i mean i get the logic behind it, but looking at images before and after the fade step i literally don’t see the difference between the two images. . . and after googling about it i’m finding lots of people saying it’s an important step in the sharpening process, and only one forum on dpreview in which someone was wondering the same thing i am. . .

am i doing something wrong?. . . or looking at the image wrong?. . . you wouldn’t happen to have a before and after in which you can see how the fade step improves the shot, would you?. . .

I’ve used Photoshop since 1990. I think I started out with the beta 0.89 (before 1.0). I know it inside and out, and LOVE it. But, the minute Lightroom 1.0 came out, I fell in love all over again, and avoid Photoshop with my images unless I need to make specific edits that involve extensive cloning/healing, or the use of layer masks (which simulated HDR images do). Lightroom is THAT good… And it’s only version “one point freaking something!” Just imagine what 2 will have (masking, masking, masking–I can dream!)

By the way, it’s not that I dislike PS now, not at all. CS3 is wonderful, but like Rygood said, when you have 500 images to edit, it is quite a chore going into PS. Plus, converting it to PS (especially leaving in 16-bit pixel depth mode) results in a 200+ MB PSD file for a file that is only 13MB as a RAW file with an accompanying 8K sidecar XMP file for the edits!

Ahhh, I was hoping your answer wouldn’t have been as compelling for me to pull Lightroom back out from the abyss on my hard drive. I guess I should give it another whirl since its pretty much MADE for us Photographers. Thanks for the response.

To answer your lightroom question:

1. Its my primary organizational tool for images, via catalogs and folders. I can also quickly get through organizing a massive amount of pictures via ratings and flags. If i move images to an external hard drive, its easy to point the catalog/folder at them without losing the adjustments.
2. I LOVE the interface, and toolsets including the targeted adjustments. Like anything else, there was a learning curve, but when you get used to it it can’t be beat.
3. It is also my primary retouching tool. Generally i try to do as much in-camera as possible, meaning after the shot is taken, it only needs minor adjustments like contrast etc in lightroom, so usually i don’t even have to open Photoshop unless I’m doing something really granular.
4. Though I rarely use the Print or Web portions of lightroom, when i do, i can quickly and easily do what i need to do with little hassle.

Generally after shooting heres my flow:
Import to Lightroom from CF > Quickly Pick and Reject keepers and throwaways > Give star ratings to the best images > Filter by Stars & Picks > Add keywords an titles > Retouch the Picked, Starred images > Export as sRGB jpegs > upload to flickr.

I can get through a batch of 500 images much faster than using Photoshop alone or Bridge, because everything is done right in lightroom.

What I found very fascinating was how many steps we did similar. I just finished half of Scott Kelby’s 7 point system book and I have been watching Photoshop user TV (very good videocast), so those both weighed heavily on my processing.

Just one question. I have tried to use lightroom, but find it cumbersome to manage and save images. Why do you prefer to use camera RAW in Lighroom over using camera RAW directly in Bridge or Photoshop. Just interesting in peoples workflow.