I am wondering to what extent common localized adjustments (e.g. sharpening, some cloning, background noise removal etc.) can be accomplished in Lightroom (perhaps via plug-ins) instead of Photoshop? I am not doing major reconstructive surgeries on my images so I am wondering if Lightroom might be sufficient for my purposes.
I have to comment on LR2. I like the idea of it and was talked into purchasing it. I had been using PSE7 and was pretty confident with it, but was avoiding the big purchase of the full PS3 program. I am sure LR2 works well, but I just find it frustrating and am seriously considering selling it on Ebay. I am trying to find information online that would make me feel more confident about using it. Maybe it's just because I am so used to the common corrections I can make in PSE7 quickly that is causing my frustration. I can correct things like sharpening, tones, etc much faster with PSE7.
Alfred, what do you like best about LR? I personally think that Adobe should combine the good feature of LR into PS to elmininate having to have two programs. I like the sorting functions of LR and the fact that the adjustments are non-destructive.
I bought LR, PS CS4 and Dreamweaver at the same time. Previously I have only had PSE2 & PSE4. I kept going back to PSE2, as it was easier and more productive for me than PSE4. I rarely use PSE4 at all.
I am learning light room and find some features very helpful. It does things that can't be done in CS4, so it does well to have both, if you have nothing else. I am still frustrated by the organizational element however, as I like a different system and am having a problem getting use to the LR/PS system. But just having gotten both in the last month, I have a learning curve problem to solve.
I have not started with Dreamweaver yet, but hope to once I get the basics of LR and CS4 down.
I would agree with Al, they are not the same and you would do well to get both and learn them, if you do not currently have a system that you like, or if you wish to get into PS big time.
If you are not interested in working with PS and have another program that works for you, I would stick with it and learn it. It may be all you need. But with PS offering many options and requiring a heavy learning curve, if you are going that route LR is for you.
Now to get back on the curve and try to move higher! :eek: :eek: ;)
One thing to remember, LR is not PS. PS is the starndard of the graphics art industry. As such it was not designed strictly for photographers. While we share many workflow issues with GAs, it is their program basically. LR on the other hand is a photo processing program that was designed for use only by photographers, not GA designers.
If LR were to be incorporated into PS, it would probably be revised to agree with the needs of GAs. That is why Adobe has kept them separate.
For those who have learned in and used a wet darkroom, LR is the digital equivalant. It works like the darkroom was designed to work. It has limitation, as does PS. But it is better suited to solve the standard "darkroom" related issues of digital photographers and complements PS for photographers.
I was kind of intrigued by Photoshop Elements and checked out the trial version. Well, it seems to have everything I'd need. But then, I immediately ran into a fundamental problem. Most of the edit tools in Photoshop Elements 6.0 for Mac don't work on 16-bit images. What a bummer.
John checkout the tools from niksoftware.com I have been using them now for a few months for LR and I am very happy with the sharpening and dfine (noise reduction) products, that will allow you to control that very well. The clone portion you will still need PS or something though.
I have been using LR for about a year and love it. I still use PS CS4 (CS3 is OK as well). I consider them a good team together.
LR is first and foremost my DAM application. I like how I can upload from a CF card, or external drive, placing the images into any folder I wish while at the same time renaming the files and adding metadata. LR simultaneously creates thumbs in the catalogue, "memorizing" where the originals are stored.
The advantage of this is I can browse the thumbs with only the HD on my tower turned on and then when I find the image I wan (using keyword search) I can learn the specific HD the original is saved on and then turn the HD on and retrieve the image. This is a powerful tool for those of us with large image libraries on multiple HDs.
I also use LR Develop Module for my RAW conversion. Then when I am done with this I open the image in CS4 save as a TIFF and do what can only be done there prior to saving the final image (layers included).
There is a great book on LR which helped me a lot in getting familiar with the program. It is "Lightroom 2 - Streamlining your digital photography process' by Nathaniel Coalson. I got it at Amazon for not too much $$
Ed has touched on the real issue. People who compare Lightroom to Photoshop are really comparing tools that are aimed at doing different things, with some overlap.
Lightroom and Photoshop share ACR, i.e. the same tool for doing conversion. ACR has evolved to have a ton of features beyond just conversion, including local adjustments. Notice that ACR and Photoshop overlap considerably in this regard.
Lightroom is primarily a cataloging product, which includes ACR for editing.
PS is primarily a very deep editing product (including ACR), which includes Bridget for browsing, but browsing is a pathetic substitute for a catalog.
Having been through a couple of books, I found that the Kelby Online tutorials were a really useful "kick-start" to get up to speed on PS4 and LR2. Well worth the investment, IMSHO!
You might like to take a look - you can see the first three modules before having to subscribe, which is helpful.