Lightroom Forum

On 2009-11-09 05:00:55 -0600, said:

Is there a Lightroom forum anywhere? If so, could you point me there. Many thanks

Nope but you should start one.

On 22/02/2011 3:42 PM, tbone55 wrote:

On 2009-11-09 05:00:55 -0600, said:

Is there a Lightroom forum anywhere? If so, could you point me there. Many
thanks

Nope but you should start one.

Is that correct? or all BS

http://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom

Rob wrote:

On 22/02/2011 3:42 PM, tbone55 wrote:

On 2009-11-09 05:00:55 -0600, said:

Is there a Lightroom forum anywhere? If so, could you point me there. Many
thanks

Nope but you should start one.

Is that correct? or all BS

http://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom

May I ask what does Lightroom do over say Photoshop?

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:05:42 +0000, Peter
wrote:

Rob wrote:

On 22/02/2011 3:42 PM, tbone55 wrote:

On 2009-11-09 05:00:55 -0600, said:

Is there a Lightroom forum anywhere? If so, could you point me there. Many
thanks

Nope but you should start one.

Is that correct? or all BS

http://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom

May I ask what does Lightroom do over say Photoshop?

That’s a complicated question to answer, but Lightroom has both an editing module (Develop) where you can do similar editing tasks to what you do in Photoshop, and a Library module that allows extensive keywording of your photographs so you can locate photos of a particular subject, date, etc.

There are other features, but – basically – Lightroom is for editing and image organization.

A person who does a large volume of photography and wants to edit many photos with pre-sets and then organize those photos by job or setting is the ideal candidate for Lightroom.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

May I ask what does Lightroom do over say Photoshop?

That’s a complicated question to answer, but Lightroom has both an editing module (Develop) where you can do similar editing tasks to what you do in Photoshop, and a Library module that allows extensive keywording of your photographs so you can locate photos of a particular subject, date, etc.

There are other features, but – basically – Lightroom is for editing and image organization.

A person who does a large volume of photography and wants to edit many photos with pre-sets and then organize those photos by job or setting is the ideal candidate for Lightroom.

Thank you.

I wondered if it did some clever stuff on image enhancement.

I take photos from a light aircraft, up to 20,000ft up, and more often than not they are very hazy, or with an excessive blue tint.

The tint is probably caused by me being lazy and using the camera (Pentax K5, but they all do it) on auto white balance, but the haze is hard to remove. Auto-levels does a very crude job. I find that doing Levels manually, on R G B separately, and bringing the sliders in to the start/end of each spectrum, is usually better than AL.

A colleague is a semi-pro photographer and he uses LR and says it does a much better job of haze, but he can’t really explain what he is doing. It sounded like he changes the mode to Lab Colour and does something in there. But Photoshop (CS3) has that mode too.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:42:25 +0000, Peter
wrote:

May I ask what does Lightroom do over say Photoshop?

That’s a complicated question to answer, but Lightroom has both an editing module (Develop) where you can do similar editing tasks to what you do in Photoshop, and a Library module that allows extensive keywording of your photographs so you can locate photos of a particular subject, date, etc.

There are other features, but – basically – Lightroom is for editing and image organization.

A person who does a large volume of photography and wants to edit many photos with pre-sets and then organize those photos by job or setting is the ideal candidate for Lightroom.

Thank you.

I wondered if it did some clever stuff on image enhancement.
I take photos from a light aircraft, up to 20,000ft up, and more often than not they are very hazy, or with an excessive blue tint.
The tint is probably caused by me being lazy and using the camera (Pentax K5, but they all do it) on auto white balance, but the haze is hard to remove. Auto-levels does a very crude job. I find that doing Levels manually, on R G B separately, and bringing the sliders in to the start/end of each spectrum, is usually better than AL.
A colleague is a semi-pro photographer and he uses LR and says it does a much better job of haze, but he can’t really explain what he is doing. It sounded like he changes the mode to Lab Colour and does something in there. But Photoshop (CS3) has that mode too.

I have both Lightroom2 and CS4. While I am far from an expert in Lightroom2 editing, I don’t think that LR does any better job of editing than Photoshop does. Photoshop allows the user more adjustments.

LR’s primary advantage in editing is in using pre-sets to edit a batch of photos. A wedding photographer, for example, is going to do a large number of shots under the same general lighting conditions. He can process those faster in LR than in PS.

The non-volume photographer can do editing in LR and not need PS, or do editing in PS and not need LR, but the volume photographer may want both systems; LR for most work and PS for more extensive editing on individual photos.

If LR allows you to change from RGB to Lab, I’m not aware of it. I do use Lab mode to tweak the A and B channels in Curves in Photoshop when I want some extra color pop.

Perhaps your friend is shooting RAW and has found some combination of adjustments that he has designated as a pre-set and applies it all images.

You should keep in mind, when looking into the comparative features, that this is an area where people have strong opinions on the value of the system they prefer. Like Ford/Chevy, Nikon/Canon, and Democrat/Republican, people become very prejudiced about their favorite.

I’ve tried to be neutral here, but I use LR primarily for the organization feature and do most editing in CS4. That’s not because I don’t like LR’s editing features, but because I’ve been using PS so long that it’s the method I’m most comfortable with. I’m not a high volume photographer; just a hobby photographer.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

In article ,
Peter wrote:

I take photos from a light aircraft, up to 20,000ft up, and more often than not they are very hazy, or with an excessive blue tint.
The tint is probably caused by me being lazy and using the camera (Pentax K5, but they all do it) on auto white balance, but the haze is hard to remove.

Be sure to use a UV filter. Image editing can’t do everything.

tony cooper wrote

I have both Lightroom2 and CS4. While I am far from an expert in Lightroom2 editing, I don’t think that LR does any better job of editing than Photoshop does. Photoshop allows the user more adjustments.

LR’s primary advantage in editing is in using pre-sets to edit a batch of photos. A wedding photographer, for example, is going to do a large number of shots under the same general lighting conditions. He can process those faster in LR than in PS.

That must be it. He does a lot of weddings. And he shoots RAW.

The non-volume photographer can do editing in LR and not need PS, or do editing in PS and not need LR, but the volume photographer may want both systems; LR for most work and PS for more extensive editing on individual photos.

If LR allows you to change from RGB to Lab, I’m not aware of it. I do use Lab mode to tweak the A and B channels in Curves in Photoshop when I want some extra color pop.

I had a tweak of those and the results are interesting, if non life-like on the pics I tried. But I must admit I don’t really understand the principles there.

Perhaps your friend is shooting RAW and has found some combination of adjustments that he has designated as a pre-set and applies it all images.

You should keep in mind, when looking into the comparative features, that this is an area where people have strong opinions on the value of the system they prefer. Like Ford/Chevy, Nikon/Canon, and Democrat/Republican, people become very prejudiced about their favorite.

I’ve tried to be neutral here, but I use LR primarily for the organization feature and do most editing in CS4. That’s not because I don’t like LR’s editing features, but because I’ve been using PS so long that it’s the method I’m most comfortable with. I’m not a high volume photographer; just a hobby photographer.

I too have been using PS for about 10 years – not exactly with much understanding though 😉

The lens distortion/correction filter in CS3 is brilliant though.

John Stafford wrote

In article ,
Peter wrote:

I take photos from a light aircraft, up to 20,000ft up, and more often than not they are very hazy, or with an excessive blue tint.
The tint is probably caused by me being lazy and using the camera (Pentax K5, but they all do it) on auto white balance, but the haze is hard to remove.

Be sure to use a UV filter. Image editing can’t do everything.

I do use a Skylight filter already.

One also tries to shoot with the light *behind* the camera, of course.

This pic
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/dolphin-in- the-sky.jpg shows the problem.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:50:48 +0000, Peter
wrote:

If LR allows you to change from RGB to Lab, I’m not aware of it. I do use Lab mode to tweak the A and B channels in Curves in Photoshop when I want some extra color pop.

I had a tweak of those and the results are interesting, if non life-like on the pics I tried. But I must admit I don’t really understand the principles there.

Change the mode to LAB, open Curves, ignore the Lightness channel, and pull the curve 1.5 squares to the left at the upper right and 1.5 squares to the right at the lower left on both the A and B channel, flatten, and change back to RPG.

The above can be changed by pulling the points less than 1.5 squares and making a slight "S" of the Lightness curve, but it’s a good start.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

To a highly experienced Photoshop user, Lightroom, which I got with a Leia M9, is a disaster. The user interface sucks, the capabilities are less than we can do with Actions. It’s a POS.

In article ,
Peter wrote:

John Stafford wrote

In article ,
Peter wrote:

I take photos from a light aircraft, up to 20,000ft up, and more often than not they are very hazy, or with an excessive blue tint.
The tint is probably caused by me being lazy and using the camera (Pentax K5, but they all do it) on auto white balance, but the haze is hard to remove.

Be sure to use a UV filter. Image editing can’t do everything.

I do use a Skylight filter already.

One also tries to shoot with the light *behind* the camera, of course.
This pic
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/dolphin-in- the-sky.jpg shows the problem.

That’s an issue of white balance and contrast which is easily corrected in software, even Lightroom.

John J Stafford wrote

I do use a Skylight filter already.

One also tries to shoot with the light *behind* the camera, of course.
This pic
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/dolphin-in- the-sky.jpg shows the problem.

That’s an issue of white balance and contrast which is easily corrected in software, even Lightroom.

Yes, that pic was mostly the WB. I need to find a hazy one, but I haven’t got any on that PB site because I fixed them all 🙂

Peter wrote:

John J Stafford wrote

I do use a Skylight filter already.

One also tries to shoot with the light *behind* the camera, of course.
This pic
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/dolphin-in- the-sky.jpg shows the problem.

That’s an issue of white balance and contrast which is easily corrected in software, even Lightroom.

Yes, that pic was mostly the WB. I need to find a hazy one, but I haven’t got any on that PB site because I fixed them all 🙂

I don’t know how you guys using all kind of fancy words on the poor photo. The photo is just out of wax, and all you need is some basic adjusting tools, and that even LightRoom should have enough tool to do it.

So either LightRoom or DarkRoom, you just start with the very basic adjusting.

– First, you should spend 1-5 seconds to study the photo. You may see that the sky doesn’t look like the sky in our planet earth. The color is out of wax, the contrast is none, sharpness went south, brightness is out of order.

– Then all you need to do is using the good tool to apply some adjustment to each issue.

– Brightness, balancing, or just one of the very basic step is to look at the LEVEL which I believe both LightRoom and DarkRoom all have.

You can look at the Explosure and some basic adjusting here too, but may not need it (it’s up to you). After the LEVEL adjusting you should see something (just by looking at the photo I do think Leel alone should make some diff)

– If the color is still off after few basic adjustments, then you may want to look at the COLOR adjustments. I do know LightRoom has some basic color adjusting tools, but I don’t use LightRoom enough to know how good and how deep it can go. But if you have Photoshop then you should be able to change any specific color to whatever color you want.

Example if you don’t like GREEN cloud, then you can just pick the GREEN then change to purple, pink or whatever you wish (you are the boss).

For the look to impress someone, you may play with Curves for some interesting look. But for printing then you may need to know more about Curves or most adjustment tools as the print may not what the display may say.

Now, just by looking at the photo I see that it doesn’t have many colors but some level of Grey -> Blue, lacking of darkness and brightness so I guess Lvel should give you plenty of room to slide your sliders. After adjusting the Darkness and Brightness you you see the Blue is Bluer, the White is Whiter.

Then if you need to adjust to WHITE CLOUD then you can use the eyedropper to pick which level of WHITE is the color of White cloud you wish it to be. And the LEVEL may make some adjustment base on whatever you pick .. then you continue making some basic adjusting til your liking. I mean move to the COLOR adjusting, may be Layer, and Masking, or combining 2 or more layers to give it some life etc..

