I downloaded the Win Beta of LightRoom and have played with it a bit.
The implementation of tonality adjustments around the central
curve/histogram display is really great. On the other hand, it doesn't
actually do anything I haven't been doing already, just makes some of it
more intuitive and shows the cumulative effect of various adjustments.
Cool, but not the killer feature I can't do without.
The non destructive processing aspect that they make a big deal about is
already how ACR works. Certainly one can go further, or perhaps just
much easier, in LR, but not all the way.
There are at least two things I do routinely, and another I do often, in
PS that the current version of LR can't do:
I can't function without layers or some other equivalent technique,
whatever that may be. Without the ability to apply different adjustments
to different parts of the image, I simply can't get the results I want.
It would be like working in a darkroom without the ability to dodge and
burn.
LCE is critical to bringing some images to life, making some appear
sharp, bringing out texture in some, etc. As AG points out, you can add
it later, but my experience is that it makes a difference where in the
process it is applied. before or after levels, curves, shadow/hi, etc.
It's possible they will enhance the sharpen function in LR to allow it
to be used for LCE. maybe even add a direct LCE function, time will tell.
Shadow/Highlight does a combination of things all at once in a
coordinated way that I'm not sure I could duplicate with other, separate
functions. I do know I don't want to try. It's not needed for all that
many images, but when it is, there is just nothing like it, magic.
Again, whether it is used before or after other adjustments can make a
real difference in the result.
So as it stands now, LR acts for me as nothing but either a RAW
processor to provide interim TIFFs for further processing in PS or a
front end for PS that does no more, from a practical standpoint - and
for my personal way of working - than ACR, which comes with PS. With PS,
I go directly from RAW file into editor, do what I want, save a 16-bit
PSD file and save a downsized JPEG for the web, all in one process.
One positive result of the Larry thread for me was the reminder that
Adobe offers a trial version of CSPS2. I've downloaded it and tried it
and I have to say that out of the box, I'm getting better results than
with RSE, what shows up in PS for further work is better suited to my
needs. I'm sure I could work more with RSE and improve my skills with
it, but I already know how to get what I want with ACR.
I'm going to try out a couple of other apps., maybe LightZone next. But
at the moment, an upgrade to CSPS2 looks pretty attractive. The
stand-alone RAW converters cost nearly as much to more than a PS
upgrade. Unless LR turns out to be quite inexpensive (fat chance!), I
can't see where it is what I need. RSE is pretty good for now, and the
price is right, but investing the effort in something that won't be
updated for new RAW formats seems questionable to me. Maybe I can wait
for CSPS3, using RSE in my limited way for the meantime, and save an
upgrade step. :-)
I know PS is a big, bloated thing, and I know that I don't use or need a
great many of it capabilities, and I know it's too expensive, but it
sure does a great job at lots of things I need.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|