Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Some people use chains.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Pot calling kettle black.



No. That's you putting words into my mouth and projecting. From my first post in this thread: "If the editing requirements of the image can be met by Lightroom then there's no advantage to further processing in Photoshop." Note how I qualified that statement with, "If the editing requirements of the image can be met by Lightroom..." Notice how much more reasonable that is than; "...but it [Lightroom] does not and cannot turn out a finished image..."

And again from this same thread: " Parametric editors lack the ability to get pixel level precise. as such they lack the ability to for example cut and paste objects from one image onto another. ...If you really need to get precise with an image edit and do say skin re-touch or detailed cloning/healing work you need the raster editor (PS). But if your image edit doesn't need that level of pixel precision the a parametric editor offers the advantages..." Am I dismissing that you can't do everything with LR? Or is that you putting words into my mouth.

And again from this same thread: "A parametric editor can even do frequency separation re-touch. BUT raster editors as a rule are much more capable of doing that type of work. If you need that kind of editing you need a pixel editor. So use one." Am I dismissing that you can't do everything with LR? Or is that you putting words into my mouth. You shouldn't do that.



Pot calling kettle black.

You're the one who takes the extreme position. [Lightroom] does not and cannot turn out a finished image. I'm just calling that out because some poor guy here on the forum actually got his confidence shaken by your extremism.



Of course, that's reasonably presented with no superlative claims. Here's the key: So When Should I Use Photoshop?
The easy answer is when you can’t use Lightroom. Depending on the type of photography you do, this can be fairly often or practically never.



I am familiar. I've used luminosity masking in Photoshop before it was called luminosity masking. Although now I use it in C1 where it's well enough implemented. And now finally I demo it on LR where it's a recent addition.

Now one more thing. Let's go through that article's why we need PS list as I'd like to fill in my requirements about that.

Advanced Retouching: Last time I needed that.... can't remember.

Composites: Family wedding 4 years ago to swap heads in group shots cause my preteen nephew wouldn't behave. I used Photoshop. Before that, can't remember.

HDR: Never.

Panoramas: Less now than before. One or two a year and I use Photoshop.

Advanced Healing: Used to use Photoshop a fair amount for this but C1 has gotten so good that I need PS barely one in a few hundred photos now.

I take photographs three or four days a week. And that list right there is a list of why I almost never use Photoshop. I rarely need it. I understand there's people that do. They should use it. But I also know that a whole lot of photographers are like me. And last thing. When I finish editing a photograph it's a finished image and in no way lacking because it didn't go through PS. And you should tell Whuff that can apply to his use of Lightroom.

Joe

rebride

The future's so bright I've just gotta wear shades.

obsidian

Thank you.
Your images meant a lot to a discerning photographer and a creative photographer.
This is why I stick with ACR then expound my expression my image in photoshop.
I never used Lightroom

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

What Lightroom cannot do is anything that requires layering. There are also a number of things that require moving pixels around, including aberration correction, and perspective correction, for which LR is useless. And of course things like masking and replacements, etc. Beyond that there is a whole creative world involving blending and opacity, in which LR is similarly clueless.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Photoshop edits are PERSONAL. If you need it, do it, if you don't need it, don't do it.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

There are many pros who only use LR to process their images

Boosesb

No you cannot. But if you choose not too your photo on the bottom is still finished. Just not ready to be sold as a stock photo, or album cover or some other project.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

I do photo restoration. Photoshop is essential for that activity

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

IMO....First and foremost, If you're satisfied, they're done. If they're for an Art Director or any other type client, with specific needs / requirements, they may NOT be done. If necessary, doesn't mean they need to be "finished" in Photoshop either. Unless a PSD is required (rare)

John Kwas Loc: Eagle Bridge, NY

Thank you for posting this. I edit like the original poster, using LR and thinking it is good enough. I just recently went from LR4 to the subscription model and have yet tackled PS. Your post wants me to start learning. Amazing difference. Am I right that what I'm seeing is number of layers being put together to make such an interesting piece of art?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Not primarily directed at you, I did say in general, (but not in caps or bold), but if the shoe fits.

Your quote: "No, it isn't finished because it was rejected despite the best efforts executed in LR."
I inferred that LR wasn't good enough.
Now you have different words than used previously that substantiate my thoughts: "I take photographs three or four days a week. And that list right there is a list of why I almost never use Photoshop. I rarely need it. I understand there's people that do. They should use it. But I also know that a whole lot of photographers are like me. And last thing. When I finish editing a photograph it's a finished image and in no way lacking because it didn't go through PS. And you should tell Whuff that can apply to his use of Lightroom."

Pot/kettle? right. I guess we are very similar. Different words this time helped clear that up.

My comments were for everyone, including Whuff.

Have a great day.

anotherview Loc: California

Scott Kelby put it this way: "Fix it in Adobe Camera Raw, and finish it in Adobe Photoshop." (paraphrasing his view) By which he means that ACR offers nearly all editing features for processing a photograph. Tweaking it happens later in the full Photoshop.

I must confess that for me the time and effort necessary for bringing out the potential of a given photograph varies. But I operate per my own standard. The photograph must please my critical eye. This approach incorporates both subjective and objective measures.

I can hear the question now: "What constitutes an objective measure?" Setting the black point, the white point, and the mid-tone gray point gives examples.

The success of this approach in my case does not vary. The tiniest number of others like my work. Thankfully, I do not depend on my photography to make a living. Haha.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

If you don't know - then nothing. (I don't use either).