In the interests of discussion, I note that there have been some comments on Dan Margulis' forum regarding the superiority of doing color, contrast and exposure editing in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and/or Adobe Lightroom (LR), thus reducing the role of Photoshop/Elements in digital editing. Most of these claims have come from a few detractors that frequent Dan's forum, and many of the comments are aimed at trying to show that Dan's latest book is becoming obsolete almost before it was printed.
The basis of the arguments seems to stem from the fact (?) that a RAW capture contains all the data that was grabbed by the chip and that moves in ACR/LR do not cause deterioration of the image. RAW data is also converted to 16-bit and uses a huge colorspace (bigger than sRGB) for elbow room. The LR product has been hailed by many as a real boon to high volume professional shooters who take hundreds of nearly identically lighted shots under studio conditions and who need to bulk process all of these images for deadlines or customer approval.
I have used both the CS3 beta and the LR beta products extensively since becoming available to the general public. Apparently they both use the same internal "engine" to make their adjustments. There are several that are very handy such as the Vibrancy, B&W sliders, Contrast (using a new algorithm), exposure and all of the vignetting, chromatic abberation and other tools. It is claimed that doing these manipulations on the RAW data is superior to doing it in Photoshop/Elements. So the suggestion is that for many images and entire shoots, ACR or LR is all you need.
But I am not a high volume shooter. I tend to follow the old, deliberate methods of visualization, composition and shooting only what I think is worthy. If you are shooting sports, kids or other fast moving subjects, holding down the shutter button and ripping off a few dozen frames might get you an interesting shot, but to me that's a lot of luck and not much preparation.
So I work on individual images, not entire folders full at once. Each shot is analyzed and chosen (or not) based on its potential to display what I intended when I shot it. I do this by creating a blank layer on top of the background (using CSx) and making notes and drawings on the blank layer of things that need to be done. There are no layers in ACR/LR (yet?), no masks, no adjustment layers, no selections. Everything you do in ACR/LR is to "set up" the image for further editing, unless you just want to print it "as is" and do all editing on the entire image as a whole.
So Photoshop/Elements is not dead by a long shot when you need selective adjustments. Maybe the grass needs a shot of green saturation, maybe a skin tone is a bit too red while the rest of the image seems just right. Although I am seeing a lot of pros talking about using ACR/LR exclusively and printing directly from those programs, I don't think they will affect how I work other than to "set up" the image in a bit better shape for polishing in Photoshop which might result in less potential for banding and posterization. Curvemeister is still my curve tool of choice, and any version of Photoshop that does not have it is crippled in my workflow.
Is Photoshop needed now that ACR and LR are out?
I think you've summed things up admirably. I have very little to add, except that I have very little attachment to Photoshop as such - if enough of its functionality is moved into LightRoom, I'll produce a version of Curvemeister that runs under Lightroom, and practice my craft there, instead of using my current setup of ACDSee and Photoshop.
Dan's underlying philosophy of relying on the numbers, rather than a visual check of a calibrated monitor is still valid, whether it is adhered to in Photoshop, Lightroom, or some other image editing program of the future.
If lightroom does not support enough such funcitonality, I'll stick with Photoshop, thank you.
Dan's underlying philosophy of relying on the numbers, rather than a visual check of a calibrated monitor is still valid, whether it is adhered to in Photoshop, Lightroom, or some other image editing program of the future.
If lightroom does not support enough such funcitonality, I'll stick with Photoshop, thank you.
-
mikemeister_admin
- Posts: 4927
- Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:29 pm
I tried to post once before, but it never showed. Maybe that's good because I'm sure it was too long anyway. Now my mind has condensed it down much further...
I've used Photoshop for many versions, but have not tried Lightroom. Keep that in mind.
It looks like Photoshop and Lightroom are aimed at two different kinds of professional photographers. (OK, Photoshop is aimed at more than photographers.) Photoshop is aimed at pros who do all their own editing. Lightroom is aimed at pros who only do initial editing and have someone else do the final editing.
Well, look at the pros who are bragging up LR in the ads and the press. They are the big studio/famous/big production photographers. These are the guys who run big operations in their businesses. They are the Directors of "the shoot". They have a team to setup the shoot and they step in to fire the capture. (OK, I'm sure I'm over-stating this a tad, but probably not that much.)
