Stop struggling with Lightroom! There's no need to spend hours hunting for the answers to your Lightroom Classic questions. All the information you need is in Adobe Lightroom Classic - The Missing FAQ!
Likely no where quick. I renewed CC almost 2 months ago, so I am stuck paying for 10 months.
Hal,
Can I set the record straight? What seems to have upset some folks is that I said that Victoria's posts were biased by her livelihood being tied to Adobe. I said nothing about her integrity which is above reproach. IMO bias is unavoidable. I have biases, you have biases. We all do as much as we might like to think we are above influence.
I think we all share the bias that a picture isn't done when we press the shutter button. Post-processing is needed. We can all agree on that. After that, we will disagree. My bias is that I am basically an analytical person.
For a camera to take a JPEG, you need to adjust the settings in the camera BEFORE the image is in the viewfinder. The camera makes post processing adjustments to the RAW data based upon the settings that you chose or the default settings that the camera manufacturer chose. Those settings are the average settings for the average lighting conditions for the average photo. If you want to settle for average photos then you need go no further. If you want above average image photos you get a camera that permits you to control the shooting parameters and develop the "darkroom" skills to produce an above average photo.
I don't disagree with that. However, I also see excellent pictures from cameras with little or no ability to do much "in camera" adjustment. Some of the success is clearly luck but I believe a lot of the difference is skill. I believe there was a class/expedition with National Geographic photographers that focused entirely on how to get great pictures from a cell phone camera, which however good they are getting, is still rather limited. I know there have been several pros take these simple point and shoot cameras and prove that the skill is not the equipment, it's the operator. Can you often make a picture better with post processing? Absolutely. But I wouldn't say it's a requirement or that no picture is ever done until that post processing has been completed. It all depends on your goals for your photography.
I'm not entirely sure I can agree with that.
I tend to use my cameras, originally film, now digital and often just a phone, as if they were Polaroids. Whatever I want to do I do in the camera but do little if any post processing. My bias is that post processing can be used to hide or mask lack of skills. Someone who can create a wonderful image without any editing is IMO a more skilled photographer than one that can get a great image from lower quality inputs. I aspire to create good images without need for any post processing but have miles to go to get to even serious amateur levels of skill in that arena. Most of the post processing I do is to scale or change resolution to fit certain output media. The front image of our farm web site of the ewes and lambs in pasture was taken in 2012 with a Canon Powershot and is totally un-retouched. It was cropped to fit the format for the front page but that is it. That is what I aspire too, I only rarely get there.
For historical scanning the only processing is done at scan time to try to capture as much of the original information as possible in the digital copy. In fact there is specific guidance for archivists NOT to do any significant editing that changes the image. In the past post processing has been used o edit out historical figures (see Russia for prime examples) and cropping to eliminate critical details that change the meaning of the picture. So I aspire to preserve the historical images as they are in all their glory without editing.
That's also why I am far less concerned about LRs nondestructive editing. I so rarely use it that I can get buy with a very small feature set in that area. The benefit for me of LR is the cataloging features.
