Does light room work better than Photoshop for raw conversion

What is the difference between photoshop and lightroom conversion from raw camera files. It seems that lightroom is putting my images in more of a middle of the road type of post production, where photoshop tends to be all over the place. As a professional photographer it is good to have a style, but do you think that this middle of the road approach will end up getting us all to conform to a single style rather than being individuals? If I change settings and take control then more images fall out of the bell curve and don't look as nice. http://www.blue2green.com here are some sample images. I am curious if anyone else is experiencing the same concerns

What Geoff said is accurate. I used to use Adobe Bridge/Photoshop ACR for camera RAW processing. But since LR has the same engine I use LR much more these days. And most times I don't even go into PhotoShop with my images and just print from LR -- LR is very powerful, especially since the release of LR4 and I find that I rarely need to use an outside editor like PhotoShop or NIK and OnOne plugins to do any post processing.

Similar Messages

Why does my PS work better than my Lightroom 5 exporting jpegs from raw files?

So,
I'm editing some raw files with Lightroom 5
but when I export the jpg file, the result is terrible, it looks washed out, loses contrast, noise levels are higher than the edited file on suite
However, if I do the same thing using camera raw through PsCS6, the exported jpg is perfect. Any reason for that to happen?
've been reading a lot about color spaces, and I don't think is the case, since the same doesn't happen with photoshop.
Also, it might be worth mentioning I'm exporting B&W images
Thanks!

ok
just to illustrate the problem a little better, here's the actual difference
this is what I have in Lightroom after editing:
and here's what I get after exporting

TS1398 problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

I don't understand what you are asking here. Can you try and ask again?

Why SAP is better than Oracle for timber plantation industry

Dear Experts,
I have to prepare a ppt regarding Why SAP is better than Oracle for timber plantation industry? please supply me some precious points that could convince my client to go for SAP rather than Oracle.
I u have a ppt ready for this then please help me by sending that. Pleease help me asap.
Thank u all
Sankhajeet

Hi,
if anyone have any other docs or links on this...please send me...
Thanks in advance
krishna
[email protected]

Cannot run Light Room 5 Beta?

I installed Light Room 5 Beta and somehow mucked up the nominated Lightroom catalog; hence the program will not run. An error message appears and then shuts down. I have tried reinstalling the program but the same error repeats itself. Can anyone please inform me how I can completely uninstall it and re-install it again nominating a new catalog? regards, Les

Hi Les,
Forgetfullfred wrote:
mucked up the nominated Lightroom catalog; hence the program will not run.
To be clear: Lr5 (beta) will not read Lr4 catalogs - you have to start a new one.
Anyway, if the mucked up catalog is an Lr5b catalog, it might be good to send it to Adobe if the mucking was due to bug, if not - just delete it and start over, or restore from backup.
Rob

Will Elements or Light Room work for an old copy of CS?

I am running windows 8 and tried to install an old copy of photoshop cs. I got an error message that I needed to already have installed a copy of photoshop 5.0 or later. I no longer have my elements software so I cant re install it. Can I just get a new elements or light room and then be able to install cs?

I'm trying to determine which would be the best way for me to proceed. I'm looking for a way to manage my photos (over 22,000) with keywords and file names.
Both Elements and PSE work best if you organize and manage your collection by keywords, and not by file names. Although you can certainly go down that path if you really want to, in which case if you must use file names, Lightroom offers slightly better tools, and fewer bugs.
I am an Elements 7 user but I'm having some problems using the keywords in CS5.
Not enough information for me to understand what problems you are having, so I can't advise on this issue.
Also if I delete pictures in CS5, I have to make a lot of adjustments in Elements .
I fail to see an issue here. In fact, I don't really understand completely, what do you mean "delete pictures in CS5"? CS5 is an editor, not a file manager.
I have read the information regarding Lightroom and wonder if this is the way to go for me. It appears to be more compatible with Photoshop.
Neither Lightroom nor Elements has an advantage in its compatibility with Photoshop. Both allow you to use CS5 as an extra editor.
Both PSE and Lightroom let you do what you have described, if used properly. If you could provide more details about your needs, maybe one program or the other will become the better choice.

Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
Any thoughts or explanations?

Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
Eric
ADK

Why does my $40 wireless phone work better than my airport?

I have a $40 wireless phone... ge... 2.4ghz... that works in any room in my home.
I have an $200 airport that doesn't work more than 10 feet away...
What is the difference that makes one work so much better than the other?
Are they completely differenct technologies, and if so, why wouldn't apple use the better one?
Don't get me wrong, I love apple and I love the airport when I am in the same room with it, but just don't understand why it can't work through a wall.
agp g4 1 ghz - titanium powerbook - airport Mac OS X (10.4.8)
agp g4 Mac OS X (10.4.2)

There are several things that affect wireless technology all through the spectrum of Bluetooth, LAN's, WAN's
Here is a site that covers all aspects of the technology. This should answer any questions you have.
http://wireless.utk.edu/overview.html
Don

Creating something better than Photoshop CC ?

