Ping PeterN: LR Processing Exercise

This is a fresh post and not some sort of diversion on the road to
Colonial Photo & Hobby.

Peter, since your new coach Stephen Johnson advocates not using LR,
plugins and cloning, I thought I would show you what could be done in
LR5 without plugins or using any cloning or healing. This is a
reasonably quick and somewhat careless set of tweaks, but it shows what
can be done.

https://db.tt/i8JZH316

....and as you said, nothing is removed from the image when I shot it,
and nothing was put into the image that wasn't there.

BTW: Mr. Johnson should check his notes on Adobe products, as LR5 is so
much more than a mere catalog/library program. Sometime you should try
working with LR for yourself, you might be surprised. Perfect Resize
will work with LR you know?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 4/28/2014 10:36 PM, Savageduck wrote:
This is a fresh post and not some sort of diversion on the road to
Colonial Photo & Hobby.

Peter, since your new coach Stephen Johnson advocates not using LR,
plugins and cloning, I thought I would show you what could be done in
LR5 without plugins or using any cloning or healing. This is a
reasonably quick and somewhat careless set of tweaks, but it shows what
can be done.

https://db.tt/i8JZH316

...and as you said, nothing is removed from the image when I shot it,
and nothing was put into the image that wasn't there.

BTW: Mr. Johnson should check his notes on Adobe products, as LR5 is so
much more than a mere catalog/library program. Sometime you should try
working with LR for yourself, you might be surprised. Perfect Resize
will work with LR you know?


Stephen Johnson is not my new coach. Indeed I took the workshop with
knowing that he has a different philosophy changing the environment.
I lot of what he says makes eminent sense. He certainly has the
background and experience. Steve used BarneyScan, the predecessor of
Photoshop, and judging by his results, knows the program quite well. His
results are there. If I ever said that LR was nothing more than a
cataloging program, I misspoke. What I meant is that the development
module in ACR and LR are identical.

I agree that you get more control with PS than ACR. I have also taken
several hours to do a print. Efficient, no. Artistic, yes.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


Stephen Johnson is not my new coach. Indeed I took the workshop with
knowing that he has a different philosophy changing the environment.
I lot of what he says makes eminent sense. He certainly has the
background and experience. Steve used BarneyScan, the predecessor of
Photoshop,

barneyscan licensed what ultimately became photoshop. they didn't
create it on their own.

claiming it's photoshop's predecessor is misleading. it *was*
photoshop, just a really, really early version.

and judging by his results, knows the program quite well. His
results are there.

he might know photoshop, but he doesn't know much about lightroom,
based on what you've posted so far.

If I ever said that LR was nothing more than a
cataloging program, I misspoke.

you said that *he* said that.

What I meant is that the development
module in ACR and LR are identical.

that part is true, but that's just one small part of what they can do.

I agree that you get more control with PS than ACR.

then you need to learn how to use camera raw to its fullest extent.

I have also taken
several hours to do a print. Efficient, no. Artistic, yes.

you must not know what you're doing.

On 2014-04-29 19:21:27 +0000, PeterN said:

On 4/28/2014 10:36 PM, Savageduck wrote:
This is a fresh post and not some sort of diversion on the road to
Colonial Photo & Hobby.

Peter, since your new coach Stephen Johnson advocates not using LR,
plugins and cloning, I thought I would show you what could be done in
LR5 without plugins or using any cloning or healing. This is a
reasonably quick and somewhat careless set of tweaks, but it shows what
can be done.

https://db.tt/i8JZH316

...and as you said, nothing is removed from the image when I shot it,
and nothing was put into the image that wasn't there.

BTW: Mr. Johnson should check his notes on Adobe products, as LR5 is so
much more than a mere catalog/library program. Sometime you should try
working with LR for yourself, you might be surprised. Perfect Resize
will work with LR you know?


Stephen Johnson is not my new coach. Indeed I took the workshop with
knowing that he has a different philosophy changing the environment.

OK!

I lot of what he says makes eminent sense.

....but what you typed there doesn't: "I lot of what he says..."???

He certainly has the background and experience. Steve used BarneyScan,
the predecessor of Photoshop, and judging by his results, knows the
program quite well.

"BarneyScan"!!! Holy ****!! You are talking about a program developed
over thirty years ago, and which never truly moved beyond the bare
basics intended for digital image editing and processing. PS 1.0 was
more capable, and to compare PS CS6/CC or LR (&even GIMP) with
BarneyScan is silly. That he used BarneyScan in 1988 is hardly a
credential when it comes to contemporary digital photography and
processing.

His results are there.

As I said, nice, but nothing particularly extraordinary.

If I ever said that LR was nothing more than a cataloging program, I misspoke.

Yup!

