The Fujifilm GFX 50R is the most affordable medium format digital camera ever, but how much of an advantage does it offer over the best of its full-frame mirrorless peers? We shot it alongside the Nikon Z7 so you can decide for yourselves.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
In this video, Peter McKinnon asks the question “Can a professional photographer tell the difference between a $ 400 camera and a $ 4,000 one just by looking at the pictures?”
Watch the video, and take a look at the images shot with the Canon Rebel and the Canon EOS R. Can you tell which is which?
Can you really take professional photos with an entry level camera? Can you be a professional photographer on a budget or do you need to spend thousands of dollars on professional gear?
You may also find these articles helpful:
Shooting Portraits Like a Pro on a Tight Budget
A Look Inside the Bag of a Hobby Photographer on a Budget
10 Tips for Creating a Photography Kit on a Budget
Small Budget Photography: Lenses
Beginners Guide to Different Types of Digital Cameras
What cameras do you use for your photography work? Are you achieving great photos with less expensive gear? Share with us in the comments below.
The post $ 400 Camera VS $ 4,000 Camera – Can a Professional Photographer Spot the Difference? appeared first on Digital Photography School.
 |
We’ve seen huge breakthroughs in the computational photography techniques in the latest smartphones, as well as the launch of some excellent small sensors in more traditional cameras. Does that mean that bigger is no longer necessarily better?
To answer that question, let’s look at why big sensors tend to produce better image quality and what smaller-sensored cameras and smartphones are doing to close the gap.
The three main benefits that prompt people to move to larger sensors are the ability to blur the background with shallow depth-of-field, exhibit less noise in low light situations and the ability to capture a wider dynamic range between the brightest and darkest areas of the image. Since these all primarily stem from getting more light, it presupposes that you have a lens with a wide-enough aperture to let in enough light, but this is usually possible. Collectively, these three factors mean that large sensor cameras can usually produce better-looking images. They can’t make up for the photographer, of course, but if used by the same person, the bigger sensor usually ‘wins.’
Computational photography allows small sensors to imitate the effects of a larger sensor, while leaps forwards in sensor performance can help small sensors produce better-looking images. But do these advances mean you no longer need a larger sensor?
The most visible example of computational photography in widespread use are the portrait modes in the latest smartphones. These use a variety of techniques but fundamentally they make some attempt to assess the depth in the scene, then apply differing amounts of blur at different depths, to simulate shallow depth-of-field.
The results aren’t always totally convincing and won’t necessarily satisfy the kind of demanding photographer that looks for particular character to the out-of-focus rendering (bokeh) of their lenses. However, as processing power and machine learning continue to improve, the results will only get better. And for many applications, will quickly exceed the threshold of being considered ‘good enough’ for an increasing number of people.
 |
| This image was taken using Portrait mode on a modern smartphone. As well as simulated shallow depth-of-field, computational photography has added artificial lighting effects to the subject’s face. |
Computational photography can also help with low light and high dynamic range scenes. Again, it’s increasingly common for smartphones to be able to shoot multiple shots, then combine them. The processing is getting sophisticated enough that this can even be done with moving subjects, without the user even necessarily realizing that this is what their phone is doing.
Because most noise in photography comes from the randomness of light, shooting the same scene again and again helps to average out this randomness, just as rolling a die repeatedly helps you get a clearer picture of whether it’s weighted.
The results will start to rival the output of
larger sensors
The same can be done in good light, sampling the scene several times (sometimes with different exposures), to extend the dynamic range beyond what could be achieved in a single exposure.
Unlike the shallow depth-of-field effect, which is simulated, these multi-shot techniques directly compete with larger sensors, since they allow the image to be constructed from more light. At which point, the results will start to rival the output of larger sensors, so long as the combination of images and movement cancellation is clever enough.
We’ve seen some very good small sensors in recent years, whose performance can narrow the gap with those above them. The adoption of technologies such as back-side illumination have allowed sensors to become more efficient (capturing more of the light that’s shone on them). Again, since most of the benefits of larger sensors come from them generally receiving more light during any given exposure, an increase in efficiency can help smaller sensors narrow this gap.
 |
|
| G1 X Mark III ISO 500 F3.2 (F5.2 equiv) 1/30th |
G7 X Mark II ISO 160 F2 (F5.5 equiv) 1/30th |
The Canon G1 X Mark III offers an APS-C sensor to the G7 X Mark II’s 1″ sensor, but the latter uses a more efficient BSI design.