The basic CC concept just doesn't work for many people, including myself. Bottom line: there must be a perpetual license option for a basic photo image editing program. For many photographers, Photoshop Elements just isn't robust enough. My guess is that other companies will jump into this huge new market, but that's going to take time.
It looks like Adobe is the only company in the position to produce a solution in the short term. So let's start there.
Over at the Kelby Blog and NAPP (the "Photoshop Guys," NAPP memebers and Blog contributors) they are actually working on a product concept to present to Adobe in response to CC. It's initially being called "LightShop" and its basic premise is to be a stripped-down Photoshop CC that integrates with Lightroom. It will have minimal Type, no 3D, no video, and less special effects and other bloat -- just a clear Lightroom-like interface that is smooth and fast. Most important, it sells as a perpetual license like Lightroom, for under $200. This concept sounds interesting -- if you're into Lightroom. I'm not.
Another idea is for Adobe to offer something like a Photoshop Elements "Extended Edition." Now that they have killed the Standard Edition of Photoshop, a product like that would not encroach upon the now professional market focus of Photoshop CC. It would be relatively easy to produce because most of the code is already in Photoshop Elements for more advanced features -- it's just turned off. ACR already comes with Elements, and Bridge could be included as before. If some of the deficiencies of standard Elements could be addressed, and some of the consumer oriented bling thrown out, then it could be ideal for amateur to semi-pro photographers. Photoshop plug-ins would work as they do now. Sell a perpetual license for under $200, and I think a lot of non-CC customers would be happy. An upgrade from CS3 onwards would be great too, for maybe $100.
But exactly what features would be best for a Photoshop CC alternative product? Is 16-bit necessary if you are global-editing RAW in ACR or Lightroom? Can you really tell the difference in a print or on the Web? What about Blend Modes -- do we need that many? How about just one sharpening filter -- the upcoming version of Smart Sharpen?

You bring up a great point. Lets say when we eventually die and lets say our family or even clients want to see what we have done. Adobe with cc in a way has cut off your legacy by not having a perpetual program that can automatically open your files. Which is different from saving as older file type.
If cc had more price options i would be very temped to join it. Ither a 30-40$/month plan for say a suite as they have done for years or pick your favorite 3 programs and 1-2 minior ones like bridge or acrobat. I would also like to see a 10-15/month plan for just 1 program but that is not a special offer but long standing price. Im sure the cc price will change within the next 12 months which is for good or bad why you can only lock in a 1 year plan. It would be nice if like a phone you could lock in your plan price for 2 years. At least you would know what to expect. Adobe should look at phone subscriptions and see how we get people to pay 90/month for a phone which for many is a toy and they cant get people to pay 50/month for tools. With phones when you renew your contract gennerally every 2 years you get a massive discount on some new phones and some will actaully be free or upto 70% off. Adobe shoudl consider this. The more adobe products you have the bigger your renew discount should be. They could do it as 2 year contract or have several durations besides monthly and yearly. Have a 6 month, 18 and 24 month. Say you pay 50/month for your contract duration of 1 year, when it comes time to renew you should have a discount lets say 10-20% off which would be 40-45$ which is handy. If you upgrade to cc and have a suite you should have a biggerest discount than just 1 program say instead of 40/month like 30/month for that contract duration and if you have master collection maybe 20/month for the duration. Then with those 2 suites when its time to renew still give a discount but maybe less. Maybe a suite becomes 40/month and master 30/month but give more discount than those who just renewed. Give us what feels like incentives not punishments.
Ya having 3 almost 4 photoshops was getting a big crazy. Photoshop extended, photohop, photoshop elements and light room. I guess its good for adobe to consolidate but they could have done it with out the cloud. Just make elements and lightroom merged and bump up the price maybe 40%. I think thats fair. Similarly with photoshop and extended, merge the 2 and increase price to 1/2 way between both. Starts getting weird when you have many overlapping things. Like web design has dream weaver and muse. I would love to get that as 1 program or a package deal since they do the same thing but go about it differently. Merge them as 1 and increase price 40%. Same with indesign and incopy, merge them together and increase price 40%. This will make each program stronger and a better buy. Just good house keeping to simplify. Adobe offers so many things I honestly dont know what some of their new things like fusion do. Many have only been around 1-2 years and its becoming complicated to know about all their stuff especially when they start overlapping.
Good luck adobe. I do love you but you are breaking my heart. I want to stay but you need to make some changes to help me want to.