In this type of situation the big boss wants to quickly see the results of the shoot. He wants to quickly pick the shots that are the best. He wants to do a quick edit to make sure that it will work the way he wants it to look. Once he gets that final set selected and edited, it goes to a hired professional Photoshop editor or the lab. His first edit is really his instructions to the editor.
This type of pro setup doesn't leave time to do all that detailed editing in Photoshop. The top dog is way too busy to do anything but the quickest edit. He's running a busy, big business and shooting as fast as he can. It doesn't pay for him to do Photoshop editing. He needs to be shooting as fast as he can to pay for the big operation.
Lightroom is perfect for that type of photographer. It allows for the quick first culling and edit that he only has time for. It also doesn't allow him to screw up the original RAW file. This allows the professional Photoshop editor to do it right or at least his way. He still has the boss's "note" in the LR edit though.
There are other pro photographers who won't let anyone else touch their editing and never send anything to the lab. (Well, if they send to the lab it certainly isn't for editing.) They are creating their own art from beginning to end. They setup the whole shoot, take the shot, completely edit the picture themselves, and do their own printing to make sure it turns out exactly like they want it to.
I could be wrong, but I doubt this type of pro would find much of interest in Lightroom. I'm this type of photographer and LR looks like a glorified Bridge to me. Bridge in CS3 is more than good enough for the culling level edit for me. Once I start the picture editing I want all those powerful tools that I've come to depend on.
I've designed my packages to still make money. I don't ever want to run a large studio with a large staff. I like working by myself and plan to continue. Therefore, LR just doesn't fit my style and workflow.
My guess is that in either market the people who will be using CM will be using it in Photoshop. The protographer who uses LR won't care to or have the time to use CM in LR. If CM gets used it will be by that pro editor in Photoshop. The later type of pro is already the market for CM.
Clyde
I've used Photoshop for many versions, but have not tried Lightroom. Keep that in mind.
It looks like Photoshop and Lightroom are aimed at two different kinds of professional photographers. (OK, Photoshop is aimed at more than photographers.) Photoshop is aimed at pros who do all their own editing. Lightroom is aimed at pros who only do initial editing and have someone else do the final editing.
Well, look at the pros who are bragging up LR in the ads and the press. They are the big studio/famous/big production photographers. These are the guys who run big operations in their businesses. They are the Directors of "the shoot". They have a team to setup the shoot and they step in to fire the capture. (OK, I'm sure I'm over-stating this a tad, but probably not that much.)
In this type of situation the big boss wants to quickly see the results of the shoot. He wants to quickly pick the shots that are the best. He wants to do a quick edit to make sure that it will work the way he wants it to look. Once he gets that final set selected and edited, it goes to a hired professional Photoshop editor or the lab. His first edit is really his instructions to the editor.
This type of pro setup doesn't leave time to do all that detailed editing in Photoshop. The top dog is way too busy to do anything but the quickest edit. He's running a busy, big business and shooting as fast as he can. It doesn't pay for him to do Photoshop editing. He needs to be shooting as fast as he can to pay for the big operation.
Lightroom is perfect for that type of photographer. It allows for the quick first culling and edit that he only has time for. It also doesn't allow him to screw up the original RAW file. This allows the professional Photoshop editor to do it right or at least his way. He still has the boss's "note" in the LR edit though.
There are other pro photographers who won't let anyone else touch their editing and never send anything to the lab. (Well, if they send to the lab it certainly isn't for editing.) They are creating their own art from beginning to end. They setup the whole shoot, take the shot, completely edit the picture themselves, and do their own printing to make sure it turns out exactly like they want it to.
I could be wrong, but I doubt this type of pro would find much of interest in Lightroom. I'm this type of photographer and LR looks like a glorified Bridge to me. Bridge in CS3 is more than good enough for the culling level edit for me. Once I start the picture editing I want all those powerful tools that I've come to depend on.
I've designed my packages to still make money. I don't ever want to run a large studio with a large staff. I like working by myself and plan to continue. Therefore, LR just doesn't fit my style and workflow.
My guess is that in either market the people who will be using CM will be using it in Photoshop. The protographer who uses LR won't care to or have the time to use CM in LR. If CM gets used it will be by that pro editor in Photoshop. The later type of pro is already the market for CM.
Clyde
Hi Clyde,
Lightroom is still "new", to the extent something that has been out there for a year can be new, and I've seen very few discussions of what the role of Lightroom will be, who will use it, and how it will be used. What you've said makes a lot of sense. IT may well be an "executive summary" lightboard type of tool, with Photoshop getting down to the nitty gritty of extracting the best possible final image.
Great food for thought. Thanks.
Lightroom is still "new", to the extent something that has been out there for a year can be new, and I've seen very few discussions of what the role of Lightroom will be, who will use it, and how it will be used. What you've said makes a lot of sense. IT may well be an "executive summary" lightboard type of tool, with Photoshop getting down to the nitty gritty of extracting the best possible final image.
Great food for thought. Thanks.
-
mikemeister_admin
- Posts: 4927
- Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:29 pm
I'm no market expert, but I'm sure Adobe has plenty of them. I just think that Adobe wouldn't introduce Lightroom if they thought it would compete directly with Photoshop. That would be a self-destructive move. So, I'm sure that they (and Apple) have identified a market that Photoshop wasn't covering and built a new product for it. I'm sure they are going out of their way to make sure the product (Lightroom) does NOT hurt sales of Photoshop.
So, what is this market that is different from the Photoshop market? Well, Adobe isn't saying, but I'm guessing. Since both products seem to be aimed at photographers, they must see a type of photographer that needs something different than those that use Photoshop. That's why my guess is for the pro that has this type of business.
Yeah, I could be wrong. I would appreciate other guesses.
Clyde
So, what is this market that is different from the Photoshop market? Well, Adobe isn't saying, but I'm guessing. Since both products seem to be aimed at photographers, they must see a type of photographer that needs something different than those that use Photoshop. That's why my guess is for the pro that has this type of business.
Yeah, I could be wrong. I would appreciate other guesses.
Clyde
-
mikemeister_admin
- Posts: 4927
- Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:29 pm
Hi Clyde,
I agree with your points. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts regarding Adobe's LR strategy. Firstly by introducing such a product they will satisfy the (large percentage of) professional photographers that have only ever scratched the surface of Photoshop, (and will probably never get much deeper). For example most of my friends in the high volume, quick turnaround world of newspapers, event shoots and even wedding contractors, have no time/interest/aptitude for individual image improvement or the complex issues that arise once you get past the basic initial fiddle. It's all about the (quick) work flow, i.e. near enough is good enough. Anyway, "their end customer wouldn't know the difference". Whilst not my view, their logic is fine. Lightroom therefore meets this need, and will still ensure that the seamless next step to PS/CSX will keep it the tool of choice for the image manipulation professional. ACR on the other hand is a clever and necessary response to the silly proprietary games played by most of the big camera makers. Plus it generally beats the pants of the OEM Raw tools.
This need for speed over quality is not restricted there though. The improvement in automated image improvement plugins tools etc is diluting the need to understand the science. If 90% of images can/will be improved to an acceptable level with these 'auto' tools, who will need a full blown PS package? Why not just a product with the basics and lots of auto thingy's? Tools like Curvemeister live on both side of the fence, they have a bit of the auto thingy about them, but they will lead you to a deeper understanding. Autocolor never will.
I believe that Adobe sees that Photoshop is nearing the end of it evolutionary period. Volume sales will come from products aimed at the specific segments, and the vast number of digital happy snappers aren't likely to need PS, hell they never did. Tell me, how many people would say that in CS3 the 'quick select tool' is more powerful/useful than Smart filters?
For most reading this, they will know that "quick select" is no substitute for medium level selection/masking skills and channels knowledge. However it is another type of auto thingy which might get better. Smart filters however extend the creative possibilities. However I'd be betting the $'s is in the 'make it easy' stuff.
PS will still be needed for the tough stuff and the creative work, I just think it's market is starting to plateau.
Brian
I agree with your points. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts regarding Adobe's LR strategy. Firstly by introducing such a product they will satisfy the (large percentage of) professional photographers that have only ever scratched the surface of Photoshop, (and will probably never get much deeper). For example most of my friends in the high volume, quick turnaround world of newspapers, event shoots and even wedding contractors, have no time/interest/aptitude for individual image improvement or the complex issues that arise once you get past the basic initial fiddle. It's all about the (quick) work flow, i.e. near enough is good enough. Anyway, "their end customer wouldn't know the difference". Whilst not my view, their logic is fine. Lightroom therefore meets this need, and will still ensure that the seamless next step to PS/CSX will keep it the tool of choice for the image manipulation professional. ACR on the other hand is a clever and necessary response to the silly proprietary games played by most of the big camera makers. Plus it generally beats the pants of the OEM Raw tools.
