This is not true in the case of raw files, which are just data from the sensor that has not yet been translated into a bitmap (or pixmap).

That's just it; they don't occur to the image. They sit in a sidecar file to be applied whenever the image is translated into a bitmap. Lightroom by itself is incapable of changing a bitmap; it needs an associated pixel editor to provide change instructions to. Enter Photoshop.

Here's ACDSee's explanation.

A screenshot of a message in a chat room is not a valid source of facts, it's just some guy on the internet spouting off. He may be right or he may be wrong. In this case, he's wrong and Gene is right. There are such things as parametric editors, which simply edit processing instructions. They do not change pixels in an actual image like pixel editors do.

Yep, totally agree.

It was released in 1990.

This is a very common opinion of Photoshop from people who have no idea what it can do.

Decades of simply not being able to edit photos unless you had your own darkroom has trained people to think that whatever the Fotomat drive-thru guy gave them is somehow "real", and anything done to the images after that is somehow ruining that reality.

But today the Fotomat guy has quit and told everyone to develop their own photos, and people are coping in one of two ways: embracing it and jumping into the photo editing world, or staunchly refusing to do it and treating their camera like the new Fotomat guy.

The reality is that cameras don't do a great job of capturing reality, so making your photos look as "real" as possible is a fine art that takes tremendous processing skill. So if reality is your goal, there's no better program to learn than Photoshop.

I sure am glad I started with full on Photoshop back when I was getting into photography. As my knowledge grew I was never limited by my software, and Photoshop skills are a large part of why I've been employed for the past 20 years. Find someone who can say that about Luminar.

Bay photo is your place.

Look up Iurie Belegurschi with Iceland Photo Tours.

Moving a brush around a canvas is knowledge, not art.

We can do this all day!

You have used a brush and colored pigments. You are not an artist nor is the end result art.

See? You have yet to say anything where I cannot swap photo tools for painting tools. Therefore, you've yet to make a valid point.

Knowing where to set the camera, what to include in your frame and how to process it is the art, though.

Manually blending in Photoshop gives the most natural results. Here's an example of unprocessed raws and the final product. This was taken with a 5D2 and may be able to be produced in one shot with one of today's high dynamic range cameras, but I still think not digging too deep into shadows is best, especially when your main subject is in those shadows.

This is a simple two shot blend, but I've done 4 and 5 shots before in extreme situations. It's very liberating to go out shooting knowing you're not constrained by dynamic range. Let's you focus on light and composition.


http://www.ddphotos.com/quiraing_raws.jpg

(Download)

If someone is going to take the time to Photoshop out my watermark, then it proves that it's a valuable enough photo to warrant protection. But watermarks aren't to stop bad guys, they're to tell good guys who the image belongs to.

Hehe! Translation: "I see where this is going and it's not good for me, so time to bail".