Ok..I'm a software junkie...I admit it...but when it comes to photo editing Photoshop is the only tool that has stood the test of time for me (usage: 80% web photo, 20% web graphics).
So while I read new product reviews, I've been very hesistant to install new photo software.
This week/weekend I tried two new kids on the block, neither exactly spanking new, but both still in their infancy relatively speaking.
Lightroom and Nikon Capture NX.
I won't talk about NX because it really is a product for Nikon users only, other than to say it has some sick features (punctual adjustments of tonality with RGB sliders etc.).
Lightroom, on the other hand, impressed me with its interface: the slick look and feel, the overall metaphor used for the UI, etc. (Honestly, I could not care less about file browsers and adobe bridge, only the features that will allow adjustments of colour, tone, and sharpness, some cropping, composites - I use Extensis Portfolio for asset mgmt.
Back to lightroom - but beauty is only skin deep and I haven't done a feature by feature comparison with CS2 (or CS3) to see if this one is worth pursuing.
Is it the current best of breed application?
Or is it a small incremental gain over CS? Is the investment in time and money to use a new software dedicated to photography worthwhile or do you stick to Photoshop as the one size fits all integrated solution (and it does do a great job at that).
Would love to hear your thoughts on both Lightroom specifically and on Photoshop as a one stop shop versus best of breed apps for Photo Editing and Imaging (let's stay away from web graphics ).
I use free/open source software, and I do not compromise on quality.
Lots of us use open source and/or freeware - I use Wordpress, PixelPost, Coppermine, phpBB etc - I love free software, but not sure what that has to do with this thread.
This thread is about quality though, and in terms of quality: what opensource software has higher quality than Photoshop? This thread is essentially about whether Lightroom is better at certain photo editing tasks than PS.
I'm not giving up CS2 for GIMP and I don't use or need Picasa nor Flickr etc.
quote: SleepingWolf said:
Would love to hear your thoughts on both Lightroom specifically and on Photoshop as a one stop shop versus best of breed apps for Photo Editing and Imaging.
Would love to hear your thoughts on both Lightroom specifically and on Photoshop as a one stop shop versus best of breed apps for Photo Editing and Imaging.
Since Photoshop is not free/open source, and I assumed Lightroom is not, the comparison (versus) is implicit.
Well, really, since he asked for the comparison between two groups of things, the comparison is quite clear.
(non open-source: Photoshop, Lightroom specifically) vs. (open source: 'best breed apps for photo editing and imaging)
So... of course the two aren't free. They're on the 'non open-source' side of the comparison.
Anyway, Wolf, there is a sorrow in that Photoshop is the best. There's almost no reason to compare it with something open source, unless your goals are much less detailed than what you can get with PS. I'll grant that for the vast majority of computer users, Photoshop (even Photoshop Elements) is over-powered. You can do just as well with GIMP or Paint.NET if you're not concerned about intensive level modification, deep curves adjustment, countless filters, and a powerful stroke management system.
For straight out photo editing, if that's all you're doing, it probably doesn't matter which system you use. It is a poor carpenter, they say, who blames his tools. But I think many PS users stick with it solely because it's what they're accustomed to. I know that's why I stay with it.
Actually I have no interest in comparing open source/freeware photo-editing applications with retail software. Additionally, I'm not researching software in that area - the only opensource I use is for CMS/blog/photoblogging.
2) Best of breed does not mean open source. On the contrary, one should expect to pay a premium for best of breed (with exceptions of course) - my remark was made in the context of comparing two Adobe products (both retail): Photoshop versus Lightroom. The former is a swiss army knife, the latter is essentially a dedicated/standalone product.
Photoshop is an established product which goes well beyond photo-editing. I have it and I don't have any intention of uninstalling it. Lightroom is the new kid on the block. Price aside (Lightroom is much cheaper) which one does a better job for general photography?
But the real point of the thread was to get some feedback - can Lightroom better meet the needs of a general photographer versus PS and why. This includes tasks such as adjusting the exposure. Photoshop has a variety of tools of increasing complexity: brightness/contrast ---> levels ---> curves. For the complete novice there are even auto levels etc. Can Lightroom do it better? What does better mean? You tell me.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 03-05-2007 12:02
A bit off topic perhaps but you might want to read about some of the software preferred by the HDR crowd. Be sure to get down into the comments where several bits of software are named.... some of it free.
It's quite the process (HDR) and while some of the results I've seen are indeed stunning there's a surrealism to them that, in some ways, is almost disconcerting. How the eyes cones/brain deals with the information is what I'm trying to say.
Armed with my trusty fuji a500 I ain't gonna have to worry 'bout any of this stuff.... any time soon.
Be sure to check out this site for Image Stacker and astroImager plus a ton of other stuff.... and if you're at all interested in AI check out Artificial Life. http://www.cs.unm.edu/~kwiley/software.html
___________________________________________________________________________
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it." Mark Twain
Well, really, since he asked for the comparison between two groups of things, the comparison is quite clear.(non open-source: Photoshop, Lightroom specifically) vs. (open source: 'best breed apps for photo editing and imaging)So... of course the two aren't free. They're on the 'non open-source' side of the comparison.
But
1) he didn't ask for a comparison of $$$ vs no $$$.
2) A comparison means you have to have a second group - saying "I use open source" does nothing to further the discussion - it's like saying "I use software that has to be bought"
My point - I mean, really - is it so hard to actually tell us what you use for open source software? Is it a secret? Some of use would very much like to know....
NJ:
No that's not OT at all - that's another good example of whether CS2 does HDR optimally or are there dedicated or other apps that can do it better. I think HDR is exciting - something I want to try but haven't yet.
Or perhaps he has not visited the site as much as you today..?
Doesn't sound like he is protecting anything to me.
Back OT I've been using Paint.NET on and off for a couple of years now, and am oft suprised by it's functionality, it seems really robust for windows Open Source, it does lack in useability I find, but all in all it can do simple image manipulation adequately.
But having said that, I don't think Paint.Net can compare for professional photo editting. IMHO Photshop is the daddy here.
posted 03-04-2007 17:55
