Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/12/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm not so sure I understand this non-destructive business. It is supposed to be the end-all answer to our problems, and answer to a question that seemed without an answer, and yet I've been doing the same thing for years. Simple, really, before photoshopping a file, save it with a different name, and do all you want to it, the original remains untouched. Oh well, I never said I was smart. Bill Pearce -----Original Message----- From: Adam Bridge Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:01 AM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] photoshop-vs-lightroom On thing not mentioned: Lightroom is entirely non-destructive to your images. Everything it does is parametric - that is the changes are done on the fly. This is seriously neat and means that your original file is ALWAYS there to be edited in its original state. Photoshop doesn't do that unless you convert to smart filters. It's the creation of masks on the fly that is amazing inside Lightroom. I have a bit of an inkling on how it does it, but I sure admire the engineers who implemented those features. There are tasks that only Photoshop can do. If you need layers and compositing then Lightroom isn't it - although you can do much before you get to the point where you need those. I'm making these points, not to convince Mark that he's wrong, but simply to bring out a fundamental and profound difference between the two software environments. Adam On Dec 26, 2011, at 5:24 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote: > http://mansurovs.com/photoshop-vs-lightroom > Here is a comparison. > There are hundreds of others you could find in a minute. > _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information