This only goes so far. Partly because these technologies are also likely to have some benefit when they ‘trickle up’ to larger sensor sizes. This widens that gap back to the extent you’d expect, just based on the size difference. Also, the gaps between most popular sensor sizes are proportional to at least two-thirds of a stop, which is more of a difference than technology advances tend to compensate for.
There are also areas in which small sensors offer an advantage over large ones, with readout speed being the most obvious one. In general it’s quicker to read out the data from small sensors, which brings a series of benefits. The most obvious is that it allows improved video quality, either through being able to read all the pixels, enabling more detailed capture, or simply through a reduction in rolling shutter.
 |
| The RX100 V’s stacked CMOS sensor with DRAM incorporated into the chip allows faster readout, which boosts video and autofocus performance. |
The other advantage, of course, is that it makes it quicker and easier to offer many of the computational photography benefits discussed earlier in the article.
There are ways to improve the readout speed of large sensors too, such as the stacked CMOS sensor that ‘trickled up’ from Sony’s smartphone and 1″-type sensors to the full frame a9. This incorporates readout circuitry and RAM into the sensor to allow faster readout. But this comes at a considerable cost premium, as these chips are extremely complex and time-consuming to make, making it difficult for large sensors to match some of the capabilities of smaller chips.
The other potential advantage of small sensors is that they allow cameras to be smaller. This tends to means lenses with smaller physical apertures, which is one of the main things that hold the image quality of small sensors back, but the trade-off is cost and convenience. So, although you can buy mirrorless cameras with large sensors, it’ll be the ones with smaller sensors that will provide the smaller overall package, most of the time.
For all the bluster you sometimes encounter with people claiming to be committed enough that they always carry a full DSLR kit around with them, most people find it’s easier to carry a small camera with you. And you know what they say about the camera you’ve got with you…
Overall then, for conventional, single-shot photography, there’s no substitute for making a photograph using more light, and it’s usually easier to give a large sensor more light since it has a larger area to capture light. In that sense, bigger sensors are still better. However, that’s not the same as saying ‘you need a bigger sensor.’
Even though a larger sensor may be able to produce a better result, smaller sensors are getting better and better all the time
Improvements in sensor tech, the availability of large sensor compacts with bright lenses (that help get more light to their sensors), and advances in computational photography allow better images than ever before from small sensors.
At which point, we come back to the question of what’s ‘good enough.’ Which isn’t so much about accepting limitations, but more about being able to attain a quality you’re happy with for what you’re trying to achieve. So even though a larger sensor may be able to produce a better result, smaller sensors are getting better and better all the time, exceeding ever higher ‘good enough’ thresholds such that you may reasonably conclude that you don’t need any further improvement.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
Brent Barbano—co-founder of camera rental community ShareGrid—recently took a trip to Flashbox Films in Hollywood to meet up with co-owner Will Kamp and do one of those “affordable camera vs crazy expensive camera” tests the internet seems to love (and hate) oh so much.
So what did they test? They put the $ 2,500 Sony a7S II, an affordable filmmaking favorite, up against the $ 50,000+ ARRI Alexa Mini, a professional-grade filmmaking monster. Here’s how Brent introduces the comparison:
The Sony a7s II has been a game-changer for filmmakers and creatives across the world. Cinematographers and photographers have been creating amazing images with this mirrorless camera that can rival some of the best. So, we thought we’d put it to the test and do a side-by-side comparison of the Sony a7S II and the ARRI Alexa Mini. Can you tell the difference?
Well… can you? Check out the video above to watch the footage, or scroll through the slides in the gallery below:
$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_8545856720″,”galleryId”:”8545856720″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });
Brent and Will were obviously impressed by just how similar the final footage turned out to be, and if you’re curious how you did on this ‘test,’ you’re in luck: ShareGrid was kind enough to give DPReview readers the answer key early.
The initial plan was to update it in the video description on YouTube this Friday, but if you’ve made your picks, you can scroll down and see which slide was which down below.
