I meant to add some comments on today's PhotoShop work, things that I
don't believe can be done in Lightroom. My granddaughter went to her
junior prom the other day. Mom and dad took a number of pictures of her
and her boyfriend and of themselves and the boyfriends parents. I was
pleasantly surprised to see that my son now has a Fuji Finepix F50fd
which managed to nail the exposure on almost all the images including
some tough ones with sun and shade.
But it didn't nail one of them which turned out to be one of the most
desirable. It was about 1 stop underexposed in the shade, properly
exposed in the sunlit areas and needed some selective adjustment and
masking to get everything looking right while keeping the noise under
control.
The second one I worked on was actually slightly out of focus, my
granddaughter her her eyes closed, there was someone's hand in the edge
of the frame at lower left and a young boy from across the street
standing in my son's front yard with 2/3 of his body showing far behind
and on the right side of the boyfriend. Focus Magic managed to fix the
focus sufficient for a small print, I managed to replace my
granddaughter's closed eyes with her open eyes from another image, and a
combination of the clone tool and "content aware" fill got rid of the
errant hand and the boy from across the street.
Those are the sorts of things I do in PhotoShop.
Chuck Norcutt
On 5/24/2011 7:29 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I'm on my second version of Lightroom and my fourth version of
> PhotoShop. So far I've done little but open Lightroom up a few times to
> give it a quick look. But I use PhotoShop at least once a week and
> sometimes for days on end.
>
> The thing that I do not like about Lightroom (and probably what draws
> other people to it) is that it wants to "manage" my images. I have my
> own system of image management which is rather minimalist but suits me
> fine.
>
> I find that PhotoShop really does all that I require and, since
> Lightroom isn't a full-blown editor it doesn't do all that I require.
> Someone mentioned automation in handling images as a Lightroom strength
> which is something I don't understand, probably because I haven't
> pursued Lightroom enough to understand all it can do. But all of the
> automation that I think I need can also be found in PhotoShop and
> Bridge. The only automation I think I need is processing similarly
> exposed images in ACR as a group. Bridge allows selecting the similar
> images and then passes them as a group to ACR. I adjust one image,
> select the rest and tell ACR to apply the same changes to all. I then
> step through the modified images and make small tweaks for those that
> have a similar but not identical exposure.
>
> After I'm done with those things that ACR can do I'm left with PhotoShop
> and everything I do at that point is very specific to each individual
> image. I don't see how automation can help.
>
> One of these days I'll dig into Lightroom futher but I've been saying
> that for the last couple of years since I first got Lightroom 1. Now I
> have CS5 and Lightroom 3.2 but I still don't understand it very well. I
> suspect that my propensity to do serious editing on lots of images means
> that Lightroom doesn't really hold much for me.
>
> But you need to hear from a serious Lightroom user. But I suspect you'll
> find that, like Nathan, they are averse to editing much beyond exposure
> corrections. I wonder if, for them, it's really much more than a means
> to pass images into ACR.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 5/24/2011 4:44 PM, Walters, Martin wrote:
>> As a benefit of my flash course, I'm entitled to student reductions of
>> some Adobe software. In particular, both Lightroom 3 and Photoshop CS5
>> are available at significant discounts. I already have PS Elements 8,
>> so my question concerns the relative merits and use (casual in my case)
>> of these three software. As my images are scans from film, things like
>> RAW processing are not a priority.
>>
>> PS Elements does a good many things, though I gather its significant
>> limitations (I'm sure there are others) include the lack of layers and
>> adjustable curves. PS proper is at the other end of the scale and
>> likely overkill for me, without serious study and use.
>>
>> My real question is where Lightroom fits in the picture (pun intended)?
>> I've been through the info on the Adobe website, and I'm still at a bit
>> of a loss what to make of it. It would appear to offer significant
>> editing capacities, which are undescribed but presumably less than PS
>> ("it works seamlessly with PS", or something like that). It's also not
>> clear whether it offers greater or just different editing capacities to
>> PSE. Lightroom seems to emphasize workflow issues like managing and
>> distributing images, as much as it does editing.
>>
>> There are list members who use Lightroom and PS (maybe separately or
>> together), I'd be grateful to hear their comments on the relative
>> merits/limitations of the software.
>>
>> On topic: the images are made with an OM!
>>
>> Martin
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|