Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Photoshop or Lightroom?
Just curious to see what everyone else uses to edit photos. I currently use photoshop but would love to get into Lightroom.
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
Photoshop CS6 (and a tiny bit of Lightroom when I need better noise-processing abilities).
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
They do two different things. LR is a Digital Asset Manager with a RAW developer built in. PS has no DAM features, and it's a pixel-level editor. You will often have to use either to do a certain task. Unless you need advanced editing (and for a.net, you will), you could get away with just LR. Indeed, if I don't have to do LR editing, I rarely bust open PS for editing photos as LR has enough tools for me. PS fits into the a.net workflow for selective sharpening on a downsampled image, which LR can't really do.
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
Photoshop CC, along with whatever version Adobe Camera RAW it comes with.
-
- ThePointblank
- Posts: 4426
- Joined:
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
Adobe Lightroom Classic CC, with Photoshop CC 2018.
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
Photoshop CS6 as major and sometime i will use Lightroom to reduce noise (if the situation is very bad) and adjust color but i seldom use LR to edit Spotting photos.
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
With something like 400 shots in the A.net database, I have only ever used LR.
LR is just slightly behind PS in my opinion, essentially with some of the more 'selective' editing stuff. I do occasionally bust out PS when I'm manipulating non-aviation pictures, or even aviation shots that aren't being held to editorial standards, but I've never had to go beyond LR for anything that A.net demands. Global edits don't hold you back, and the non-destructive nature of the catalog/editing process actually makes for a very A.net-suitable workflow – you can edit on multiple copies of the same image to account address rejection reasons as they come in.
LR is just slightly behind PS in my opinion, essentially with some of the more 'selective' editing stuff. I do occasionally bust out PS when I'm manipulating non-aviation pictures, or even aviation shots that aren't being held to editorial standards, but I've never had to go beyond LR for anything that A.net demands. Global edits don't hold you back, and the non-destructive nature of the catalog/editing process actually makes for a very A.net-suitable workflow – you can edit on multiple copies of the same image to account address rejection reasons as they come in.
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
2.6K photos in the a.net database and I have only ever used Photoshop Elements; started with 8 and am now using 11). I try to take good pictures and use minimal editing.
Jehan
Jehan
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
I love the useability of Lightroom. That said - and this baffles me - there is nothing in Lightroom that quite replicates the usefulness and fidelity of the levels adjustment in Photoshop
-
- nancyvinci23
- Posts: 7
- Joined:
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
I use MS Paint and Picture Manager for minute edits. Photoshop when I need to remove watermarks and such
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
Couldn't agree more with Jehan. I still use Elements 5.0 and it offers more than enough tools to get images accepted here. Get the photo right in camera and very, very little in the way of editing should be required.
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
JakTrax wrote:Couldn't agree more with Jehan. I still use Elements 5.0 and it offers more than enough tools to get images accepted here. Get the photo right in camera and very, very little in the way of editing should be required.
While true for "normal" shots, start shooting in low light at high ISO, and this is not the case anymore.
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
Even so, there are ways to greatly reduce the amount of editing required.
-
- 45272455674
- Posts: 7732
- Joined:
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
angad84 wrote:With something like 400 shots in the A.net database, I have only ever used LR.
LR is just slightly behind PS in my opinion, essentially with some of the more 'selective' editing stuff. I do occasionally bust out PS when I'm manipulating non-aviation pictures, or even aviation shots that aren't being held to editorial standards, but I've never had to go beyond LR for anything that A.net demands. Global edits don't hold you back, and the non-destructive nature of the catalog/editing process actually makes for a very A.net-suitable workflow – you can edit on multiple copies of the same image to account address rejection reasons as they come in.
This non-destructive editing is something easily done in Photoshop as well. You always import your RAW images as smart objects, any editing (like sharpening) is done as smart filters and you use a layer mask on those to control selectively how much each part of the image needs to be sharpened.
