Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

drabina · 07-09-2008, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

Apple in a way then is the same as Canon and Nikon if you want to go along the Pentax analogy.

Wasn't this the Pentax guy at one of the recent shows that stated that Pentax wants to be more like Apple when it comes to photo market? He would be so dissapointed

Gooshin · 07-09-2008, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by drabina

Wasn't this the Pentax guy at one of the recent shows that stated that Pentax wants to be more like Apple when it comes to photo market? He would be so dissapointed

i would agree with him only if apple actualy cost less than the competition.

apple is not branded as an underground tool for the elite

mac's whole campaign is that its the best tool if you are a graphic designer or whatever, and it blantly sneezes on its competition with those silly commercials

davemdsn · 07-09-2008, 12:16 PM

I find it funny to see how far off topic this thread has come. I also find it funny how passionately we defend out choices. Some people chose Pentax, some Nikon. Some chose Mac, some PC. Does it really matter what the next guy (or girl) uses? If we are happy with our choice at the end of the day then it shouldn't matter if we chose differently than someone else. It is one thing to suggest an alternative, it is entirely a different thing to choke the life out of the discussion with what amounts to nothing more than an opinion. Go take pictures.

drabina · 07-09-2008, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

mac's whole campaign is that its the best tool if you are a graphic designer or whatever, and it blantly sneezes on its competition with those silly commercials

I guess we should stop as I would have to disagree with you again

Lets just say that each platform has its advantages and disadvantages and let whoever reads this thread decide based on what we wrote.

Gooshin · 07-09-2008, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by drabina

I guess we should stop as I would have to disagree with you again

Lets just say that each platform has its advantages and disadvantages and let whoever reads this thread decide based on what we wrote.

agreed,

now if only we could drink beer over the internet....

**Mallee Boy** · 07-09-2008, 02:40 PM

Thanks Dan, your expertise is appreciated and thank you for sharing it. Hope I am able to reciprocate one day. (I will be taking that with me to the computer shop).

To the jnoelle...apologies for hijacking your thread, it wasn't intentional, but I hope you have learnt as much as I have.

To Drabina & Gooshin: enjoy your beer.

Cheers.

jnoelle · 07-09-2008, 03:12 PM

so back to lightroom vs photoshop...sounds like it's just like working inside camera raw? because in cs3 you can open jpegs in camera raw through the bridge, so it sounds like lightroom might be a bit unnecessary. someone way way on page one said something about a license...for what? the software?

sewebster · 07-09-2008, 03:25 PM

own the software = have a license

I don't have photoshop, but did buy lightroom (thankfully student license!) but I think the main thing is that in lightroom you can easily flip through all your photos, hit a few keys, click the mouse a few times to make your adjustments.

In photoshop presumably you click "file->open" then search around a while to figure out where your photo is, then load it up, look at it, decide what you want to do, make adjustments, then save it and repeat for the next photo.

JohnV3 · 07-09-2008, 03:41 PM

From what I have read, it appears that Lightroom's major strength is in the processing of bulk photos in situations where it would be very time consuming to process hundreds of photos one at a time. I played with it in the beta stage and found that it could do not much more than the free Picasa.

I have built many computers for friends and have five of them around the place as I write. I would buy the parts as I found them on sale and have used both Intel and AMD processors with XP Pro. These are basic machines, not state of the art, but they run Photoshop as fast as the eye can see. Any click or change is noticed instantly. I could make them for significantly less that buying one ready made, but nowadays, I can't build a computer as cheap as I can buy one unless it would be truly a stae of the art. I recently bought a Toshiba laptop for less than $450 on sale and it runs Photoshop as fast as the others with the Vista OS. If I had Mallee's computer problems I would either retire the machine or try to rebuild it by reloading the operating system from scratch. A new run-of-mill $500 desktop machine would probably be the easiest and most economical solution unless the user is heavy into playing games.