And you don’t see me mentioning anything aout WB, do I? To me WB is photography’s issue/technique

John J Stafford was inspired to say

To a highly experienced Photoshop user, Lightroom, which I got with a Leia M9, is a disaster. The user interface sucks, the capabilities are less than we can do with Actions. It’s a POS.

I’ve been umming and erring re Lightroom since v2.0 but still can’t decide.

May I ask how you catalogue / track your photos?

Mike

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:54:57 +0000, Michael J Davis
wrote:

John J Stafford was inspired to say

To a highly experienced Photoshop user, Lightroom, which I got with a Leia M9, is a disaster. The user interface sucks, the capabilities are less than we can do with Actions. It’s a POS.

I’ve been umming and erring re Lightroom since v2.0 but still can’t decide.

May I ask how you catalogue / track your photos?

Stafford’s comment is typical of someone who has added a fairly complex program, failed to put in the necessary effort to understand how to work with the program, and blames the program for his deficiencies.

You can’t add a program like Lightroom and expect to plunge in and use the program successfully without putting in hours of following a book or tutorials. The same can be said for current versions of Photoshop.

If you are an experienced Photoshop user, you can figure out most of editing in Lightroom by just experimenting with the commands in the Develop module. They are different from Photoshop’s, but not all that much different in concept…a few added bells and whistles, and a few missing bells and whistles. All basic editing steps are available.

Photoshop doesn’t have an image management program like Lightroom’s Library module. (Adobe’s Elements does, but it’s primitive compared to Lightroom’s) Basically, the Lightroom program uses keywords to manage image files. Assigning keywords – and you can add multiple keywords to any image – allows you to sort by subject. You can sort by keyword, or sort by various other factors like file name, shot date, modification date, lens, camera body, or other parameters. Lightroom includes some additional image file management features like Collections.

How effective it is in file management depends on how carefully you plan out your keyword system and how much you put into learning how to sort using the system.

If you buy Lightroom, expect to have to buy a book to learn it. There’s no manual, and the Help function is not a teaching function. There are several good books on Lightroom including books by Scott Kelby and Martin Evening. (These two authors are most recommended) There are also many online tutorials, but going through the entire process in a book is better than specific tutorials at first.

If you want good input on whether or not Lightroom would be good for you, provide good information about what you’re doing and what you expect to be able to do in your post.

I’m an experienced Photoshop user with basic – not extensive – skills in Lightroom. I find Lightroom to be extremely useful in image file management, but do my editing in CS4 because I’m more comfortable in Photoshop. I could do most of my editing in Lightroom, though.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

If you are an experienced Photoshop user, you can figure out most of editing in Lightroom by just experimenting with the commands in the Develop module. They are different from Photoshop’s, but not all that much different in concept…a few added bells and whistles, and a few missing bells and whistles. All basic editing steps are available.

Actually, the edit options in the Develop module of Lightroom are 100% identical to Photoshop’s Camera RAW plugin. That also is the major difference between the two applications. Photoshop itself is a pixel editor, Lightroom is a metadata editor. Although Lightroom does work with JPEG, TIFF and PSD images as well (providing they are RGB, not CMYK), it is meant for working with RAW images.

I’m an experienced Photoshop user with basic – not extensive – skills in Lightroom. I find Lightroom to be extremely useful in image file management, but do my editing in CS4 because I’m more comfortable in Photoshop. I could do most of my editing in Lightroom, though.

You clearly know what both applications are all about, but you should still look into doing more in Lightroom. Edits in Lightroom are non-destructive metadata edits, so you do not change rendered pixels. That makes Lightroom a much better editor than Photoshop. Photoshop can do more sophisticated edits, like working with layers, but Photoshop should be reserved for everything you *cannot* do in Lightroom. Whatever you *can* do in Lightroom, you better do in Lightroom.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

tony cooper was inspired to say

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:54:57 +0000, Michael J Davis
wrote:

John J Stafford was inspired to say

To a highly experienced Photoshop user, Lightroom, which I got with a Leia M9, is a disaster. The user interface sucks, the capabilities are less than we can do with Actions. It’s a POS.

I’ve been umming and erring re Lightroom since v2.0 but still can’t decide.

May I ask how you catalogue / track your photos?

Stafford’s comment is typical of someone who has added a fairly complex program, failed to put in the necessary effort to understand how to work with the program, and blames the program for his deficiencies.

You can’t add a program like Lightroom and expect to plunge in and use the program successfully without putting in hours of following a book or tutorials. The same can be said for current versions of Photoshop.
If you are an experienced Photoshop user, you can figure out most of editing in Lightroom by just experimenting with the commands in the Develop module. They are different from Photoshop’s, but not all that much different in concept…a few added bells and whistles, and a few missing bells and whistles. All basic editing steps are available.
Photoshop doesn’t have an image management program like Lightroom’s Library module. (Adobe’s Elements does, but it’s primitive compared to Lightroom’s) Basically, the Lightroom program uses keywords to manage image files. Assigning keywords – and you can add multiple keywords to any image – allows you to sort by subject. You can sort by keyword, or sort by various other factors like file name, shot date, modification date, lens, camera body, or other parameters. Lightroom includes some additional image file management features like Collections.

How effective it is in file management depends on how carefully you plan out your keyword system and how much you put into learning how to sort using the system.

If you buy Lightroom, expect to have to buy a book to learn it. There’s no manual, and the Help function is not a teaching function. There are several good books on Lightroom including books by Scott Kelby and Martin Evening. (These two authors are most recommended) There are also many online tutorials, but going through the entire process in a book is better than specific tutorials at first.
If you want good input on whether or not Lightroom would be good for you, provide good information about what you’re doing and what you expect to be able to do in your post.

I’m an experienced Photoshop user with basic – not extensive – skills in Lightroom. I find Lightroom to be extremely useful in image file management, but do my editing in CS4 because I’m more comfortable in Photoshop. I could do most of my editing in Lightroom, though.

Tony, many thanks for a balanced and informative response. It answers most of my questions. (Except I’m still interested – nay, intrigued – in how John manages his image cataloging.)

