Thanks for sharing.. Didn't know got such software plugin... sure sounds cool (and much cheaper than CS5).
Which is better cs 5 or lightroom?
- Thread starter hengchianwee
- Start date
Thanks for sharing.. Didn't know got such software plugin... sure sounds cool (and much cheaper than CS5).
hengchianwee
New Member
Hi
To everyone thank you for all the advise u all gave to me
Derrick
To everyone thank you for all the advise u all gave to me
Derrick
David Kwok
Senior Member
They are designed for different purpose, I wouldn't even compare them together.
Photoshop are general purpose bitmap editors with professional tools. You can use it for any artworks as you deem fit.
Lightroom is more of a artwork organizer. Not that it is meant for photographers only, but photographers will find it extremely useful due to the fast and easy features available in it. I also use the DxO for RAW processing and distortion and colour aberration removal.
Between PS and LR, they compliment each other.
Photoshop are general purpose bitmap editors with professional tools. You can use it for any artworks as you deem fit.
Lightroom is more of a artwork organizer. Not that it is meant for photographers only, but photographers will find it extremely useful due to the fast and easy features available in it. I also use the DxO for RAW processing and distortion and colour aberration removal.
Between PS and LR, they compliment each other.
Stingrayangel
Member
Yes.. He is right!! CS 5 and Lightroom are different but are made for each other.. CS 5 have total control of the photos while Lightroom are meant for batch processing.. you want effect? then use CS 5. You want to do whole batch? Then use Light room. But I have to warn you, opening both take up memory... so best is to install a PC, for laptop, I only install CS 5 and upgrade my ram to 4 gb.. even then, at times, it will still probe you memory not enough.. because CS 5 can batch process raw photos.. a bit greedy...
I find LR to be slightly more than what some folks here call photos management software. If you start to dive into it, you will find that it contains 80% of what most photographers need in terms of functionality in photo edits.
And for those who are not aware, Layers is now available for LR, but at a cost.
http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite/perfect-layers/?ind
And for those who are not aware, Layers is now available for LR, but at a cost.
http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite/perfect-layers/?ind
macaroni
Senior Member
Wholly agree
:thumbsup: Let's not forget the price tag. What's the point of getting the full package of CS5 if only a fraction of functionality is really required and used?
The question "What is better?" cannot be answered without defining "For which purpose?"
so far im just using windows live viewer edit function to do color enchancement and cropping purpose. i tried PS cs4, bought a book on it, got no clue what to do with it lol.... i think i should sell my book haha
im actually considering lightroom 3 to see if it can help create better photos in terms of colors n stuffs but still pending because im not really familiar with the workflow. is it hard to use?
blueskye168
Active Member
I fully agreed to both of you all above mentioned:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:...!!:cheers:
**think carefully before 'jumping' straight to CS5 or 4...etc and realised only using those few features whereby PS-E/LR also have it &/or already more than sufficient...!!
Don't forget there is also the totally free GIMP, which offers around 80-90% of the functionality of CS5, after you hunt down all the plugins of course.
Last edited:
Before you start you should read up about monitor calibration and embedded ICC profiles. Windows Picture Editor is 'dumb' with regards to colour space, it will show something, but not accurate colours. Together with an uncalibrated systems your results can be anything anywhere... Lightroom does recognize and work with different colour spaces, but it's all useless without basic monitor calibration.
David Kwok
Senior Member
Yup, knows more about colour gamut, colour spaces, what calibration in general does will help in understand how different models of colours interact. This will greatly enhance your knowledge of why the colours end up in weird hue at times, why printing colour can be different from display and scanner. Try the wiki first, it will give you a rough gauge on what to look out for and where to move into. Blinding moving into calibration doesn't work too, in my opinion. Colour calibration is an end to end process, and it ain't cheap.
To be frank, though I don't see a lot of people into this topic. For graphic designers, it's their core, but normally they turn to process colours because there are print house in Singapore that don't goes by it. Graphic designers normally goes for colour standards such as pantone when they do design to ensure their final output is as similar as possible. Photographers don't because the colours are largely tones, which requires extensive colour calibration to achieve.
It seems to me most stop at monitor calibration. But to be frank it's often a misconception. This is often in my slang "自己看，自己开心" (self satisfaction). When one goes into colour calibration, it has to be end to end as I have mentioned earlier. Suppose your intention is to print out a photo that you gonna take. First you need to calibrate your camera. Which I find most don't. Why ? When you monitor can be uncalibrated, what makes you think your camera won't ? Yes I know the camera comes in mainly sRGB and Adobe RGB 1998 as the 2 main profiles to choose from. But that's the colourspace only. It affects your gamut, but it is not calibrated. When you have a 55% red presented in front of your camera and you snap it, is it 55% red recorded by your camera ? Do you have a ICC profile in your process workflow that tells what the 55% red will be recorded by your camera ? Sensor will degrade over time and therefore calibration is normally done monthly for those whose work live by it. You need a calibration chart for your camera, you need a ICC profile to be generated for your camera. At this moment, it's only step ONE!
Step TWO, you need a software and operating system aware of colour management workflow. Then you need a monitor which is calibrated. Well so this is what I often see people ask for. They only ask for Step TWO and totally neglect Step ONE. Weird false sense of colour idea isn't it ? That's another different calibration process because the first is light absorption and this is light emission. Different devices required. First is a camera(luckily same device concept as a receptor), this for your camera is a colorimeter. So you need to generate an ICC profile for your monitor, so that you can at this junction get WYSIWYG on the monitor.
