This content has been marked as final. Show 6 replies
The TAT (Targeted Adjustment Tools) in Lightroom are very cool. They allow you to select a tonal range and modify it by clicking on your image and dragging. I'd *love* to have that capability in ACR.
I'm also not terribly impressed with its DAM capabilities, and can't use it's Print module. Unfortunately, the last time I looked at it (and I think that this is still the case), the Print module did not support printing to a file. Since I send my printing to a pro lab (it's cheaper and more consistent that I've been able to get with any of my own inkjets), I need to be able to print to a file.
David. Many ways of doing that.
The easy way is to simply export to sRGB jpegs and send them to the lab. Will look good, but for using borders or logos or for better color quality consider the following:
Not using the print module:
The new very cool way using Lightroom/mogrify plugin
Simple way (but many more steps) using LR and Photoshop
Or using the print module:
using borders and logos
Using automator to create jpegs directly from the print module
I'm still working with the trial version of Lightroom. Last night I was working with an image that admittedly wasn't taken under the most ideal lighting conditions. I spent quite a bit of time in Lightroom working on the dynamic range to bring out shadow detail in some pine trees. I could never make the adjustments to my satisfaction. So I started over using Photoshop CS3 and ACR 4.3.1. In a matter of minutes I had the image looking the way I wanted it. The slider controls are more precise in ACR on my computer. But that might be the problem. I am on an older computer that just barely meets the requirements for some of this new software.
Thanks for those pointers. The mogrify plugin looks particularly interesting.
I see you use a Mac. Some of the procedures that you suggest are Mac-specific. On a Windows box, for resampling, colorspace transformation, and print sharpening, I like QImage pro. It sounds like the mogrify plugin may perform the same sort of functions that QImage does. I'd be interested to see a comparison between the results of resampling (and sharpening) with the two.
However, for various reasons, I have recently switched to Linux as my primary working platform, so this is sort of academic from my perspective.
Still, I think that it's unfortunate that we need workarounds such as this, when so many people print to something other than a locally attached printer.
>Still, I think that it's unfortunate that we need workarounds such as this, when so many people print to something other than a locally attached printer.
I agree completely! The output module should have arbitrary icc profiles and output sharpening. It should also be possible to natively print to a jpeg file.
I had the same problem, needing a RAW decoder for my Canon 5D.
Lightroom and ACR were OK, but having also tried out Photoshop CS3 and Bridge I could not see the point of Lightroom. I think that eventually Lightroom and Bridge will be combined and be part of Photoshop. It happened to Imageready.