[Leica] A question on LR v PS

[chris at chriscrawfordphoto.com (Chris Crawford)]

I'll agree with most of what Henning said and add that LR is great for
commercial work like weddings and portraits and such, but it sucks for fine
art photography where you want to do a lot of dodging and burning and other
work on each pic. I have LR and mostly use it for processing family
snapshots, while I use Photoshop for my 'real work'


-- 
Chris Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana
260-424-0897

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My portfolio

http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My latest work!



On 3/21/10 12:59 AM, "Henning Wulff" <henningw at archiphoto.com> wrote:

> At 12:38 AM -0400 3/21/10, Vince Passaro wrote:
>> Hi all:
>> 
>> Since I have no clue what you all are talking about when you start 
>> advising
>> each other on processing your raw files and levels and profiles etc etc, 
>> and
>> I am struggling to learn how to do even basic things in PS (which I own in
>> the latest incarnation because I was able to get it and many other Adobe
>> programs (Illustrator, a bunch of other stuff) in a package for under $200
>> as a part-time faculty member at NYU, I'm reaching out to get advice on 
>> what
>> I'm doing.
>> 
>> I notice most you a. work in raw files and import them into whatever 
>> program
>> you use to process them; and b. use Light Room rather than Photoshop.
>> 
>> So my question is, what does Light Room do that Photoshop doesn't? When I
>> say Photoshop I mean to include Adobe Bridge, which seems like a slightly
>> creaky (in the Tin Man sense) but adequate format in which one can 
>> organize
>> one's library of images, rename them, etc.
>> 
>> Lastly, if anyone cares to share his/her experience, I would love to hear
>> how some of you folks went about learning LR or PS. (I have *Photoshop for
>> Dummies* but it's incoherent, badly organized and kind of 
>> incomprehensible.
>> And when it is comprehensible it's kind of lame.)
>> 
>> Thanks for any advise and info.
>> 
>> Vince P
>> 
> 
> Boy, have you opened a can of worms!  :-)
> 
> LR and PS use the same basic engine, ie, Adobe Camera Raw to process
> raw files, but they have a completely different interface and
> audience.
> 
> PS is for people (and their images) who want to work on one image at
> a time, and do lots of things to it.
> 
> LR is for people who shoot a lot of photos, want to organize them
> into topics, groups, etc and want to quickly sort through them, pick
> the good ones and batcvh process them in a more 'photographer'
> intuitive way. Almost always LR is better for photographers and PS is
> more for graphic designers, or for final finishes on a special
> photograph that LR doesn't have all the tools for. In that sense PS
> augments LR, but in LR you can process 50 photos for most parameters
> in the time that you can do 1 photo in PS, and you have a good
> database as well.
> 
> A very good tutorial for LR is Michael Reichmann's video tutorials
> from luminous-landscape.com, but you have to put up with MR's sense
> of humour. Might take some getting used to. There are a lot of decent
> books, but they are a bit slower going and more for intensive
> studying.