6/3/2023 0 Comments Lightzone 3.5![]() ![]() to LR, or to Aperture, or standalone - Nik, Topaz, etc utilities. The same applies for what are often called "plugins" e.g. Well, I was thinking of a 'traditional' bit mapped editor which is still needed from time to time by Lightroom users and users of other workflow tools. ![]() I agree with your post except for the de-emphasis of Lightroom as an "editor." Lightroom obviously takes center stage as an editor, and in my opinion is the best overall photo editor you can use. I guess I can also include those that probably don't know Lightroom very well. I never said or suggested "the entire human population." I obviously excluded those that truly wish to distort reality. There really isn't one "best" software for the entire human population. Mixed Lighting? Why wouldn't you be able to adjust for that in Lightroom? Contrast? You're kidding, right? Lightroom is fanatstic for converting to and editing in black and white. You say you use Lightroom but it doesn't sound like it. ![]() It's much more limited in a mixed lighting situation, however, or situations where you want to work on the contrast, or convert to B+W (but perhaps you consider such a conversion a distortion of reality.) You need other tools for that for the most part, or at least one is better off with another software. Lightroom's editing capabilities are best for situations where some sort of specific faithfulness to the original is required, as in fine arts repro. I was comparing it to something like Photoshop. ![]() I wasn't comparing Lightroom to Lightzone. Lightroom's selective editing capabilities are more limited than LightZone's, as just one example-and LightZone doesn't even allow for the type of compositing you reference. You need other tools for that for the most part, or at least one is better off with another software. It's much more limited in a mixed lighting situation, however, or situations where you want to work on the contrast, or convert to B+W (but perhaps you consider such a conversion a distortion of reality.). The only time one needs an additional editor such as Photoshop is when one wants to truly distort reality, such as for background replacements and things like that. Lightroom is a bitmap editor, and a much more effective one when one considers the ease of use of its many tools and it's excellent all visible user interface.Īgreed here, and I use Lightroom. Nor would I call the Color -Checker "consumer" level. Contrary to your post, the results one gets today using the method I referenced are fantastic, and an under-the-radar revolution in color accuracy for pros doing this kind of work. And they are most certainly shooting for catalogs, and in the case of the museum photographers, for repro for best quality art books by the major publishers. Adobe tools do not allow you to use your own custom measurements, what a bummer.īut among the professional photographers I personally know, working at major American museums (one of which I work at-and i'm in her studio all the time, was in there yesterday in fact, another of which my wife works at, then colleagues at several others), plus the handful of professional photographers in my area doing product work (most of the pros I know don't do that, but there are a few), NOT ONE is using a spectrophotometer to do their work. or at least shell some money for spectrophotometer to measure the target ( but then 24 patches and "super critical" ), oh wait. Really ? so you are doing a "super critical color correction" using non individually measured consumer level 24 patch target ? you need to remove "super critical" then. If you are doing super critical color correction, Lightroom is the better tool, coupled with a Color Checker Passport. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |