3 ms·
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 playi
by 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 agoI 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 agoFair 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 agoThat'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.