Mike
—
Michael J Davis

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/watchman/

<><
All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth. – Richard Avedon – 1984
<><

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:43:07 -0600, Johan W. Elzenga
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

If you are an experienced Photoshop user, you can figure out most of editing in Lightroom by just experimenting with the commands in the Develop module. They are different from Photoshop’s, but not all that much different in concept…a few added bells and whistles, and a few missing bells and whistles. All basic editing steps are available.

Actually, the edit options in the Develop module of Lightroom are 100% identical to Photoshop’s Camera RAW plugin.

Yes, but that’s just part of what can be done in editing in Photoshop. It is all of what can be done in editing in Lightroom.

That also is the major
difference between the two applications. Photoshop itself is a pixel editor, Lightroom is a metadata editor. Although Lightroom does work with JPEG, TIFF and PSD images as well (providing they are RGB, not CMYK), it is meant for working with RAW images.

I’m an experienced Photoshop user with basic – not extensive – skills in Lightroom. I find Lightroom to be extremely useful in image file management, but do my editing in CS4 because I’m more comfortable in Photoshop. I could do most of my editing in Lightroom, though.

You clearly know what both applications are all about, but you should still look into doing more in Lightroom. Edits in Lightroom are non-destructive metadata edits, so you do not change rendered pixels. That makes Lightroom a much better editor than Photoshop. Photoshop can do more sophisticated edits, like working with layers, but Photoshop should be reserved for everything you *cannot* do in Lightroom. Whatever you *can* do in Lightroom, you better do in Lightroom.

My photographic efforts are in two areas: hobby photography and family snapshots (I have grandchildren). It’s rare day when I shoot over 100 shots. I shoot in RAW. I download in Bridge (Nikon user), open the files in FastStone (my favorite photo viewer) and run through them to see which images will be kept and which will be immediately discarded. What’s left is usually not more than a dozen shots…if that many. Exceptions for an event like Bike Week or a family outing.

The remaining shots are adjusted, cropped, and moved to file where they are uploaded to Lightroom, keyworded, and kept on file. I do burn a disk of all shots taken before the culling-out process.

I’ve tried it both ways, and find that editing in Photoshop works best for me. The advantage of editing in Lightroom is to the volume shooter who can use a pre-set to process many images shot under the same conditions. I don’t fit that description.

At my level of volume, the extra time spent on editing in Photoshop is no big deal. At my level of photographic skill, the extra pixel is no great deal either. I firmly believe that "Which is better?" depends a great deal on the individual’s need.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

The remaining shots are adjusted, cropped, and moved to file where they are uploaded to Lightroom, keyworded, and kept on file. I do burn a disk of all shots taken before the culling-out process.

Maybe I misunderstand what you’re doing, but that sounds like you adjust and crop the RAW images and then upload a rendered TIFF (or JPEG or PSD) into Lightroom. Or do you mean that you adjust and crop the image in Photoshop Camera RAW, just press ‘OK’ rather than render the image and open it in Photoshop, and upload the RAW file (having an XMP sidecar file with the adjustments) in Lightroom? That would be exactly the same as first importing them in Lightroom and then do the adjustments, but it doesn’t sound like you are doing that. It sounds like you are using a workflow based on rendered images.

I’ve tried it both ways, and find that editing in Photoshop works best for me. The advantage of editing in Lightroom is to the volume shooter who can use a pre-set to process many images shot under the same conditions. I don’t fit that description.

As Lightroom and Photoshop use the exact same RAW engine and the exact same options for RAW conversion, that is not true. There is no difference, even if you edit only one single RAW image, so it doesn’t depend on the volume. The only difference is when you need to do more edits, for example use layers. You can still do that by using ‘Open in Photoshop’ from within Lightroom. BTW, a volume shooter could also use your workflow, because Camera RAW can also work in batch. It’s not the volume, it’s the priciple: do you want to base your workflow on RAW originals or on rendered RGB results.

At my level of volume, the extra time spent on editing in Photoshop is no big deal. At my level of photographic skill, the extra pixel is no great deal either. I firmly believe that "Which is better?" depends a great deal on the individual’s need.

I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between pixel editing and metadata editing, because the latter is non-destructive. Pixel editing is like printing your negatives and then throw away those negatives because you now have the prints. That’s not ‘better’ for anyone.

One major advantage of using Lightroom, even in your case, is that your images can benefit from every future improvement made to the RAW engine. The latest version of Camera RAW has vastly improved noise reduction, for example. If you converted your RAW images to rendered images in an earlier version, they will not benefit from this improvement. You’d have to do all the work all over again to take advantage of it. If you use a RAW workflow however, your images will benefit from any such improvement with one click of the mouse.

I understand that you are comfortable with your present workflow, but even in your case I would advise you to reconsider that workflow. I’m sure you’ll find it would be worth it.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 03:42:40 -0600, Johan W. Elzenga
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

The remaining shots are adjusted, cropped, and moved to file where they are uploaded to Lightroom, keyworded, and kept on file. I do burn a disk of all shots taken before the culling-out process.

Maybe I misunderstand what you’re doing, but that sounds like you adjust and crop the RAW images and then upload a rendered TIFF (or JPEG or PSD) into Lightroom. Or do you mean that you adjust and crop the image in Photoshop Camera RAW, just press ‘OK’ rather than render the image and open it in Photoshop, and upload the RAW file (having an XMP sidecar file with the adjustments) in Lightroom? That would be exactly the same as first importing them in Lightroom and then do the adjustments, but it doesn’t sound like you are doing that. It sounds like you are using a workflow based on rendered images.

I open the RAW (.dng) file in Photoshop and make whatever adjustments, I feel are necessary to the image in the RAW edit mode. I then click "Open Image" and the image is then opened and available for additional edits in Photoshop CS4 if any additional edits are needed. Cropping is done as the last step here. The image is then saved as a .jpg.

The .jpg is then imported into Lightroom and keyworded. Lightroom is only used to store the image and allow me to view or find it later. What *I* want in my Lightroom view is a rendered and cropped finished image.

The .jpg in my C: drive folder is then used to print, upload to my SmugMug site, or email it when I need to.

I don’t upload .dngs to Lightroom. My .dngs are burned to a disk, so any later changes can be done by opening them from the disk. I very seldom do a later edit, though. The only time I can remember going back to one was to come up with an image to be cropped to a different aspect ratio than the .jpg I’d originally made.

I’ve tried it both ways, and find that editing in Photoshop works best for me. The advantage of editing in Lightroom is to the volume shooter who can use a pre-set to process many images shot under the same conditions. I don’t fit that description.

As Lightroom and Photoshop use the exact same RAW engine and the exact same options for RAW conversion, that is not true. There is no difference, even if you edit only one single RAW image, so it doesn’t depend on the volume. The only difference is when you need to do more edits, for example use layers. You can still do that by using ‘Open in Photoshop’ from within Lightroom. BTW, a volume shooter could also use your workflow, because Camera RAW can also work in batch.

I don’t see any sign of batch processing or pre-sets in the Photoshop RAW editing mode in CS4. Here’s a screenshot of the RAW editing mode in CS4 of an unadjusted image:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/screenshot2 .gif

It’s not the volume, it’s the priciple:
do you want to base your workflow on RAW originals or on rendered RGB results.

My "workflow" is based on RAW originals, but my image organization (Lightroom) is based on the rendered .jpgs. I use Lightroom as a file cabinet for .jpgs.

At my level of volume, the extra time spent on editing in Photoshop is no big deal. At my level of photographic skill, the extra pixel is no great deal either. I firmly believe that "Which is better?" depends a great deal on the individual’s need.

I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between pixel editing and metadata editing, because the latter is non-destructive. Pixel editing is like printing your negatives and then throw away those negatives because you now have the prints. That’s not ‘better’ for anyone.

Nothing is thrown away. My RAW files are retained. I can’t remember the last time I went back to a RAW file and re-edited, though. Why do you place so much emphasis on the need to re-work the RAW file? Don’t you edit the first time around to your satisfaction?

One major advantage of using Lightroom, even in your case, is that your images can benefit from every future improvement made to the RAW engine.

If there was some major improvement, I can always bring up the original RAW file from my burned disks. However, I don’t have a bunch of RAW files of old images where I was unable to process the image with the tools I now have.

My old images that are somehow lacking are lacking because I didn’t compose the original shot well enough. No improvement is going to change the composition.

I understand that you are comfortable with your present workflow, but even in your case I would advise you to reconsider that workflow. I’m sure you’ll find it would be worth it.

Why is it that people who do something a certain way think that the way they do it is the *only* right way? I like my system, but I don’t push it for others to use. I don’t try to discourage others from using a different system. I have tried importing the RAW files to Lightroom and editing in Lightroom. I didn’t feel it works for me. —
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

In article ,
Michael J Davis wrote:

John J Stafford was inspired to say

To a highly experienced Photoshop user, Lightroom, which I got with a Leia M9, is a disaster. The user interface sucks, the capabilities are less than we can do with Actions. It’s a POS.

I’ve been umming and erring re Lightroom since v2.0 but still can’t decide.

May I ask how you catalogue / track your photos?

Adobe’s XMP with Bridge and Photoshop.

tony cooper wrote:

I open the RAW (.dng) file in Photoshop and make whatever adjustments, I feel are necessary to the image in the RAW edit mode. I then click "Open Image" and the image is then opened and available for additional edits in Photoshop CS4 if any additional edits are needed. Cropping is done as the last step here. The image is then saved as a .jpg.
The .jpg is then imported into Lightroom and keyworded. Lightroom is only used to store the image and allow me to view or find it later. What *I* want in my Lightroom view is a rendered and cropped finished image.

That’s why I advised you to learn a bit more about Lightroom. You *will* see the cropped and adjusted image just the same if you import the DNG’s right into Lightroom. A DNG contains all the adjustment settings (including cropping!), but in a non-destructive way. Lightroom can do exactly what you want with RAW images. It’s just that you apparently never really took the time to learn how.

I don’t see any sign of batch processing or pre-sets in the Photoshop RAW editing mode in CS4. Here’s a screenshot of the RAW editing mode in CS4 of an unadjusted image:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/screenshot2 .gif

You can do it in CS4 too, you just have to know how. Just select a bunch of RAW images and open them all at once. Another way is using ‘Open’ from Photoshop, and then open more than one RAW image by shift clicking them in the Open dialog. The same CameraRAW window will open, but you will see a film strip with all the images on the left side of that window. That gives you the option to adjust one image, then select all in the film strip and click ‘synchronize’. You then get a dialog that asks you what you want to synchronize and what not, so you even have the option to synchronize the adjustments, but not the cropping, for example.

Even if you do not accept anything else I say, this will be a huge time saver for you. This way, you can adjust one image and then quickly apply the adjustments to the other images you took in the same situation. Or you can remove some specks of sensor dust from one image, and then quicky apply that to the series.

My "workflow" is based on RAW originals, but my image organization (Lightroom) is based on the rendered .jpgs. I use Lightroom as a file cabinet for .jpgs.

I think this costs you a lot *more* time than if you would organise the DNG files in Lightroom, because you would not have to render JPEG’s for each of them and because you didn’t even know you can batch-adjust the images, even in Photoshop.

Nothing is thrown away. My RAW files are retained. I can’t remember the last time I went back to a RAW file and re-edited, though. Why do you place so much emphasis on the need to re-work the RAW file? Don’t you edit the first time around to your satisfaction?

Usually I do so that is not the issue, but like I said, software gets improved over time. By using a RAW workflow you can apply these improvements on all images, old and new. If you base your workflow on rendered JPEG’s, you either need to do a lot of extra work, or you cannot benefit from these improvements for your older images.

If there was some major improvement, I can always bring up the original RAW file from my burned disks. However, I don’t have a bunch of RAW files of old images where I was unable to process the image with the tools I now have.

