What do you use?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Graeme Harvey
  • Start date Start date
It would take a near book-length comparison. Adobe Camera Raw is vastly richer and more powerful. Layers are awesomely powerful and I use them constantly. Shooting in mixed light, I can do a white balance for each light source and use layers and layer masks to get perfect skin tones across the whole image. Shooting into the light, the sky may still hold detail, but the foreground will be dark. I can process the sky and foreground individually and produce exactly what the eye - but not the camera - sees.

Layers allow far more precise dodging and burning than one could have dreamed of in fume-room days. Adjustment layers provide extreme control for local fine tuning of colour, sharpness and many other things. I expect there are books out there devoted to nothing other than the power of layers.

New in CS5 is content aware fill. Very easy to seamlessly remove object that intruded into the composition. Magic 90% of the time, with a bit of hand fine-tuning the other 10%. In any case a great savings in time. The list could go on and on.

However, Elements is a very decent program, and there is no point in moving up before you actually feel the need to - and have mastered it to the point that you are ready to move on. Photoshop is easy to use, but overwhelming in options. No matter what you need to accomplish, there a many ways available and all are correct. It takes time to find the work-flow that matches your stream of thinking. There is a very good reason why it is the only industrial-level image processing program. There is nothing better at any price. However, it is something that you will always be learning - no one on earth knows ALL of Photoshop.
 
Thanks - and where does Lightroom fit in the heirarchy? I understand it is great for workflow, but in terms of Editing?
 
I understand that it is aimed at busy studios, publications and that sort of thing, with strong organizational elements as well as batch processing. Perhaps someone with experience with it can jump in with more details.
 
Lightroom is a very useful tool indeed. It combines a superb user-interface to the functionality of Camera Raw, with a very powerful cataloging system and excellent outputting functions. You can perform most of the editing that you will want to do from raw to output in LR and move images into PS (even Elements) to play with layers if you need to, clone (beyond dust removal etc) and crop (which you can also do in LR to a certain extent).

I use LR as my primary interface. Images are copied onto the system and then 'imported' into a LR catalogue (the raw files are actually never touched, LR just stores what you want to do to them and the transform is only actually applied when you output them; print, web, slideshow etc). I then add key words etc (often during import) and sort them and begin to develop the image(s), apply filters (pre-sets), move them in and out of PS etc. Once I have a set I want to do something with I then either print them or export them to disc / CD / web page (eg http://www.babelsberg-studio.com/ina4/).

It would probably be worth you downloading a trial version.

http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshoplightroom/

Hope that helps.
 
i dont even have photoshop installed anymore lightroom does everything i need... if i cant do it in lightroom then i often dont want to do it!
 
Larry Bolch said:
It would take a near book-length comparison. Adobe Camera Raw is vastly richer and more powerful. Layers are awesomely powerful and I use them constantly.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that the version of Adobe Camera Raw in full Photoshop is better than the one in PS Elements?

And, given that PSE has Layers, the Layers functionality is also better in full Photoshop?
 
Hi Tim,

I'd never thought about the Camera Raw version thing before. It would certainly seem logical and so I looked it up and here is what Adobe say:

"Camera Raw 6.1 update

June 2, 2010
This new version of the Camera Raw plug-in replaces the original one that was installed with Adobe® Photoshop® CS5, Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 and Adobe Premiere® Elements 8 software. Visit the Camera Raw page for a complete list of supported cameras."

So that bit is certainly the same (and I assume you see the same dialog at the import / convert step). I also suspect that the basic functionality of layers is the same as well but that there are limits to the number of layers, blending modes etc in Elements compared with PS but will have to leave that to someone who has used both to comment on. PS is used by both photographers and other graphic artists whereas Elements is aimed principally at photographers. Much of what can be done in PS is simply not used by most people (and doesn't need to be), especially photographers (which is probably why LR has proved so successful), but is there should you need it. Mostly I will employ cloning tools, adjustment layers and the cropping and framing tools and the rest of the functionality goes unused. More and more, the raw development is done in LR (or CaptureOne) these days. I use PS 'cos I have it I use it's cloning and masking tools (plus on occasions distort etc). I use Nik Software add-ins for 'effects' and simulations and I will often make final adjustments, blends etc in PS simply because I am in there but everything else is done in LR.
 