ACR 3.7 works better than 4.2 with RAW NEF - Why?

I've got CS3 with ACR 4.2 on my Mac. When I open RAW camera files in ACR 4.2 they end up desaturated. The reds in particular have mostly disappeared, but all the colors are annoyingly pale and wan. I then have to punch up the saturation, and often go into Camera Calibration to reinstate colors that have gone.
If I take the same images to my PC and open in CS2 via ACR3.7, the images have proper color saturation. I've checked the preference settings and they don't seem to be any different. And no, I'm not using the NEF plug-in on CS2 (which isn't available for CS3).
So why do my images end up so much better via 3.7 than via 4.2? Anyone got a theory? Is it because the default camera calibration in 4.2 is narrower than 3.7? I'm shooting with a Nikon D80 and a D200.

Tony, Tony, Tony
 
 Got your four images.
 
 First, there's the issue of the one you
erroneously claim to have converted in ACR 3.7 on your PC, especially since the metadata reveals it to be a NIKON SOFTWARE conversion and it has a NIKON profile embedded (Nikon sRGB 4.0.0.3001) as does the one specifically named Nikon View NX.JPG, yet the ones converted in ACR have sRGB IEC61966-2.1. embedded.
 
 The truth is that that image was NOT converted in ACR 3.7 at all.
 
 There can only be two reasons for that egregious error:
 
 1. you are being disingenuous, which I do not want to believe; or
 
 
2. you had the Nikon plug-in installed on your PC, which overrides ACR, and you were using the Nikon plug-in all the time without realizing it. Even though you thought you were using ACR, you were using the Nikon software all the time in Photoshop CS2.
 
 That has happened to many, many Nikon users. The Nikon plug-in sort of looks like ACR with a "simplified" interface, as users have described it. Nikon software installs that plug-in behind your back.
 
 In any event, without the RAW image as I've been suggesting from the beginning, all I can tell you is that your images look a lot more natural to me in the ACR conversion, and the oversaturated two developed in Nikon View NX (again no Raw Converter metadata) are within the parameters I would expect.
 
 c
<a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1JtzFpfaH0PbDPPUd3skXfpZuxP2Rg1" /></a>
<img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1JtzFpfaH0PbDPPUd3skXfpZuxP2Rg1_thumb.jpg" border="0" />
 
 
 c
<a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1WIr6Milnyj71JfyFEz2SB3ilq072" /></a>
<img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1WIr6Milnyj71JfyFEz2SB3ilq072_thumb.jpg" border="0" />
 
 
 In short, Tony, you are NOT seeing a difference between two different versions of ACR (as the title of this thread suggests) but ONLY between "the over-saturated, over-contrasty and over-sharpened images that appeal to most amateurs generated by the camera manufacturer's software", as I've been saying all along, and ACR's more natural rendition. Noise is also hidden by compressing the shadows so you don't see much of the noise inherent in the image.
 
 Adobe Camera Raw, ACR, on the other hand, comes with default settings designed to give you the most detail possible (even if this sometimes means revealing some of the noise hidden by the camera manufacturers in their RAW conversion software), as well as the most natural images.
 
 That being said, you can calibrate your camera to ACR and come up with your own settings to produce exactly what you want, including the JPEG-look of the camera manufacturer, and save that as your profile.
 
 The key is to learn how to use ACR properly and to calibrate your camera to ACR.
 
 
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Camera-Raw-/dp/0321334094/sr=8-1/qid=1156891468/re f=pd_bbs_1/104-7285664-9941543?ie=UTF8" style="padding: 4px; background-color: #00caff; color: #eeeeee; font: bold 10px Verdana, san serif;" target="_blank">CLICK HERE</a> for some essential reading. [Get the rervised version for CS3 by Jeff Schewe coming out soon.]
 
 The ACR defaults are nothing more than a suggested starting point.
 
 The color temperature won't necessarily match either.

Does cs5 gpu work better under windows 7 then xp ?

