How often do you utilize photoshop, or another editing program?

[Scatterbrained]

Care to elaborate on this? I see the advantages of both, but what would you say makes using both necessary?

Pardon me if I jump in here: There's a lot that LR can't do for example cloning work. Another example would be making local tone/color adjustments. The adjustment brush and gradient tools in LR are crude by comparison with what's available in Photoshop and sometimes that degree of precision is needed. Often a photo can be completely and satisfactorily processed in LR, but there will always be photos where LR comes up short.

Joe

Joe have you used LR5 for the brushes? It's my understanding that they are much improved.

"much improved" and "comparable to Ps" are two totally different things. Aside from the different way Lr and Ps work, making Lr a real resource hog when you start moving pixels, it's still quite rudimentary. I'm not saying it's not a great improvement, and for 99% if photographers Lr can now do everything they need, but when you need more control Ps is still the software to beat.

 

[Ysarex]

Care to elaborate on this? I see the advantages of both, but what would you say makes using both necessary?

Pardon me if I jump in here: There's a lot that LR can't do for example cloning work. Another example would be making local tone/color adjustments. The adjustment brush and gradient tools in LR are crude by comparison with what's available in Photoshop and sometimes that degree of precision is needed. Often a photo can be completely and satisfactorily processed in LR, but there will always be photos where LR comes up short.

Joe

Joe have you used LR5 for the brushes? It's my understanding that they are much improved.

Yep, I teach college students how to use the LR5 brush and gradient tool. They're much improved but they're no match for a mask in Photoshop -- scalpel versus a plastic table knife.

Joe

 

[KmH]

For me the major tool types LR doesn't have are the CS/CC/Elements Selection tools, Layers, and Layer masks.

As Joe mentions CS/CC and even Elements offers so much more precision than most LR tools have.

LR's major reason for being is image database management, which is why the Library module is the first module and LR was never intended to be a replacement/substitute for Photoshop.

how so? i copy and paste some things right from my sd card

For those that don't know it, even Raw files get edited in several ways before we get to see them. That's what a Raw converter is for. taking a grayscale, mosaiced, linear tone curve, strange looking image and interpolating color color, demosaicing, and applying a non-linear tone curve.

If you have the camera set to make JPEGs, even more editing is done in the camera.
Something else few seem to realize - the image sensor pixels in a digital camera are not digital - they are analog devices that cannot detect color.

 

[JacaRanda]

LR5 cloning and healing are not bad at all compared to previous versions. The radial filter works very well too. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7IpXeV1rGto


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ysarex]

Care to elaborate on this? I see the advantages of both, but what would you say makes using both necessary?

Pardon me if I jump in here: There's a lot that LR can't do for example cloning work. Another example would be making local tone/color adjustments. The adjustment brush and gradient tools in LR are crude by comparison with what's available in Photoshop and sometimes that degree of precision is needed. Often a photo can be completely and satisfactorily processed in LR, but there will always be photos where LR comes up short.

Joe

Joe have you used LR5 for the brushes? It's my understanding that they are much improved.

Here's an example:



I took this photo earlier this week on my walk to the grocery store. I wanted to show my wife what they did to one of my favorite trees. In that light the foreground in the camera exposure is pretty dark and the sky was quite a bit lighter. I exposed as much as I dared without clipping the sky. This is heavily edited to both lighten the foreground and darken the sky. Look at all the tree branches. Not just the ones on the big tree but the ones behind the houses as well. Want to count the branches? I masked every single branch in PS in order to make that tone adjustment when I lightened the foreground and darkened the sky. The only thing LR can do in a case like this is make crude halos around everything.

Joe

 

[nzmacro]

Every single shot

I crop every single image I take and tweak it in LR and then into Photoimpact for final adjusting. I would never dream of doing anything else, all RAW to start with.

Danny.

 

[illuminating_light]

Same as many members, i use editing 99% of the time. I had a subscription to Adobe's Photography Program of both PS & LR for just under the 30 days, i canceled it. I also have Corel Paintshop Pro X6.. I found i can easily do the same things with corel, as i could Adobe, as far as most of the edits i do have to do, and there was no sense being tied to a monthly payment for Adobe because of.

 

[snerd]

100%, RAW files on CF card to Lightroom 5.04, initial adjustments and then the finer detail processing. It's been a steep learning curve for me, but I'm finally starting to see some progress.

ETA: like some have mentioned, I'm thinking of adding Elements to the arsenal. I have version 10 I think, but haven't used it in years.