Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Filters VS HDR  (Read 6452 times)

trevarthan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: Filters VS HDR
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2014, 12:21:52 pm »

Is anyone using Photoshop CC? $9.99 per month for photographers is actually pretty attractive. Apparently you get Photoshop, Lightroom, and more. Are there any problems with plugins, I wonder?
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Filters VS HDR
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2014, 02:26:58 pm »

Nope. I have LR4 and PS6. I never bothered to upgrade to LR5, perhaps I should have bought it and saved it for later upgrading (I am still running OS 10.6.8, which is not compatible with LR5). I don't feel any great need to have the newest shiny tools when I haven't mastered the ones I have. The big jump was from process 2010 to process 2012, which was in LR4 and following.

Thanks for the tip about Enfuse and for that very clear explanation in the link about the difference between enfuse and HDR. I am not crazy about HDR, although the Nik HDR program is reasonable in having some "natural" preset options in addition to the gimmicky looks. I have noticed that some panorama programs use Enfuse.
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2798
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: Filters VS HDR
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2014, 02:39:12 pm »

Is anyone using Photoshop CC? $9.99 per month for photographers is actually pretty attractive. Apparently you get Photoshop, Lightroom, and more. Are there any problems with plugins, I wonder?

This has been hashed over a lot on this forum. Yes many are using PS CC, in fact the majority of LR users probably are, some for very good reasons.

Call me curmudgeonly, but I've chosen not to invest in PS CC for four reasons:

1.  I don't believe one should be perpetually tied to renting Adobe software to work on their photographs. IOW, I fundamentally disagree with Adobe's business model for PS as it relates to photographers like myself who choose not to write off expenses against income.

2. Call me cheap, but for the amount I use PS, at $120/yr, it's not worth it (see #3 for e.g.).

3. Except for merging photos (panos and focus-stacking which I might do once a year) I don't have any need for PS CC as LR (and PSCS4) can do all I need it to do. In fact, based on my experience teaching numerous workshops and teaching LR at a local college, I believe this to be true for most photographers. There is caché in describing how one can jump back and forth between LR and PS, but when I've talked to photographers in depth about it, I learn that they went to PS because they didn't know LR could do what they wanted. This is particularly true for things people think they need PS Layers for: differential sharpening (increasing and decreasing), introducing colour washes, changing mid-tone contrast, etc. - all of which can be done in LR with individual or combined adjustment brushes and grad masks.

It's not that I'm unfamiliar with or intimidated by PS - I've been using PS since the late-1990s - it's just that PS is now superfluous to my needs. I am a strong believer in the KISS method and will endeavour to do the best with what I've got before talking myself into buying/using yet another app or plugin.

4.  I'm not fond of working with bloated PSD files. My raw files are in the 44Mb range - light and responsive in LR; open one in PS and I'm over 200Mb, and it's not too long before I'm pushing 1Gb where things drag. I could invest 2 grand in a new system, but instead have invested my time into more thoroughly learning LR. I've been around enough photographers who get off on throwing around big file size, GHz and Gb numbers. Not me. Again, KISS.

As long as LR is stand alone, I will use it and keep my $120/year for the 25 or more years I have left in me.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com

Glenn NK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: Filters VS HDR
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2014, 03:30:56 pm »


2. If the sun is in your photo, it can be pure white and still work, especially if it is a small part of the photo. Also, specular highlights can often be blown out and still work.

3. Upgrade to LR 5! Process 2012 is far superior for pulling details out of shadows and with far less noise than with Process 2010 in LR 3.


2:  I'm not even sure the human eye can see detail in specular highlights - I know mine can't seem to.  ;D

3:  Absolutely
Logged
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Filters VS HDR
« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2014, 04:18:30 pm »

Is anyone using Photoshop CC? $9.99 per month for photographers is actually pretty attractive. Apparently you get Photoshop, Lightroom, and more. Are there any problems with plugins, I wonder?

If you use Photoshop and used to upgrade every time and also upgrade Lightroom for every upgrade then the price is good. If you don't really need Photoshop then just buy a license to Lightroom. Since you have a Lightroom license already then you just need to buy an upgrade to LR5. From you wrote I'd say go for the latter and if you later on need Photoshop you can decide on the subscription model.

For HDR merging, pano stitching etc. there are plenty of other solutions that do not need Photoshop.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up