Lightroom version 12 is a great update: I'm surprised there's so little chatter on the Hog about the Lightroom v.12 update that's been rolling out this past week. The really...

CrazyJane Loc: Limbo

I'm surprised there's so little chatter on the Hog about the Lightroom v.12 update that's been rolling out this past week. The really mind-bending updates are to masking, which has new superpowers for selecting objects, people (and people's anatomy -- lips, eyes, face skin, hair, etc.), and backgrounds. These new mask selection types now complement sky and subject masking selections, as well as the existing masking tools and gradients. There's tremendous power in just this fragment of the v.12 update, not to mention all of the other updates.

Those of you wedded to the v.6 stand-alone are really missing the boat. I try hearing you when you say things like "... it meets my needs" and stuff like that, but that's like riding a horse to the store and saying "well, it get's me there 'n' back, dunn'it?" No offense intended, but you're stuck in 2015. Time to get back to the future. You just might find that you like it there. (Acourst it does cost a whopping .33 cents a day, so there's that big hit to consider.)

bkwaters

CrazyJane wrote:

I'm surprised there's so little chatter on the Hog... (show quote)

Agree.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Horse - Maserati

Pick one.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

CrazyJane wrote:

... .33 cents a day....

I see it more like £120 per year, every year.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

CrazyJane wrote:

I'm surprised there's so little chatter on the Hog... (show quote)

I never used LR, but other than it's photo catalogue aspects what is it's purpose? It seems you now rent LR along with PS, right?

Does LR have capabilities not available in PS (besides cataloging I guess). Just seems highly unlikely Adobe would add features to LR not available to PS itself, but since I don't use either, it's just a curiosity.

For me, when I did use PS it was easy enough to use, in fact I found it much easier than PSE which was a dumbed down version of PS. Anyhow, IF I were wedded to version 6, which I think was the last standalone version, I personally would stick with it or go with other software like Affinity or ACDSee that is not rented. If I didn't mind the rental fees, then I'd just use PS and be done with it?

Also, masking is seriously tied in with layers in all the editors I've used, including PS, and out of curiosity, does LR now include layers with it's masking abilities?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

R.G. wrote:

I see it more like £120 per year, every year.

Only £10/month. Every hobby worth its salt has expenses. Most people spend more than that in a month on frivolous things that have no lasting value. A trip to Starbucks every other week?

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Longshadow wrote:

Horse - Maserati

Pick one.

I like riding my horse to the store!!!!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

AzPicLady wrote:

I like riding my horse to the store!!!!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

DirtFarmer wrote:

Only £10/month. Every hobby worth its salt has expenses. Most people spend more than that in a month on frivolous things that have no lasting value. A trip to Starbucks every other week?

Yup.... only 10.
10 for this one, 7 for that one, 11 for the other, 8 for .....

(Yuck, who goes to Starbucks?)

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

CrazyJane wrote:

...Those of you wedded to the v.6 stand-alone are really missing the boat. I try hearing you when you say things like "... it meets my needs" and stuff like that, but that's like riding a horse to the store and saying "well, it get's me there 'n' back, dunn'it?" No offense intended, but you're stuck in 2015. Time to get back to the future. You just might find that you like it there. (Acourst it does cost a whopping .33 cents a day, so there's that big hit to consider.)

To each their own.

I enjoy the current version and 33 cents a day (not 0.33 cents a day) doesn't bother me. That expense is MUCH less over the last couple decades than I have spent on camera equipment. But it was only recently that I updated my word processor from 2003. Not because I needed the updated features, but because I was getting a lot of .docx files sent to me that the 2003 version didn't handle well.

I should point out that there are people on UHH that still use LR6 but are adept at explaining things and giving good advise.

I should also point out that a horse will probably cost more in maintenance (including fuel) than your car but you probably won't ride your horse more than 100K miles in its lifetime. But some people like cars and some people like horses. We can't make their decisions for them.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Longshadow wrote:

...(Yuck, who goes to Starbucks?)

I only included that as an example. I don't go to Starbucks. In fact I don't do coffee at all. Never got hooked on it. I think the smell is enjoyable (for short periods of time) but I can't stand the taste. I think I have drunk approximately one cup of coffee per decade, and that only when there was no alternative. I learned to drink it black because otherwise it was a waste of perfectly good sugar or cream.

There are plenty of other acceptable sources of caffeine.

CrazyJane Loc: Limbo

BigDaddy wrote:

I never used LR, but other than it's photo catalog... (show quote)

In a nutshell, Lightroom is optimized for digital photo processing (particularly RAW image files); PS, on the other hand, is a suite of tools for digital image manipulation. With LR you process digital photos; with PS you develop graphic imagery. Of course, you CAN use PS for photo processing (it includes Adobe Photo Raw embedded), but I think most pure photographers who subscribe to the Adobe Suite stay with LR. I could be wrong about that.

Also important is that LR is a parametric, non-destructive editor so that the original image file remains untouched; PS, on the other hand, is a nonparametric (i.e., "destructive" editor) that edits and manipulates the original file.

There's a great deal more to it. Here's a decent summary: http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/software-technology/difference-between-lightroom-and-photoshop/

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

DirtFarmer wrote:

I only included that as an example. I don't go to Starbucks. In fact I don't do coffee at all. Never got hooked on it. I think the smell is enjoyable (for short periods of time) but I can't stand the taste. I think I have drunk approximately one cup of coffee per decade, and that only when there was no alternative. I learned to drink it black because otherwise it was a waste of perfectly good sugar or cream.

There are plenty of other acceptable sources of caffeine.

jimvanells Loc: Augusta, GA

I just found the new tool to do content aware fill and removal of "debris" in raw images. Cuts down my PS use by 80% and it does better than PS.

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

BigDaddy wrote:

I never used LR, but other than it's photo catalog... (show quote)

Yes, LR has editing capabilities that are quite different than Photoshop. Photoshop is a creative tool that was designed to manipulate photos, Lightroom is for processing and editing. The editing sliders are very easy to use, and the results are great. I've used several other programs for processing, but Lightroom is by far my favorite tool. If you haven't used Lightroom, you wouldn't know why it is so popular.