What I meant is that the development module in ACR and LR are identical.

....but you didn't say that, did you?
Also the UI in LR is easier to work with than that in ACR. When I don't
need the PS specific tools LR does all I need. When I need to make a PS
specific fix, PS is there for the LR-PS-LR round trip.

I agree that you get more control with PS than ACR.

Who do you agree with?

ACR is just a step to get your RAW file to PS where you should be doing
the bulk of your work if you have a PS workflow and need the tools
available in PS. However, with PS CS6/CC you have the ability to add
the "Camera RAW" filter to those PS tools.

I have also taken several hours to do a print.

So? If you are going to get to a good print, even in a wet darkroom you
might well find the hours passing very quickly. I certainly have.

Efficient, no.

Probably not, given what time is invested in proofing, test print,
unacceptable results, etc. until your eye is pleased or you accept that
what you have is the best you are going to be able to produce given any
particular set of conditions, equipment and other limitations.

Artistic, yes.

All in the eye of the beholder.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 4/29/2014 3:45 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


Stephen Johnson is not my new coach. Indeed I took the workshop with
knowing that he has a different philosophy changing the environment.
I lot of what he says makes eminent sense. He certainly has the
background and experience. Steve used BarneyScan, the predecessor of
Photoshop,

barneyscan licensed what ultimately became photoshop. they didn't
create it on their own.

claiming it's photoshop's predecessor is misleading. it *was*
photoshop, just a really, really early version.

and judging by his results, knows the program quite well. His
results are there.

he might know photoshop, but he doesn't know much about lightroom,
based on what you've posted so far.

If I ever said that LR was nothing more than a
cataloging program, I misspoke.

you said that *he* said that.

What I meant is that the development
module in ACR and LR are identical.

that part is true, but that's just one small part of what they can do.

I agree that you get more control with PS than ACR.

then you need to learn how to use camera raw to its fullest extent.

I have also taken
several hours to do a print. Efficient, no. Artistic, yes.

you must not know what you're doing.


Are you saying that you can do anything in ACR that you can do in
Photoshop CC?

--
PeterN

On 2014-04-29 21:53:02 +0000, PeterN said:

On 4/29/2014 3:45 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


Stephen Johnson is not my new coach. Indeed I took the workshop with
knowing that he has a different philosophy changing the environment.
I lot of what he says makes eminent sense. He certainly has the
background and experience. Steve used BarneyScan, the predecessor of
Photoshop,

barneyscan licensed what ultimately became photoshop. they didn't
create it on their own.

claiming it's photoshop's predecessor is misleading. it *was*
photoshop, just a really, really early version.

and judging by his results, knows the program quite well. His
results are there.

he might know photoshop, but he doesn't know much about lightroom,
based on what you've posted so far.

If I ever said that LR was nothing more than a
cataloging program, I misspoke.

you said that *he* said that.

What I meant is that the development
module in ACR and LR are identical.

that part is true, but that's just one small part of what they can do.

I agree that you get more control with PS than ACR.

then you need to learn how to use camera raw to its fullest extent.

I have also taken
several hours to do a print. Efficient, no. Artistic, yes.

you must not know what you're doing.


Are you saying that you can do anything in ACR that you can do in Photoshop CC?

Nobody has ever claimed that. However, it seems you are not using ACR
or LR to their full potential.

Note: there are quite a number of things that can only be done in ACR
or LR, and can only be achieved in PS if you use the "Camera RAW"
filter which allows returning to ACR for further adjustment in the ACR
UI. For example "Radial Gradient".
PS users have waited for some time for that particular feature, but if
you don't care to use it ...

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 4/29/2014 4:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-04-29 19:21:27 +0000, PeterN said:

On 4/28/2014 10:36 PM, Savageduck wrote:
This is a fresh post and not some sort of diversion on the road to
Colonial Photo & Hobby.

Peter, since your new coach Stephen Johnson advocates not using LR,
plugins and cloning, I thought I would show you what could be done in
LR5 without plugins or using any cloning or healing. This is a
reasonably quick and somewhat careless set of tweaks, but it shows what
can be done.

https://db.tt/i8JZH316

...and as you said, nothing is removed from the image when I shot it,
and nothing was put into the image that wasn't there.

BTW: Mr. Johnson should check his notes on Adobe products, as LR5 is so
much more than a mere catalog/library program. Sometime you should try
working with LR for yourself, you might be surprised. Perfect Resize
will work with LR you know?


Stephen Johnson is not my new coach. Indeed I took the workshop with
knowing that he has a different philosophy changing the environment.

OK!

I lot of what he says makes eminent sense.

...but what you typed there doesn't: "I lot of what he says..."???
Why? I am pointing out that not everybody uses the same tools.