OK thanks Pete. I haven't seen anything to suggest it's worth upgrading from Elements to say CS5. Lightroom would be a lot less money and I might consider that.

Having said that, as I said earlier in the thread I've just got going properly with Canon DPP, which is said (by some) to be better for Canon RAW conversion than Elements because Canon know their cameras best and the RAW conversion is the same software as in the cameras. I don't know if that's really true.

The thing I've just got sussed with DPP is how to work in batches when you come back with lots of photos (eg applying the same exposure, sharpening etc adjustments to a whole string of photos). This appears to be better than in Elements, but I suspect that is the kind of thing LR beats allcomers at.

(Of course, rather than thinking about this, or screen calibration, instead I should really work out how to get out more often and take more photos, instead of working all hours and then sitting at the PC when I get home!)
 
Hi Tim,

I know what you mean and I'm sure some of my random purchases of photographic kit over the years have been compensation for never having time to get out more! And then when I do, it takes me weeks to work my way through the shots (longer for the film-based stuff). The boring work stuff always takes priority.

All of the manufacturers say the same of their processing software, but I'm not totally convinced. Unless they are doing what PhaseOne do in that the profile of each individual chip as measured by a technician is encoded into each raw file which is then incorporated into the raw conversion (can't see that with the volume of chips that Canon / Nikon shift compared with PhaseOne - given the cost differential). I think it a great shame that more manufacturers haven't adopted DNG (as Leica, Ricoh etc have). Of course you can convert from a propriety raw to DNG in Camera Raw (and embed the original raw files as well) and unify your workflow that way.

Camera Raw can also be used in batch mode when launched from Brightroom (the 'browser' with PS) but I'm not sure how that can be done with Elements. I suspect that you'd find LR the most attractive option though. Have you tried the 30 day free trial?
 
Just remembered a quote I thought you'd like regarding all this agonising over calibration and formats. Gene Nocon always said, "If you don't press the shutter, you don't get the picture". He was at the time referring to people worrying about wasting film and not having the camera set, 'just-so' but his comment is just as relevant today.
 
On advice here I signed up to the Lightroom 3 30-day trial yesterday.

On first glance it looks a very nice piece of software, though I'm really just getting to grips with the interface and organiser at this stage rather than comparing the RAW conversion, editing tools, etc.

I do understand the product better now, I'll do some more playing and also check out some web/YouTube tutorials etc to understand its potential.

I'm still not sure the volume of photo-taking I do justifies the spend, especially when I don't yet have a tripod or flashgun, for instance, apart from a mini-tripod.

(There's an admission for you! I fully understand the benefits of a tripod, I'm just not sure of the likely occasions when I will actually go out anywhere with it.)

Very sneaky these 30-day trials. The risk is that I do the next month's photo work only in Lightroom and realise I'll lose it all if I let the trial expire.
 
there is a lot of usefull tutorials out there, but if you have any questions, im fairly confident il be able to help... i have been using it since version 1 first came out ... i also get the distinct impression pete is a bit of a wizz too :)
 
Thanks Hamish.

Here's one or two:

EDIT: I've answered both these questions!
 
Last edited:
I host my photo website on Zenfolio, and I certainly like the plug-in which allows you to upload new photos to that site at virtually the touch of a button!
 
Pete Askew said:
Hi Tim,

Don't forget that you can export the edits in a standard format so you won't lose all of the work you have put in if you decide not to stay with LR.
Click to expand...

Yes good point. I need to remember which photos I've edited though.

Interestingly, when it imported my Elements photo library, and random number (about 50) came across with supposed existing LR adjustments, which involved major over-exposure. I had to filter to find them all, and reset the photo in each case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Paul Taylor
The Story/Struggle of a recent purchases and (my) stupidity
Replies
15
Views
169
Gary Ayala
Gary Ayala
Charlotte Ortelli
Fixing up an old Brownie in poor condition
Replies
4
Views
67
Gary R. Smith
Gary R. Smith
Rob MacKillop
Pentax 17 - First Shoot
Replies
7
Views
83
Paul Taylor
Paul Taylor
Bill Watts
The times, they are a'changing
Replies
0
Views
126
Bill Watts
Bill Watts
Paul Taylor
New camera (I have a problem? Nah...)
Replies
8
Views
120
Paul Taylor
Paul Taylor
Back
Top