4 ms·

Great article, but I wonder if Meyer signed off on the title's clumsy metaphor. Sampling a noise signature and feeding the profile back into a room is nothing

by l33tbro 12y ago

Great article, but I wonder if Meyer signed off on the title's clumsy metaphor. Sampling a noise signature and feeding the profile back into a room is nothing like any Photoshop application process I know of. Besides, if we're talking about retouching, then isn't it pretty common knowledge that professionals now use Lightroom?

detaro 12y ago
Lightroom vs Photoshop really depends on the type of retouching being done. Lightroom is powerful, but also optimized for efficient workflow over being able to do everything.
stan_rogers 12y ago
They use Lightroom (when they use Lightroom; Capture One - or Phocus for Hasselblad shooters - is a lot better for client shoots than Lightroom's catalog system even if you discount the raw processing differences) for what they can, which frankly ain't much. You can get an awful lot done, of course, within its limits, but those limits are pretty hard-and-fast. Lightroom will take you a little way beyond the darkroom, but it still can't get you to the retoucher's bench.
sjwright 12y ago
The metaphor is fine. An aspiring musician could take a photograph of them performing at the local town hall and Photoshop it to make it look like they're playing Carnegie Hall. This sort of image manipulation is still done in Photoshop. It's not possible in Lightroom. (By the way, the full product name is Photoshop Lightroom. Just sayin'.)
- code_duck 12y ago
  I think the main point of the comment about the metaphor it was not about lightroom versus Photoshop, but rather that real-time acoustical processing has very little to do with retouching an image, conceptually. The true "Photoshop of sound" would be something like Logic. Something comparable to what this guy creates, for video, would be more like a real time signal processor, whatever programs are popular for that. But I suppose it wouldn't make a good headline as few would understand a reference to a popular program for real-time video processing.
  - sjwright 12y ago
    Fair call, however I'd argue in that case your objection is to the word sound, not Photoshop. How about "The Photoshop of acoustic spaces"?
    - code_duck 12y ago
      That's suggestion has made me rethink my interpretation. I was rejecting 'photoshop' applied to sound because sound is a medium that necessarily involves time, like video, whereas a single frame 2d image has no notion or possibility of time being involved. However, in rethinking this, one could make an valid analogy of a 'photoshop filter' applied to the acoustic design of a restaurant. Given that the restaurant's layout is static, it's more like a filter on a 2-d single frame image than a filter applied to dynamic sound or video.
bjt 12y ago
I agree that the use of "photoshop" was misleading and distracting. I went into the article expecting to learn about the industry standard software application for modifying sound recordings. It wasn't until a few paragraphs in that I realized he meant "photoshop" as a verb. Even then it doesn't really work, since Photoshop operates on a single static file, while the sound system described operates on a dynamic stream of live sound. The analogy is hurting the article more than helping it.

by l33tbro 12y ago

detaro 12y ago

Lightroom vs Photoshop really depends on the type of retouching being done. Lightroom is powerful, but also optimized for efficient workflow over being able to do everything.

stan_rogers 12y ago

They use Lightroom (when they use Lightroom; Capture One - or Phocus for Hasselblad shooters - is a lot better for client shoots than Lightroom's catalog system even if you discount the raw processing differences) for what they can, which frankly ain't much. You can get an awful lot done, of course, within its limits, but those limits are pretty hard-and-fast. Lightroom will take you a little way beyond the darkroom, but it still can't get you to the retoucher's bench.

sjwright 12y ago

The metaphor is fine. An aspiring musician could take a photograph of them performing at the local town hall and Photoshop it to make it look like they're playing Carnegie Hall. This sort of image manipulation is still done in Photoshop. It's not possible in Lightroom. (By the way, the full product name is Photoshop Lightroom. Just sayin'.)

code_duck 12y ago
I think the main point of the comment about the metaphor it was not about lightroom versus Photoshop, but rather that real-time acoustical processing has very little to do with retouching an image, conceptually. The true "Photoshop of sound" would be something like Logic. Something comparable to what this guy creates, for video, would be more like a real time signal processor, whatever programs are popular for that. But I suppose it wouldn't make a good headline as few would understand a reference to a popular program for real-time video processing.
- sjwright 12y ago
  Fair call, however I'd argue in that case your objection is to the word sound, not Photoshop. How about "The Photoshop of acoustic spaces"?
  - code_duck 12y ago
    That's suggestion has made me rethink my interpretation. I was rejecting 'photoshop' applied to sound because sound is a medium that necessarily involves time, like video, whereas a single frame 2d image has no notion or possibility of time being involved. However, in rethinking this, one could make an valid analogy of a 'photoshop filter' applied to the acoustic design of a restaurant. Given that the restaurant's layout is static, it's more like a filter on a 2-d single frame image than a filter applied to dynamic sound or video.

bjt 12y ago

I agree that the use of "photoshop" was misleading and distracting. I went into the article expecting to learn about the industry standard software application for modifying sound recordings. It wasn't until a few paragraphs in that I realized he meant "photoshop" as a verb. Even then it doesn't really work, since Photoshop operates on a single static file, while the sound system described operates on a dynamic stream of live sound. The analogy is hurting the article more than helping it.