Well, and if you need to clone out a large object, I've never figured out how to make Lr do that. -T
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Mark Roberts <m...@robertstech.com> wrote: > Tim Bray wrote: > >>These days, I totally don't recommend Photoshop for photographers. >>Yes, there are certain kinds of defects that can only be fixed, and >>wholesale bit surgery that can only be performed, in Photoshop. But >>for 80% of photogs iPhoto or equivalent will do what they need, and >>for 90% of the remaining 20%, including most PDML types, I suspect >>Aperture or Lightroom will float their boat just fine. > > This is exactly what I tell people: For most photographers Photoshop > is a waste of money and time and Lightroom is all they need. I shot a > big batch of photos at the Boston Marathon a couple of days ago and > found that selecting "all" and applying Lightroom's auto white balance > and "auto tone control" (overall adjustments) gave me results at lease > as good as and probably better than I'd have had shooting JPEG with no > extra time spent. And when I want to really fine tune shots it's much > faster to do the work in Lightroom. I only need Photoshop if I've > really screwed up something in the shot (extreme blown highlights, > etc.) or if I'm making a critical fine art print. > > Photoshop has really become a graphic designer's tool. > > -- > Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia > www.robertstech.com > > > > > > -- > 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.
