[slip]

Yes, Photoshop will continue to exist as a product because a lot of what Photoshop does has nothing much to do with photographs at all. Lightroom simply breaks out the photo-processing tasks that were done previously by ACR, Bridge and (to some extent) by PHotoshop, and put 'em all in one program dedicated exclusively to photography.

Which prompts me to ask: what kinds of things do you still need to do in PHotoshop? Not a challenge, just a question. I don't use Photoshop at all, so I'm never sure what folks are doing with it.

Will

here is an example why I like photoshop over lightroom....

you can start with a photo like this:




and make it like this:



without photoshop you would end up with something like this:



might not be the greatest example, but I hope you see what I am getting at.

as well, photoshop can get rid of zits, blemishes, facial scratches, etc which is invaluable for portriats, especially teens and older people.

just my 2 cents.

[WMBP]

as well, photoshop can get rid of zits, blemishes, facial scratches, etc which is invaluable for portriats, especially teens and older people.

Thanks for the examples. I take it what you did in Photoshop was select (mask) the girls' faces and increase the highlights there. No area-selection tool in Lightroom presently, although there is one in some other apps, such as Lightzone. Do you do this a lot? I don't personally feel the need to do that sort of thing at all, although if I did, I could do it in Photoshop Elements.

For what it's worth, it's my understanding that Lightroom v1.0 will have a clone tool that will make it possible to remove blemishes, etc.

Thanks again for the examples.

will

[slip]

Thanks for the examples. I take it what you did in Photoshop was select (mask) the girls' faces and increase the highlights there. No area-selection tool in Lightroom presently, although there is one in some other apps, such as Lightzone. Do you do this a lot? I don't personally feel the need to do that sort of thing at all, although if I did, I could do it in Photoshop Elements.

For what it's worth, it's my understanding that Lightroom v1.0 will have a clone tool that will make it possible to remove blemishes, etc.

Thanks again for the examples.

will

no masking involved!

I used the regular lasso tool, put the feather around 30px (the higher the resolution the photo is, the bigger the feather)
then I lasso INSIDE the subject not going near the edges.
I then use the curves option, pull the curve up to lighten the mid tones. You don't want to over lighten it, just to look natural.
if your software doesn't have curves, you can do almost as good a job with levels adjustment with the middle adjustment triangle.

If you wish, at some point I can do a short tutorial on it.

works very well in group wedding shots when some of the people at the sides or back are a little too dark.
you can also use it to lighten just one side of the face when the shadow is a bit to dark.
of course there must be a lot of pixel information to do this.

NOTE if you get an error message saying 50% not selected (or something simular as I forgot the exact message) then you have to lower the feather.

hope this makes it more understandable

randy

There is a select tool with curves with lightroom

Adobe - Adjust an image’s tone with ease

[balofagus]

I agree that Photoshop is an indispensible tool, but I feel that Lightroom really cuts back on processing time. Lightroom is built to make global edits. The clone/heal tool is not as robust as the one in Photoshop but I can live with that. I have been using the beta since 2, and they work close to seamlessly. Also, I have never used Bridge as I'm still on version 7, but reports say that Lightroom is better tailored for organizing photographs than the Bridge, which is built to work with the entire Creative Suite.

As for Slipchuck's example, I have a feeling something similar could be done in Lightroom. I would probably adjust the fill light slider, black point, and then the tone curve. I would also have to adjust the denoise slider a little as fill light can and will bring out shadow noise. Nonetheless, this type of edit is probably still better done in Photoshop.

[WMBP]

There is a select tool with curves with lightroom

Yes, I thought about pointing out that you can target certain dimensions of the photo in Lightroom for adjustment - although the link Xgear gives shows a tutorial based on v1, which is still two weeks from final release. But it's still true that there's no selection lasso as there is in Photoshop or even in Lightcraft's Lightzone.

I will say however that I don't regard that as much of a drawback for my own photos. When a portion of a photo has been adjusted selectively, it has a tendency to produce an image that betrays the fact that it's been "photoshopped". No disrespect meant to slipchuck here, but I think what he did to his photo produces that effect. The faces of the two girls are illuminated by a light that's behind or to the right of the observer, shining in the faces of those two girls but for some mysterious reason not illuminating the rest of the scene. It's a nice effect, actually, but I would describe it as painterly rather than photographic. I admire the skill involved in doing this well (and tastefully) as it's done here. But I don't have the desire to learn how to do it myself. I spend too much time in front of my computer as it is. :-)

Will

[mtngal]

I've got what's probably a dumb question about LR. I used one of the betas and really liked it (have every intention of getting it) but I didn't see how you could resize a photo with it. I ended up doing most adjustments in LR and then opening it in photoshop to resize it. Did I miss something when I was playing with the beta version?

