Since Lightroom is so good, what do you use Photoshop for?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
soloryb
Senior MemberPosts: 1,164Gear list
Like?
Re: Since Lightroom is so good, what do you use Photoshop for?
In reply to ttbek, 4 months ago

That article by Jeff Schewe was one of the first things I read by him. I painstakingly tested his claims and found them to be true. I posted micro photos of the results on a previous thread several months ago.

I know that LR uses upsampling  and sharpening algorithms that are supposed to be based upon the "best" techniques used in PS and I believe it involves the USM. But, I think the process is several steps long and may incorporate additional complexities when printing from PS. I think this because of all the sharpening actions (some of them commercially sold) that I used to perform when I got an image ready for printing in PS. It's been a while, but I recall how cumbersome the entire process seemed to me compared with the elegant simplicity of printing from LR.

soloryb

ttbek wrote:

soloryb wrote:

ttbek wrote:

soloryb wrote:

It took me a few years before changing to LR for most of my editing and all of my printing. Nowadays I hardly use PS (CC) for anything other than difficult edits (heavy spot removal, content-aware fill, shake filter, etc.). I also use PS for running plugins that don't operate in LR directly. Almost all of my output is fine arts medium to large format printing and I'm convinced LR does a better job than PS can.

I am very curious why you are convinced of that. I am of the opposite belief, once they're working with the same depth of input, the output is pretty much identical. I can explain what I mean by "same depth" later if you want.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't want to give up either of these Adobe program.

soloryb

I'll try to satisfy your curiosity.

First of all it's much simpler and faster printing out of LR compared to PS. That much I know from experience. As for where I got the notion that printing out of LR is superior, it comes mostly from reading Jeff Schewe and Martin Evening on the print sharpening algorithms designed into LR.

Ah, in that respect LR is better (simpler and faster). The sharpening algorithms are the same no? Doesn't LR just have, I suppose a good helper for choosing the appropriate settings for those algorithms? I believe the actual algorithm is just bicubic interpolation with an appropriate sharpening for the print size and medium. As far as I can tell Schewe supports this in this article: http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/workflow/the-right-resolution.html Pages 2 and 5 are mainly relevant here.

Now you say you are of the opposite belief. I can calmly accept that without rebuking you for disagreeing with me. So go ahead and explain, politely please.

Just that we're dealing with pretty much the same algorithms (wherever both programs have them, e.g. an unsharp mask is the same in both), so as long as we're starting from the same place we should be able to achieve the same quality, though the last pieces, like output sharpening need to be done more manually in PS.

soloryb

 soloryb's gear list:soloryb's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow