A bit of help needed with RAW...

[Korky]

I'm still trying to get to grips with processing RAW images and I wondered just what others do with a photo once it's loaded into Adobe Raw and before it's imported into Photoshop.

 

It strikes me that editing can be done with more accuracy (cropping for example) in PSE rather than in Adobe Raw. Or am I missing something obvious?

 

Korky

 

 

[Guest DaveW]

Generally speaking Korky I just use the Photoshop/Elements Editor rather than twiddle with them in the Adobe Camera Raw Converter.

 

http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements/using/processing-camera-raw-image-files.html

 

However after seeing the following video perhaps I should use Adobe Camera RAW editing more, if only I could remember how to use all it's features?:-

 

[Phil]

Virtually all my editing is done in ACR, it is a very powerful tool. Noise reduction and particularly the removal of chromatic aberration in PS are almost impossible, they're simple to sort in ACR with just a mouse click.

I do leave cropping and straightening to PS though.

 

Get out there and view some tutorials, it's well worth it.

[Barbara]

Korky  I take them straight into lightroom, go through and select the ones I want to keep and then import them into a my CR2 folder then move to the  develop process in LR, here I go through them again making any adjustments I want. You can apply the same adjustment to any or all of your images if you like.  Pick the keepers and then export to a chosen folder, choose image format & colour space resize etc; and open in PSE9 if I need to. The only time I use PSE9 these days if I want to layer or use Filters ETC

 

Lightroom.... The best thing since sliced bread

[Phil]

I posted the same time as blackrox.

 

One point to mention is that ACR and Lightroom use exactly the same engine.

[Denis]

I only have View NX2 that is Nikons own software,  ColinB gave me a few good tips to using it but this lightroom thingy sounds quite good.

 

I am afraid of buying it and not understanding how it works,  the same as freeware programs like GIMP ect.  I for some reason, turn into Mr Cabbage Head when trying to understand processing software!

[Martyn]

I only have View NX2 that is Nikons own software,  ColinB gave me a few good tips to using it but this lightroom thingy sounds quite good.

 

I am afraid of buying it and not understanding how it works,  the same as freeware programs like GIMP ect.  I for some reason, turn into Mr Cabbage Head when trying to understand processing software!

 

If you go to the Adobe website you can download the fully functional Lightroom 5 for a 30 day free trial. In fact I think you can trial most of the Adobe range.

[Korky]

Some good info there - thanks all.

 

Korky

[geodar]

I use canon raw to do whatever I need to do to the image, convert & save to jpeg, then I use photoshop to adjust, add borders, re-size etc.

geoff

[Black Pearl]

In general processing in ACR is none destructive, in that anything you do can be un-done or adjusted again with no affect on any other settings or the image quality.

 

Once you've processed the file and imported into the programme proper anything you do can't easily be un-done and should you save the file and go back to it you're working on something with many variables set in place meaning adjustments will be destructive - detrimental to the pixel level quality in other words. 

 

You can open a RAW file in ACR - fiddle with it - fiddle a bit more - save it (all you're doing is saving a sidecar file with hypothetical adjustments noted) open it again - reset everything or fiddle some more. If you save the file as a Jpeg/Tiff/PSD or open it into Photoshop proper you then have a set in place parameters but the original RAW is still in its native, naked, beautiful form meaning you can go back and....fiddle some more.

[geodar]

a lot of fiddling going on there.

geoff

[Paul]

Lightroom to adjust, and crop, and then in PS I use levels and curves, contrast and sharpen and noise reduction if required.

 

You could also try Capture One - another very good RAW editor. Version 7 out now.

 

It may be possible to get version 6 free HERE if this coupon page still works.

 

 

Paul.

[Korky]

Additional thanks for the additional comments - very useful.

 

Lightroom and PSE sounds like a combo worth investigating.

 

 

Korky

[Phil]

Lightroom and PSE sounds like a combo worth investigating.

 

Hmmm. Why?

 

Lightroom has the same editing properties as ACR, and PSE is a CS wanna be. You already have the tools at your disposal so why would you change?

 

I'm happy for anyone to disagree.  

[Black Pearl]

My two typical work flows:

 

1. Colour

 

Import images into my Lightroom catalogue for filing, sorting and chimping.

Adjust some or all of these - crop/WB/exposure/highlights/shadows/black/clarity/noise reduction/vignette/sharpening - in other words everything that is needed to get the image looking the way I want. I export the shot into Photoshop to add my border, resize and save as a jpeg for posting online as to be honest its easier as I have a few pre-sets programmed in.

 

2. Monochrome

 

Import images into my Lightroom catalogue for filing, sorting and chimping.

Adjust crop, exposure if needed then export into Photoshop as I prefer the way Nik Silver Efex Pro works as a plug-in. I then save the image as a PSD so I've a full sized version before hitting one of the presets for a web image.

