I have been sorta tracking this discussion . . . Tom, you seem to imply that LR requires general adjustments across a range of images, e.g., all those imported at one time. Not at all true. Yes, it is possible to make changes to an image (white balance, exposure, etc.) and then to replicate those adjustments for any other batch of images you chose, but it only happens when you request it, and it only happens to those other images you specify. There are default settings you can choose to set (e.g. contrast increase) that get applied to all images upon import, but again, you chose what if any such changes you want to apply. And since the image itself is never touched, any default adjustments that turn out to be inappropriate for a given image or set of images can simply be overridden as you deal with each individual image. No harm,no foul. Or you could have meant that each image calls for a different workflow. Which LR totally allows. There is no step-by-step process imposed on the user.
I am sure that PS users can do many more detailed, subtle, image modifications than LR users. But LR provides a tremendous front end that can handle 90-95% or more of all post-processing for most people. stan On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Tom C wrote: > Thanks for that insight Mark. I was close to on the verge of > understanding that. And of course in PS, that's one of the things that > bites me frequently. Not damaging my original, but creating a sized > version that I have trouble recreating later, sized differently. > > I feel a certain degree of ambivalence regarding workflow, because to > me it seems, at least with my images, that the same adjustments, a.k.a > workflow, should NOT be applied to each image, because each is unique > and therefore will likely require unique post-capture processing to > reach its potential, Sure if a series of shots are of a very closely > related subject, but what about the next where I turn 180 degrees and > all the elements and lighting change? > > I think I'll pay heed to Godfrey and persevere a bit longer... and > maybe both tools have their place. > > Thanks again for that, because that's quite valuable to understand. > > Tom > > > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Mark Roberts <m...@robertstech.com> wrote: >> Tom C wrote: >> >>> My opinion after working / trying to work with LR is that I much >>> prefer Photoshop. I'm particularly irked that it does not let me >>> resize my image at any time in the editing process. >> >> I think you're missing the point of Lightroom a little. It doesn't let >> you resize your image, it doesn't let you do *anything else* to it. >> One of the main *advantages* of Lightroom is that it never alters your >> original image at all. Ever. You set adjustments that are stored in a >> database but are never applied to the image at all - they're only >> applied to *copies* that you make when exporting. That way you can >> never damage your original and you can change your mind, revise and >> reinterpret it ad infinitum without loss of quality. >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
