ADOBE is on the run, failed at subscribtion

[Greg Miller]

Aside from the fact the whole layers thing confused the heck out of me.

Layers are just like transparencies on an overhead projector. We can add a yellow transparency and the viewer sees the image as more yellow. We can remove the transparency at any time and the image looks like it did at the start. No pixels changed (nondestructive) because we did not change the base transparency (background layer).

[Fred L]

Some photographers don't really care if a file is destructive since the original is intact and they don't need to revisit the worked file. I know I don't particularly care once I file my photos to whoever needs them.

Different needs, different workflows.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Can you batch edit 2,000+ images at once?

Yes, I have processed 2130 images from our local historical society. I fired it up at about 10AM and went to lunch and it was all done when I returned. I've done similar rough batches over the years.
.

[Greg Miller]

Some photographers don't really care if a file is destructive since the original is intact and they don't need to revisit the worked file. I know I don't particularly care once I file my photos to whoever needs them.

Different needs, different workflows.

I can understand that some do not require a nondestructive workflow. But the nondestructive workflow requires no extra effort or time (in fact I could make an argument that it tales less effort and time) than a destructive workflow. So I don't know why one would I Gentilly opt for the destructive workflow.

[Brian K]

Sales are up for Adobe, subscriptions are up

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ado...end-2014-03-18

[bdkphoto]

Layer adjustments do not have pixels. I just did a test.

File with no adjustments: 372,526 KB
File with 2 curve layers, color balance layer, vibrance layer, PhotoFilter layer : 372,936 KB

Hey Greg,
I'm sort of answering an earlier post too...

Lightroom is a parametric image editor - nothing you do in LR affects the Camera raw files (or the original tiff if you are working from a scan) and you can always return to the original file state. Photoshop is a pixel based image editor and once you are working in PS (ACR portion of PS is a parametric editor like LR) you are fixing the pixels in place.

Save a color tiff file as a BW in PS and you can't go back to color once it's saved, in LR you can go back.

LR saves instructions sets (parametric editing) and leaves the original files unchanged, PS acts directly on the underlying files and alters the actual pixels once saved (pixel based editing). PS has some new parametric features (cropping comes to mind) and the ACR portion is non destructive too. You are correct that adjustment layers do not build file size, but retouching layers (cloning and spotting etc) will build file size quickly.

LR has improved quite a bit but still can't compete for deep image editing beyond simple spotting and standard image adjustments, but for the basics its hard to beat, especially with the non-destructive workflow.

There is a really good full explanation here by my friends Richard Anderson and Peter Krogh on dpbestflow- http://dpbestflow.org/links/36 - well worth the read.

[StoneNYC]

Yes, I have processed 2130 images from our local historical society. I fired it up at about 10AM and went to lunch and it was all done when I returned. I've done similar rough batches over the years.
.

LR takes about 2 seconds to apply those changes... But at least it's possible somehow.

[StoneNYC]

Hey Greg,
I'm sort of answering an earlier post too...

Lightroom is a parametric image editor - nothing you do in LR affects the Camera raw files (or the original tiff if you are working from a scan) and you can always return to the original file state. Photoshop is a pixel based image editor and once you are working in PS (ACR portion of PS is a parametric editor like LR) you are fixing the pixels in place.

Save a color tiff file as a BW in PS and you can't go back to color once it's saved, in LR you can go back.

LR saves instructions sets (parametric editing) and leaves the original files unchanged, PS acts directly on the underlying files and alters the actual pixels once saved (pixel based editing). PS has some new parametric features (cropping comes to mind) and the ACR portion is non destructive too. You are correct that adjustment layers do not build file size, but retouching layers (cloning and spotting etc) will build file size quickly.

LR has improved quite a bit but still can't compete for deep image editing beyond simple spotting and standard image adjustments, but for the basics its hard to beat, especially with the non-destructive workflow.

There is a really good full explanation here by my friends Richard Anderson and Peter Krogh on dpbestflow- http://dpbestflow.org/links/36 - well worth the read.

So basically the things I do (dust spotting) would increase the pixel count and file size significantly? I spot like 100 or more "spots" an image sometimes...

[Greg Miller]

Hey Greg,
I'm sort of answering an earlier post too...

Lightroom is a parametric image editor - nothing you do in LR affects the Camera raw files (or the original tiff if you are working from a scan) and you can always return to the original file state. Photoshop is a pixel based image editor and once you are working in PS (ACR portion of PS is a parametric editor like LR) you are fixing the pixels in place.

Save a color tiff file as a BW in PS and you can't go back to color once it's saved, in LR you can go back.

LR saves instructions sets (parametric editing) and leaves the original files unchanged, PS acts directly on the underlying files and alters the actual pixels once saved (pixel based editing). PS has some new parametric features (cropping comes to mind) and the ACR portion is non destructive too. You are correct that adjustment layers do not build file size, but retouching layers (cloning and spotting etc) will build file size quickly.

LR has improved quite a bit but still can't compete for deep image editing beyond simple spotting and standard image adjustments, but for the basics its hard to beat, especially with the non-destructive workflow.

There is a really good full explanation here by my friends Richard Anderson and Peter Krogh on dpbestflow- http://dpbestflow.org/links/36 - well worth the read.

Hi Bruce,

I'm not sure I am following. When I convert a color image to B&W in Photoshop, I use a B&W adjustment layer or a channel mixer adjustment layer (so the pixel layer remains unchanged). So I can go back to the original color version later if I want. The only time I could not do that would be if I flattened the image and saved it. But I never would do that for a master image file. I generally do not do this, but you can also open the raw file as a smart object and re-edit with ACR (either LR of ACR) as well.

[MikeH]

The IRS has made it clear to tax professionals that, if it's on the cloud, they have a right to look at it. It's not been tested in the courts, yet, but, as John Simmonds mentions, the courts are headed in that direction.