I’m not suggesting that you cannot process them right now, I’m suggesting that you could get a *better result* with improved software. That is one of the reason software gets improved in the first place. The noise reduction improvements in Lightroom 3 are stunning. It’s like you bought a new camera when you look at high ISO images. As you are using Photoshop CS4, you can’t benefit from that improvement at all right now. You may not even know about it! Assuming you’ve got Lightroom 3 (and if you don’t, you could update for a lot less than updating to Photoshop CS5 would cost you), you could benefit if you used a RAW workflow in Lightroom.

Why is it that people who do something a certain way think that the way they do it is the *only* right way? I like my system, but I don’t push it for others to use. I don’t try to discourage others from using a different system. I have tried importing the RAW files to Lightroom and editing in Lightroom. I didn’t feel it works for me.

Don’t get upset. It’s just some friendly advice. Advice from somebody who wrote several books on the subject, so who took some time to look at the pros and the cons of different workflows. Don’t worry, I won’t come over and push it down your throat. If you don’t want friendly advice, that’s fine with me too. I also wrote this because I assume more people are reading this than just you and me. Maybe someone else does appreciate the advice.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:26:53 -0600, Johan W. Elzenga
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

I open the RAW (.dng) file in Photoshop and make whatever adjustments, I feel are necessary to the image in the RAW edit mode. I then click "Open Image" and the image is then opened and available for additional edits in Photoshop CS4 if any additional edits are needed. Cropping is done as the last step here. The image is then saved as a .jpg.
The .jpg is then imported into Lightroom and keyworded. Lightroom is only used to store the image and allow me to view or find it later. What *I* want in my Lightroom view is a rendered and cropped finished image.

That’s why I advised you to learn a bit more about Lightroom. You *will* see the cropped and adjusted image just the same if you import the DNG’s right into Lightroom. A DNG contains all the adjustment settings (including cropping!), but in a non-destructive way. Lightroom can do exactly what you want with RAW images. It’s just that you apparently never really took the time to learn how.

I understand that, John. And, I *do* know how to do it that way. I’ve spent extensive time with Kelby’s book (which I own) and Evening’s book (which I borrowed from my camera club library). I have taken the time, but – in the end – decided that the system I use is the best system for me.

My system allows me to keep a non-destructive file. The .dng is retained on disk.

I don’t see any sign of batch processing or pre-sets in the Photoshop RAW editing mode in CS4. Here’s a screenshot of the RAW editing mode in CS4 of an unadjusted image:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/screenshot2 .gif

You can do it in CS4 too, you just have to know how.

Of course I know how. I’ve worked with Photoshop for years. I don’t have occasion to do batches, but could do it in either Lightroom or Photoshop. I mentioned batch processing with pre-sets in a post to a person who was debating whether or not to acquire Lightroom on the basis that it might be a feature for him.

Even if you do not accept anything else I say, this will be a huge time saver for you. This way, you can adjust one image and then quickly apply the adjustments to the other images you took in the same situation.

Why do you not want to accept that I don’t need this feature? I don’t take multiple photographs in one situation where this would apply. I do take multiple exposures of one scene to make sure I come out with a good composition, but we’re talking – maybe 6 max – from different angles or different camera settings. I’ll pick one to work with for the final cut.

There’s no "huge" time saving to be had.

My "workflow" is based on RAW originals, but my image organization (Lightroom) is based on the rendered .jpgs. I use Lightroom as a file cabinet for .jpgs.

I think this costs you a lot *more* time than if you would organise the DNG files in Lightroom, because you would not have to render JPEG’s for each of them and because you didn’t even know you can batch-adjust the images, even in Photoshop.

You’re not listening.

If there was some major improvement, I can always bring up the original RAW file from my burned disks. However, I don’t have a bunch of RAW files of old images where I was unable to process the image with the tools I now have.

I’m not suggesting that you cannot process them right now, I’m suggesting that you could get a *better result* with improved software. That is one of the reason software gets improved in the first place. The noise reduction improvements in Lightroom 3 are stunning.

I have Lightroom2. I’m not willing to spend the money on an upgrade since 2 does what I want. If I was ready to spend some extra bucks on software, I’d upgrade from CS4 to CS5 or buy some of the Nik or Topaz plug-ins for black-and-white conversion. Right now, the appeal of CS5’s new selection features is greater than anything Lightroom3 is offering.

It’s like you bought a new camera when you look at high ISO images.

I can’t remember when I last used anything over 400.

As you are using Photoshop CS4, you can’t
benefit from that improvement at all right now. You may not even know about it! Assuming you’ve got Lightroom 3 (and if you don’t, you could update for a lot less than updating to Photoshop CS5 would cost you), you could benefit if you used a RAW workflow in Lightroom.

Why is it that people who do something a certain way think that the way they do it is the *only* right way? I like my system, but I don’t push it for others to use. I don’t try to discourage others from using a different system. I have tried importing the RAW files to Lightroom and editing in Lightroom. I didn’t feel it works for me.

Don’t get upset. It’s just some friendly advice. Advice from somebody who wrote several books on the subject, so who took some time to look at the pros and the cons of different workflows. Don’t worry, I won’t come over and push it down your throat. If you don’t want friendly advice, that’s fine with me too.

I do appreciate that you have been generally polite and informative, and I do listen to suggestions. Reading comments is what prompted me to buy Lightroom2 when I did.

However, there’s a bit of doorstep missionary fervor to your comments. It’s like you’ve become a True Believer and you feel you must convert everyone to being a True Believer.

You don’t seem to take into account that not everyone has the same shooting style. I’m a hobby photographer that looks for interesting scenes and objects to photograph. I can spend a whole day out shooting and come back with 60 or 80 exposures of ten subjects and then only process four or five of those shots. Huge savings in time to process is not a priority for me.

