paul stenquist wrote:
On Aug 6, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Tom C wrote:
My opinion after working / trying to work with LR is that I much
prefer Photoshop. I'm particularly irked that it does not let me
resize my image at any time in the editing process.
I think
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Ann Sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com wrote:
Glad I read this thread - now I know I'll never wan't lightroom :-) I also
like doing my resizing on an individual basis depending on
what the intended use of the particular photo is.
If you believe that you cannot set
On Aug 6, 2010, at 13:35, Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote:
lightroom is only useful for editing multiple pictures (batches of
10-20 or a 100+ images) at once.
I completely and utterly disagree with you.
yes, it is GOOD at that, but that doesn't mean that is the only time it is
useful!
it is
Thanks for that insight Mark. I was close to on the verge of
understanding
that. And of course in PS, that's one of the things that bites me
frequently.
Not damaging my original, but creating a sized version that I have trouble
recreating later, sized differently.
I feel a certain degree
Just jumping in here.
I just saw a short interview with Scott Kelby. He was asked about his
use of Lightroom and Photoshop. He said that is a little strange that
the guy known as the Photoshop king does about 80% of his work in
Lightroom. He also said that when he does go to Photoshop it is
--
From: George Sinos
Subject: Re: Adobe CS5 vs. Lightroom 3
Just jumping in here.
I just saw a short interview with Scott Kelby. He was asked about his
use of Lightroom and Photoshop. He said that is a little strange that
the guy known
On Aug 7, 2010, at 11:08 AM, William Robb wrote:
--
From: George Sinos
Subject: Re: Adobe CS5 vs. Lightroom 3
Just jumping in here.
I just saw a short interview with Scott Kelby. He was asked about his
use of Lightroom and Photoshop
As a slight aside here, I have been using Photoshop CS (version 8) for a
few years and never updated past that - but since I have effectively
stopped my stills photography, I am now using CS more and more for a
lot of my video graphics. The nice thing about it is I can save the
artwork as .PSD
In my world at least,and I suspect in many others, proflic great,
prolific good.
The good ones, ones worth keeping are far and few between, and the
excellent ones even more rare.
So routinely running a bunch of images through a workflow, only to
have done so, and then writing them to some
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote:
... So do those of you using workflow do it largely for organizational
purposes?
The question is rather odd. The term workflow can be applied to any
sequenced series of steps that take you from one state to another in
I don't find it odd at all. Of course, I asked it.
What I find odd is that one would use an *automated* *image adjustment
workflow* in a manner that is like taking ones images to a 3rd party
processor and having all images processed using the same parameters.
One might get consistently mediocre
--
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Adobe CS5 vs. Lightroom 3
In my world at least,and I suspect in many others, proflic great,
prolific good.
The good ones, ones worth keeping are far and few between, and the
excellent ones even more rare.
So
On 2010-08-07 13:43 , Tom C wrote:
So do those of you using workflow do it largely for organizational purposes?
yes, my workflow is largely about organization; early on i set aside the
larger portion of images, but i also quickly process them in order to be
able to find them later, except
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote:
What I find odd is that one would use an *automated* *image adjustment
workflow* in a manner that is like taking ones images to a 3rd party
processor and having all images processed using the same parameters. ...
a) Who said
As is often the case, you assume I know much less than I do, and
therefore interpret what I write as if I'm a total neophyte which is
not the case. Maybe that's because you perceive yourself as superior?
You didn't tell me one thing there that I didn't already know. Nor did
I make a statement
As is so often the case, what you wrote evidently didn't match what
you meant to say. I'm sorry, I can't divine your intended meaning if
you don't know how to write comprehensible English.
I've been using Lightroom through all beta and release versions for
five years, have produced 6,000+
You still didn't get it.
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
As is so often the case, what you wrote evidently didn't match what
you meant to say. I'm sorry, I can't divine your intended meaning if
you don't know how to write comprehensible English.
Ah, you want to be a clown. I get it.
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote:
You still didn't get it.
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
As is so often the case, what you wrote evidently didn't match what
you meant to say. I'm
And you want to be an ***.
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote:
You still didn't get it.
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
As is so often the case, what you wrote evidently didn't match what
you meant to say. I'm sorry,
On 2010-08-07 14:33 , Tom C wrote:
I don't find it odd at all. Of course, I asked it.
What I find odd is that one would use an *automated* *image adjustment
workflow* in a manner that is like taking ones images to a 3rd party
processor and having all images processed using the same parameters.
