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 philosophy of which is very similar)
in the LR/Aperture world, you don't need a size until you export images for some purpose; in my experience this is very freeing; when you do export, there are presets and lots of other controls related that make sizing pretty convenient
I also find the software itself uses up far too much screen real estate for itself in default mode.
LR/Aperture are "immersive" tools by nature; overall i find this helps me focus, but it is awkward when, for example, i'm cross-referencing images with a database of latin plant names
Overall I prefer the interface of PS and the fact that it has no pretenses of imposing a structured workflow of it's originators design upon my postcapture processing.
the central idea of LR/Aperture is the workflow, so if that doesn't work for you, Photoshop would be the clear choice; the only thing i'd suggest is to do some work to see if your workflow can be adapted to LR, because without trying you'll never know how valuable LR might be to you
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
