Lightroom vs. Bridge

Noel_Carboni · #8 10-10-2007, 02:29 PM

This is not directed at anyone in particular, just a bit of a rambling on my part...

I find it amusing that the focus has shifted from editing actual images in Photoshop to tweaking dozens (hundreds?) of sliders in a raw converter.

Actions and scripting were evolving to help manipulate sets of images. Now it's all about choosing (and remembering) settings for image conversion. How is this fundamentally different from actually editing an image? Is this a conspiracy from the software makers to differentiate their product by who has the most raw converter features?

-Noel

AndrewRodney · #9 10-10-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noel_Carboni

This is not directed at anyone in particular, I find it amusing that the focus has shifted from editing actual images in Photoshop to tweaking dozens (hundreds?) of sliders in a raw converter.

You're not tweaking images in a Raw converter, you're rendering the image for the first time, creating new pixel data that should need minimal 'tweaking', certainly little if any color or tone correction at least globally later in Photoshop. Rendering isn't color correction, its color and tone creation. This isn't your father's Photoshop! Its truly non-destructive, metadata (instruction based) rendering creation.

Photoshop is a pixel editor, a Raw converter is a pixel creator!

Noel_Carboni · #10 10-10-2007, 06:45 PM

Pixel editor vs. creator... A completely academic concept. It's all about taking the result of pressing the shutter button and making pictures for useful purposes. Pixel creation or editing is simply transforming data for a purpose.

LOL! The phrase "non destructive" always makes me laugh. I envision people timidly editing -unsure of every editing step (and thus looking to be able to undo it), then saving their edits over their original files (thus destroying the ability to edit the image ever again). Then along comes a "non destructive" workflow to save the day!!!

Nothing a person does to an original photo is destructive providing they save their results in an alternate file! And some people even know how to edit those pixels right the first time!

Wait, for some reason I'm feeling the urge to cross to the dark side... Raw is better! Yes, there are 14 bits instead of 8! I have more control! More is better! Non destructive editing is the cat's meow! I love peeping at pixels (not to mention shooting focus targets)! Wooooohooooo!

Sorry, got going there for a moment.

By the way, I do shoot Raw most of the time. I still sometimes feel guilty about it though.

-Noel

Tim Smith · #11 10-10-2007, 09:58 PM

I think we need a T-Shirt and a slogan to go on it. Something along the the lines of: "Raw Shooters Do It (fill in the blank)!

Suggestions?

Dennis_Vied · #12 10-10-2007, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Smith

I think we need a T-Shirt and a slogan to go on it. Something along the the lines of: "Raw Shooters Do It (fill in the blank)!

Suggestions?

LOL. Sounds like "Raw Shooters do it with trepidation."

ChristianLandry · #13 10-11-2007, 01:41 AM

"You're not tweaking images in a Raw converter, you're rendering the image for the first time (AndrewRodney)"
"If you shoot large numbers of images, lightroom is the way to go for your main workflow (Ken Krehbiel)"
Well folks, that's the way I see it !
PS has been MY app. of choice for the last 8 years. I have been using it for all the specific pixels tweaking ( borders, lettering, format) . As of CS3 it still is, but Bridge has brought me the support that I am looking for ( low volume). I used LR in it's first 2 Beta stages and liked the interface but couldn't justify it's cataloging abilities. Now that I have met the limits of my Dual G4 and must upgrade, all the bases are open... I still think that PS gives the best overall service !

Ken Krehbiel · #14 10-11-2007, 01:57 AM

I shoot RAW 99% of the time because I must deliver THE photos to the client. That's why they pay me the "big bucks" (ha). Shooting RAW over jpeg allows me more latitude for saving a less than perfect photo; like when the flash doesn't quite recycle fast enough, or I forget I had the WB set to tungsten and went outside, you know; dumb mistakes. Not that as a pro I ever make mistakes. I'm sure none of you other photogs do either.

With ACR 3 & Lightroom, you can now do to a jpeg almost everything you could do only do to a RAW file before, which is lessening the reason to shoot RAW for a lot of shooters, which is great. However, for my business, I still need more correction latitude "just in case".