So you feel shiok now ? Not yet, you are just in the middle of the workflow and how much you have spend ? Probably more than 1K already for a good workflow plus the colorimeter. So at this point, if you keep to the workflow strictly, you will unlikely work out of gamut without you not knowing and you will be safe. But where is your end point ? Make a temporary assumption, this is to be shown on your friends monitor. Okay wait a monitor, so that's the end point ? Your friend's monitor is not calibrated, so it means you can't ensure what u see on your monitor will show up the same on another monitor. Fine lend him your colorimeter and it will works ? Simple so far, not unless that's your client and surely it doesn't make sense to lend everyone your colorimeter right ? Maybe you are generous, I suppose.
Step THREE, back to the former assumption your end point is a photograph to be printed by a super high end inkjet printer with 7 colours on a glossy photo paper. Ops, so your inkjet printer need to be calibrated right ? Furthermore, who says you are on Adobe RGB 1998 or sRGB now ? Your print print using CMYK model and probably better gamut with all those extra colours like light cyan, light yellow etc... So what you need now ? Spend more, get a spectrophotometer. It's used to calibrate your printer, by first printing out colour patches that the metrics are already pre calculated by the software vendor. After that, use the device and read back all the values for the software to generate a ICC Profile for your printer. Take note, it's for the same set of ink cartridges, same paper type. Who says all ink cartridges print out the same hue of red consistently ? So more work huh. That another few hundred or thousands dollars to lighten your wallet.
Now very shook, after spending enough money, you finally get a full colour management workflow. On wait... remember you need a consistent light too, preferably at D5500 Kelvin daylight. Did I say in your whole process, if your lights are different temperature, your colour calibration will not be correct ? LOL.... so much about colour calibration. Perhaps at this point, I guess you must be thinking "I don't need so accurate, I just need something near". Sure.... indeed colour calibration doesn't comes cheap and people end up with half-f colour calibration and self satisfied after all.
To be frank, though I don't see a lot of people into this topic. For graphic designers, it's their core, but normally they turn to process colours because there are print house in Singapore that don't goes by it. Graphic designers normally goes for colour standards such as pantone when they do design to ensure their final output is as similar as possible. Photographers don't because the colours are largely tones, which requires extensive colour calibration to achieve.
It seems to me most stop at monitor calibration. But to be frank it's often a misconception. This is often in my slang "自己看，自己开心" (self satisfaction). When one goes into colour calibration, it has to be end to end as I have mentioned earlier. Suppose your intention is to print out a photo that you gonna take. First you need to calibrate your camera. Which I find most don't. Why ? When you monitor can be uncalibrated, what makes you think your camera won't ? Yes I know the camera comes in mainly sRGB and Adobe RGB 1998 as the 2 main profiles to choose from. But that's the colourspace only. It affects your gamut, but it is not calibrated. When you have a 55% red presented in front of your camera and you snap it, is it 55% red recorded by your camera ? Do you have a ICC profile in your process workflow that tells what the 55% red will be recorded by your camera ? Sensor will degrade over time and therefore calibration is normally done monthly for those whose work live by it. You need a calibration chart for your camera, you need a ICC profile to be generated for your camera. At this moment, it's only step ONE!
Step TWO, you need a software and operating system aware of colour management workflow. Then you need a monitor which is calibrated. Well so this is what I often see people ask for. They only ask for Step TWO and totally neglect Step ONE. Weird false sense of colour idea isn't it ? That's another different calibration process because the first is light absorption and this is light emission. Different devices required. First is a camera(luckily same device concept as a receptor), this for your camera is a colorimeter. So you need to generate an ICC profile for your monitor, so that you can at this junction get WYSIWYG on the monitor.
So you feel shiok now ? Not yet, you are just in the middle of the workflow and how much you have spend ? Probably more than 1K already for a good workflow plus the colorimeter. So at this point, if you keep to the workflow strictly, you will unlikely work out of gamut without you not knowing and you will be safe. But where is your end point ? Make a temporary assumption, this is to be shown on your friends monitor. Okay wait a monitor, so that's the end point ? Your friend's monitor is not calibrated, so it means you can't ensure what u see on your monitor will show up the same on another monitor. Fine lend him your colorimeter and it will works ? Simple so far, not unless that's your client and surely it doesn't make sense to lend everyone your colorimeter right ? Maybe you are generous, I suppose.
Step THREE, back to the former assumption your end point is a photograph to be printed by a super high end inkjet printer with 7 colours on a glossy photo paper. Ops, so your inkjet printer need to be calibrated right ? Furthermore, who says you are on Adobe RGB 1998 or sRGB now ? Your print print using CMYK model and probably better gamut with all those extra colours like light cyan, light yellow etc... So what you need now ? Spend more, get a spectrophotometer. It's used to calibrate your printer, by first printing out colour patches that the metrics are already pre calculated by the software vendor. After that, use the device and read back all the values for the software to generate a ICC Profile for your printer. Take note, it's for the same set of ink cartridges, same paper type. Who says all ink cartridges print out the same hue of red consistently ? So more work huh. That another few hundred or thousands dollars to lighten your wallet.
Now very shook, after spending enough money, you finally get a full colour management workflow. On wait... remember you need a consistent light too, preferably at D5500 Kelvin daylight. Did I say in your whole process, if your lights are different temperature, your colour calibration will not be correct ? LOL.... so much about colour calibration. Perhaps at this point, I guess you must be thinking "I don't need so accurate, I just need something near". Sure.... indeed colour calibration doesn't comes cheap and people end up with half-f colour calibration and self satisfied after all.
Similar threads