That photo in the link to my screenshot at was taken March 18, 2010. (So I do retain non-destructive RAW files) The watch parts were on a table at a flea market. I don’t know how many shots I took that day, but I kept only a few of them:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Street-Scenes/Flea-Market/1114 8065_39ofH#813100625_XqdZJ (Not all the flea market shots in that gallery were taken that same day or a the same flea market, but the Mah Jong tiles were on the same table)

I also wrote this because I assume more people are
reading this than just you and me. Maybe someone else does appreciate the advice.

I agree completely. Discussions like this often benefit people who are not involved with the thread.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

I don’t see any sign of batch processing or pre-sets in the Photoshop RAW editing mode in CS4. Here’s a screenshot of the RAW editing mode in CS4 of an unadjusted image:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/screenshot2 .gif

You can do it in CS4 too, you just have to know how.

Of course I know how. I’ve worked with Photoshop for years.

So why did you say ‘I don’t see any sign of batch processing or pre-sets in the Photoshop RAW editing mode in CS4’ and posted a screenshot to illustrate that?

I do appreciate that you have been generally polite and informative, and I do listen to suggestions. Reading comments is what prompted me to buy Lightroom2 when I did.

However, there’s a bit of doorstep missionary fervor to your comments. It’s like you’ve become a True Believer and you feel you must convert everyone to being a True Believer.

In that case you will be surprised to learn that I don’t even use Lightroom myself. i use Apple Aperture instead. I am a sucker for quality though, and for example printing from 8 bits JPEGs (and in sRGB color space, no doubt) if you have 14 bits RAWs is just not my idea of quality. But if 8 bits JPEGs work for you, be my guest.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:35:13 -0600, Johan W. Elzenga
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

I don’t see any sign of batch processing or pre-sets in the Photoshop RAW editing mode in CS4. Here’s a screenshot of the RAW editing mode in CS4 of an unadjusted image:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/screenshot2 .gif

You can do it in CS4 too, you just have to know how.

Of course I know how. I’ve worked with Photoshop for years.

So why did you say ‘I don’t see any sign of batch processing or pre-sets in the Photoshop RAW editing mode in CS4’ and posted a screenshot to illustrate that?

The batch processing is not in the RAW editing mode that I sent the screen shot of. The batch processing is in the Photoshop mode after you leave RAW editing. You are no longer working with the RAW image when you are in the Photoshop mode. You are only working with the results of the RAW editing mode. The format will be determined at the Save point.

CS4 has two editing modes. When a RAW file (.dng, in my case) is opened, it opens in the Adobe RAW editing mode (screenshot) When you open the file from that, it goes to the Photoshop editing mode. That’s where the batch commands are and where you can use actions. Actions can take the place of pre-sets.

I know of no way to apply the same settings to a series of images in the RAW editing mode of CS4. You can in the Photoshop mode. In the Photoshop mode, you can use batch processing, actions, and set Curves to replicate the Curve in previous shots. This latter feature is one that I use quite a bit when I shoot a table-top image under artificial light and use a (Michael Tapes) WhiBal card on the first shot. I also use some Actions.

Did you look at the screen shot? If you use CS4, you would have seen that this is not the same mode where you use the batch commands.

This is the screenshot of the RAW editing mode:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/screenshot2 .gif

This is a screenshot of the Photoshop mode that you go into after editing in the RAW mode.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/screenshot3 .gif

Batch processing is in the dropdown under File>Automate.

(In neither screenshot has the image been adjusted.)

I’m not sure if my terminology will be understood here with the use of the term "modes". That’s not Adobe talk. There *are* two editing modes, or stages, though. Anyone who uses CS4 with RAW files knows what I mean.

I skipped from PS7.0 to CS4, so I don’t know what other versions are as described.

In that case you will be surprised to learn that I don’t even use Lightroom myself. i use Apple Aperture instead.

Do you use a CS version of Photoshop? If not, that may explain why you did not understand what I meant about the Photoshop RAW editing mode.

I don’t know anything about Apple Aperture, but it could be that when you open an AA processed RAW image in Photoshop it skips the mode that I was referring to like opening a .jpg or .tiff in Photoshop.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:35:13 -0600, Johan W. Elzenga
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

I don’t see any sign of batch processing or pre-sets in the Photoshop RAW editing mode in CS4. Here’s a screenshot of the RAW editing mode in CS4 of an unadjusted image:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/screenshot2 .gif

You can do it in CS4 too, you just have to know how.

Of course I know how. I’ve worked with Photoshop for years.

So why did you say ‘I don’t see any sign of batch processing or pre-sets in the Photoshop RAW editing mode in CS4’ and posted a screenshot to illustrate that?

The batch processing is not in the RAW editing mode that I sent the screen shot of. The batch processing is in the Photoshop mode after you leave RAW editing. You are no longer working with the RAW image when you are in the Photoshop mode. You are only working with the results of the RAW editing mode. The format will be determined at the Save point.

Wrong. Batch processing *IS* available in the RAW editing mode too. You clearly do not know as much about Photoshop as you think you do, and you obviously didn’t even try it.

Here’s a screenshot: http://www.johanfoto.com/cameraraw.jpg

Look at the film strip on the left side of the window. You never knew that existed, did you?

CS4 has two editing modes. When a RAW file (.dng, in my case) is opened, it opens in the Adobe RAW editing mode (screenshot) When you open the file from that, it goes to the Photoshop editing mode. That’s where the batch commands are and where you can use actions. Actions can take the place of pre-sets.

Again: you never tried what I wrote. Open Photoshop, choose ‘File – Open’ and then select multiple RAW images with shift-click. See what happens. This has nothing to do with the batch processing options in Photoshop itself.

In that case you will be surprised to learn that I don’t even use Lightroom myself. i use Apple Aperture instead.

Do you use a CS version of Photoshop? If not, that may explain why you did not understand what I meant about the Photoshop RAW editing mode.

I do not only use Photoshop CS5, I wrote several books about it (and about Lightroom and about Aperture). Unfortunately they are in Dutch and I don’t suppose you speak that language, otherwise I would advise you to read my book called ‘RAW’.