Some of you may have noticed, others may not, but the cameras didn’t actually switch sides between shots. The Sony was always on one side, and the ARRI was always on the other. But… which was which? It turns out A was Sony, and B was ARRI:
SLIDE 1
A: Sony a7S II
B: ARRI Alexa Mini
SLIDE 2
A: Sony a7S II
B: ARRI Alexa Mini
SLIDE 3
A: Sony a7S II
B: ARRI Alexa Mini
SLIDE 4
A: Sony a7S II
B: ARRI Alexa Mini
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
You’ve probably heard this question once or twice from a novice, or maybe even asked it yourself: what exactly is the difference between the Vibrance and Saturation sliders? Well, fortunately, Jesus Ramirez of Photoshop Training Channel has put together a quick, simple, and thorough explanation that you can reference from here on out.
At the most basic level, both options increase color intensity—the difference lies in which colors they affect and how.
Saturation impacts all color intensity equally, which is why it’s so easy to go overboard so quickly. Vibrance, on the other hand, only increases the intensity of the less saturated colors in an image while simultaneously trying to avoid skin tones and prevent the gaudy posterization that happens when you crank your saturation up to the max.
Jesus covers this difference in his video—with appropriate demos of course—but he also goes a bit further by diving into how the Saturation slider differs between the HSL panel and the Vibrance panel, and showing how the two options, Vibrance and Saturation, can be combined to achieve pleasing results that don’t look like you puked a rainbow all over your image.
Check out the full 5-minute video above to see the useful rundown for yourself, and then head over to the Photoshop Training Channel for even more handy tutorials like this one.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
It is no secret that the popup flash which comes built-in to your digital camera simply isn’t enough in most situations. For a variety of reasons, shooting using just the popup flash is not a feasible option. That is why you will find photographers everywhere you look, going for an external flash and using it increasingly during their shoots.
External flash, also known by the term “speedlight” provides many benefits and advantages to photographers, even while shooting in extremely low light conditions. They allow us to have a far superior control over the lighting of an image. Flashes are available in the market from a variety of manufacturers including camera makers like Canon and Nikon, or third-party companies like Godox, Yongnuo, Nissin, etc.
If you step out in the market to buy your first flash, you will come across two variants, a fully manual flash, and a TTL (Through The Lens) flash. You may end up getting confused over which flash will suit you the best and which one you should invest your money in. Both the Manual and TTL flash have their own plus and minus points which appeal to photographers. What is important is to properly understand their systems, functionalities, advantages, and disadvantages.
On a fully Manual flash, there is no control (d either by the camera or the flash) over the intensity or duration of the light emitted from the flash. Instead, it is the photographer who controls the output of the flash by adjusting the settings, either in-camera or on the flash itself.
While using a manual flash, there are four controls you can use to set your flash output manually as per your requirements:
Manual mode – check the user manual for your flash to see how to set it.
An important point to remember and consider is that the majority of flashes can shoot in manual mode, but not every flash can shoot in TTL mode. A manual flash also gives you specific control over the light and exposure, and allows you to set it exactly to your requirements. You do not have to use exposure compensation while using a manual flash as your composition, frame, etc., does not have any affect on the overall exposure and lighting of the scene.
In situations where the distance between the flash and the subject is constant and fixed, you can opt to use manual flash settings. A manual flash is extremely useful in situations where you have to fire away a series of shots of the subject repeatedly, under similar exposure conditions. E.g., in food photography, product shoots, and more this is the case. The power level is fixed, and it remains the same, which ensures that the exposure does not vary from shot to shot.
Manual flash works best when the subject is not moving like this setup, posed shot.
One of the main drawbacks of using a flash in manual mode is that you still need to figure out the optimal power output needed to obtain the correct exposure, which can be a time consuming process. And thus, a manual flash can mainly be used while shooting portraits, headshots, and fine art. In other words, in situations where you can take time to setup the scene.
Many also believe that manual mode is the best to use to learn about external flash photography. You choose the output, click the picture and then review it. If it does not come out the way you were expecting and wanted it to, then you can tweak the settings and try again. So you end up learning more in the process.
When the flash output is directly controlled by your camera, it is called Through-the-Lens metering or TTL. In the case of an Automatic or TTL enabled flash, the flash output is directly controlled by the flash or by the camera’s exposure metering system. Thus, using a flash in TTL mode will give you varied flash output.
Flash in TTL or Automatic mode.
