AG Schnozz wrote:
>> The other distinction I've heard (on Lightroom podcasts) is that
>> it's primarily for RAW processing and all work on an image done in
>> Lightroom is non-destructive.
>>
A minor rant:
-That's how most, I suspect all, all RAW processors work. They don't
alter the original RAW format file. Rather, they output the converted
image into a more general purpose image format, like TIFF, JPEG, PSD, etc.
-What Lightroom does is to save the editing that you do as instructions
in a tiny file, so that whenever you again view the original, untouched,
RAW file, it looks the same as when you last left it and you may
conveniently output it in that form in another file format. Or you may
cancel the past processing and go back to square one. Again, this is
nothing special and unique. RSE and ACRS (the RAW processor for PS) also
work this way, saving your changes in a small file, as well as being
able to output other formats and/or send the image on to PS or another
editor for further work. I suspect other RAW processors work the same.
Lightroom indeed has some unique ideas about work flow for the pro
dealing with hundreds or thousands of images from the same shoot, but
the noise about non-destructive editing of RAW images is silly puffery.
The long term problem with "non-destructive" editing is that it depends
on a proprietary format file for the edit information, and thus on the
long term availability of an application to (re)apply it to the RAW
file. For serious keepers, you will still want to keep at least an
edited version, and possibly also an unedited, but converted, original
of the image, in a standard format.
End rant
> The real beauty of Lightroom, which makes it unique, is that it works
> on RAW files (even from multiple camera brands) and JPEGs seemlessly.
>
In an unseemly manner? Without seeming to do so? Heedlessly? :-)
> I can shoot a combination of RAW from two cameras, plus an
> assortment of JPEGs and manage them all as though they are just one
> file type. You can also do some "reprocessing" of the JPEGs to match
> the RAWs too.
>
I can certainly see how wonderful that must be for your work, although
of little use for mine. Also, the interface for image adjustment
centered around the curve/histogram is really nice, much more integrated
than in PS. Without layers and some other PS tools, though, it is just
an overpriced front end to PS for someone like me. FastStone is working
very well for me.
> Now, if it can only walk and chew gum at the same time...
>
Is it as slow as it was a few months ago? I tried, but just couldn't
work seriously with it. I would be steps ahead of the program, making
adjustments based on the out of date display. Loony results and a
frustrated user. ICK! At least when PS gets slow, with big images and
multiple layers, it doesn't let one go on until finished with the step
at hand. It may get slow enough to be frustrating, and make me want a
new computer, but I don't get out of sync with it.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|