P.S. I made the screenshot with Photoshop CS4, so you can’t claim this is a CS5 only feature.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:55:07 -0600, Johan W. Elzenga
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:35:13 -0600, Johan W. Elzenga
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

I don’t see any sign of batch processing or pre-sets in the Photoshop RAW editing mode in CS4. Here’s a screenshot of the RAW editing mode in CS4 of an unadjusted image:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/screenshot2 .gif

You can do it in CS4 too, you just have to know how.

Of course I know how. I’ve worked with Photoshop for years.

So why did you say ‘I don’t see any sign of batch processing or pre-sets in the Photoshop RAW editing mode in CS4’ and posted a screenshot to illustrate that?

The batch processing is not in the RAW editing mode that I sent the screen shot of. The batch processing is in the Photoshop mode after you leave RAW editing. You are no longer working with the RAW image when you are in the Photoshop mode. You are only working with the results of the RAW editing mode. The format will be determined at the Save point.

Wrong. Batch processing *IS* available in the RAW editing mode too. You clearly do not know as much about Photoshop as you think you do, and you obviously didn’t even try it.

Here’s a screenshot: http://www.johanfoto.com/cameraraw.jpg
Look at the film strip on the left side of the window. You never knew that existed, did you?

You are correct. I had not tried to open several images at the same time in this mode. No, I did not know this existed.

I must have mentally skipped over your earlier suggestion.

I’m sure this is not the only feature of Photoshop that I’m not aware of or proficient at. I don’t care how long you use Photoshop, there always seems to be some new feature or technique to learn.

—
Tony Cooper – Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:55:07 -0600, Johan W. Elzenga
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

The batch processing is not in the RAW editing mode that I sent the screen shot of. The batch processing is in the Photoshop mode after you leave RAW editing. You are no longer working with the RAW image when you are in the Photoshop mode. You are only working with the results of the RAW editing mode. The format will be determined at the Save point.

Wrong. Batch processing *IS* available in the RAW editing mode too. You clearly do not know as much about Photoshop as you think you do, and you obviously didn’t even try it.

Here’s a screenshot: http://www.johanfoto.com/cameraraw.jpg
Look at the film strip on the left side of the window. You never knew that existed, did you?

You are correct. I had not tried to open several images at the same time in this mode. No, I did not know this existed.

I must have mentally skipped over your earlier suggestion.
I’m sure this is not the only feature of Photoshop that I’m not aware of or proficient at. I don’t care how long you use Photoshop, there always seems to be some new feature or technique to learn.

That is so true. That’s why a discussion like this one is always useful for something, even if we agree that we disagree.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

In article
,
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

I do not only use Photoshop CS5, I wrote several books about it (and about Lightroom and about Aperture). Unfortunately they are in Dutch and I don’t suppose you speak that language, otherwise I would advise you to read my book called ‘RAW’.

Your English is better than some of ours’. I’d love to see your book in English.

John Stafford was inspired to say

In article ,
Michael J Davis wrote:

John J Stafford was inspired to say

To a highly experienced Photoshop user, Lightroom, which I got with a Leia M9, is a disaster. The user interface sucks, the capabilities are less than we can do with Actions. It’s a POS.

I’ve been umming and erring re Lightroom since v2.0 but still can’t decide.

May I ask how you catalogue / track your photos?

Adobe’s XMP with Bridge and Photoshop.

Thanks!

I have to say I don’t know about XMP, I’ll look it up!

Mike
—
Michael J Davis

<><
"It gets real lonely as a moderate activist, standing there alone with a sign that reads, ‘Reasonable informed discussion of the issues as soon as feasible!’ " — David Brake <><

In article ,
Michael J Davis wrote:

John Stafford was inspired to say

In article ,
Michael J Davis wrote:

John J Stafford was inspired to say

To a highly experienced Photoshop user, Lightroom, which I got with a Leia M9, is a disaster. The user interface sucks, the capabilities are less than we can do with Actions. It’s a POS.

I’ve been umming and erring re Lightroom since v2.0 but still can’t decide.

May I ask how you catalogue / track your photos?

Adobe’s XMP with Bridge and Photoshop.

Thanks!

I have to say I don’t know about XMP, I’ll look it up!

I am not sure it is all that useful, now.

In article <1173685768321439047.081026nomail-
says…

tony cooper wrote:

The batch processing is not in the RAW editing mode that I sent the screen shot of. The batch processing is in the Photoshop mode after you leave RAW editing. You are no longer working with the RAW image when you are in the Photoshop mode. You are only working with the results of the RAW editing mode. The format will be determined at the Save point.

Wrong. Batch processing *IS* available in the RAW editing mode too. You clearly do not know as much about Photoshop as you think you do, and you obviously didn’t even try it.

Here’s a screenshot: http://www.johanfoto.com/cameraraw.jpg

Nice that you picked an image from New Zealand to illustrate this. I had a look at your website to see where else you had been in NZ, but it took me a little while before I found a very nice selectio0 under the ‘Far East’ heading. Although we are about as far east as you can get from the Netherlands (equally true – we are as far west as you can get also) but maybe a ‘Pacifica’, or ‘Oceania’, or even ‘Australasia’ heading would be more appropriate, as we are approximately 6500 km from the _nearest_ part of what is usually recognised as the Far East. Note that this is greater than the distance betwen Amsterdam and Islamabad. :).

Cheers

—
Mike

mike wrote:

Here’s a screenshot: http://www.johanfoto.com/cameraraw.jpg

Nice that you picked an image from New Zealand to illustrate this. I had a look at your website to see where else you had been in NZ, but it took me a little while before I found a very nice selectio0 under the ‘Far East’ heading. Although we are about as far east as you can get from the Netherlands (equally true – we are as far west as you can get also) but maybe a ‘Pacifica’, or ‘Oceania’, or even ‘Australasia’ heading would be more appropriate, as we are approximately 6500 km from the _nearest_ part of what is usually recognised as the Far East. Note that this is greater than the distance betwen Amsterdam and Islamabad. :).

Good point. I’ve changed it. Because my China, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia images are in the same group, I chose ‘Pacific’.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com