Being called an *** by a clown reflects on the clown more than the ***.
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote:
And you want to be an ***.
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote:
You still didn't get it.
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:05
Tom!
I just spent some of my valuable time left in my life reading every
one of these posts about P.S., Lightroom, Aperture. I'm not sure why.
But I will say that it appears to me that you are the one not getting
it. You asked the question. These others are trying to help you
understand
On 7/8/10, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
Being called an *** by a clown reflects on the clown more than the
***.
You guys should count your blessings. I am regularly called a * ***
*** * ** .
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places,
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Cotty cotty...@mac.com wrote:
On 7/8/10, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
Being called an *** by a clown reflects on the clown more than the
***.
You guys should count your blessings. I am regularly called a * ***
*** * ** .
On Aug 7, 2010, at 16:19 , Cotty wrote:
On 7/8/10, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
Being called an *** by a clown reflects on the clown more than
the
***.
You guys should count your blessings. I am regularly called a *
***
*** * ** .
By the
On 2010-08-06 12:08 , Tom C wrote:
My opinion after working / trying to work with LR is that I much
prefer Photoshop. I'm particularly irked that it does not let me
resize my image at any time in the editing process.
(i've dabbled with LR, but most of my experience is with Aperture -- the
lightroom is only useful for editing multiple pictures (batches of
10-20 or a 100+ images) at once. it is also great for cataloguing and
it's perfect for tracking back all your changes.
for editing a couple of pictures when you know what you want to do
with them, ps can be better.
still, the
On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Tom C wrote:
I've recently started carrying a corporate laptop and have been
Photoshopless on the road. I downloaded CS5 trial, now expired, and
now have a trial version of LR3.
I'm sure the differences between PS and LR have been discussed ad
nauseum, yet I'm
I've recently started carrying a corporate laptop and have been
Photoshopless on the road. I downloaded CS5 trial, now expired, and now
have a trial version of LR3.
I'm sure the differences between PS and LR have been discussed ad
nauseum, yet I'm still curious about how others feel they
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote:
I've recently started carrying a corporate laptop and have been
Photoshopless on the road. I downloaded CS5 trial, now expired, and
now have a trial version of LR3.
I'm sure the differences between PS and LR have been discussed
Tom C wrote:
My opinion after working / trying to work with LR is that I much
prefer Photoshop. I'm particularly irked that it does not let me
resize my image at any time in the editing process.
I think you're missing the point of Lightroom a little. It doesn't let
you resize your image, it
Lightroom is best compared as Bridge+PS Lite, rather than a direct
replacement to PS.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Tom C wrote:
I've recently started carrying a corporate laptop and have been
Photoshopless on the
On Aug 6, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Tom C wrote:
My opinion after working / trying to work with LR is that I much
prefer Photoshop. I'm particularly irked that it does not let me
resize my image at any time in the editing process.
I think you're missing the point of
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:26 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
For the most part, PhotoShop does the same thing when working with RAW
images. The original DNG or PEF file remains after you create a tiff, and a
simple click on camera default takes you right back to where you
On Aug 6, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:26 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net
wrote:
For the most part, PhotoShop does the same thing when working with RAW
images. The original DNG or PEF file remains after you create a tiff, and a
simple
In my experience, that's been true of every raw converter I've tried.
None of them alter your original image, some keep your changes in a data
base, some keep your changes in a side car file, but the original file
is left untouched.
On 8/6/2010 8:05 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Tom C wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:10 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
Good to know. But I'm rather stuck in my ways and probably won't change. If I
had you here to tutor me for two days or so, I might consider it:-). But I
just cringe at the though of converting my 100,000 plus
I've stayed out of the recent discussions of the merits of LR, mainly
because of the level of evangelising that happened. I much prefer Photoshop
(I use Elements 8, as it does all that I need) for what seems to me to be a
more capable program WRT to editing. While the ability in LR to make the
Thanks for that insight Mark. I was close to on the verge of
understanding that. And of course in PS, that's one of the things that
bites me frequently. Not damaging my original, but creating a sized
version that I have trouble recreating later, sized differently.
I feel a certain degree of
I have been sorta tracking this discussion . . .
Tom, you seem to imply that LR requires general adjustments across a range of
images, e.g., all those imported at one time. Not at all true. Yes, it is
possible to make changes to an image (white balance, exposure, etc.) and then
to replicate
40 matches
Mail list logo
