Dancing Moose of the Layers wrote:
> Better than they used to be, but still below par
I definitely agree. Adobe has put great emphasis into content-aware
functionality, but has seriously neglected the very basic underlying
tools. I don't think it's that big of a deal, though, because cameras
are getting so much better (noise, pixel counts, native sharpness), so
we don't have to work quite so hard to recover every last ounce (gram)
of image detail.
> > I try to avoid Photoshop whenever possible because it's so klutzy.
> That's so funny! In PS, I feel like Fred Astaire. In LR, like a blindfolded
> dancing bear on roller skates in a thrift shop.
That makes sense, since I'm Ginger Rogers in Lightroom. ;)
> > I'm trying to get to the point where I don't rely upon anything else other
> > than my primary Adobe Creative Cloud suite.
> That includes PS, does it not? Even so, to me, that's like trying to lead
> Ginger while wearing handcuffs. She's likely
> to dance off by herself, and show me up.
Would those handcuffs be fur-lined by chance?
Does it include Photoshop? Very rarely. I've decided that I will try
to do everything possible in Lightroom and only resort to Photoshop or
PWP under great duress. I was experimenting around with skin
smoothing/editing, and it takes multiple steps to do what can be done
in seconds in Lightroom. Are the results better in Photoshop? They can
be. I will say that Photoshop allows us to go farther than we can in
Lightroom, but Lightroom is still a bit better than nearly any other
tool. I can dezit and subtract 20 years of age in seconds. If given
enough time, I can almost turn Fred Astaire into Ginger Rogers. For
that, I might need to use Photoshop. However, I've sufficiently proven
that it can be done in Lightroom.
AGinger Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|