The only method to control a TTL enabled flash is to use the flash exposure compensation function on the flash or through your camera settings. Also, while using a TTL flash, your chosen Aperture and ISO levels do not affect the flash output because the camera tells the flash to emit a particular output based on the camera’s readings. If the settings change, so will the output to compensate automatically.
When you half-press our shutter release button on your camera to focus, your camera not only focuses, but it also takes a metering of the scene and its exposure. It measures the amount of ambient light which is being returned “Through the Lens” to the sensor.
A TTL enabled flash fires a “pre-flash” before the actual shot is taken. The camera then measures the pre-flash with the ambient light level to calculate the power needed from the actual flash to make a correct exposure. This pre flash happens really quickly, only micro-seconds before the main flash, and thus cannot be seen by the human eye. Based on the model of your flash, this pre-flash can be an actual white light flash or an infrared one.
Using a TTL enabled flash is extremely helpful in situations when you are moving around a lot, shooting in different or changing lighting settings, etc., and do not have the time to fire a series of test shots before the shoot.
One of the drawbacks which accompany the use of a TTL flash is less control and less precision over the lighting. If you get an incorrect exposure while using a flash in TTL mode, it is really difficult for you to know the power setting which was used for that shot.
If you have recently purchased your first digital camera and plan to buy an external flash, then you have two options.
Either go for a manual flash, as it will urge you to learn more about how to control and adjust the lighting in various situations. But if you want to take up professional assignments and cannot afford to experiment with a manual flash, then go for a TTL enabled flash.
Which do you use? Do you have a flash that does both? Which do you prefer for different situations? Please tell us in the comments below.
The post How to Understand the Difference Between TTL Versus Manual Flash Modes by Kunal Malhotra appeared first on Digital Photography School.
 |
Natalie Fobes on assignment in Russia for National Geographic. Fobes is an award-winning photographer who founded the nonprofit Blue Earth Alliance in order to work with photographers to share their stories.
“You don’t have to travel overseas to make a difference with your photography. Your world starts outside your front door,” says Natalie Fobes, a Seattle-based photographer with a resume many photographers dream of. Assignments for major magazines including National Geographic, dozens of awards as well as being a finalist for a Pulitzer, a photography instructor with courses on Lynda.com, and now a successful wedding and commercial photography business in Seattle, Washington where she lives with her family.
It all might sound a little intimidating, but spend just a few minutes in conversation with Fobes and you’ll come to understand not only her passion for the power of photography, but how much she wants to help other photographers succeed.
Almost 22 years ago Fobes formed the non-profit Blue Earth Alliance, along with fellow photographer Phil Borges and attorney Malcolm Edwards, who provided legal guidance. The philosophy behind Blue Earth Alliance is simple – photography and filmmaking can lead to positive change.
DPReview had the opportunity to talk with Fobes about Blue Earth Alliance, the impact of photography and the mission of Blue Earth Alliance.
 |
The opportunity to share her photographs and the difficulty in finding funding lead Fobes to collaborate and begin Blue Earth Alliance. Photo by Natalie Fobes.
I had just had a book published, had spent 10 years traveling the Pacific Rim and was doing well and I was approached to put together a traveling exhibit. It was expensive to put on the exhibit and hard to find sponsors. I was told if I had been a 501(c)(3) sponsors could help, and I learned other photographers were having similar problems. We saw the media landscape was changing and it was going to get harder to do long documentary projects.
I think the underlying philosophy of Blue Earth Alliance is we feel an individual can make a difference in this world. There are so many things that need attention: the environment, disappearing cultures, social issues or a local situation. These are all things that matter in our lives, no matter if you live in a small town or in New York City or Seattle. By raising awareness of these issues, you can make a difference; you can make a change. It’s a very high level look, but I think that no matter who you are — whether you’re a professional photographer or advanced amateur — you recognize the power of photography.
 |
Photojournalist Tom Reese spotlights the devastation of toxic waste in his project, “Choosing Hope: Reclaiming The Duwamish River.” Photo by Tom Reese.
First, I need to be very clear: Blue Earth does not provide direct funding or grants. That is a common misconception about Blue Earth. The biggest service Blue Earth provides is fiscal sponsorship. This is a huge asset to individual photographers and filmmakers since when we accept a project for sponsorship we extend our 501(c)(3) status to it. The photographer/filmmaker can then apply for grants from organizations and foundations that only donate to a 501(c)(3). After 21 years, we have a great reputation with funders for sponsoring worthwhile projects. Blue Earth provides a vetted seal of approval for donors.