John

emalvick · 07-09-2008, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by sewebster

own the software = have a license

I don't have photoshop, but did buy lightroom (thankfully student license!) but I think the main thing is that in lightroom you can easily flip through all your photos, hit a few keys, click the mouse a few times to make your adjustments.

In photoshop presumably you click "file->open" then search around a while to figure out where your photo is, then load it up, look at it, decide what you want to do, make adjustments, then save it and repeat for the next photo.

I think the differences listed here are kind of key... I have been evaluating different Raw converters and was looking at Lightroom vs. Photoshop/ACR. Besides price, the thing that really makes Photoshop insufficient to Lightroom (if you call it that) is the DAM aspects.

The thing for me is that I already have a completely different DAM that performs better than that integrated into Lightroom at which case, Lightroom is reduced to nothing more than ACR with a different interface. This doesn't mean it is bad, but it does make it expensive for a Raw converter. I feel like I might as well spend the extra money for Photoshop just because I can have all the added features and stick to my current program for image management. These are all just my frame of thought coming from a hobbyist point of view...

At this point, as a hobbyist, Photoshop isn't that important to me. RAW processing is important as is price. That being said, I can probably get the aspects of Lightroom that I need using Photoshop Elements and ACR or I can shift to programs like Silkypix or LightZone that make excellend RAW processors that are a little more full featured than ACR. I am waiting though to see whether Lightroom 2.0 makes any vast improvements in RAW handling. I'm not in a huge hurry to make a decision as currently I use RawTherapee, which is actually a decent RAW converter that is free. There are just some great features that paid software has that I would like, like batch processing.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lightroom vs. Photoshop	ChooseAName	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	14	09-25-2009 10:42 AM
photoshop vs lightroom?	madisonphotogrl	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	31	03-05-2009 02:48 PM
Photoshop Vs Lightroom	rightfoot	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	08-25-2008 06:20 PM
Lightroom or Photoshop	GRIZZLY GULCH	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	02-18-2008 06:27 PM
Lightroom v. Photoshop	Arpe	Photographic Technique	3	03-24-2007 09:50 AM

07-09-2008, 12:03 PM	#31
drabina Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 525	Originally posted by Gooshin Apple in a way then is the same as Canon and Nikon if you want to go along the Pentax analogy. Wasn't this the Pentax guy at one of the recent shows that stated that Pentax wants to be more like Apple when it comes to photo market? He would be so dissapointed

07-09-2008, 12:11 PM	#32
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by drabina Wasn't this the Pentax guy at one of the recent shows that stated that Pentax wants to be more like Apple when it comes to photo market? He would be so dissapointed i would agree with him only if apple actualy cost less than the competition. apple is not branded as an underground tool for the elite mac's whole campaign is that its the best tool if you are a graphic designer or whatever, and it blantly sneezes on its competition with those silly commercials

07-09-2008, 12:16 PM	#33
davemdsn Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Boise, Idaho Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,413	I find it funny to see how far off topic this thread has come. I also find it funny how passionately we defend out choices. Some people chose Pentax, some Nikon. Some chose Mac, some PC. Does it really matter what the next guy (or girl) uses? If we are happy with our choice at the end of the day then it shouldn't matter if we chose differently than someone else. It is one thing to suggest an alternative, it is entirely a different thing to choke the life out of the discussion with what amounts to nothing more than an opinion. Go take pictures.

07-09-2008, 12:20 PM	#34
drabina Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: NJ Posts: 525	Originally posted by Gooshin mac's whole campaign is that its the best tool if you are a graphic designer or whatever, and it blantly sneezes on its competition with those silly commercials I guess we should stop as I would have to disagree with you again Lets just say that each platform has its advantages and disadvantages and let whoever reads this thread decide based on what we wrote.

07-09-2008, 12:25 PM	#35
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by drabina I guess we should stop as I would have to disagree with you again Lets just say that each platform has its advantages and disadvantages and let whoever reads this thread decide based on what we wrote. agreed, now if only we could drink beer over the internet....

