions and his response can be read at http://beautiful-landscape.com/Reflections/?p=99#comments) which I have pasted here as well.

Now his answer seems to indicate (at least the way I understood his response) that LR is as not sophisticated for him to produce what he wants (which is very high quality image optimisation), hence he uses PS with layers/masks etc.  But anyway I did not get the information I was looking for, i.e. what to do in LR and what to do in PS, as there is a lot which can be done in both.  Hence I posted a similar question in this forum. Is it worthwhile to invest and learn PS or is learning to do things in LR is enough for a majority of things.

I know there are still certain things which you can't do in LR, like creative sharpening or what is called sharpening for effect, for which PS is the answer.  So is there anything else like that in the image processing work flow which can only be done in PS?

Sorry for this long post...

Cheers
Nagaraj

------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question to him:-
Alain
You say don’t do all the post-processing work in raw converter but use layers in Photoshop. My question is:-

Now a days a raw converter like Light Room has got pretty much everything in it. Including the ability to selectively dodge-burn, selective sharpening etc. and it does all of this in non-destructive manner, as it is a parametrically driven program. And best of all it seems very intuitive to work with a program like LR, where as PS layers etc. seem to be quite intimidating to learn and use.

Can you tell me, where in your opinion should we stop in your raw converter and begin in PS? In other words, what should we do in the raw converter and what should be done in PS layers?

Thank you

Nagaraj

Alain's response:-
Nagaraj,

I only do exposure and white balance adjustments in the Raw converter. I do everything else in Photoshop using layers. In fact I also finalize exposure and white balance correction using layers because it is far more precise and controllable.

The real question is about your goals for the optimization of your photographs. Are you looking for the quickest way to optimize your photographs or for the finest way to optimize your photographs? If you are looking for the quickest way, then doing everything you can in the raw converter is the answer. If you are looking for the finest way, then using layers in Photoshop is the answer.

Also, whose work do you like best and whose work inspires you? If you want to optimize images the way I do and create a look comparable to mine, there is no way to do so in the raw converter at all. This is because my process is dependent on the use of layers.

It’s a little like trying to duplicate Ansel Adams’ work but refusing to use the Zone System (the Zone System is the approach Adams designed to create the look he wanted for his images. Think of it as Adams’ “layers” in the darkroom).
This is simply not possible, because there is no way to control tonality the way Adams’ controlled it without using the Zone System.

This is the same with layers. I am fully aware that Raw converters can complete a lot of image processing functions. The reason why I don’t do eveerything in the raw converter is not because I am not aware of this fact! The reason why I don’t is because it does nto give me the results I seek. I need layers to do what I want to do, just like Adams needed the Zone System.

Obviously, using the Zone System was a lot more work for Adams than simply developing and printing his photographs like everyone else did in his days! Yet, he went through the extra trouble because of the control, and the very fine result, that the Zone System gave him. As I mention at the start of my answer, your goals define your approach.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[digitaldog]

The real question is about your goals for the optimization of your photographs. Are you looking for the quickest way to optimize your photographs or for the finest way to optimize your photographs?

Its a useful and excellent question. For me, for stuff that isn’t super precise where I need a pixel editor, the answer to the above is to do the work in a good raw processor (Lightroom).

There’s no question that the parametric tool set here isn’t anywhere as precise for some work compared to using a pixel editor like Photoshop. But there are plenty of cases where it is more than precise enough. Whenever you can effectively apply metadata edits as opposed to burning them into pixels (which ultimately happens even with layers), the better as far as I’m concerned.

[HickersonJasonC]

Is there any downside in doing these in LR vs. doing these in PS?
Nagaraj

For me it's this: Lightroom is easier and faster, Photoshop is more versatile and more precise.

In LR the brush is always round. In PS you can use any listed brush "shape" or make your own. In LR there is one (or two if you get creative) ways to dodge/burn. In PS there are a multitude including the kinda crappy Dodge and Burn tools, painting white or black on a 50% gray overlay layer, painting white or black on a layer mask to reveal a screen or multiply layer of the same image, etc— not to mention using Darken and Lighten modes to selectively dodge and burn only certain tones within a selection. . .

For me it's almost always LR these days but there are some images where I just need PS.

[John R Smith]

Nagaraj

There is one very important difference between LR and CS5 - here in the UK it is about £450 worth of difference. As far as the rest of it goes, there are some things even now which you can only do in PS. Layers is the obvious example, and the clone tool is another. LR3 now does have perspective correction, which vers 2x lacked. There is no real point in getting LR unless you work with RAW, obviously.

I would suggest that you simply download the 30-day trial of LR3 and work with it exclusively for a month. That costs you nothing, and will give you all the answers you need. Then you can decide where to spend your cash on the basis of sound practical experience, rather than Internet opinion.

John