[Wheatridger]

Reading through the linked article, I look forward to the day someone says “Lightroom is too complicated, I just use Photoshop.”

I know two fulltime photographers who say just that. They got started early in imaging, when PS was the only game in town.

[texandrews]

I know two fulltime photographers who say just that. They got started early in imaging, when PS was the only game in town.

I get that. It's certainly not as simple as it used to be. That said, it ain't no PS monster, and has a long way to go before it is.

Basically, it used to be so dead easy to use because it lacked lots of functionality it now has. My only problem with it now is on the library side of things. When I did the major upgrade a while back, it dropped all of the connections to my folders (which I knew was going to happen), and getting back to normal has been a real time-suck headache.

[northcoastgreg]

The trend is for software aimed at developing RAWs to do more of the sort of edits that back in the day could only be done in Photoshop. The fact is, PS is an absurdly byzantine in the way it does things. In the early days of photo editing I suppose it had to be that way. But that's not the case any more. Raw developing programs, using ultra-sophisticated algorithms and AI and advanced computing technology can now do a lot of what PS used to do in a more straightforward, intuitive way. I'm always amused when old school PS users who spent years mastering that program insist that a raw development should be confined to a few edits like exposure and contrast. I knew several photographers who for years resisted the local editing capability of LR, insisting that it was better to do such things in PS. Eventually, they gave in to the lure of LR, not only because LR was easier to use, but it was a lot quicker. I hate using PS not so much because of the difficulty of the damn thing but because it takes so long! I don't have time for that kind of nonsense.

[texandrews]

The trend is for software aimed at developing RAWs to do more of the sort of edits that back in the day could only be done in Photoshop. The fact is, PS is an absurdly byzantine in the way it does things. In the early days of photo editing I suppose it had to be that way. But that's not the case any more. Raw developing programs, using ultra-sophisticated algorithms and AI and advanced computing technology can now do a lot of what PS used to do in a more straightforward, intuitive way. I'm always amused when old school PS users who spent years mastering that program insist that a raw development should be confined to a few edits like exposure and contrast. I knew several photographers who for years resisted the local editing capability of LR, insisting that it was better to do such things in PS. Eventually, they gave in to the lure of LR, not only because LR was easier to use, but it was a lot quicker. I hate using PS not so much because of the difficulty of the damn thing but because it takes so long! I don't have time for that kind of nonsense.

Indeed. The "absurdly byzantine" way of PS has less to do with photos, however, and much more to do with graphic design---even including some of the terminology. It's been mis-named since the beginning. LR and other raw workflow programs are photo centric out of the box.

That said, I have now been using PS in conjunction with LR to perform certain tasks, and for these things it works well and actually isn't so arduous. But I would never start a photograph in PS. I haven't done that since at least 2005...

[northcoastgreg]

That said, I have now been using PS in conjunction with LR to perform certain tasks, and for these things it works well and actually isn't so arduous.

You must have a faster computer than I do. I find just the process of loading the damn file arduous, it just takes so long (partly because of all the LR edits). And then my version of Photoshop won't quit gracefully. It crashes and flings a huge dialog box at me after it's died its miserable death.

[texandrews]

You must have a faster computer than I do. I find just the process of loading the damn file arduous, it just takes so long (partly because of all the LR edits). And then my version of Photoshop won't quit gracefully. It crashes and flings a huge dialog box at me after it's died its miserable death.

Maybe. I have a Microcenter house brand computer I bought about a year ago for ~$800 (desktop). That's the computer, no monitor & etc. Added some ram, and now will add some more things because they are built off-the-shelf, so it's easy to upgrade them along the way as long as there's room inside.

OTOH, I think also that there's a lot of difference among us in terms of what our tolerance levels are---OTOH, the crashing is another matter. One thing the digital photography age has taught me, though: imaging today is the whole package. Camera, lenses, supports, lights, triggers, tethering, software, computer, printer, and all connections, including wireless connections, routers, & etc. All of these non-camera things have simply replaced all the stuff in a darkroom, including the plumbing (people always forget that one!). So, when upgrading to a new camera with bigger files, always look at your computing power.


It's like buying a house---maybe you can afford the house, but can you afford all the maintenance?

[mee]

Thanks, AggieDad, for the info! Upgraded the LRC and the implementation required no tutorial for me. It is well designed and easy to work with.