He certainly has the background and experience. Steve used BarneyScan,
the predecessor of Photoshop, and judging by his results, knows the
program quite well.

"BarneyScan"!!! Holy ****!! You are talking about a program developed
over thirty years ago, and which never truly moved beyond the bare
basics intended for digital image editing and processing. PS 1.0 was
more capable, and to compare PS CS6/CC or LR (&even GIMP) with
BarneyScan is silly. That he used BarneyScan in 1988 is hardly a
credential when it comes to contemporary digital photography and
processing.arne

my only reason for mentioning Barneyscan is that the software that came
with it was a very early incarnation of PhotoShop.

http://www.creativebloq.com/adobe/history-photoshop-12052724


His results are there.

As I said, nice, but nothing particularly extraordinary.

His prints go for upwards of $1,200.


If I ever said that LR was nothing more than a cataloging program, I
misspoke.

Yup!

What I meant is that the development module in ACR and LR are identical.

...but you didn't say that, did you?
Also the UI in LR is easier to work with than that in ACR. When I don't
need the PS specific tools LR does all I need. When I need to make a PS
specific fix, PS is there for the LR-PS-LR round trip.

I agree that you get more control with PS than ACR.

Who do you agree with?

ACR is just a step to get your RAW file to PS where you should be doing
the bulk of your work if you have a PS workflow and need the tools
available in PS. However, with PS CS6/CC you have the ability to add the
"Camera RAW" filter to those PS tools.

I have also taken several hours to do a print.

So? If you are going to get to a good print, even in a wet darkroom you
might well find the hours passing very quickly. I certainly have.

Efficient, no.

Probably not, given what time is invested in proofing, test print,
unacceptable results, etc. until your eye is pleased or you accept that
what you have is the best you are going to be able to produce given any
particular set of conditions, equipment and other limitations.

Artistic, yes.

All in the eye of the beholder.

Yup!. I like his results.

--
PeterN

On 4/29/2014 6:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-04-29 21:53:02 +0000, PeterN said:

On 4/29/2014 3:45 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


Stephen Johnson is not my new coach. Indeed I took the workshop with
knowing that he has a different philosophy changing the
environment.
I lot of what he says makes eminent sense. He certainly has the
background and experience. Steve used BarneyScan, the predecessor of
Photoshop,

barneyscan licensed what ultimately became photoshop. they didn't
create it on their own.

claiming it's photoshop's predecessor is misleading. it *was*
photoshop, just a really, really early version.

and judging by his results, knows the program quite well. His
results are there.

he might know photoshop, but he doesn't know much about lightroom,
based on what you've posted so far.

If I ever said that LR was nothing more than a
cataloging program, I misspoke.

you said that *he* said that.

What I meant is that the development
module in ACR and LR are identical.

that part is true, but that's just one small part of what they can do.

I agree that you get more control with PS than ACR.

then you need to learn how to use camera raw to its fullest extent.

I have also taken
several hours to do a print. Efficient, no. Artistic, yes.

you must not know what you're doing.


Are you saying that you can do anything in ACR that you can do in
Photoshop CC?

Nobody has ever claimed that. However, it seems you are not using ACR or
LR to their full potential.

Note: there are quite a number of things that can only be done in ACR or
LR, and can only be achieved in PS if you use the "Camera RAW" filter
which allows returning to ACR for further adjustment in the ACR UI. For
example "Radial Gradient".
PS users have waited for some time for that particular feature, but if
you don't care to use it ...

There are preset gradient filters in CC, you can also easily make you own.
Here is a crude, exaggerated example.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20131226_Enter%20custom%20name%20sanibel%20birds%2 0%26%20naples%20zoo_1802.jpg

--
PeterN

On 2014-04-29 22:08:26 +0000, PeterN said:

On 4/29/2014 4:16 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-04-29 19:21:27 +0000, PeterN said:

On 4/28/2014 10:36 PM, Savageduck wrote:
This is a fresh post and not some sort of diversion on the road to
Colonial Photo & Hobby.

Peter, since your new coach Stephen Johnson advocates not using LR,
plugins and cloning, I thought I would show you what could be done in
LR5 without plugins or using any cloning or healing. This is a
reasonably quick and somewhat careless set of tweaks, but it shows what
can be done.

https://db.tt/i8JZH316

...and as you said, nothing is removed from the image when I shot it,
and nothing was put into the image that wasn't there.

BTW: Mr. Johnson should check his notes on Adobe products, as LR5 is so
much more than a mere catalog/library program. Sometime you should try
working with LR for yourself, you might be surprised. Perfect Resize
will work with LR you know?


Stephen Johnson is not my new coach. Indeed I took the workshop with
knowing that he has a different philosophy changing the environment.

OK!

I lot of what he says makes eminent sense.