 

It is very, very rare that I have to use Photoshop to adjust an image in any way as by that stage any process will be destructive plus the tools available in LR are better, faster and if I have a series of similar shots I an copy/paste the adjustments to them all in seconds then tweak individual ones if needed. 

[ChrisLumix]

Hmmm. Why?

 

Lightroom has the same editing properties as ACR, and PSE is a CS wanna be. You already have the tools at your disposal so why would you change?

 

I'm happy for anyone to disagree.

 

I'd disagree purely with that assessments of PSE. It is, after all, a cut-down version of Photoshop, and therefore cannot be defined as a "wannabe". I do use PSE6 and CS2 - there are some sophisticated tools in Photoshop that simply aren't in Elements, but PSE6 is laid out better than CS2 and there are one or two things in there that CS2 doesn't have.

[Phil]

IIRC Korky is using CS6 which is miles away from CS2.

[ChrisLumix]

IIRC Korky is using CS6 which is miles away from CS2.

 

Is it? I don't know much about it - I do know that Photoshop 9 (CS2) is not a million miles away from Photoshop 7, which I also used to have. I haven't followed what the later versions offer as I can't afford them.

[Korky]

I had an 'extended trial' of CS6, until it decided the 'trial' period had ended. I then had to go back to CS4 which didn't like the latest Adobe Camera RAW. So...

 

I found Elements 11 on Amazon for £32.99 - bargain! I bought it and three weeks later Adobe released Elements 12 and gave me a free upgrade. Thanks Adobe!

 

So that's why I now use PSE 12. The only let-down for me was its lack of curves, but some clever sod has developed a workaround for that so I now have curves as well.

 

Yes it's a cut-down Photoshop, yes it's aimed at tweakers and scrapbookers, but it's still very powerful for the serious hobbyist photographer and for £32.99 I'm VERY happy with it.

 

I'm going to have a play with Lightroom, though.

 

Korky

[Guest DaveW]

Adobe's photo processing trio aren't strictly logical. Elements in fact has better image manipulation facilities than the more expensive Lightroom and so does Photoshop. You would think that their functions would gradually increase as they step up in price with Lightroom being simply Elements Plus and Photoshop being Lightroom  Plus, but they aren't. In fact Adobe recommend using either Photoshop or Elements to provide the image manipulation functions Lightroom lacks. One of Adobe's usual ways to get you to spend more by buying two programs instead of the only one you should need. To quote from the following link:-

 

"Lightroom is an excellent choice for those who need to manage their images. Its image processing functions form a solid base for adjustments too. If those are insufficient, Lightroom integrates well with other products. For those who use another DAM solution or frequently work on other people's files, the built-in management quickly becomes an annoyance since images have to be imported to be operated on. Of course, a scratch catalogue can be dedicated for such cases but that is far from ideal.

 

Everything beyond basic photo processing requires Elements or Photoshop. Both are extremely capable image manipulation tools. Yet, at 7X the price of Elements, Photoshop CS5 requires quite some justification. One may find that justification for very precise control over manipulation tools, colour management and brushes. Without such needs, Elements not only holds it own but provides compelling features that even get the job done faster in some cases."

 

http://www.neocamera.com/article/photoshop-versions

 

As far as I am aware the latest Adobe Camera RAW plug-in you download for Elements is exactly the same as the one for Photoshop and obviously that in Lightroom more or less mirrors it too. A quote from the following link:-

 

"All of the above Lightroom image editing capabilities are automatically included in Adobe Camera RAW, which fires up when a RAW image is opened from Photoshop. While it looks a little different than Lightroom, every single function is mirrored in Camera RAW. When Adobe releases updates to Lightroom, it also releases updates to Camera RAW at the same time, so even small things like Lens Profiles get refreshed in both."

 

http://photographylife.com/photoshop-vs-lightroom
 

"The full name for Lightroom is “Adobe Photoshop Lighroom”, which may sound confusing, because it contains the word “Photoshop”. In a way, it makes sense, because Lightroom can be considered a subset of Photoshop with specific functionality that Photoshop does not and probably will never have. It was created for the main purpose of managing a large number of images, keeping them organized in one place."

 

Edited October 2, 2013 by DaveW

[Black Pearl]

People often spend more buying Lightroom or Photoshop rather than Elements because they think it makes them appear more professional, but unless you use any of the features Lightroom or Photoshop has that Elements does not you are simply wasting your money and cluttering your hard disk up with excessive sized programs.

 

 

 

Really?

 

How about a professional studio photographer who uses Lightroom to remotely control their camera, directly import the images and have the results immediately available - then- be able to easily paste corrections onto a series of subsequent images before quickly exporting at a specific size, a specific format and to a specific destination for a client. 

 

How about a professional portrait photographer who can - in virtual real time - display to the client the shot as it has been taken and what 'looks' can be achieved via user specific pre-sets? 

