My sense is that the only thing offensive about Lightroom is that it’s part of
Adobe’s Evil Empire. As an interface it’s fairly simple, reasonably intuitive,
and incredibly powerful. Porting over to Photoshop from LR, or to one of any
number of third-party thingies, i.e. onOne, NIK, etc., is effortless and
provides a lot of avenues for post processing as reasonable costs. At least
they are reasonable now. My mileage may vary as time passes and we get used to
the subscription thing, and the monthly prices starts north. There’s a point
past which I shall not go, I just don’t know what that point is yet.
--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal
On Jul 3, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks, Piers. I suppose that it wouldn’t be too bad to switch to LR, should
> it come to that.
>
> Chris
>
> On 3 Jul 2014, at 09:54, Piers Hemy <piers@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Can't answer your fundamental question, Chris, but Lightroom does indeed act
>> as you describe, import - non-destructive edit - output. It isn't restricted
>> to that workflow (and one eventually discovers how flexible it can be). And
>> it does provide DAM - in my view that is its fundamental offering, together
>> with an interface (to the same raw converter as used by Photoshop) which is
>> designed for photography rather than graphic arts more generally.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|