Tim Bray wrote: >These days, I totally don't recommend Photoshop for photographers. >Yes, there are certain kinds of defects that can only be fixed, and >wholesale bit surgery that can only be performed, in Photoshop. But >for 80% of photogs iPhoto or equivalent will do what they need, and >for 90% of the remaining 20%, including most PDML types, I suspect >Aperture or Lightroom will float their boat just fine.
This is exactly what I tell people: For most photographers Photoshop is a waste of money and time and Lightroom is all they need. I shot a big batch of photos at the Boston Marathon a couple of days ago and found that selecting "all" and applying Lightroom's auto white balance and "auto tone control" (overall adjustments) gave me results at lease as good as and probably better than I'd have had shooting JPEG with no extra time spent. And when I want to really fine tune shots it's much faster to do the work in Lightroom. I only need Photoshop if I've really screwed up something in the shot (extreme blown highlights, etc.) or if I'm making a critical fine art print. Photoshop has really become a graphic designer's tool. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- 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.
