I find the dodge/burn functionality in Lightroom substantially easier to use and faster than that in PS, which has always been a source of frustration for me.  So I always use it in LR instead.

noah_campbell wrote:

 

Lightroom isn't supposed to by photoshop for dummies, it's supposed to be a powerful tool for photo editing.

Despite your statement, Lightroom was never designed to be as powerful as Photoshop. It was always intended to have fewer capabilities than Photoshop.

I will add this to the list of "Yes, I know Lightroom doesn't have ALL the power of Photoshop, but I really really really can't understand why the most important tool to me isn't available in Lightroom (or doesn't work as well as in Photoshop)" It's a very long list. Personally, I think the LR designers put the right amount of features into LR, and I'm glad it doesn't have more because it would then cost more and take longer to develop.

Dodge and Burn are two tools that are essential to developing a photograph.

I would argue that this isn't true for the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of satisfied Lightroom users; or they are okay with sending the photo to Photoshop for dodge and burn.

dj_paige wrote:

 

I would argue that this isn't true for the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of satisfied Lightroom users; or they are okay with sending the photo to Photoshop for dodge and burn.

Until this thread I didn't even realise I could dodge and burn in Lr, which kinda underlines how important it is to some of us - and I can't remember the last time I dodged or burned in Photoshop either.

noah_campbell wrote:

 

I also don't understand why so many people find it necessary to jump to the defence of Lightroom everytime there is a criticism of it.

In this case, probably because of hyperbole like:

"tools that are the backbone of photo editing and have been for 100 years"

and

"Dodge and burn are essential photo editing tools"

when - as is obviously the case - for some (many?) of us their presence and performance in Lr is either perfectly acceptable, or completely unimportant.

Just because you don't like a particular implementation, that doesn't mean your criticism is valid - as John seems to have demonstrated.

So you can call it "jumping to the defence" of Lr, I call it "balancing the books".

I think you will find LR4's new "image adaptive" controls reduce the need for dodge & burn. I'm not saying it isn't needed ocasionally, but the images requiring it and amount needed are greatly reduced compared to LR3.

You have 13 (including Color) adjustment brush tools in LR4 that can be used in an infinite number of combinations for dodging and burning, not just shadow, midtone and highlights.

noah_campbell wrote:

 

Ok I'll bite. Dodge and Burn are traditional photo editing tools that have been used with great effect since at least the early 50's.

Uh, you talking 1950's or 1850's? The terms Dodge & Burn relate directly to having to lighten or darken locally usually by using the hands or a tool. In this day and age I think the term is meaningless because locally lighting or darkening areas of a photo can be done a lot better using a brush. Personally, I never liked the term dodge & burn in Photoshop because it wasn't a dodge or a burn but a flawed attempt at a metaphor to try to appease old school photographers...and not particularly useful when using a computer vs. an enlarger. In fact the "lack" of such tools in LR forced you to complain about their lack and thus you learned that LR's local adjustments far exceed what a dodge and burn tool could do. Point of fact, I suspect the vasy majority of photographers using Lightroom today have never made a print in a darkroom and wouldn't really understand the metaphor of dodge & burn anyway.

Yeah, but they like to think they're participating in an art form with a continuing tradition, and aren't mere computer operators.

Good discussion, and as another old guy (65) with too many hours in my professional photography business's darkroom (maybe the fixer did in all those brain cells I am missing...) I appreciate the connection between Lightroom and the craft/science of imagemaking as practised a generation ago.

Thinking about Mr. Campbell's comment I see what he asks and can imagine a benefit to the targeting specific tones. I offer another "wouldn't it be nice..." for Lightroom's tool. In the film days I would form different shapes with my hands under the enlarger to get extra print exposure time to small irregular areas of the paper. Now, in Lightroom I often wish I could create a shape other than a simple circle with feathering.

When I have to have this shape-shifting capability now for burn or dodge I have to travel out to Photoshop and use a mask which I selectively erase -- as many of us do. I miss the quick no-tool approach to the exposure. Counting the seconds... put it in the Dektol to see if I got it right that time. Sounds kinda inefficient, *now*, doesn't it?

jonathan7007

Jeff, I totally agree and the LR masking is very powerful and easy -- when there is a clean color zone that is the target of the local adjustment. I use that a lot. I also discovered some ugly reslults, really funky, when the color target varied more than it appeared.  I have had the mask work across areas of green foliage, for example, and in other cases had it NOT work. Sometimes the particular quality of the tone borders is due to out of focus  transitions across the sensor and then it gets weird to have the mask decide abruptly to stop, Funny look, sometimes. <grin>

Too-dark skin tones, say, under a hat brim, is one example of  dodging for which I cannot use a mask as aid. I tap the bracket keys as a I move the brush around the image, adjusting the shape on the fly with smaller and larger circles. I guess it is the analogue to the fingers and hands under the enlarger lens!

...and this is why a slower on-screen response (currently) in LR4 is tough on productivity.

Thanks, BTW, for your continued support and thoughts here on the forum. Your Industrial-Strength Sharpening book is a great resource.

jonathan7007