# Pixel Modyfing Tools



## SteveCallaghan413 (Feb 24, 2018)

I subscribe to Creative Cloud and currently use Lightroom Classic CC. I prefer to use Lightroom to do all my editing rather than Photoshop as Ps is destructive (I believe you can create a layer or mask to overcome this but Ps is still very daunting for me!). I use the spot removal tool to address blemishes and sensor spots in my images but I don’t think this is content aware. I believe Ps has an array of sophisticated tools to deal with these tasks. Lr is very limited in this regard and to my knowledge only has a spot removal tool. I wonder if future updates (we pay for these) are likely to include more sophisticated tools as Ps has? I suppose the destructive nature of Ps is not a critical matter as you can create a virtual copy in Lr to ensure the original copy is unchanged. I guess I’m just feeling that Lr could be a little more powerful like Ps and as a result more convenient to use.
I would appreciate your thoughts and advice.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Feb 24, 2018)

Well, sometime back in the 6.x days they improved the spot correction tool to let you drag it into other shapes, but it is still no where as good as some PS tools.

I like to stay in LR also; jumping into PS takes 5x the disk space, creates a separate image to stack and manage.  So I do not go there often. But one of the nice things about the subscription is you get one of the (if not the) best pixel editor going available when you need it.

So my advice is learn to do things it does better there.  LR will get better over time I am sure, but it will never be able to do all the image fixing and repair that PS does.  Never.


----------



## SteveCallaghan413 (Feb 24, 2018)

Thanks for the advice. So true! The more you do in Ps the bigger the file becomes. I’ll stay with Lr but will pursue Ps tutorials - there are some good ones out there, Anthony Morganti for example.


----------



## Paul McFarlane (Feb 24, 2018)

Steve Callaghan said:


> The more you do in Ps the bigger the file becomes



Steve

I find that after I have done all I want to in PS, while the resultant tiff or psd is indeed large, I then simply export this to a full res JPG in the same folder as the original with 'Add to Catalog' ticked - then delete the tiff file (the PS working one) - so I have the original one that was imported to LR in the first place and a sensibly sized JPG that has the PS amendments applied

For anything complex PS will always be the faster and better tool, the above alleviates the issue of masses of disk space being taken up in what is, effectively, a working file

Paul


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Feb 24, 2018)

Steve Callaghan said:


> Thanks for the advice. So true! The more you do in Ps the bigger the file becomes. I’ll stay with Lr but will pursue Ps tutorials - there are some good ones out there, Anthony Morganti for example.


And to supplement Paul's suggestion, the more you try to do non-destructive things in PS, the bigger the file tends to get also.

Direct pixel editing does not impact file size (much), but layers do a lot, as do most smart objects.  File size shouldn't be the determining factor, but where you have layers for a specific edit you know you will not want to adjust, you can flatten those out (making them destructive) and the size penalty goes away. You always have the size penalty of being in 16 bit TIFF vs 12-14 bit ran of course.  Also, if you have a lot of payers, you may find PSD a better format than TIFF as it compresses layers better for reasons I still do not understand.


----------



## SteveCallaghan413 (Feb 24, 2018)

Paul McFarlane said:


> Steve
> 
> I find that after I have done all I want to in PS, while the resultant tiff or psd is indeed large, I then simply export this to a full res JPG in the same folder as the original with 'Add to Catalog' ticked - then delete the tiff file (the PS working one) - so I have the original one that was imported to LR in the first place and a sensibly sized JPG that has the PS amendments applied
> 
> ...


Thanks Paul that sounds like a practical way of dealing with a potentially very large file. Disk space is cheap these days so we have options.


----------

