Adobe Lightroom 4

[DiploStrat]

... coming a life of photoshop, the filing system is just killing me.

Snark! There is therapy for that! Seriously, as a long time iPhoto and now Aperture user, I love the non-destructive workflow. You will too, once you get used to the idea that YOU don't worry about keeping the same image in different file formats.

I was ready to just forget it but these shots have re inspired me to try and figure it out. Thanks for posting them. They sure make a good argument for shooting in RAW too.

I would argue that the results that you get from Lightroom (or Aperture) are no better than what you get from Photoshop, indeed, most of us keep a copy of Photoshop or some other pixel editor around for just that reason.

The second part of your quote is the reason to use Lightroom. Instead of:

Shoot>Browse>RAW convert to .PSD>Edit in Photoshop>Save in TIFF or JPEG

You can simply:

Shoot>Browse>Edit>Done

You never have to consciously "convert" your RAW to any other format - you simply work in one smooth process. And if you need copies to post or share, you make those copies in any format/resolution you wish. Because of the non-destructive workflow you never alter your original image file and can always revert to the original. And Lightroom makes this all possible by tracking all of the various files required without your ever needing to get involved.

You DO have to get used to the idea that your edits are not actually contained in the original files. Some folks can never get used to this.

All the best!

 

[Tucson T4R]

One little caveat to that "Shoot>Browse>Edit>Done" statement, at least for my workflow, once I am happy with the image processing I still go through exporting them to a JPG format before uploading to the web or sending off to a printer.

If I want to print locally then LR can certainly handle that directly from the RAW files without the need to covert to JPG. Most other uses will still drive that step.

 

[john101477]

Snark! There is therapy for that! Seriously, as a long time iPhoto and now Aperture user, I love the non-destructive workflow. You will too, once you get used to the idea that YOU don't worry about keeping the same image in different file formats.

I would argue that the results that you get from Lightroom (or Aperture) are no better than what you get from Photoshop, indeed, most of us keep a copy of Photoshop or some other pixel editor around for just that reason.

All the best!

For the most part this is correct unless you need the ability to use layers. I recently sat down with a NAPP instructor while he was editing some of his images. There are just so many things that PS can do that LR4 can"t. Does every photographer need both? no, but with the direction that photography is going and the need for a photographer to be more than just a photographer, it can be tricky to balance where you stand. Photographers are not just photographers any more so the need to have knowledge over both is a necessity. I love that LR is non destructive and that itself was easy to get used to but the best thing for me is to be able to go back to PS with a Lightroom Copy edit and then back to LR.

If they come out with a good working plug-in for smugmug I will be happy.

 

[DiploStrat]

One little caveat to that "Shoot>Browse>Edit>Done" statement, at least for my workflow, once I am happy with the image processing I still go through exporting them to a JPG format before uploading to the web or sending off to a printer.

If I want to print locally then LR can certainly handle that directly from the RAW files without the need to covert to JPG. Most other uses will still drive that step.

Again, a question of philosophy: I, too, make JPG to post on my website - but I don't keep them. I don't need to, the original image is safe in Aperture and I can always recreate it. If, in an extreme case, I needed a really odd crop or color balance, and I wanted to keep that, I would simply create a new Version (called in Lightroom, I believe, a "virtual copy") which only takes up a tiny bit of disk space. So any JPG that I create to burn a CD or post or send to someone are deleted as soon as they have served their purpose.

Ironically, since most (all?) printers run from JPG, Aperture and Lightroom actually create temporary print files to send to the printer, and delete them as soon as the print is done. The advantage is, that they are always creating this from the full master image, plus your adjustments, and you don't have to worry about filing them. (Yes, you could re-import them if you really wanted to, but why?)

Ben Long wrote an excellent article on this some years ago and liked these programs to negative libraries or vending machines - they hold the masters and can produce (and discard) any file you wish, whenever you wish.

Not everyone agrees, but I would never go back.

 

[DiploStrat]

For the most part this is correct unless you need the ability to use layers. I recently sat down with a NAPP instructor while he was editing some of his images. There are just so many things that PS can do that LR4 can"t. Does every photographer need both? no, but with the direction that photography is going and the need for a photographer to be more than just a photographer, it can be tricky to balance where you stand. Photographers are not just photographers any more so the need to have knowledge over both is a necessity. I love that LR is non destructive and that itself was easy to get used to but the best thing for me is to be able to go back to PS with a Lightroom Copy edit and then back to LR.

If they come out with a good working plug-in for smugmug I will be happy.

At the risk of being pedantic, did you actually READ what you quoted? You are simply making my point - there is nothing in Lightroom that Photoshop does not have, higher, wider, and deeper. My point, perhaps not made clear enough, is that you don't buy Lightroom simply for image processing power, Photoshop is much more powerful.

Except for image management, and that is why you use Lightroom or Aperture (especially Aperture), as opposed to say, Bridge or PhotoMechanic. My library is rather small, only about 11,000 images, but they date back to about 1950 and cover a half a dozen continents, thus, for me, retrieval and organization is more important than pure image processing. You can't process what you can't find. And, when needed, Aperture will automagically create me a PSD to send to Photoshop. But I only need that for one in a hundred images that need layers, or text, or other such work.

There is another, more philosophical question about the use of Photoshop at all. For graphic artists and some tasks like advertising and glamour, I would imagine that almost every image would be sent to Photoshop. Combat Camera, on the other hand, could not use it unless they described the image not as a "Photograph" but rather as something like a "Graphic Image." (Sorry, can't remember the exact term. Same issue comes up with journalism.

There is no doubt about it, Lightroom and Aperture are getting to be insanely powerful and for those of us who are not pros, there is less and less reason to pay for the full blown Photoshop.