...but what you typed there doesn't: "I lot of what he says..."???
Why? I am pointing out that not everybody uses the same tools.

Try vocalizing those words. Say out loud; " I lot of what he says makes
eminent sense." and see how sinsible that sounds.
....and "eminent" seems to be a poor choice of word.


He certainly has the background and experience. Steve used BarneyScan,
the predecessor of Photoshop, and judging by his results, knows the
program quite well.

"BarneyScan"!!! Holy ****!! You are talking about a program developed
over thirty years ago, and which never truly moved beyond the bare
basics intended for digital image editing and processing. PS 1.0 was
more capable, and to compare PS CS6/CC or LR (&even GIMP) with
BarneyScan is silly. That he used BarneyScan in 1988 is hardly a
credential when it comes to contemporary digital photography and
processing.arne

my only reason for mentioning Barneyscan is that the software that came
with it was a very early incarnation of PhotoShop.

http://www.creativebloq.com/adobe/history-photoshop-12052724

Yup! Been there done that, and it is of no current consequence, just an
historic one.


His results are there.

As I said, nice, but nothing particularly extraordinary.

His prints go for upwards of $1,200.

His skills seem to be in marketing stuff which is not extraordinary.
You bought into his course didn't you?

If I ever said that LR was nothing more than a cataloging program, I
misspoke.

Yup!

What I meant is that the development module in ACR and LR are identical.

...but you didn't say that, did you?
Also the UI in LR is easier to work with than that in ACR. When I don't
need the PS specific tools LR does all I need. When I need to make a PS
specific fix, PS is there for the LR-PS-LR round trip.

I agree that you get more control with PS than ACR.

Who do you agree with?

ACR is just a step to get your RAW file to PS where you should be doing
the bulk of your work if you have a PS workflow and need the tools
available in PS. However, with PS CS6/CC you have the ability to add the
"Camera RAW" filter to those PS tools.

I have also taken several hours to do a print.

So? If you are going to get to a good print, even in a wet darkroom you
might well find the hours passing very quickly. I certainly have.

Efficient, no.

Probably not, given what time is invested in proofing, test print,
unacceptable results, etc. until your eye is pleased or you accept that
what you have is the best you are going to be able to produce given any
particular set of conditions, equipment and other limitations.

Artistic, yes.

All in the eye of the beholder.

Yup!. I like his results.

His results? In that last little piece you appeared to be talking about
your personal workflow efficiency, ...er, inefficiency in producing a
print, not his results.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-04-29 22:50:11 +0000, PeterN said:

On 4/29/2014 6:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-04-29 21:53:02 +0000, PeterN said:

On 4/29/2014 3:45 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


Stephen Johnson is not my new coach. Indeed I took the workshop with
knowing that he has a different philosophy changing the
environment.
I lot of what he says makes eminent sense. He certainly has the
background and experience. Steve used BarneyScan, the predecessor of
Photoshop,

barneyscan licensed what ultimately became photoshop. they didn't
create it on their own.

claiming it's photoshop's predecessor is misleading. it *was*
photoshop, just a really, really early version.

and judging by his results, knows the program quite well. His
results are there.

he might know photoshop, but he doesn't know much about lightroom,
based on what you've posted so far.

If I ever said that LR was nothing more than a
cataloging program, I misspoke.

you said that *he* said that.

What I meant is that the development
module in ACR and LR are identical.

that part is true, but that's just one small part of what they can do.

I agree that you get more control with PS than ACR.

then you need to learn how to use camera raw to its fullest extent.

I have also taken
several hours to do a print. Efficient, no. Artistic, yes.

you must not know what you're doing.


Are you saying that you can do anything in ACR that you can do in
Photoshop CC?

Nobody has ever claimed that. However, it seems you are not using ACR or
LR to their full potential.

Note: there are quite a number of things that can only be done in ACR or
LR, and can only be achieved in PS if you use the "Camera RAW" filter
which allows returning to ACR for further adjustment in the ACR UI. For
example "Radial Gradient".
PS users have waited for some time for that particular feature, but if
you don't care to use it ...

There are preset gradient filters in CC, you can also easily make you own.
Here is a crude, exaggerated example.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20131226_Enter%20custom%20name%20sanibel%20birds%2 0%26%20naples%20zoo_1802.jpg

You

didn't read what I said; "Radial Grad" filter, not "Gradient" filter.
they are quite different in execution and result.

I have been using PS and LR for some time, and I am well aware of "Grad
filters" how to apply them and when to use them to best effect.

I suggest you take the time to take a look at this Julieanne Kost
offering. I recommend upping the resolution to HD and view it in full
screen.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-comple...oshop-cc-v141/

or
http://tinyurl.com/kduqx8y

--
Regards,

Savageduck