Sometimes photographers and filmmakers just need encouragement for their projects. More than one photographer has mentioned that when Blue Earth selected their project for sponsorship, it encouraged and inspired them to continue their work.
 |
Daniel Beltra’s project has documented conservation around the planet. He has shot on all seven continents, many of his photographs are shot from the air. Photo by Daniel Beltra.
We have had had many, but a couple that stand out. These projects can start the conversation, even raise the visibility of some of these issues. One was a really long term project by the late Gary Braasch. He came on board in the late 90’s, early 2000 and was talking about global warming before it became popular. It was important work in that it elevated the conversation because of his photography and his dedication.
Another is Subhankar Banerjee and his story about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and how important it was to keep that area pristine. He had worked at Boeing and had no professional photography experience. He came to us and wanted to do this project and applied for sponsorship.
He spent a couple of years in the Arctic and showed how beautiful it was even when some senators were calling it a frozen wasteland. The Preserve is one of the last pristine areas of that particular environment and there was a lot of discussion about oil, a lot of senators wanted to open it out to oil exploration. He also contracted with a number of museums including the Smithsonian to exhibit his work from this project. In one of the Senate debates about drilling in the refuge Senator Boxer held up his book.
 |
Katherine Jack’s project with Blue Earth Alliance is documenting life in the Palawan Sea, in the Philippines and how changes to our marine ecosystem is affecting the life of the Palawan residents.
Blue Earth accepts project proposals twice a year: January 20 and July 20. The submission requirements can be found on our website. In a proposal we look for a clear description of the project, a unique viewpoint or topic and clarity around how the project fits within the Blue Earth mission. Having a project with a 501c3 status does not mean that money magically appears. Finding funding can be difficult, and it takes time to thoughtfully research funders and write grants.
When we review our project proposals one of the first things I look at their budget to see if they know what they are doing financially.
We have a responsibility to make sure funds are used as they should be. One of the first things I look for is are the photographers paying themselves, through a stipend. We are too important not to pay ourselves.
Blue Earth wants our project photographer/filmmakers to succeed, and we scrutinize all proposals in order in ensure that likelihood.
 |
Greg Constantine’s decade-long project, Nowhere People, focuses on the plight of people forced from their homes, without citizenship and looks at the challenges of their daily lives and their future. Photo by Greg Constantine.
Photographers and filmmakers should try to form coalitions with other like-minded people and organizations. I believe in the strength of an individual. But I believe in the power that comes when individuals come together for a common goal.
Photographers and filmmakers also need to realize that one grant will seldom fund their entire project. They should apply for many: large, small and in-between. For my first long-term project I used my savings, a grant and assignments to fund it.
It’s imperative to create a coalition of funders. Funders like to see support from other organizations when considering an application. They see it as a third-party endorsement of the photographer/filmmaker and the project. It’s true that success leads to success.
Photographers and filmmakers often forget, or are afraid of, including friends and family in their fundraising efforts. People are often more likely to give a donation to someone they know. Crowd-sourcing websites make fundraising campaigns much easier than in the past.
If a photographer doesn’t believe they can make a difference then they won’t.
 |
Natalie Fobe’s captured the extensive damage of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound while on a three month assignment for National Geographic. Photo by Natalie Fobes.
I think probably the work that may have had the most impact on society was the Exxon Valdez oil spill in. That was also the hardest story I photographed because of the difficulty of the working conditions and getting access. And the chaos, the chaos of the spill and the emotional impact of the destruction of the environment. The horrible pain that the animals and birds suffered and the people too.
This happened in a beautiful pristine area that was home and sustenance for the native Alaskans but also the commercial fishermen and townspeople who lived there.
 |
Annie Musselman’s first project with Blue Earth Alliance focused on the delicate balance of human impact on wild animals. Her project Wolf Haven documents animals in sanctuaries. Photo by Annie Musselman.
We are an organization with a passionate and dedicated board that donates thousands of hours each year to our mission.