 

How about a professional wedding photographer who might shoot 5000 photographs with multiple cameras who can then sync them via the EXIF time stamp, match the processing between bodies, apply pre-sets that are their style (one of the main reasons a couple to be will pick a particular photographer or studio) in seconds then tweak multiple shots in groups to save time....which is money remember?

 

How about a professional photographer who at an event where time is critical can in a matter of seconds import, chimp, process, export and supply anything from one to thousands of images with little or no manual input.

 

How about a professional photographer who uses multiple computers but because they store their images on an external drive within a LR library they are able to work on them regardless of where they are with all their cataloguing and processing in tact?

 

I could go on and on and on but I think we can see that there are more reasons why a professional photographer might choose Lightroom over PSE.

I may not be a professional but I have done many of the above and would never go back to the minimal options ACR gives.

[Korky]

Dave

 

Two months go I wouldn't have agreed with you - but after using Elements now for 6 weeks (I got the trial version first) I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Elements serves my purposes perfectly - I use it daily and I haven't once needed to revert to CS4.

 

I've just read BP's post and I should add my requirements are NOT of the pro variety!

 

Korky

Edited October 3, 2013 by Korky

[ChrisLumix]

Lightroom and Photoshop are essentially two different kinds of program.

 

Photoshop evolved as a photo manipulator but grew into an overall graphics program - you can create images there, plus text, without any photographic image to start with. As a result, it is layer based and its ability to make selections is a logical inherent aspect of what it does. Photographs are only part of what Photoshop is about.

 

Lightroom, on the other hand, is specifically for photographers, in terms of organising, making adjustments such as you would have been able to do in a traditional darkroom. Therefore layer-based processing simply isn't relevant to what it offers. If you want to manipulate one of your images beyond the 'normal photographic', you would use Photoshop or Elements. 

 

Lightroom is Adobe's version of Apple's Aperture, which is simply iPhoto but all grown up. You could also think of Lightroom as the serious photographer's Picasa. But all of these are a relatively new kind of "photographer's program" which fulfilled a basic need which Photoshop had long outgrown, having begun in the days before digital cameras were in widespread use, and before hard drives became large enough to store all the digital photographs we now take for granted. Photoshop was never the sort of program to meet the basic organising and image tweaking needs of most photographers.

[Guest DaveW]

I thought we were talking about Forumites BP? The vast majority are not professional photographers, or even earning a fraction, let alone substantial portion of their income from photography.

 

OK if you can put Photoshop down as a business expense, but I doubt many amateurs can justify Photoshop for the small amount of use they make of any tools not in Elements, even if they knew how to properly use them anyway. I realise even Elements is far more versatile than I know how to use all it's features. Unless you are dealing with hundreds of photos regularly, even the extra cost of Lightroom over Elements can be hard to logically justify, though many do merely on account that they want it since most of their mates have it.

 

As said, Lightroom does not even contain all the manipulative abilities of Elements it's cheaper relation. And many claim you need either Elements or Photoshop to put back those Elements functions that ought to be in Lightroom, but Adobe deliberately misses out to get you to buy both:-

 

http://www.texaschicksblogsandpics.com/using-lightroom-and-photoshop-elements-together/

 

http://blogs.computerworld.com/17577/digital_photography_buffs_do_you_need_adobe_lightroom

 

I think what many amateurs need to ask themselves is why they have so many more digital photo's to process than they ever had in their film days when wasted shots cost money?  Therefore they made each shot count in those days rather than blasting away like a machine gun in digital and then saving dozens of virtually similar shots on their computers. Shots that probably did not need taking, or should have been deleted at the taking stage, since once they get on computer they are seldom ever removed.

 

In the early days of large format photography a competent photographer would go out with a dozen plates for the day and make every one count. How many of us now can go out for the day, take only 12 digital shots and every one be different and a certain keeper? Certainly I can't, but I try not to simply wear the camera out by taking dozens of repetitive shots of the same subject in the hopes one will be useable.  

 

Plus it's how critical you are and whether you delete anything substandard in-camera before it ever reaches the computer or post processing that improves your photography.  As they say "it's the ones John West rejects that makes John West the best", so should you even be loading 20 or 30 shots onto a computer after a session, let alone hundreds for storage and post processing?

 

In film days I remember reading the comment by a professional photographer in a photo magazine on his film usage. He said "I could take what the client wanted in half a dozen shots, but they don't think they have booked a professional photographer unless they are knee deep in Kodachrome's to choose from, but they usually pick the half dozen I intended in the end." Quantity does not mean quality, it simply means you did not take enough time considering each shot.

 

How many outstanding shots do we ever take in our lifetimes really worth keeping or spending time on processing them, 40-50 at most, or what? I would think the professionals must junk or never use about 70%-80% of what they take anyway?

 

Many amateurs take in-camera JPEG's anyway, so seldom do any in depth processing, but still buy Lightroom, or even Photoshop because everybody tells them that's what "real photographers" need.

[ChrisLumix]

Dave, we overlapped. Would you have a look back at my post? Thanks!