 

[Tucson T4R]

Good point DS. Maybe I just have way too much available storage so I do keep both the RAW originals (also a back up copy on another drive) and the resulting JPG outputs in a sub folder. I get your point though. There is really no need to do that since you can regenerate them anytime you want.

I also agree on the typical use of Photoshop. Graphic artists live in that world but I only use it for about 5% of my work when needed. That 5% is also probably a good representation of how much I know about all the things that can be done in Photoshop. :elkgrin:

 

[DiploStrat]

Backups, etc., are another issue. I'm nuts, I run Time Machine, a clone every night, and use an online backup service for offsite. Can't be too careful. especially if you can't afford to go back.

Lightroom and Aperture demand a new way of thinking about digital images and the recognition that while they are computer files, they can be managed differently. Ben Long's old book, "Real World Aperture" (http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Aperture-Ben-Long/dp/0321441931) has one of the very best discussions of how Aperture is different (and the same as) the Finder (Explorer in Windows), a RAW converter, a file browser, a pixel editor, etc. This is a "must read" for anyone seriously considering the shift from a browser/RAW converter/editor (think PhotoMechanic/Capture NX/Photoshop) workflow to using Lightroom. Most of the people who have trouble with Lightroom are stumped because they demand that it do steps that are no longer needed. (You should see the digital blood on the carpet on the Apple Aperture forum!) Bit like shifting from a manual to an automatic transmission in a truck. You still need to understand the concepts, you just don't do things the same way and, if you insist on doing things the old way, yer gonna break something.

The funny thing is, that while one of the great advantages of Aperture and Lightroom is that they make it as easy to work with RAW as with JPEG, the concept of a protected Master file is even more powerful if you shoot JPEG. While nothing can change a RAW file, being the least bit careless with a JPEG can result in unwanted compression. With Lightroom and Aperture you are completely protected from this.

Beloved Spouse and I are hoping to start traveling out your way next year. Your images only make the wait that much harder.

 

[john101477]

At the risk of being pedantic, did you actually READ what you quoted? You are simply making my point - there is nothing in Lightroom that Photoshop does not have, higher, wider, and deeper. My point, perhaps not made clear enough, is that you don't buy Lightroom simply for image processing power, Photoshop is much more powerful.

Except for image management, and that is why you use Lightroom or Aperture (especially Aperture), as opposed to say, Bridge or PhotoMechanic. My library is rather small, only about 11,000 images, but they date back to about 1950 and cover a half a dozen continents, for me retrieval and organization is more important than pure image processing. You can't process what you can't find. And, when needed, Aperture will automagically create me a PSD to send to Photoshop. But I only need that for one in a hundred images that need layers, or text, or other such work.

There is another, more philosophical question about the use of Photoshop at all. For graphic artists and some tasks like advertising and glamour, I would imagine that almost every image would be sent to Photoshop. Combat Camera, on the other hand, could not use it unless they described the image not as a "Photograph" but rather as something like a "Graphic Image." (Sorry, can't remember the exact term. Same issue comes up with journalism.

There is no doubt about it, Lightroom and Aperture are getting to be insanely powerful and for those of us who are not pros, there is less and less reason to pay for the full blown Photoshop.

Sorry man I was reading your earlier post BASS ACKWARDS buddy, I was under the impression that you were saying that Lightroom can do anything photographically that PS can which is not right. I as well concure with the ability to use LR as an organization tool over say bridge (I am not an Apple guy so I dont know Aperture). There are several pluses to LR for speed but as your last post said, you can do everything in PS that LR can do and often times better.

The Term I think you are looking for is Digital Art, although some have not so nice names for it. Many magazines will not take altered images beyond the simple color corrections and crops such as Nat Geo. They want an image that is a represetation of what was really seen by the photographer Vs an image that was altered/created to be visually appealing. There are times when I wish I only had 11,000 images in the library even with a fairly decent organized system lol.

One of my favorite things in LR right now is not having to create a web sized version of each image I want to display. The ability to upload to FB with a simple click and drag is awesome.

 

[DiploStrat]

Don't worry, I had to reread my own post to be sure that I had said what I meant.

I have used Aperture since 2006 and was lucky enough to "get" the concept of non-destructive edition used by Aperture and Lightroom. The coincidence of RAW files/data bases/etc. can be quite daunting the first time around.

As far as organization goes, I have been amazed at how little most photographers use Aperture's really deep organizational skills. Indeed, the Aperture fora are full of wails from folks who just want a chronological filing system and can't understand that you don't need to set that up yourself as Aperture (and Lightroom) will ALWAYS let you do that at the push of a button.

It may well be that many pros actually have simpler needs as while their numbers of images may be higher, much of the organization is simply by client. But then I'm not a pro and fortunately don't have to worry about such things.

And, at the end of the day, what you do with the camera matters much more than what software you use.

 

[john101477]

As far as organization goes, I have been amazed at how little most photographers use Aperture's really deep organizational skills. Indeed, the Aperture fora are full of wails from folks who just want a chronological filing system and can't understand that you don't need to set that up yourself as Aperture (and Lightroom) will ALWAYS let you do that at the push of a button.

It may well be that many pros actually have simpler needs as while their numbers of images may be higher, much of the organization is simply by client. But then I'm not a pro and fortunately don't have to worry about such things.

I tend to have everything in a chronological order but have been tagging myimages with Key words a lot more so that If I am looking for something in particular like say a waterfall, I just type in waterfall and it all pops up.

And, at the end of the day, what you do with the camera matters much more than what software you use.

I agree for sure I just wish that photography was all about the camera and processing. I spend a rediculous amount of time marketing, which I am horrible at. Also when I started The Photographers Challenge on Fb, I never realized what kind of time it would eat up. It is part marketing and part helping/encouraging others to get out and learn photography but I have to devote time to it and be on top of things as best I can.