[WMBP]

I've got what's probably a dumb question about LR. I used one of the betas and really liked it (have every intention of getting it) but I didn't see how you could resize a photo with it. I ended up doing most adjustments in LR and then opening it in photoshop to resize it. Did I miss something when I was playing with the beta version?

Not a dumb question at all. I will tell you what I THINK is the answer.

Essential to Lightroom - and not essential to Photoshop - is the idea of non-destructive editing. So the file you start with, the file you import originally, doesn't get changed at all, more or less ever. To resize an image, you export it and specify the size of the export.

Will

[Dana G]

Lightroom is not a substitute for Photoshop, there are a lot of powerful tools in Photoshop that are indispensable for some jobs. Lightroom is more of a content manager on top of an image editor.

I use iView Pro and Photoshop, so there's no advantage for me in getting Lightroom. If I didn't have iView Pro, I'd have Lightroom and Photoshop.

[wll]

For me, lightroom is quick and to the point. I can change WB, do color correction, bring up shadows, reduce highlights, change curves, etc, etc, by using sliders. This makes life easy, Lightroom does these things well. Most of my images don't need photoshop, I just need to optimize the image. If I need PS then it is there.

I will get Lightroom when available. I love the beta, I'm sure I'll love the real version.


wll

[davemdsn]

OK, I bit the bullet and pre-ordered Lightroom since it does make life easier when handling large amounts of photos and does have some awesome features. But make no mistake, it does not replace Photoshop! Lightroom doesn't have layers, maskes, filters, not even USM or smart sharpen. It is meant to be a companion to Photoshop, not a replacement. I fear that people will buy it thinking that it will save them from needing to buy CS+ or Elements and end up disapointed.

I used the beta for several months and all of my family photos needed nothing more than Lightroom, but my commercial work all had to go to Photoshop. My web images all get a copyright stamp on them so they had to go to Photoshop as well. LR is not a pixel editor.

[wll]

OK, I bit the bullet and pre-ordered Lightroom since it does make life easier when handling large amounts of photos and does have some awesome features. But make no mistake, it does not replace Photoshop! Lightroom doesn't have layers, maskes, filters, not even USM or smart sharpen. It is meant to be a companion to Photoshop, not a replacement. I fear that people will buy it thinking that it will save them from needing to buy CS+ or Elements and end up disapointed.

I used the beta for several months and all of my family photos needed nothing more than Lightroom, but my commercial work all had to go to Photoshop. My web images all get a copyright stamp on them so they had to go to Photoshop as well. LR is not a pixel editor.

I agree ....


wll

[WMBP]

But make no mistake, it does not replace Photoshop!

Nothing timid about that! And Dana G. agrees with davemdsn.

I certainly do not intend to tell anybody who feels the need to use Photoshop that he's wrong. But for the benefit of folks who might be reading here who don't know much about either Lightroom or Photoshop, I'd like to take a somewhat contrary position.

For starters, Lightroom may indeed replace the Camera Raw and Bridge features of the Creative Suite, and Adobe says this itself. The Lightroom FAQ includes the question "Does Lightroom replace Adobe Bridge or Camera Raw," and the answer begins, "For some, it might...." I think they're being a bit coy. I think it will be more likely that Lightroom will take over the functions of Bridge and ACR not just for some, but for many. If it doesn't, well, then Lightroom isn't going to sell very well.

As for whether Lightroom replaces Photoshop, the answer is simple in one sense and complicated in another.

It's simple enough to say that Lightroom is not Photoshop. As davemdsn points out, Lightroom isn't a pixel editor, although version 1 apparently does have some tools that have not been in the beta that will allow you to target a few basic kinds of edits (blemish fixes, can't remember if there's a red-eye tool in 1 or not). Nevertheless, it's quite true that Photoshop does quite a bit that Lightroom cannot do.

