Tony Cooper
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:01:07 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:

Savageduck
On 2014-04-08 22:21:12 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>said:

nospam
In article <k5n8k91oo96d4ae92ood86v042updapq58@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:

who cares whether they do or not. what matters is whether someone gets the results they want, not how many image processing methods they can rattle off.

Tony Cooper
I agree completely.

nospam
nobody is going to look at an image in a gallery or wherever and say 'wow, that photographer knows what richardson-lucy is'.

Tony Cooper
Or say "Wow, that photographer knows how to use Lightroom".

It seems that just going for good results is OK with you in this area, but not in any other area where there are choices of post-processing methods.

nospam
it seems that you are confused. again.

lightroom is one of the easiest apps to use to get good results and that's why i like using it so much and why i recommend it to others. why make things more complicated than they need to be?

Tony Cooper
You have an incredible ability to skew the point when you don't want to see/hear it.

Your first line is "who cares...what matters is whether someone gets the results they want...".

That thinking should be generous enough to allow someone to post-process in anything from Gimp to Photoshop to Lightroom as long as they get the results they want.

nospam
they can use whatever they want. i've *never* said otherwise.

Tony Cooper
As you yourself say, nobody [sic] is going to look at the finished image and comment on what method was used to get to that result unless they feel the image wasn't processed to achieve the results *they* feel is possible. Unless they're an editor who is buying the image, though, their opinion doesn't count more than the photographer's.

The fact that LR is easy to use and produce good results is a separate issue. The issue you've commented on here is about the photographer getting the results wanted.

nospam
it's not a separate issue. it's *the* issue.

some people, including yourself, like to make things more difficult than they need to be.

what's the point in that? why spend hours getting the desired results when you can spend a fraction of that to get those results, with time left over to do other things? or if you prefer, continue working on the images and get even *better* results than you thought could be possible.

in other words, be productive.

Tony Cooper
As for "complicated", it's the prerogative of the user to determine what they are willing to do to achieve a finished product that pleases them. Amateur photographers are not generally on deadlines or otherwise required to be particularly efficient. If we - and I'm in that group - want to ten minutes on an image when you might get to the same place in two, that's our option. Since we haven't seen anything of yours, we're not even sure you can turn out results that are what we think to be acceptable even if you are working with an uncomplicated and efficient system.

nospam
it's not a question of deadlines or whether you think my photos are any good.

why spend more time than necessary doing something?

maybe you have more free time than you know what to do with, but most people don't, which is why choosing the most efficient and productive way to do what needs to be done is a good idea and that *doesn't* mean compromising the results, as certain people here claim.

i'm getting the same (or better) results in *far* less time with lightroom than i ever did with photoshop, and i can still use photoshop for the occasional images that need additional work. overall, it's a huge, huge productivity boost.

Savageduck
Regardless of all the other posturing and chest beating in this pissing contest my experience with LR5 and PS CS6/CC mirrors that of nospam. I find the great majority of my work is done quite satisfactorily in LR5, with PS used when major/critical compositing, cloning, or patching is necessary.

Like Tony I have more than enough time on my hands to spend time working on an image since I am not a pro with production deadlines, etc.

What I resent is this lofty, pompous arrogant, pseudo intellectual tower Floyd positions himself in especially when the work he produces is only remarkable in hie own mind. There is nothing Floyd has presented to us demonstrates the superiority of his methods.

Tony Cooper
But, we have seen some of Floyd's work and we can see his work if we go to his website. For me, it's the same as looking at other photographer's websites: some images I like very much, and some images that don't impress me all that much.

What I can't see in his photographs, though, is what processing technique he used. Not that it interests me because I would not rate an image because it was processed with this program or that program.

If someone asks for suggestions, then - by all means - relate your experiences with Lightroom or any other program. Provide samples that show the kind of result you can get if they help.

However, this constant barrage of dick-waving over what program works best in post isn't really of interest to anyone. What time or effort anyone puts into post is irrelevant to the rest of us. Without seeing what came out of the camera, we can't rate how well the post was done, and we sure as hell don't care how the person got to that.

Especially, when the person who is constantly critical of the choice of others doesn't have the balls to show his own results.