Lightroom i s really a different thing to photoshop, it's a way of managing images and quickly processing them to the needs of a typical editorial use (ie, sending out to a newspaper or other journalists). I would typically take around 100-200 photos of an event and then use LR to quickly apply editing presets to the lot and then export them out as 3000x2000 size JPEG images to go out to the journalists. It's a very different world to processing photos for airliners.net, there is no time for that stuff. And besides, on a website the image might only be at 500px wide maximum or on a newspaper, the final quality isn't that high anyway.
JakTrax wrote:Even so, there are ways to greatly reduce the amount of editing required.
Okay, go out at 9:00pm at night and take some photos of moving planes and then come back and show us how easy it is to greatly reduce the editing required for these images.
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
Chris, you make it sound like I've never done just that; I have and, while it's no doubt difficult, there are ALWAYS ways and means to reduce necessary editing. Where exactly did I say it was EASY to reduce editing anyway? I didn't, if you care to re-read my post. Just because you go out at 2100 and shoot a moving plane doesn't make your photo instantly and automatically wonderful, contrary to recent beliefs here. There are still good night shots, and there are still bad ones, with the level of editing (as well as the experience of the photographer) being the distinguishing factor. Yes, there is certainly a default amount of in-depth editing you need to do for night shots, but the better the shot, the less editing it will require. To argue this point would be daft!
Go out and take a sunny side on to meet the criteria here..... WITHOUT using editing software to get it up to standard. Perhaps just as difficult. Photoshop is the very thing that's allowed your thought process to prosper - take away Photoshop et al, and your 'normal' shot becomes just as challenging as any other.
Go out and take a sunny side on to meet the criteria here..... WITHOUT using editing software to get it up to standard. Perhaps just as difficult. Photoshop is the very thing that's allowed your thought process to prosper - take away Photoshop et al, and your 'normal' shot becomes just as challenging as any other.
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
When it comes to photo manipulation, I prefer using Photoshop.
-
- 45272455674
- Posts: 7732
- Joined:
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
JakTrax wrote:Go out and take a sunny side on to meet the criteria here..... WITHOUT using editing software to get it up to standard. Perhaps just as difficult.
How do you propose to get rid of dust spots on the photo then without editing or editing software? There is a bare minimum of editing you must do, regardless.
You'd be surprised at day time photos I take just how little editing I do on those. Barely any at all, and usually only in Camera raw to get rid of dust spots and a few other minor tweaks, nothing else. I do know photoshop well (along with all the other adobe stuff) which is expected given my background, but on photos I hate editing. Selecting sharpening, all that stuff, that's awful. That takes the fun out of it.
Certain types of night photos will always need more editing. You can limit it to a degree by using very low shutter speeds and combining them with apertures like F/2.8 (and then avoiding the need to use very high ISO) , but you'll still be editing quite a bit to deal with noise if you want a totally clean photo. No amount of "learn how to take a photo properly" (saying it before someone else does) can get around that. And then there are other things outside of the camera settings or editing for those kinds of photos that affect the image, and then it's down to having the eye to spot those.
Re: Photoshop or Lightroom?
cpd wrote:"learn how to take a photo properly" (saying it before someone else does)
Anyway, since my comment sort of started this particular line of discussion, let me emphasize that I was just responding to this part of Karl's original comment:
JakTrax wrote:Get the photo right in camera and very, very little in the way of editing should be required.
I've had a lot of low light / high ISO stuff accepted, and while I have my editing flow pretty well worked out for those, I would never say that they require "very, very little" editing. Even with perfect exposure, good contrast, and good color (three things which I find very difficult to nail in nighttime shots), they will still require significant noise reduction, some color correction, contrast adjustment, and sharpening. At ISOs of, say, 6400 or 10000, I consider noise reduction to be a major edit of the photo.
Maybe it's just a philosophical disagreement on what constitutes very little editing. But I just don't want people to think they should be able to edit an ISO6400 photo in 30 seconds, or they're doing something wrong, as I don't think that is the case at all.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests