Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2010/03/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: [Leica] A question on LR v PS
From: ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:24:18 -0400
References: <19b6d42d1003202138h3f8984b7kc5a5b04ec518f5d6@mail.gmail.com> <p06230905c7cb55c1e18b@192.168.1.5> <19b6d42d1003210935h4c2fef0ey77626a423a65c3a3@mail.gmail.com> <19b6d42d1003210942q797d3846ud9f911671914ae24@mail.gmail.com> <p06230908c7cc0f596129@192.168.1.5> <eb6799211003211544u12f86317v844f12eafc74dfb0@mail.gmail.com> <p0623090cc7cc6627b998@[192.168.1.5]>
don't think it's been mentioned here recently,
but any Lightroom user should be visiting this site every Tuesday
<http://heninger.org/index_files/9ee4bd3d1ba751d37167ae9ca8b166dd-612.html>
heninger is an old member of the LUG
this site has fresh, useful stuff every week
ric
On Mar 21, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Henning Wulff wrote:
> Actually, if you think that through LR does it correctly under most
> circumstances. Mostly subsequent actions depend on what has been done
> before, and it would rarely be the case that the subsequent actions would
> all have been done in the same way if an intermediate action had not been
> done, or done differently.
>
> I think I prefer the procedure the way LR does it now.
Replies:
Reply from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] A question on LR v PS)
In reply to:
Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] A question on LR v PS)
Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] A question on LR v PS)
Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] A question on LR v PS)
Message from richard at imagecraft.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] A question on LR v PS)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] A question on LR v PS)