Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I almost wrote something similar, though not in the Moose exquisite
> detail.
Thanks, I think. ;-)
> The main difference seems to be that non raw images get saved
> separately and completely in PS while these new processors save just
> the raw image and all the instructions. So with PS you may have
> several versions of an image, the raw file, its instructions and
> completely separate PSE, jpeg, tiff or other format images, taking
> up space on your disk, but with Lightroom, Aperture, and Capture NX
> you have just one raw image saved and several sets of instructions
> that are applied anytime you want to view them. The xmp sidecar file
> in ACR just applies to the raw image while the saved instruction sets
> in the new processors apply to the finished images as well. When you
> open a saved tiff file or Jpg in LightRoom you are really opening the
> RAW image and applying all the instructions unlike what happens in
> PS. The advantage besides saving disk space is that you can open the
> jpeg or tiff and go back through the editing steps, but with PS you
> would have to go back to your saved RAW file and start over with your
> subsequent edits. At least that is the way I understand it.
>
Close, but not the whole story. ACRS has many controls on it's five
tabs, including a fairly powerful version of curves ( I don't use most
of them, but they are there.). If you open a RAW file in ACRS, make
adjustments to the many parameters, as you would do in Lightroom, until
you like the preview, then click on the Done button, rather than Save or
Open, all those settings are saved in xmp. Next time you open that RAW
file, it is as you last viewed it. It never has to go on into PS or be
saved in any other format
I don't know if there are ways to save multiple versions, as this whole
route isn't how I work.
You are correct about the potential savings in disk space. However,
until an app like Lightroom can do everything I want in processing an
image, the point its moot, as the parsimoniously saved editing
instructions are so incomplete as to be useless to me.
It is. of course, possible to do the same thing in PS; just start an
Action when you open an image and save it when finished. Next time you
open the untouched original, run the Action to get back where you were.
Actions may be stepped through and are editable. Probably someone far
more capable than I could write an Action that opens a file and starts
an Action named for it and a second Action that closes a file without
saving the changes and saves the associated Action.
Not as pretty and integrated as Lightroom, but actually quite a bit more
powerful.
So far, I'm not trying to dis or push either application, just trying to
get the details of the actual differences clear.
Now the little dis... Shadow/Highlight is magic. I want my LCE* I am
lost without layers. LAB color?
With layers, I can save the different things I have done in such a way
that I can later go back and vary the balance between them, rather than
starting over. Between selection to a new layer, and several different
tools, I may have done a lot to create a layer and would have to change
several parameters to change it. Got a little carried away with the
sky/clouds? Just make that layer a bit less opaque, without changing the
details of its creation.
I have a number of saved, standard Actions that are big time savers. At
least last time I looked at Lightroom, it didn't have that ability.
Lightroom does have some nifty and powerful functions that aren't aimed
at me.
It was sloooooooow when I seriously tried it.
Moose
* An update to Dire Straights
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|