Adobe CC (Page 2): I don't agree at all. Can you prove any of that?

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

mrjcall wrote:

Except for the layering/masking issue (photographically speaking), everything else in PS must be done in Camera Raw, (or through the laborious layering process in PS) which is the same engine as LR only with 'less' capability. So, not sure what you mean by the 'last bit' statement.

I don't agree at all. Can you prove any of that?

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

Dngallagher wrote:

I don't agree at all. Can you prove any of that?

PS, except in layer/masking mode is not non-destructive for 'normal' photo correction. Not sure what you mean by prove....

So, if you make edits in PS and you are not doing it in layering, your edits are permanent unlike LR which is never permanent and easier since you don't have to create layers.

Not sure if that addresses your question, but it is fact.

Let me add that I fully recognize the need for the capabilities of PS, just not in 80% of what we call normal photo editing.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

mrjcall wrote:

PS, except in layer/masking mode is not non-destru... (show quote)

The destructive/non destructive difference is NOT what you need to prove - you stated that everything done in Photoshop other then layering/masking was really being done in Camera Raw. Nothing regarding destructive/non-destructive.

Normal photo correction is very wide... what is normal? What is normal? Is normal just a white balance change? An increase in exposure? I think one person's "normal" may be an unreachable goal for others.

mrjcall wrote:

Except for the layering/masking issue (photographically speaking), everything else in PS must be done in Camera Raw, (or through the laborious layering process in PS) which is the same engine as LR only with 'less' capability. So, not sure what you mean by the 'last bit' statement

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

The entire point, at least for me, was whether PS photo edits are non-destructive or not. We know they are not in LR (assuming working with raw files of course), we know they ARE in PS unless you do it with layers which is simply more laborious than in LR. Remember that the photo edit engine in LR and PS are the same. Also, if you open Camera Raw, you'll see the same 'Basic' photo editing sliders as in LR, but none of the rest of the LR capabilities. That's all I was alluding to.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

mrjcall wrote:

The entire point, at least for me, was whether PS photo edits are non-destructive or not. We know they are not in LR (assuming working with raw files of course), we know they ARE in PS unless you do it with layers which is simply more laborious than in LR. Remember that the photo edit engine in LR and PS are the same. Also, if you open Camera Raw, you'll see the same 'Basic' photo editing sliders as in LR, but none of the rest of the LR capabilities. That's all I was alluding to.

I think you are missing some important things... or misstating them at least...

1. The editing ENGINE in Lightroom and Photoshop are NOT the same. Lightroom is a parametric editor and Photoshop is a PIXEL level editor.

http://www.dpbestflow.org/image-editing/image-editing-overview

2. Camera Raw is what Lightroom uses to convert raw files to editable images and to edit. Basically Lightroom puts a different interface on Camera Raw. Camera Raw is a part of Photoshop which can be used to convert a raw file into a Photoshop editable image, make basic raw edits as in Lightroom, or as a filter to adjust an image. Think of Camera raw as a plugin to Photoshop, but NOT it's editing engine.

3. All Lightroom edits are non-destructive - only when you export a file are the changes applied and "baked in". A raw file has the edits stored in the catalog and/or in an XMP file unless you converted the proprietary raw into a DNG file. Even though the edit is in the file it can be reversed to the original. The HISTORY of edits resides in the Lightroom catalog though. You statement above is backwards regarding destructive and non-destructive.

Photoshop can be non-destructive also, but that requires the user to work in a non-destructive manner, by constantly using layers to contain edits , Photoshop is non-destructive as well.

jack schade Loc: La Pine Oregon

I just renewed too. Glad the price stayed the same.
Jack

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

Dngallagher wrote:

I think you are missing some important things... o... (show quote)

PM sent.....

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

DavidPine wrote:

Recently, Scott Kelby has had an epiphany regarding LR. He cannot say enough about how great he thinks it is. Except for composites and layering, Photoshop is playing second to LR in photography post processing.

It would appear that Mr. Kelby is a bit late to the party. From what i hear and read, most people that subscribe to CC (including myself), use LR for around 90% of their pp work, only flipping over to PS for more intricate editing where layers are needed.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

mrjcall wrote:

The question is, what kind of editing can't you do in LR than you can ONLY do in PS?

Lots! Layers that allow applying filters to only parts of an image you choose, most retouching ( LR can do some retouching, but not with great precision), compositing, Smart filters, Smart Layers, and more I cannot think of at the moment.

LR is a great tool, but no match for the power of Photoshop. As an organizing tool it it superb, as an initial stop for processing it is pretty decent, as an all-around processing tool it is crippled.

TheDman Loc: USA

mrjcall wrote:

Except for the layering/masking issue (photographically speaking), everything else in PS must be done in Camera Raw, (or through the laborious layering process in PS) which is the same engine as LR only with 'less' capability. So, not sure what you mean by the 'last bit' statement.

Clicking an icon is laborious?

TheDman Loc: USA

Erik_H wrote:

It would appear that Mr. Kelby is a bit late to the party. From what i hear and read, most people that subscribe to CC (including myself), use LR for around 90% of their pp work, only flipping over to PS for more intricate editing where layers are needed.

I subscribe to CC and use Photoshop 100% of the time and Lightroom 0% of the time.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

TheDman wrote:

Clicking an icon is laborious?

Just a bit simplistic there I think, eh? Let's put this to rest. PS has massive capabilities beyond what we call photo editing such as in LR. Layering/masking/compositing, etc. That isn't in question, OK and can be very useful in manipulating photos. Having said that, the bulk of photo editing is simpler and faster in LR, if you shoot raw and want to preserve the original raw file without having to go through the layering/masking process. The photo editing process in PS IS permanent (destructive) without the use of layers and masks.

TheDman Loc: USA

mrjcall wrote:

Just a bit simplistic there I think, eh? Let's pu... (show quote)

Yes, clicking an icon is pretty simplistic, I agree. but that's all you have to do to create a layer. And the photo editing process in PS can't touch a raw file any more than Lightroom can.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

mrjcall wrote:

The entire point, at least for me, was whether PS photo edits are non-destructive or not. We know they are not in LR (assuming working with raw files of course), we know they ARE in PS unless you do it with layers which is simply more laborious than in LR. Remember that the photo edit engine in LR and PS are the same. Also, if you open Camera Raw, you'll see the same 'Basic' photo editing sliders as in LR, but none of the rest of the LR capabilities. That's all I was alluding to.

Not a fan of PS, but working in layers is not very laborious or difficult. Layers can be simply duplicates so you work on a dupe or they can be much more complex. But they are hardly difficult or laborious. In my opinion

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Dngallagher wrote:

Looks like a year has come and gone. Adobe sent me a notice my CC subscription was coming to an end next month and would automatically renew, at the CURRENT 9.99 price for another year....

Can't complain at all.... no price increase. :)

Can't beat it with a stick. :)

:thumbup:

So much for the doomsday crowd that claim that Adobe was just trying to get you "hooked" so they can triple the price later. LMAO!