Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2017 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?

  
 
gdsf2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


I have. It is the same engine, but LR also includes many other features such as digital asset management and not needing to open, edit, and save files one at a time.


Sep 16, 2017 at 10:22 PM
melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


gdsf2 wrote:
I have. It is the same engine, but LR also includes many other features such as digital asset management and not needing to open, edit, and save files one at a time.


You can do batch edits in ACR. Select as many files as you want in Bridge, then File | Open. Perform the edits on one of the images, then Select All in the "hamburger' menu at the top of ACR's thumbnails, then choose Sync and manually check what needs synching (ACR is too stupid to know). I agree it's well hidden.



Sep 17, 2017 at 06:16 AM
butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


Yes, ACR and Lr are, on the face, totally equal in RAW processing capabilities. After all, it's the same underlying code just a different GUI. Indeed, ACR has batch processing but Lr has many more workflow enhancements that a Bridge/ACR/Ps workflow can't easily replicate or offer quite the same level of simplification of some tasks. I've used both extensively over the years and Lr definitely has the upper hand for quickly and efficiently handling the processing and delivery of larger quantities of images.

For me, merely processing the images to a working state is only a small part of the process. I also must turn around those images in short order to meet my clients stringent deadlines.

In Lightroom I can quickly process hundreds of images from a game or event and seamlessly export subsets of my selects to multiple publications using ftp plugin to be used in online galleries for the news/sports coverage (I even have a plugin that will allow me to send images directly from Lightroom to Wordpress Media Libraries, bypassing the need to upload them via a browser) and another subset of images processed for use in print by the same or other publications ... then use a Publish Services export plugin to send the entire set of keepers to my personal online shopping cart for individual print and digital file sales to the general public.

Also, these Export and Publish Services plugins allow me to set pixel dimension, resolution, apply the desired level of sharpening, re-name the files to individual client's requirements and even apply my client's or my own watermark to the exported images.

I can do all this in Lr without creating one derivative file that has to be stored on my local system. This all can be done using Bridge/ACR/Ps using scripts, actions and other tools ... but it won't be as streamlined, efficient and will be more time consuming and involve housecleaning efforts to tidy everything up deleting all those exported jpegs after the fact.

There's nothing wrong with using ACR as the foundation for a RAW workflow. But, for many users, Lightroom offers much, much more in streamlining and simplifying the task in a volume workflow.



Sep 17, 2017 at 10:38 AM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Funny how I've never had a program stop working on my Mac after any version upgrade but I lost the use of a bunch of stuff at work when my win7 laptop forced a win 10 upgrade on us (even though we thought we had elected not to upgrade) . And then to make matters worse the 'simple roll back if you don't want it' feature failed to roll back to a stable state .
If programs like CS6 will be incompatible with the next version of Mac OS your not compelled to upgrade to it and you certainly won't
...Show more

Actually, Windows 10 can do even worse with its hugely irritating mandatory update policy. Recently, I left some Maya 2017 workspaces open on my Windows machine and went to bed. The following afternoon, I noticed that all of my workflow was gone thanks to some unstoppable update. I'm used to that (save everything and remember where you saved it), but what I wasn't prepared for was the fact that the Microsoft update broke Maya in key places. By force-closing Maya, Windows pushed the already buggy Autodesk software over the edge of usability by disabling numerous plugins (reversible) and breaking paths to certain dialogs (irreversible without re-installation in my case). And though the Maya bug was well documented (usually caused by crashes or forced restarts), none of the less drastic fixes available on the Autodesk knowledge base could resolve it... so 1.5h lost to trouble shooting, and another hour lost to uninstalling and reinstalling.

I would just take the Windows 10 machine off the Internet altogether, but I still need Dropbox on it. At this point, though, I wonder if I would save more time just turning WiFi off most of the time and using it like a computer from the early 1990s... just to keep MS's mandatory updates from causing me headaches.



Sep 21, 2017 at 01:07 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


Arka,

I'm facing the need to update to Office 365 from a much older version. I use Excel for prototype modeling and only use Word because many of my editors demand a Word formatted submission.

Does M$ also have this "feature" of forced upgrades? Am appalled at the presumption that the user has no input into the state of her/his tools.

Robert



Sep 21, 2017 at 02:21 AM
Bernie
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


Open source:

http://www.openoffice.org
or
http://www.libreoffice.org

Besides writing MS formats, they will also read some old & obsolete formats. Libreoffice will also open some no longer supported Apple formats.



Sep 21, 2017 at 09:44 AM
Tim Knutson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


All this kinda makes me want to go get a fresh box of FP4. Dingle my fingers in some caustic chemical in a dark place. Unplug for a while.


Sep 21, 2017 at 01:34 PM
Andrew Pece Photography
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


I often hear "Lightroom was built for photographers". I'm not sure that's such a shining accolade for it considering pretty much every photograph you will ever see in any top notch magazine has probably been processed through Photoshop, at least to some extent.

Lightroom is for photographer, but what kind of photographers? I'd surmise, the type that take a single photo, and deliver that single photo, which there is nothing wrong with of course. Walk into the office of the guys doing all the cutting edge photography in fashion, product, architecture, you name it, and most of them are in ps all day. But, I thought there was a program built for photographers. So, why aren't they in there?



Sep 24, 2017 at 04:55 AM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


Andrew Pece Photography wrote:
I often hear "Lightroom was built for photographers". I'm not sure that's such a shining accolade for it considering pretty much every photograph you will ever see in any top notch magazine has probably been processed through Photoshop, at least to some extent.

Lightroom is for photographer, but what kind of photographers? I'd surmise, the type that take a single photo, and deliver that single photo, which there is nothing wrong with of course. Walk into the office of the guys doing all the cutting edge photography in fashion, product, architecture, you name it, and most of them
...Show more

Ummm, those people sitting in the office are not photigraphers, but rather graphic artists which was the original target of photoshop. I use both LR and PS and I'd say 80% of my prints never need to go through PS. I do the vast majority of my processing in LR, and the file management in LR is something PS just does not have and it makes managing those 100,000 images a breeze for us photographers.



Sep 24, 2017 at 08:12 AM
butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


Andrew Pece Photography wrote:
I often hear "Lightroom was built for photographers". I'm not sure that's such a shining accolade for it considering pretty much every photograph you will ever see in any top notch magazine has probably been processed through Photoshop, at least to some extent.

Lightroom is for photographer, but what kind of photographers? I'd surmise, the type that take a single photo, and deliver that single photo, which there is nothing wrong with of course. Walk into the office of the guys doing all the cutting edge photography in fashion, product, architecture, you name it, and most of them
...Show more


In some ways, that is an absurd assertion.

Many of those so-called 'top notch' magazines do take most all published photos into Ps ... not necessarily because they feel they need to but because they have been taught that 'cutting edge fashion' requires them to morph their models into someone the model's own family would never recognize. As chez points out, the folks doing these types of process are not really photographers but graphics artists. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that. Ps is the proper tool for such work.

The use of Ps in a workflow alone should not discount that Lightroom can be extremely valuable as the foundation most all photographers, of any genre, could utilize for their workflow. Which is why Adobe provides both Lr and Ps in the CC Photography Package.

OTH if you were a photographer working for a 'cutting edge' news/sports/journalism publication, making such extreme unnecessary edits in Ps could be grounds for dismissal.

It's quite unfair to place all 'photographers' into one basket and feel that we should all march to the same drum beat. The absences of the use in Ps during the workflow process does not make one an inferior photographer. Nor does the adding hours of effort and dozens of layers in Photoshop equate to being a superior photographer.

To apply a one-size-fits-all label is just not appropriate or accurate.



Sep 24, 2017 at 09:11 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


I guess following injestion by Photo Mechanic I may ultimately use LR as a bulk/batch processor, and perhaps C1 on individual (better) images.

I can perhaps see myself moving in that direction.

Photoshop I mostly use for graphics, and of course its unmatched cloning tools.



Sep 24, 2017 at 09:31 AM
Andrew Pece Photography
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


butchM wrote:
In some ways, that is an absurd assertion.

Many of those so-called 'top notch' magazines do take most all published photos into Ps ... not necessarily because they feel they need to but because they have been taught that 'cutting edge fashion' requires them to morph their models into someone the model's own family would never recognize. As chez points out, the folks doing these types of process are not really photographers but graphics artists. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that. Ps is the proper tool for such work..

The use of Ps in a workflow alone should
...Show more

I'm not trying to knock anybody's process. But look, professional commercial photos we see everyday were edited in Photoshop. You don't have to like that, but it's the truth. It's the truth because these are the types of refined photos that corporate America has found to work, and they are throwing the big bucks at this stuff so they know. So, the question becomes, if lr is the amazing editing tool built for photographers, why is hardly any of the work done at the pinnacle of photography (from commercial to artistic) being done in Lightroom? Again, this is a real knock on Lightroom in my estimation. If it's built for photographers, why couldn't they find a way to make it the tool of choice?

I agree of course there are no superior workflows, I'm just commenting on the percentages of what people are actually doing. How high end photographs nowadays are making it to their final destination. Somebody is tasked with taking a photograph of the president and First Lady, and I'm betting the photo is going into ps for some serious work, and the examples could continue on.

As I mentioned, if you deliver photographs straight out of your camera, lr is a great tool. I just don't think the average person knows how high the percentage of photos they see everyday were edited in ps. It's pretty much at or near 100%.

You can liken photography to baseball (in response to the other poster's comment that): you need to hit good, but to be very good, you need to play good defense too. In photography, you've got to be good in post, and I do believe that goes beyond being able to move a few sliders around in Lightroom. I also think the graphic comment was way out of line, because even photographic lighting today has jumped leaps and bounds ahead with the ability to place lights within the frame and take a frame with them removed on a tripod to have them out. There's no way to do this within the application that was "built for photographers".


Edited on Sep 24, 2017 at 03:03 PM · View previous versions



Sep 24, 2017 at 02:37 PM
Andrew Pece Photography
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


I read that, I came off a bit snide. Guys all I am saying is that it's a bit of a knock on Adobe in my opinion that such a high percentage of the high caliber work isn't edited solely in the application "that was built for photography." I'd have to guess that the future of Lightroom would need to bring an option for layering into the mix if they really want to have built a tool designed specifically for the modern day working photographer.


Sep 24, 2017 at 02:57 PM
butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


Andrew Pece Photography wrote:
... I also think the graphic comment was way out of line, because even photographic lighting today has jumped leaps and bounds ahead with the ability to place lights within the frame and take a frame with them removed on a tripod to have them out. There's no way to do this within the application that was "built for photographers".


I guess you missed the part in my comment that pointed out that Lr is a good foundational tool and many, if not most Lightroom users also utilize Ps as needed. They just may not rely upon Ps to remove lighting setups from the periphery.

Unfortunately, reality flies in the face of your premise. Considering the number of successful photographers that utilize Lightroom in their workflow. They may not be your version of 'high caliber' though many are very successful at what they do.



Sep 24, 2017 at 04:20 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


Andrew Pece Photography wrote:
I'm not trying to knock anybody's process. But look, professional commercial photos we see everyday were edited in Photoshop. You don't have to like that, but it's the truth. It's the truth because these are the types of refined photos that corporate America has found to work, and they are throwing the big bucks at this stuff so they know. So, the question becomes, if lr is the amazing editing tool built for photographers, why is hardly any of the work done at the pinnacle of photography (from commercial to artistic) being done in Lightroom? Again, this is
...Show more

Again, are you talking about the photographer or the commercial artist that is using PS. The commercial graphic artists grew up on PS...obviously they'll continue to use PS for their work. PS was originally created for the graphic artist...that is who it was targeted at...not the photographer.

I'm thinking you are mixing up photography with graphic art...which is what covers the majority of magazines out there. The photographer has long ago released his image to the mastery of the graphic artist...who knows what tools the person that pressed the shutter uses.



Sep 24, 2017 at 05:09 PM
Andrew Pece Photography
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


chez wrote:
Again, are you talking about the photographer or the commercial artist that is using PS. The commercial graphic artists grew up on PS...obviously they'll continue to use PS for their work. PS was originally created for the graphic artist...that is who it was targeted at...not the photographer.

I'm thinking you are mixing up photography with graphic art...which is what covers the majority of magazines out there. The photographer has long ago released his image to the mastery of the graphic artist...who knows what tools the person that pressed the shutter uses.


I'm talking about photographers.

All I'm saying, again, is "LR was made for photographers" is a very poor argument and tagline because, well, most all the work I see, the photographers around me doing it, are doing it in Photoshop. And yes, I realize there are different sects of photography this assertion may not apply to, like sports shooters. I hope I don't need to list examples of photographers using predominantly Photoshop as their editing tool, because, to be honest, it's practically every one of them that I can think of.

So I think what you've said works against you. Yes, ps was originally designed for graphic artists. Then why is it where almost everyone is doing their photo editing? This makes lr look horrible (if you're using that as an argument), because people are editing their photos in an application meant for something else, leaving me to conclude Adobe is clueless when it comes to the actual pro photographer. You're too caught up on what things were designed for, I am stating what people are actually doing.

I think lr exists the way it is because ps exists. Adobe realizes if you need the modern day layering and compositing tool, nothing can beat ps, so they've forgotten about the huge job of trying to incorporate this functionality into LR. I think a better tag line for lr would be "the tool built for photographers, but came up short so you'll have to head over to ps if you need the use of those additional tools (the ones that almost every photographer nowadays is using)."



Sep 24, 2017 at 05:59 PM
Andrew Pece Photography
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


butchM wrote:
I guess you missed the part in my comment that pointed out that Lr is a good foundational tool and many, if not most Lightroom users also utilize Ps as needed. They just may not rely upon Ps to remove lighting setups from the periphery.

Unfortunately, reality flies in the face of your premise. Considering the number of successful photographers that utilize Lightroom in their workflow. They may not be your version of 'high caliber' though many are very successful at what they do.


But what are those photographers using lr for? To give you one example, I can think of a wedding photographer I know, and he uses lr for most of his work. Yet, when he want to deliver his "signature" series to his clients, guess where those photos get edited. Ps. All the other batch processed photos go right through lr, you're right about that. This is a pattern. And it's not elitist or anything, I'm just stating what I think is a fact: when photographer really need to push an image past what we deem average, ps is on many occasions a big part of that process in today's world.

I should have made that clearer. I'm not saying people aren't using Lightroom. In fact most do. But, when they actually need to do something very complex, usually regarding layering, cloning, or compositing, to have total control over their image that would not be possible in lr, they go to ps. Further, most all of the functionality they got from lr could have been attained through acr. Maybe you guys and I see the amount of compositing/layering in modern day photography at different levels. But I photographers who aren't delivering hundreds of files, in other words photographers mostly interested in quality over quantity, are heavily utilizing ps... in my estimation anyway. Again, pull an example out of a hat... a photographer is tasked with photographing Robert deniros one of a kind car, the best auto photographer in the world, and I guarantee you within his shooting and editing process he is going to heavily utilize ps/layering/compositing.

In short, stop using the statement "LR is a tool built for photographers" (not saying you said that, someone did) as support for the fact that LR is actually the preferred editing tool, because to a large extent, I don't believe it is except in cases where hundreds of images are being auto processed and delivered.



Sep 24, 2017 at 06:09 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Upgraded to CC finally - What did I just Buy?


I'd say that both LR & PS are built for photos ... although LR may have been built more specifically to the WORKFLOW needs of photographers, where PS did not accommodate certain workflow areas as well as photographers wanted.

One (Lightroom) is designed to handle the lion's share are routine adjustments, DAM and has plenty of creative capability that will satisfy all but the most granular needs. The other (PS) has the ability to rip the whole thing apart (channel separation, RGB / CMYK / LAB, etc.) to shreds as needed for any manner of editing.

Which industry (graphics vs. photographer) uses which tool really doesn't change the tool. As best I know (as has been pointed out by others), they (ACR / LR) operate based on the same (core) engine, just a different interface and attached to differing tool sets.

The short "stereoptypical" application is volume / efficiency / streamlining = better suited for LR, "one-off", detailed application selectivity, granular, uber-creative / fantasy = better suited for PS. Can you flip the usage around and use one for the other, sure ... to a degree. But, they are both suitable for photography use ... just from a different perspective of detail / granularity / efficiency. They also function a bit differently in the sequence of applied edits, but that's probably trivial for many.

Personally, I don't do much of the uber-creative / fantasy with PS (as noted in the "fashion industry" stuff). I prefer PS for the more detailed neutral correction capabilities it affords over LR ... notably color balance layers, channel mask creation, etc.

LR & Photoshop are kinda like owning an SUV to run around town all day long, doing a whole host of things that fit your everyday needs ... and owning a dually with a dump bed for those large landscaping jobs, or a semi for putting together a large load of pallets, etc. Both can haul things around, with one (LR) tending to 80-90% of the routine tasks, and the other (PS) tackling the really heavy lifting in ways that LR was never intended to handle.

One is more nimble, the other a bit more cumbersome to handle, but like most things ... the more you use it, the more proficient you become with developing a mastery of utilization. For many folks, once they've developed a suitable mastery of one ... the other seems very inappropriate for their use. Those who have developed a mastery of each, are likely to appreciate it each for what they are (and are not).

Imo, BOTH are built for photographers ... even if others (graphic designers, etc.) use PS more than LR. Just a matter of having two different tools. Not unlike having a circular saw that can rip through most construction tasks, vs. having a dovetail saw or a razor sharp chisel that grants a different level of precision.

BTW ... good to know that CC is correlated to CS6 Extended.



Oct 04, 2017 at 05:06 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.