But a lot of what Photoshop can do and Lightroom can't, doesn't have anything to do with photographs. That's why Lightroom exists: unlike Photoshop, Lightroom is all about photography and about nothing but photography. And it's also true and important to note that, with respect to editing photos, a very great deal of what Photoshop does, can indeed be done in Lightroom - and in some cases, seems to be done better there, as I undererstand that some of the old Photoshop tools have been redesigned in Lightroom so that they are easier to use. (I am thinking particularly of the tone curve.) So, the statement "Lightroom doesn't replace Photoshop" isn't true unless you explain what tools in Photoshop you can't live without. For many folks, myself included, Lightroom does indeed make Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements) quite unnecessary. Here again from the FAQ is Adobe's take on Lightrooom and editing:

Lightroom provides a single environment that has all of the functions photographers most commonly need to perform on their images, in the cleanest, least cluttered, easiest to use package. Lightroom contains a focused set of features that are just right for photography, and which are intuitive, powerful, and easy to learn. It is an image editing tool, and it’s a workflow productivity tool. Photographers who require extensive painting and compositing tools, and editing of their images at the pixel level, will still use Photoshop CS2 to achieve their additional goals. [emphasis added by WMBP]

I am sure that folks who are already very comfortable with Photoshop will, especially at first, find Lightroom's lack of layers, etc., impossibly limiting. Or they'll simply feel more comfortable using Photoshop. Nothing wrong with that. I don't for a minute mean to talk anybody into abandoning Photoshop. And I don't mean to argue with anybody who says "Lightroom doesn't replace Photoshop" - so long as they're willing to add, "at least not for me."

I just want lurkers to know that many photographers - certainly many amateurs, including reasonably serious ones - don't feel the need to use Photoshop, often or at all. The enormous training culture that exists already around Lightroom - dozens of online tutorials, to be followed in a week by dozens of books and at least one or two magazines - all this info focuses 99% of the time on what you can do with Lightroom alone.

Will

[davemdsn]

Will, I agree entirely that Lightroom will replace Bridge and ACR for photographers, without question - that is what it is designed for, as you stated. I also agree that a lot of photogaphers do not need Photoshop. That was true even before Lightroom.

However, Bridge and ACR are the only place where Photoshop and Lightroom have similar function. Photoshop does not have many of the great features of Lightroom, like image management, virtual copies, filmstrips in any mode, image editing without even opening the image, nowhere near the capabilities in slideshow, print or web functions. This is why I got it.

Lightroom, on the other hand does not have hardly any of the features in Photoshop that I use on a daily basis. To name a few:

Layers, Masks, Blending Modes: These are indespensible. Everyone was so happy to learn the sharpening technique the Ben illustrated a couple weeks ago. It can't be done without Layers and Blending Modes. Selective filtering can't be done without Masks. I use them to brighten eyes in portraits, to selectively soften skin and to create custom vignettes.

USM and Smart Sharpen: We talk a lot about image sharpening on these fori. The sharpen tool in Lightroom is quite basic and does not allow the control of USM. It also does not allow you to only sharpen luminosity while leaving color alone.

These are basic photogaphy tools, not high end graphic designer tools. I am not knocking Lightroom and I very much agree that not everyone needs Photoshop, but Lightroom actually does very little of what Photoshop does - and visa versa.

This is a standard portrait for me. The subjects aren't always this pretty, but the work I do with them is the same. This started out in Lightroom, where it got it's color, curves and overall look. I had to get it into Photoshop to sharpen it properly, brighten her eyes, retouch some scars, soften her skin (slightly), and subdue the background so it wouldn't compete for attention. It also got a watermark and a border. None of which could be done in Lightroom.



This image on the other hand could very easily have been done in Lightroom, not including the border and watermark.




I see both of our perspectives as being correct and in no way is this an arguement. Simply a very good example of two photographers with two different needs. Fortunately Adobe is aware of this and Lightroom knows how to track my Photoshop edits and even automatically stacks them with the original photo. We all win.

[mtngal]

Thanks for the answer and explanation to my resizing question, it makes sense to me now.

I'm definitely one who will be getting Lightroom (reminder to self - call the student store to find out if they will be getting the program or if I'll have to order/download and fax my ID to Adobe for academic pricing) but will continue to use Photoshop. LR seems so much more useful than Bridge, and I didn't even scratch the surface.

One of the lightroom tools I loved was their rotate with all the lines, along with the crop tool with the third lines.