Photoshop does many things that most photographers never use. The graphic
arts side of it. So LR will most likely always be a subset even if it
encompassed all the photo features.
Just a guess I suspect they get a lot more buys from photographers than they
do from graphic artists.
BK
""Only the print contains the artist's meaning and message." "
----- Ansel Adams
J Bryan Krämer North Florida, USA
photos at: http://pbase.com/photoburner
blog at: http://www.photoburner.net
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:42, G. Armour Van Horn <vanhorn@whidbey.com>wrote:
> At some point, "full featured" and "subset" are fundamentally
> irreconcilable, so I'm not sure this can be argued; the one means
> "having all the features" and the other means "not having all the
> features". But if you want to make that "full-featured for
> photographers" it isn't much of a stretch now, as long as you define a
> photographer as one who creates with a camera plus intended processing.
>
> LR doesn't address a lot of things that retouchers used to do, it
> doesn't deal with masking, it doesn't create prints from multiple
> negatives, and it doesn't do color seps, but these weren't things that
> were part of argentic photography either, they were significant
> additional skill sets, different crafts.
>
> LR does do a whole lot of things that were pretty advanced darkroom
> work, even if it can't do everything that might have been done in a
> darkroom. Do you recall how complex an unsharp mask was to do with film?
> I know I tried, I'm not sure I ever actually got it to work well enough
> to use, and I rarely had jobs that were worth it back then.
>
> LightRoom isn't an environment for original art creation, by which I
> mean making new artwork using other images, and it doesn't do color
> separations. Adobe has been very consistent about the latter, no
> reduced-price variation on the Photoshop theme has ever dealt with CMYK.
> All those PS LE versions bundled with scanners, the old PhotoDeluxe, PS
> Elements, and now Lightroom, none have done seps.
>
> Essentially, Adobe has always treated the prepress realm as being
> absolutely "full price" territory, but while that arena always involved
> photographic processes, it wasn't one that involved photographers. So
> from a photographer's perspective, I don't see any problem with
> considering Lightroom a full-featured program. And I'm still using LR 2.
>
> Van
>
> On 06/02/2011 8:34 AM, J Bryan Kramer wrote:
> >
> > Maybe but it's not even close to being full featured.
> >
> > BK
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Donate to support the ArtShowPhoto Forum at
http://artshowphoto.com/support.htm
PLEASE READ....PLEASE TRIM POSTS!!! Keep quoted material short.
Repeat or create accurate subject lines.
If you want to advertise services related to art shows or photography, either in a forum post or on the resource web site, please contact the forum owner for permission.
Resource web site at
http://ArtShowPhoto.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/artshow_photo/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/artshow_photo/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
artshow_photo-digest@yahoogroups.com
artshow_photo-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
artshow_photo-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
0 comments:
Post a Comment