This need for speed over quality is not restricted there though. The improvement in automated image improvement plugins tools etc is diluting the need to understand the science. If 90% of images can/will be improved to an acceptable level with these 'auto' tools, who will need a full blown PS package? Why not just a product with the basics and lots of auto thingy's? Tools like Curvemeister live on both side of the fence, they have a bit of the auto thingy about them, but they will lead you to a deeper understanding. Autocolor never will.
I believe that Adobe sees that Photoshop is nearing the end of it evolutionary period. Volume sales will come from products aimed at the specific segments, and the vast number of digital happy snappers aren't likely to need PS, hell they never did. Tell me, how many people would say that in CS3 the 'quick select tool' is more powerful/useful than Smart filters?
For most reading this, they will know that "quick select" is no substitute for medium level selection/masking skills and channels knowledge. However it is another type of auto thingy which might get better. Smart filters however extend the creative possibilities. However I'd be betting the $'s is in the 'make it easy' stuff.
PS will still be needed for the tough stuff and the creative work, I just think it's market is starting to plateau.
Brian
Interesting comments.
First, there is a wealth of information and talk on about 30 podcasts in which the developers of Lightroom discuss the product and how they see it:
http://rss.adobe.com/www/special/light_room.rss
You can also find it by searching the Adobe website for Lightroom podcasts.
Second, the CS3 is now going to be available in 2D (standard) and 3-D versions, so the three-dimensional features are the new plateau. It is difficult to see how Photoshop could be improved much, other than speed.
In my own world, I am a hobbyist. I like to control (or at least have access to control) everything about my photography from the camera adjustments to image editing to printing. As I mentioned in my opening post, I am a disciple of Dan Margulis. This means I don't adjust the whole image, usually, I pick and choose selections or areas to bump contrast, increase saturation, etc. I often must "clean" areas of wires, signs or other detritus that disturbs the viewer's attention. None of these "advanced" editing tools are available (or will probably ever be available) in Lightroom. According to the engineers (podcast #1 I think), Lightroom is ACR with advanced features, but it is limited by the basic ACR engine which does not allow for things like plug-ins, selections, masking and the like. It works on RAW data and applies tweaks to that data, saving it in a modified file or side file for direct printing, or importation to Photoshop.
There is a vast difference between the high volume catalog printers and the artist printers. Think of the differences between a product catalog and an Ansel Adams print. The catalog is cleaned and color balanced to display a product. The artistic print is dodged, burned, toned, and selectively massaged to display a feeling or thought or emotion. Selective control is mandatory here, and Lightroom simply isn't the tool for that kind of printing.
First, there is a wealth of information and talk on about 30 podcasts in which the developers of Lightroom discuss the product and how they see it:
http://rss.adobe.com/www/special/light_room.rss
You can also find it by searching the Adobe website for Lightroom podcasts.
Second, the CS3 is now going to be available in 2D (standard) and 3-D versions, so the three-dimensional features are the new plateau. It is difficult to see how Photoshop could be improved much, other than speed.
In my own world, I am a hobbyist. I like to control (or at least have access to control) everything about my photography from the camera adjustments to image editing to printing. As I mentioned in my opening post, I am a disciple of Dan Margulis. This means I don't adjust the whole image, usually, I pick and choose selections or areas to bump contrast, increase saturation, etc. I often must "clean" areas of wires, signs or other detritus that disturbs the viewer's attention. None of these "advanced" editing tools are available (or will probably ever be available) in Lightroom. According to the engineers (podcast #1 I think), Lightroom is ACR with advanced features, but it is limited by the basic ACR engine which does not allow for things like plug-ins, selections, masking and the like. It works on RAW data and applies tweaks to that data, saving it in a modified file or side file for direct printing, or importation to Photoshop.
There is a vast difference between the high volume catalog printers and the artist printers. Think of the differences between a product catalog and an Ansel Adams print. The catalog is cleaned and color balanced to display a product. The artistic print is dodged, burned, toned, and selectively massaged to display a feeling or thought or emotion. Selective control is mandatory here, and Lightroom simply isn't the tool for that kind of printing.
Return to “Interesting Images”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests