# What do you use Photoshop for then?



## Katherine Mann (Nov 13, 2012)

I tried this once, and I will ask again - for those of you who say you use Photoshop for anything at all, I am curious - what do you use it for? I use it extensively as I posted earlier. I find the controls much more precise in Photoshop. One of you said that if a person needed to make that many adjustments they feel that they haven't taken the right photo in the first place. I disagree with that - but it entirely depends on what sort of photography you do. I am a landscape photographer. If you want to see any of my work check out Katherine Mann on Facebook. 

This particular thread isn't about any sort of popularity contest between the two programs. I love them both and use them for different purposes for the most part. Lightroom is a miracle of usefulness. I love the thing. 

But I'm still curious - if you mostly use Lightroom, what do you use Photoshop for? Where do you print? Where do you output to the web from?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Nov 13, 2012)

Clone/Heal on old scanned photos....and that's about it. Content Aware Fill very, very rarely. I keep threatening myself with a serious attempt to get to grips with PS, for e.g. compositing, but haven't managed it yet.

I don't print very much, what little I do can be done in Lightroom. Output to web, digital photo frames, iOS devices is all handled within Lightroom using Publish Services (predominantly Smart Collection based).

At this stage I can't see me ever upgrading from CS5....especially as it'll cost me a lot more. Would rather put the money towards new kit.


----------



## Katherine Mann (Nov 13, 2012)

thanks for the reply TNG. I print from Lightroom too and use it for output to the web. 
I like Lightroom for organizational purposes as well. I would be lost without keywords.

Content aware fill is wonderful for getting rid of little bits of distractions in photos. I forgot to move the garbage in front of the mountains? Gone. The framing is perfect except for that one little leaf there on the edge. Gone. 

I've described above the extensive use I make of luminous masks and channels. I couldn't do what I do without them and I suspect most professional guys and gals out there, the ones you see over and over with smashing results - they use them too. Took me way too long to figure that out. 

Anyone else?


----------



## Mark Sirota (Nov 13, 2012)

Content-aware fill and scale are about it. And only in desperation -- I use Photoshop so rarely now that it's a chore to figure it out again every time.


----------



## Katherine Mann (Nov 14, 2012)

So, given so few replies on this forum I am guessing that most people who are using Lightroom don't spend much time in Photoshop. Pretty expensive program ... I'm sure more people must do their finishing in Photoshop. I've used Photoshop since 1996 - version 3 I think it was. I would be lost without it and feel much more comfortable with it than with Lightroom. Don't get me wrong - I start in Lightroom and never use ACR in Photoshop, as it is essentially the same thing. It's just the finer points that I go to Ps for.


----------



## OldFrank (Nov 14, 2012)

I have PS5 on my computer as well as LR4. Before the new adjustment sliders in LR4 I used curves in PS5 to get some of the same effects, but with a lot more work. I said the same effects, but I dont' think I ever managed the Highlights as good as LR4
I occasionally use PS5 when I need to work with layers. I have Fluid Mask 3 installed in PS5 which makes masking a lot easier.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 14, 2012)

I guess it depends on what you're trying to achieve with a photo - and where it's going to end up.  If you're just going to post a snapshot of your dog on Facebook, there's less reason to use Photoshop than a portrait photographer wanting to blow out a white background.

Here's an interesting challenge... Katherine, what about posting a couple of before/after photos - just before and just after your PS adjustments.  I'd love to see what exactly you're adding when you spend the extra time in PS, and whether the same could be done in LR.


----------



## Katherine Mann (Nov 14, 2012)

Okay, I'll have a look.  What a good idea, Victoria.


----------



## donoreo (Nov 14, 2012)

I use Elements now only for content aware cloning.  That is it.


----------



## Katherine Mann (Nov 14, 2012)

Okay, here is a file that I started in Lr and moved to PsCs6 for finishing. As you can see, the gradations in the file are subtle and my dng didn't match the scene as I remembered it, having a heavy blue overcast and missing the lovely warmth in the evening sky. 

Here's the the original dng, nothing done in Lr. 


Here's the file after working with it in Lightroom. I have done basic adjustments - hue, clarity, vibrance, exposure.




Here's the finished file from Photoshop. I cleaned up the blobs (dirty bit on the lens) and using luminance masks was able to further define the mountain ranges. I used Unsharp Mask, faded that and confined it to luminosity in order to preserve the colour. Nevertheless I found that the sky had lost some of its warmth. Back in Lightroom I used a graduated filter adjustment to warm it up again. 



I haven't referenced my files on this forum yet and I hope you can all see them. 

I don't think that there is a way to define the mountains in Lightroom as easily as I did in Photoshop, but do have a go if you like. I could send along the unedited original dng if you like.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 14, 2012)

I'd love to have a play with the DNG - with the settings from the 2nd photo to see how closely I can replicate the PS work.


----------



## Katherine Mann (Nov 14, 2012)

Great Victoria, I will send you the full dng file if you would care to pm with an email that will accept an attachment.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 14, 2012)

Probably easiest to drop them on my server (www.vbftp.net, username webupload, password 123) if that suits you.


----------



## Katherine Mann (Nov 14, 2012)

Done! Really looking forward to what you do with it. Who knows? There might be an even nicer photo lurking in there.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 15, 2012)

Great, I'll have a play.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 15, 2012)

Not a perfect match by any means, but see what you think.  I'd bet you could get it closer with a little time.


----------



## Katherine Mann (Nov 16, 2012)

You've done a terrific job. It's impossible to see the fine detail in the mountains because of the necessary reduction to jpg. I note that the mountains in your version are lacking in some of the mid contrast that I introduced using the luminosity masks. I wonder how you would go about reproducing those - possibly an adjustment brush? 

I think one of the reasons that I go to Photoshop for those sorts of things is that I can actually see the masks, and paint on them if they are not exactly what I want. Lightroom masks are a red blobs, and I must trust to faith that the edges are actually where I mean them to be. Painting with an adjustment brush seems clunky compared to painting with a Ps brush. The brush is not precise and you can't enlarge the working area enough for actual fine detail - the interface n tends to get in the way. Perhaps I just don't know what I'm doing. 

As well, whereas I find Photoshop to be fast and seldom find myself inconvenienced, Lightroom is not very fast at all.  

I recognize that most of what it comes down to for most people is what they are most comfortable with. Photoshop is a monster. Photographers use only a small number of its capabilities. Most photographers have no need for the precise control that Ps offers. Most of us don't spend days on one photo. On occasion I do spend days, and perhaps I'm fooling myself that the finest details end up making a difference in the final print. Who cares if the whiskers around the beak of a Blue Jay are brighter or darker when it all comes out in the wash? I guess I do. I am probably one of the small percentage of people who actually need Ps. 

I love what Lightroom does well. I have used it since the initial beta. I hope that readers will realize that I am not criticizing the program. I use it every day and it is where I start out and finish with every project. But I doggedly upgrade Ps each time because I can't let go of the fine control that I am used to using Photoshop.


----------



## OldFrank (Nov 17, 2012)

Katherine Mann said:


> "On occasion I do spend days, and perhaps I'm fooling myself that the finest details end up making a difference in the final print. Who cares if the whiskers around the beak of a Blue Jay are brighter or darker when it all comes out in the wash? I guess I do. I am probably one of the small percentage of people who actually need Ps. "
> 
> I understand. My daughter teaches Graphic Arts and kids me about being concerned about every last pixel. I guess it all comes down to the purpose of our work.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tom75 (Nov 17, 2012)

Hi Katherine,

I am using mainly LR for all "normal" after processing etc. However I use PS mainly for stitching panoramas, more advanced editing such as content aware stuff and also for adding text to images.

Regards,
Tom


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 17, 2012)

Katherine Mann said:


> You've done a terrific job. It's impossible to see the fine detail in the mountains because of the necessary reduction to jpg. I note that the mountains in your version are lacking in some of the mid contrast that I introduced using the luminosity masks. I wonder how you would go about reproducing those - possibly an adjustment brush?



Maybe adjustment brush, maybe a tweak to the point curve or the shadows/highlights.  You know what you were looking for specifically in the picture, so you could probably get closer.  That said, for you, Photoshop is probably far quicker because you're so comfortable with it.  Most people would be quicker in LR because there are less things to 'twiddle' with.


----------



## Katherine Mann (Nov 18, 2012)

Victoria, thanks for going through this exercise with me. 

I think we have come to the conclusion that for those who are concerned with every last pixel, Photoshop is the way. If time isn't a factor at all, Photoshop might be perfect. 

That being said, Lightroom is my base. Both programs are equally important in my workflow. Many things are faster, equally as good or even better on occasion in Lightroom. For a production photographer, professionals who must deal with a lot of photos and still end up with a polished selection, Lightroom is ideal. For the craftsman-artist, Photoshop is essential. 

I think in the end it comes down to comfort, as you mentioned. I've been living in a Photoshop world since version 3. The present iteration of the program is a miracle of facility. But it was a long trudge uphill to where I am and the heights are still in the distance. Is the climb worth it? For me, and others like me, it is. But I think the vast majority of professional photographers don't really need it. 

Our photos turned out remarkably similar. It isn't a particularly good photo, just one that illustrates my point. Just now I've finished another taken the same day in Photoshop - a panorama. I am reasonably satisfied and I'm not sure whether the finishing touches are best done in Lightroom or Photoshop ... as always! 

Oldfrank, I'm glad you enjoyed our comparison.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 18, 2012)

Yeah, I was reading Jeff Schewe's new Digital Negative book today, and he made the point that LR was based on the Pareto principle - the 80/20 rule - so that 80% of photos can be done in LR and 20% need extra work in PS.    That probably sums the situation up quite well, although the actual percentages will vary for each photographer.  

It's been an interesting exercise for me too, and made me question whether going to PS more often than I currently do would actually be beneficial for my own shots.  I've used Photoshop for years, but most of my time has been focused on LR for years since most of my work has been in a volume production environment or on supporting LR itself.  I also do retouching for Associate and Fellowship qualification panels, but it's always other photographers work rather than my own.  Let's just say you've renewed a spark of interest...


----------



## Katherine Mann (Nov 18, 2012)

I should check out Jeff's book most likely. Thanks again Victoria, for exploring this with me. I hope everyone enjoyed it. I'm glad to hear that Photoshop is beckoning again ... Cs6 is by far the best iteration of Photoshop ever.


----------



## wtlwdwgn (Nov 23, 2012)

The only reason I need Photoshop, and I use PSE9, is for photo merging. I never got the hang of using layers or the other photo tools in PS as I found it too frustrating.  :hm:  So when LR1 beta came along I jumped in and have never left.


----------



## Glenn NK (Nov 23, 2012)

Back in the LR2 days, I acquired Elements 6.

With the advent of the new tools in LR3/4, I haven't opened PSE6 for well over a year.

I remove leaves and garbage cans in  LR4.2. 

Don't like the busy distracting BG behind my flower closeup?  Adjustment Brush with negative values of Clarity and Sharpness which retains the colours but blurs them.

Too much noise in the BG - the brush with noise removal.

Foreground rocks in the ocean sunset image too dark?  Gradient tool.

One of the reasons I stopped using PSE was that I was collecting too many large duplicate files (TIFF, PSD, DNG).  Using LR, I never have anything but the original RAW files on my HDD (and the little xmp files).  As an aside, I know of a photographer that actually complained that he was afraid of losing xmp files - HOW?


----------



## Katherine Mann (Nov 13, 2012)

I tried this once, and I will ask again - for those of you who say you use Photoshop for anything at all, I am curious - what do you use it for? I use it extensively as I posted earlier. I find the controls much more precise in Photoshop. One of you said that if a person needed to make that many adjustments they feel that they haven't taken the right photo in the first place. I disagree with that - but it entirely depends on what sort of photography you do. I am a landscape photographer. If you want to see any of my work check out Katherine Mann on Facebook. 

This particular thread isn't about any sort of popularity contest between the two programs. I love them both and use them for different purposes for the most part. Lightroom is a miracle of usefulness. I love the thing. 

But I'm still curious - if you mostly use Lightroom, what do you use Photoshop for? Where do you print? Where do you output to the web from?


----------



## Roscoe17 (Dec 2, 2012)

I'm a total newb with PS and like others I'm there so infrequently that the more complicated tasks are often forgotten.  That said, I use it for a few things, content aware fill for one.  However, I purchased the Nik suite of LR and PS plugins and find that the PS version is much better than the LR version.  In LR, the changes get baked into a TIF file and can't be tweaked later, whereas in PS I can turn a layer into a smart filter, add multiple NIK filters (which are way easier to use than masks...maybe less precise but they meet my non-professional needs), and best part if I don't like the result I can go back and tweak the sliders, add more control points, etc without having to start over.


----------