07-09-2008, 02:40 PM	#36
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904	Thanks Dan, your expertise is appreciated and thank you for sharing it. Hope I am able to reciprocate one day. (I will be taking that with me to the computer shop). To the jnoelle...apologies for hijacking your thread, it wasn't intentional, but I hope you have learnt as much as I have. To Drabina & Gooshin: enjoy your beer. Cheers.

07-09-2008, 03:12 PM	#37
jnoelle Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Boulder, Colorado Posts: 25 Original Poster	so back to lightroom vs photoshop...sounds like it's just like working inside camera raw? because in cs3 you can open jpegs in camera raw through the bridge, so it sounds like lightroom might be a bit unnecessary. someone way way on page one said something about a license...for what? the software?

07-09-2008, 03:25 PM	#38
sewebster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 544	own the software = have a license I don't have photoshop, but did buy lightroom (thankfully student license!) but I think the main thing is that in lightroom you can easily flip through all your photos, hit a few keys, click the mouse a few times to make your adjustments. In photoshop presumably you click "file->open" then search around a while to figure out where your photo is, then load it up, look at it, decide what you want to do, make adjustments, then save it and repeat for the next photo.

07-09-2008, 03:41 PM	#39
JohnV3 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Phoenix, AZ USA Posts: 165	From what I have read, it appears that Lightroom's major strength is in the processing of bulk photos in situations where it would be very time consuming to process hundreds of photos one at a time. I played with it in the beta stage and found that it could do not much more than the free Picasa. I have built many computers for friends and have five of them around the place as I write. I would buy the parts as I found them on sale and have used both Intel and AMD processors with XP Pro. These are basic machines, not state of the art, but they run Photoshop as fast as the eye can see. Any click or change is noticed instantly. I could make them for significantly less that buying one ready made, but nowadays, I can't build a computer as cheap as I can buy one unless it would be truly a stae of the art. I recently bought a Toshiba laptop for less than $450 on sale and it runs Photoshop as fast as the others with the Vista OS. If I had Mallee's computer problems I would either retire the machine or try to rebuild it by reloading the operating system from scratch. A new run-of-mill $500 desktop machine would probably be the easiest and most economical solution unless the user is heavy into playing games. John

07-09-2008, 03:44 PM	#40
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	Originally posted by sewebster own the software = have a license I don't have photoshop, but did buy lightroom (thankfully student license!) but I think the main thing is that in lightroom you can easily flip through all your photos, hit a few keys, click the mouse a few times to make your adjustments. In photoshop presumably you click "file->open" then search around a while to figure out where your photo is, then load it up, look at it, decide what you want to do, make adjustments, then save it and repeat for the next photo. I think the differences listed here are kind of key... I have been evaluating different Raw converters and was looking at Lightroom vs. Photoshop/ACR. Besides price, the thing that really makes Photoshop insufficient to Lightroom (if you call it that) is the DAM aspects. The thing for me is that I already have a completely different DAM that performs better than that integrated into Lightroom at which case, Lightroom is reduced to nothing more than ACR with a different interface. This doesn't mean it is bad, but it does make it expensive for a Raw converter. I feel like I might as well spend the extra money for Photoshop just because I can have all the added features and stick to my current program for image management. These are all just my frame of thought coming from a hobbyist point of view... At this point, as a hobbyist, Photoshop isn't that important to me. RAW processing is important as is price. That being said, I can probably get the aspects of Lightroom that I need using Photoshop Elements and ACR or I can shift to programs like Silkypix or LightZone that make excellend RAW processors that are a little more full featured than ACR. I am waiting though to see whether Lightroom 2.0 makes any vast improvements in RAW handling. I'm not in a huge hurry to make a decision as currently I use RawTherapee, which is actually a decent RAW converter that is free. There are just some great features that paid software has that I would like, like batch processing.