Hi
i noticed that photoshop cs5 video card gpu works better under windows 7 32bit then xp 32bit (gpu come off but i enabled and restart photoshop cs5)
i did notice a better performance of xp sp3 then xp sp2, maybe i'm wrong
it's my guess or is real ?
i used the same ati drivers
by the way are there ati drivers that works better for photoshop cs5 then others?
thanks
cheers

I've tried all different settings. In the end, and this is PURELY SUBJECTIVE, I think as good results just by leaving them on the out-of-box defaults as with any other setting. My Photoshop CS5 64 bit is currently set up as follows, and my system is stable:
I normally increase my History levels, as you can see above, since I have a lot of RAM and I like to be able to go a long way back in time to what I had before a bunch of work - e.g., to double check to ensure I haven't lost info.
The one other setting in that set that I DO use - with GREAT care - is that occasionally I set the Cache Levels down to 1, which (with OpenGL turned off) allows me to see layer compositing on the screen done in the full bit depth of the document (e.g., 16 bits/channel). This matters when I work on astroimages, which can involve severe pushing of the data (e.g., really steep curves).
I run my OpenGL settings in Advanced mode, which seems to work fine, though again I've never really noticed a performance difference between Normal and Advanced.
-Noel

Will this setup work better than my iMac?

I edit lots of DSLR HD video on adobe premiere CS6, and have been using a 2011 21.5" iMac with an i5 processor and 12GB of ram. I am going to ditch my mac (since I don't even use any mac based programs anymore due to fcpx sucking) and building a PC. Here are the parts:
Intel Core i7-3770K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor
$299.99
FREE
$299.99
Amazon
Remove
Buy
CPU Cooler
Choose a CPU Cooler
Motherboard
ASRock Z77 Extreme4 ATX LGA1155 Motherboard
$124.99
$2.99
$127.98
Newegg
Remove
Buy Combo
Combo discount automatically applied. (View details.)
Memory
Corsair Vengeance 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory
$67.99
FREE
$67.99
Amazon
Remove
Buy
Add More Memory
Storage
Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
$73.75
FREE
$73.75
NCIX US
Remove
Buy
Samsung 830 Series 128GB 2.5" Solid State Disk
$104.99
FREE
$104.99
Adorama
Remove
Buy
Add Additional Storage
Video Card
EVGA GeForce GTX 650 2GB Video Card
$149.99
-$20.00
$129.99
Microcenter
Remove
Buy
$20.00 mail-in rebate
Sound Card
Choose a Sound Card
Case
Antec Twelve Hundred V3 ATX Full Tower Case
$119.99
-$10.00
FREE
$109.99
Newegg
Remove
Buy
$10.00 mail-in rebate
Power Supply
Antec Neo Eco 520W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply
$54.99
$3.99
$58.98
Newegg
Remove
Buy
Optical Drive
Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer
$19.98
$19.98
Outlet PC
Remove
Buy
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/optical-drive/
Will this new computer work a LOT better than the machine I currently have? Will it be a worthwhile upgrade? Will my video card work well for my intended purposes in Premiere?

Go to the CS5 Benchmark http://ppbm5.com/ and review the results
To allow for future expansion (more ram and added hard drives) my PERSONAL choice would be a larger power supply
The computer I built is described in http://forums.adobe.com/thread/652694 - with an 850w power supply

Speeding up footage: Best in FCP or does Optical Flow work better?

Quick consensus guys: I have footage of a woman rolling a burrito, but unfortunately she did it verrrrrrrry slow! I know in FCP I can simply change the speed there, but I was wondering if Optical flow also works better for "Fast-motion"?
I know optical flow is more for simulating a smooter "over-cranking" effect or ramping, but what about for my application here?
As always, thanks for your time and advice.
-Mike

And I forgot to imply, using optical flow would be in Motion.

Why does iMessage take longer to send messages for certain conversations?

iMessage can take around 15-20 minutes to send messages to certain conversations, but is extremely fast for others (I've noticed that it's generally faster for relatively newer conversations) off of my phone (iPhone 4S running iOS 8). iMessages for the same conversations send infinitely faster off of my macbook pro.
It shouldn't be a wifi/data/network issue because messages sent for different conversations off of the same network take different times to send.

I would delete the contact and then have the other person(s) send you a Mesage and then readd them as a contact.

CS4 better than CS3 for Leopard?

Hi,
I've been having some trouble with Adobe CS3 (especially Photoshop) on Apple OS X Leopard. Does anyone have experience with CS4 on this platform, and if so, is it better in terms of compatibility and/or memory management? Or is it just a bunch of new features? I would really like improved stability for my Adobe software.

"keep in mind that many of the people that have responded are not running Leopard so they are just repeating rumors they have heard on this forum." - that's not the case, I am running Leopard using CS4. Main issues are slightly carelessly put together compatability between the OS and the CS4 Application Frame, and windows. Otherwise everything is roughly Ok. There are some hard drive usage issues too, with Occasional crashes during heavy scratch activity - and these
may be Leopard related issues. I use CS4 about 80% of the time.
Check your graphics card is compatible as Jim said, although you can still use CS4 very well with Open GL turned off if you need.

Does light room work better than Photoshop for raw conversion

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for