If you’d like to see one man’s application of knowing what you want and why ~ take a look at:
http://www.geocompa.com/CrossCreativeConcept.pdf

You guys keep up the great work!
Joe

To be blunt, I agree with everything you said. I do own Lr and use it frequently (since the first beta) - a big fan of the software. Perhaps my comments were poorly written, but it’s just my “feeling” that the photographic process is becoming too mechanical, unwaivering and strict - I thrive on the emotion, artistic expression and wild creativity. Of course I agree Lr is the digital darkroom, absolutely. (My question above was rhetorical, again, sorry for the poor writing) But it is in Ps (using since 4.01) where the imagination can go wild and create - well - anything, not just produce the “perfect” white balanced, color corrected, cleaned up photograph. I just miss the - start with a blank page and create something / anything. Approach as so much time is dedicated to photography, but obviously that is what’s popular so, I ought to put a sock in it.

Just my little perception that a purism in photography is overtaking general graphic design and more weight and importance is focused on Lr while less seems to be on Ps (hence my NALP comment). Perhaps I should stick with Ai - or - it could be that I’m simply jealous of all of you fine photographers as my captures suck.

I appreciate the rebuttal and apologize for conveying my message poorly.

Respectfully and with Warm Regards,

Doug

Lightroom really IS the modern digital darkroom. Its also a product you may or may not agree is called Photoshop Lightroom (and its core processing functionality is based on Adobe Camera Raw which is part of Photoshop). In terms of most control, best practices, speed/quality, the ACR engine for rendering desirable pixels PRIOR to even beginning to use Photoshop is what you might want to consider. Lightroom is the processor, why not do all the heavy lifting before you even render a single color pixel? Why not do this by simply building instructions, simple small and fast text files instead of trying to burn in millions of existing pixels that are not in the closest, desirable state? Photoshop is a pixel editor, Lightroom and ACR create pixels. Often its very difficult or impossible to mimic this on existing pixels in Photoshop, and its almost always counter productive.

Case in point. Shoot some JPEGs under the totally wrong white balance and shoot a set of Raws at the same time. Try to “fix” the JPEG in Photoshop then try to simply white balance the Raws in Lightroom which isn’t even affecting the pixels (they don’t yet exist, you haven’t rendered them until you export the data). Which is faster? Which provides better quality? Rendering pixels from Raw and fixing pixels in Photoshop are totally different tasks, hence we have totally different tools. Use the right tool for the right job.

A great article and as someone who does most of my “creating” with Ps and use the camera to capture the foundation of where I want to go - the article was really appreciated! I grew up in a family of artists and knew none of them to put paint on canvas in 1 stroke without making changes, grabbing a little turpentine, a paper towel, then going back to it - wanting to achieve the piece they have in mind. I also have a buddy who shoots race cars at the nearby track (Limerock Park) who often used the dark room to add his “artistic vision” to what may have been an ordinary photo. A quote he still uses, “It’s not a photo until I can hold it in my hands.” And, more applicable, “It’s not done until I see what I felt.” I agree with both.

It all seems so mechanical to solely rely on the camera for your artistic vision or perfect shot. A lot of artistic work is done in Ps - with all the great tools Adobe gave us, not just ACR. With all the photo debate, I’m worried NAPP will turn into NALP (National Association of Lightroom Professionals) and design / innovation will be looked down upon as it wasn’t captured perfectly in the camera first. I even see trends in the NAPP portfolios and editors picks to focus more on beautiful photos beyond great design or even colorful, abstract images.

I realize it’s “Photo” shop, but then what’s Lightroom for? Ps, to me, will always be a blank canvas with a collection great brushes and paper towels.

Thanks for another side of the debate!

Keep up the fine work with the other NAPP / PSUTV gang.

Doug

Dave, absolutely agree. I compare using Photoshop to using artifical light sources and filters. All are used to enhance an image.

Jay

When I first get a new camera I take at least 2,000 shots before I expect to get a ‘keeper’ … sometimes I luck out but I really want to know exactly what it is going to give me in any given situation before I put my trust into it. All the additional options with digital bodies makes that a longer but cheaper learning process.

As I have really gotten a better grounding in the options of PS (thanks to NAPP!) I have learned even more about using my camera to improve my images and reduce steps at the computer desk.

All that said, if the unique and powerful tools available in modern software don’t add anything to what I capture in my camera I am missing something.

You can’t do good work without knowing the abilities and limitations of your tools!

Bob