We hold an annual conference “Collaborations for Cause.” This will be held in May 5-6, 2017, in Seattle. The goal of Collaborations for Cause is to put non-profits, educators, communications professionals and visual storytellers in the same room for education, inspiration and networking. Presentations and interviews of our past speakers can be viewed at photowings.org.
Our conference supports our mission to form a coalition of non-profits and visual storytellers. We hope that our photographers’ projects educate the public about important issues. Simply: we want our projects to change the world for the better.
 |
Photographer Tim Matsui’s project focused on human trafficking and lead to the film, ‘Leaving the Life’ as well as working with King County Government in Washington State to create policy around human trafficking. Photo by Tim Matsui.
DPReview also spoke with Tim Matsui, a photographer who has worked on two projects in conjunction with Blue Earth Alliance. He explains how the organization helped him to make a difference with his photography.
I first went to Blue Earth because I was ‘just a photographer’ and unable to apply to many foundation grants or other funding opportunities. I was doing grassroots fundraisers, silent auctions, even burger-beer events with local businesses willing to support my work with their proceeds. Old school.
Leaving the Life is my second project with Blue Earth. My first one, over a decade ago, used documentary multimedia—when slide projectors and dissolve units were still a thing—to create dialog about the lasting effects of sexual violence on individuals and communities.
Being accepted at that time was not only validating of the social justice work I felt compelled to do, but it opened the door to foundation grants and private donations; something I knew very little about.
The learning curve was steep, but I was no longer ‘just a photographer.’ I was in the company of others who were much more accomplished than myself. I had access to their knowledge and this helped me understand how I could increase the impact and reach of my work.
Years later, when I realized Leaving the Life and The Long Night could create impact, I reapplied to Blue Earth. This allowed me to receive a grant from The Fledgling Fund. That grant lead to the policy work I’ve done with King County government.
In fact, it was a screening of The Long Night at Collaborations for Cause where I met a King County employee who became instrumental in my work with King County. Without her, I doubt that two-year journey would have come to fruition.
Blue Earth continues to support my work as I’m now looking for investors for a follow up film to The Long Night— these are people who see their return on investment not as financial renumeration, but policy change. And through Blue Earth I’ve had the opportunity to share what I’ve learned about using film to support social and policy change. Blue Earth is grassroots, created and run by photojournalists, and helping stories have impact is woven into the fabric of the organization. That matters to me.
Blue Earth Alliance’s Collaborations for Cause takes place May 5th and 6th in Seattle. You can find the speaker schedule and registration information online at blueearth.org.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
Sony has just announced that its latest cameras will gain the option to shoot uncompressed Raw files. Given the interest that was generated when we detailed the effects of Raw compression, we though it was equally important to make clear the benefits of the newly-added uncompressed Raw option. Here’s what we’ve found so far. Read more
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
One of the most common questions I hear from people just starting out in photography is, “What program should I use to edit my photos?”. There are many free options such as iPhoto, Picasa, GIMP, and other commercial programs such as AfterShot Pro and Pixelmator but the most popular programs are Photoshop and Lightroom.
That question is usually followed by another, which seems quite logical, “What’s the difference between Photoshop and Lightroom?”. While the two programs do share many similarities, and are both widely used by the photographic community, they each serve a unique purpose and are quite different in some very major ways. Understanding what makes them similar, as well as different, can help you make an informed choice when selecting the right software for your needs.
If you’re not sure what the difference is between Photoshop and Lightroom, you’re not alone.
At the core level both programs do essentially the same thing, edit images. How they go about handling that task, as well as how you actually use each program, is quite different – but if you are simply looking for software that will allow you to alter, tweak, and enhance your photographs, either one will suffice. Both are capable of handling multiple file types such as: JPEG, PNG, TIFF, and a perennial favorite of many photographers, RAW. In fact both Photoshop and Lightroom use the Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) processing engine to handle RAW files. So, you can expect similar controls and editing options in both programs when doing things like adjusting saturation, working with curves, and correcting for lens distortions.
Both Photoshop and Lightroom are powerful additions to any photographer’s digital toolbox, but understanding what makes each one unique can help you choose the one that suits your needs best.
Both programs also feature an extensive set of editing and manipulation tools allowing you to do everything from; basic edits like cropping and adjusting exposure, to advanced alterations such as working with brushes, tone curves, and graduated filters. You will find a variety of built-in effects in both programs that will allow you to instantly apply edits such as black and white, sepia, and other artistic styles. The two programs are quite powerful image editors. I know some photographers who use Lightroom exclusively and never touch Photoshop, as well as plenty of others who spend all day in Photoshop and never open Lightroom. However, in order to understand which one is best for you it might help to see how they are also quite different from each other.
One of the most significant ways in which Lightroom is different from Photoshop is that it does not actually edit photos, nor does it move your images around to different locations on your computer. Instead all the changes you implement are kept in a separate file called the Catalog, which is sort of like a recipe book of instructions for how each photo should be processed. When you apply some type of edit, like a radial filter or adjustment brush, Lightroom is essentially keeping a log of the alterations in a database, while leaving the original image intact. It’s a technique called nondestructive editing, which stands in stark contrast to how Photoshop operates.
For example, several months ago I sent my father this photo I took of him, which I had subsequently edited in Lightroom.
Since the original file was left unchanged I can go back and re-edit the photo any time I want. The edits in Lightroom are a set of instructions for how to process the file, similar to how a recipe is a set of instructions for making food like a cake or casserole. After you finish making changes to an image in Lightroom the photo must be exported at which point it can be printed, shared, or posted online. Because the original photo remains on your computer fully intact and untouched you can go back to Lightroom at any point in the future and re-edit the photo however you want.
Another benefit of this approach is that the catalog itself is quite small, often taking up only a few hundred megabytes on your hard drive even if you have several thousand images in Lightroom.
A basic diagram of the Lightroom workflow: editing instructions are stored in the Catalog file and no changes are made to your original images.
Photoshop, on the other hand, operates quite differently. When you edit a picture such as a JPG, PNG, or RAW file in Photoshop you are always working on the original file itself, unless you save a copy as a Photoshop PSD file that is usually several dozen megabytes in size. This PSD file contains all the changes made to a photo, and in order to share a given image it must then be saved to a final format such as JPG, PNG, etc. In essence, if you want to perform nondestructive edits in Photoshop you will end up with three separate files: the original camera RAW file, a PSD, and the final copy saved into a shareable format from the PSD. The process works something like this:
A basic diagram of the Photoshop workflow: If you want to edit an image later it must be saved as a separate PSD file.
The two processes look somewhat similar on the surface with one major difference; in Lightroom all your changes for every photo are saved in one single, relatively small, catalog file. In Photoshop all your changes are saved in unique files for every single picture you edit. This means much more space on your hard drive will be taken up as you work with multiple files in Photoshop, and you will end up with multiple versions of each image as well. So why would you want choose to use Photoshop instead of Lightroom? In a word, power.
Lightroom is kind of like an all-terrain-vehicle you might see on some farms. It’s fast, nimble, and can be used for a variety of tasks like hauling small objects and towing little trailers. But it simply cannot match the sheer power of a massive farm truck when it comes to getting big, serious jobs done like transporting massive bales of hay, pulling a horse trailer, or ploughing through mud and snow.
Nearly a decade ago Adobe realized that not everyone needed the capability of Photoshop, particularly photographers who were returning from events with hundreds of images to edit quickly. What this new generation of digital photographers demanded was the essential editing tools of Photoshop in one easy-to-use package which resulted in Lightroom.
Photoshop uses layers, which can be intimidating for beginners but offers incredible versatility that Lightroom simply can’t match.
Photoshop contains a dizzying array of filters, brushes, and other tools that allow you to perform all manner of edits and changes to your images. But more than that, Photoshop operates by letting you create different layers on which your edits actually take place. For example, the image on the right shows the various layers I used to edit the image of the statue, and each layer can be edited independently of the others. This might look like a lot, but it is not uncommon for a digital artist to use dozens of layers when editing an image. Lightroom, by contrast, works in a much more linear fashion with no layers, fewer editing tools and less overall flexibility. Both programs contain a history panel that lets you step back in time to any of your edits, but working with layers gives you infinitely more control over exactly how you edit your image.
Case in point, let’s say you want to add a vignette to a portrait. In Lightroom it’s as simple as clicking the “Vignette” option and changing a few basic parameters like the amount, how big the untouched middle portion should be, and how gradually the vignette should fade from the center. It’s a quick no-fuss solution that is incredibly useful for all sorts of photography situations, and if you want a bit more control you can click on the Radial Filter for a few more options.
After image
Before
To do the same thing in Photoshop would require adding a special layer to your photo called an Adjustment Layer such as Levels. Then you’d adjust the levels to darken the image in the highlights and overall, and apply a mask to the layer to only darken the outer edges. You could also change the opacity of the layer (lightening the effect) or the Blend Mode, or you could apply a Dodge and Burn layer – and that’s just the beginning. While all these additional steps might seem hopelessly convoluted, the more you learn how to use the tools Photoshop has to offer the greater degree of control you will have over the editing process.
In Lightroom adding a vignette is as simple as clicking a button. In Photoshop it’s much more complicated but you get much more control as well.
With all of its options and features (including support for text, 3D graphics, and even video) Photoshop is ideal for almost any image-editing situation. Lightroom essentially distills Photoshop down to the tools that Photographers use most, which is one reason it is so appealing to many shutterbugs.
Features and file options aside, the trump card that Lightroom has over its big brother involves its end-to-end workflow solution for photographers. Since it is designed specifically to address the needs of photography enthusiasts and professionals, it handles everything from importing photos from your memory card, to organizing, editing, sharing, and finally printing them. Lightroom has support for keywords and virtual folders to help you keep track of your images, and you can even use it to create a slideshow or photo book. Many photographers, even professionals, will go weeks or months without ever opening Photoshop, because Lightroom takes care of everything they need.
Lightroom’s Library module lets you quickly sort, organize, and manage all your photos.
On the other end of the spectrum is Photoshop which doesn’t transfer files, won’t organize your images, and certainly can’t make slide shows or photo books. But again, it’s all about the tradeoffs you are willing to accept. Nothing else can even come close to Photoshop in terms of sheer editing power. However, you can use Adobe Bridge to handle some workflow-based tasks like importing photos and organizing the digital media on your computer, which when paired with Photoshop, does offer a more comprehensive Lightroom-esque workflow experience. It’s not quite as streamlined as working in Lightroom alone, but it does provide a welcome degree of automation as opposed to manually organizing all your PSDs, JPGs, and other photos by hand.
Sometimes the best solution involves both programs. I used Lightroom to import this photo from my camera and do some basic edits and then used Photoshop to add some more extensive tweaks.
By now you probably realize that this is a question only you can answer, and until recently it meant spending $ 150 on Lightroom or several times that amount on Photoshop. Thankfully, Adobe has made the decision much easier with its release of Creative Cloud and you can now get both programs for $ 10/month. If you don’t like the idea of subscribing to software, you can still buy Lightroom by itself, and Adobe has stated they will continue to sell the standalone version for all future versions as well.
This article could be much, much longer and in many ways it seems like I have just scratched the surface, but I hope you have a better understanding of what makes these programs similar and different.
What about you? What differences do you think are worth noting between both programs, and what purpose does each serve for you? Leave your input in the comments section below.
googletag.cmd.push(function() {
tablet_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_tab-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78623” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); googletag.pubads().enableSingleRequest();
googletag.pubads().disableInitialLoad();
googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs( true );
googletag.enableServices();
} );
googletag.cmd.push( function() { googletag.display( ‘pb-ad-78623’ ); } );
googletag.cmd.push(function() {
mobile_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_mob-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78158” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); googletag.pubads().enableSingleRequest();
googletag.pubads().disableInitialLoad();
googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs( true );
googletag.enableServices();
} );
googletag.cmd.push( function() { googletag.display( ‘pb-ad-78158’ ); } );
The post Understanding the Difference Between Photoshop and Lightroom by Simon Ringsmuth appeared first on Digital Photography School.
In this Adorama TV video Joe McNally goes over some of the key differences between wide angle and long or telephoto lenses.
The lenses Joe mentioned in the video:
Of course there are Canon and other brand equivalents also.
Other dPS articles about lenses:
googletag.cmd.push(function() {
tablet_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_tab-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78623” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); } );
googletag.cmd.push(function() {
mobile_slots.push( googletag.defineSlot( “/1005424/_dPSv4_mob-all-article-bottom_(300×250)”, [300, 250], “pb-ad-78158” ).addService( googletag.pubads() ) ); } );
The post Wide and Telephoto Lenses – What is the Difference? by Darlene Hildebrandt appeared first on Digital Photography School.
You must be logged in to post a comment.