This makes sense, until you think about nonlinear tonal transitions: if you apply a curve, then do some local dodging or burning, then the results are not what you’d expect because the order of operations isn’t taken into account. If you apply a +1EV gradient, it will perfectly cancel out a -1EV global exposure compensation at that particular point. ACR in both LR and PS add up the net changes you have made at any given pixel location with whatever tools you use there, and then spit out a result. Nondestructive changes mean you can re-edit without any information loss penalty at a later time.
PS can be either but is mostly destructive – this allows for sequential changes There is no difference in output between ACR and PSįor a practical photographer’s purposes, there are three core differences between PS and LR:ġ. In PS it operates like a plugin and a filter (from CC onwards) in LR it basically is your postprocessing module. This includes both the conversion algorithm as well as the interface controls – you have the same set of sliders and adjustments in a version of ACR in both PS and LR. Both PS and LR share the same raw conversion engine: Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). Originally starting off as a cataloguing package with some raw conversion and processing ability, it slowly grew to include tethered capture and print modules. Lightroom (LR) was Adobe’s first attempt at making a digital-photography-centric software package to handle the entire image making workflow from capture to output. Today we’re going to fix that.įirst off, we need to understand a bit of history: Photoshop (PS from now on) was a graphic designer’s tool, not a photographer’s. Right after ‘what should I buy’ comes this series of questions: why don’t you use Lightroom? And what does Photoshop give me that Lightroom lacks? Moreover, is your workflow applicable to Lightroom? I received a slew of emails recently following the release of LR CC/6 and realised I’ve never really answered any of these questions.
0 kommentar(er)
