Posted by Mark Hudon on November 10, 2006 at 11:25 PM
Earlier in October I got a new computer at work. We're all Mac so it was a new Power Mac, dual 2.66 Ghz, 2 gigs of ram with one 250 gig hard drive. I've been doing more advertisement and point of sale type work for the Coffee Co. I was frequently using Photoshop, Illustrator, Excel, and the database program, 4th Dimension that the Coffee Co. runs on all at the same time and my last computer simply wasn't cutting it.
Given my new computing power I started using Adobe Lightroom to process photos for ads, labels and such. I recently got a beefier computer for here at home also.
Today I was at home backing up my photo files when I started to work a few photos from a Utah trip last year. I played around with a photo till I liked it in Lightroom and then printed it. Later in the day I decided to work the same photo in ACR and Photoshop to see where I could get it, to see how much work it took me to get it at least as far as Lightroom.
Well, I'm not too surprised to find that I can take the photo, in Photoshop, far, far beyond where Lightroom will allow me to.
The Photoshop version
Posted by Mark Hudon on November 10, 2006 at 11:37 PM
The Lightroom version.
Given that I'm far more adept at PS than Lightroom I'll give Lightroom a little leeway. But, I did work hard to make the photos look the same, even after importing the Lightroom version into PS and working it further.
My take so far would be that if I was a newspaper photographer or a wedding photographer or building ads (like I do at the Coffee Co.) then Lightroom would be great. I recently worked 176 photos, for a slide show of India that Peggy was giving, in LIghtroom. I was able to buzz by a photo, do this, do that, and make it pretty good in a minute or so. No layers, no opening it in ACR then PS, no flattening, no changing from a .psd file to jpg or tiff or anything. If I was a wedding photographer I'd be interested in making a vast number of photos look "pretty good" in as little time as possible.
For my "fine art" work, I'll spend as long as it takes to get it exactly the way I want it and to get it as good as I can get it. These are the photos I'll be enlarging to 20x30 and selling for big dollars (hopefully).
For me, I'm not going to bother anymore with Lightroom here at home for my "fine art" photography but I'll keep it for work where I need to pump out photos for bits and parts of advertisements or anywhere I need a large quantity of photos quickly.
Posted by Mark Hudon on November 10, 2006 at 11:40 PM
My biggest beef with the Lightroom photo is, try as I might, I couldn't get that bright area of cloud to look as good as the same area in the PS photo. Additionally, I couldn't get the dark trees to look as good as the PS version either.
Discussion
2 repliesGiven my new computing power I started using Adobe Lightroom to process photos for ads, labels and such. I recently got a beefier computer for here at home also.
Today I was at home backing up my photo files when I started to work a few photos from a Utah trip last year. I played around with a photo till I liked it in Lightroom and then printed it. Later in the day I decided to work the same photo in ACR and Photoshop to see where I could get it, to see how much work it took me to get it at least as far as Lightroom.
Well, I'm not too surprised to find that I can take the photo, in Photoshop, far, far beyond where Lightroom will allow me to.
The Photoshop version
Given that I'm far more adept at PS than Lightroom I'll give Lightroom a little leeway. But, I did work hard to make the photos look the same, even after importing the Lightroom version into PS and working it further.
My take so far would be that if I was a newspaper photographer or a wedding photographer or building ads (like I do at the Coffee Co.) then Lightroom would be great. I recently worked 176 photos, for a slide show of India that Peggy was giving, in LIghtroom. I was able to buzz by a photo, do this, do that, and make it pretty good in a minute or so. No layers, no opening it in ACR then PS, no flattening, no changing from a .psd file to jpg or tiff or anything. If I was a wedding photographer I'd be interested in making a vast number of photos look "pretty good" in as little time as possible.
For my "fine art" work, I'll spend as long as it takes to get it exactly the way I want it and to get it as good as I can get it. These are the photos I'll be enlarging to 20x30 and selling for big dollars (hopefully).
For me, I'm not going to bother anymore with Lightroom here at home for my "fine art" photography but I'll keep it for work where I need to pump out photos for bits and parts of advertisements or anywhere I need a large quantity of photos quickly.