Jump to content

Lightroom 2 versus Photoshop


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In short. I had long time quite common workflow:

 

1. Had Year / Month / Shoot-name subdirectories on the HDD

2. copied all images from SD card to new subdir, renamed it properly

3. deleted all bad ones

4. post-processed some in PS

5. uploaded to Flickr, forums, printed, etc...

6. had backup from everything, using backup server and SyncToy 2.0

 

Last month I started to use Adobe LR 2.6. Now Adome organises photos on the HDD. All what I have to odo is enter correct metadata and keywords in early stages. Later I can find everything very fast, filtered by keywords.

 

Workflow now

 

1. LR imports images from SD directly to Pictures / Year / Date subfolder

2. I add metadata and keywords

3. Post-processing in most cases only in LR Develop module

4. In some cases I create virtual copies, based on the same original images. All modified artistic versions are in the same set.

 

 

But main thing is -- in most cases I don't use PS practically no more. All post processing can be done in LR 2.6 due to selective area effects, spot healing and gradient tool. Not talking about general development tools. Great tool!

 

Jaak

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaak, of course you should always back up using LR, too.

 

And, nice that you can always easily jump to PS from LR if the image demands, although as you say, this is usually unnecessary.

 

I'm looking forward to LR 3 based on reported use of the beta version. Sounds like conversions might better compare to Capture One, which many on forum deem superior.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaak, of course you should always back up using LR, too.

 

Indeed!

 

LR uses a rather insidious terminology: in the setup one can (should) choose e.g. backup at every startup, and soon there´s a reassuring set of date-marked "Backups" in a special folder... Excellent!

 

The BIG gotcha is: these are only backups of your catalogue, complete with metadata and developer settings; very important to secure.

 

BUT: the image files themselves are NOT part of this backup procedure. To back them up as well remains your own responsibility altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaak,

 

You have the same experience I have with lightroom.

 

Honestly the tool I miss the most is the dodge/burn from photoshop.

 

.

 

I agree, that dodge/burn is much more flexible in PS, but in LR2 I use Adjustment Brush tool with exposure plus and minus instead. And other thing, in LR You got Auto Mask. Extremely handy masking tool to bring main subject out from random background.

 

Jaak

Edited by jackart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Per,

 

I have to admit I have not done a backup in Lightroom, instead I do a daily time-machine backup and figure this have the same effect.

 

two years ago I had a PC laptop, the laptop were my first lightroom installation, and the incredible easy of transferring catalogs and a complete setup to my Mac, is really the main reason I have committed entirely to LR. I was interested in Aperture but concerned about the future, I feel confident Adobe will continue to support this for a while.

 

Jaak, I have not really figured out the masking in light-room yet, am thinking a LR class might be in order for me. ha ha. the dodge feature I really miss is the "dodge highlights" giving me the ability to work on selected high-light, mid tone or shadow, I feel this is a brilliant photoshop feature which should be in LR. I use photoshop for a living everyday anyway, so it is not like I am trying to get rid of photoshop...

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My post should have more clearly said that it's important to back when using LR, not in LR. In other words, one should back up regardless of software used.

 

It seemed as if the OP stopped backing up after his switch to LR. But, maybe I interpreted his post incorrectly.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my two cents worth.

 

Perhaps I see things a bit differently. I like Lightroom, basically as a sophisticated contact sheet. Its the best way to find images from past years, records details such as meta/EXIF data and performs basic adjustments, and of course it is a superb editing tool. But where I may differ is that I always finish my images in Photoshop. Aside from the previously mentioned dodge and burn tools, I use Photoshop's layers, 3rd party filters and other tools which are either not available in Lightroom or do not work as well.

 

I do not use Photoshop for special effects such as either adding or subtracting parts of images, etc. I just see it as the darkroom of the 21st century. Where as photographers in film darkrooms were restricted to contrast, intensity and dodging/burning (at least in black and white) to enhance their images, we now have additional tools at our disposal and I think we should make use of them. On the other hand, nothing can make a mediocre image better and no amount of digital wizardry will change this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed! LR will never replace such complicated swiss knife as PS. WhaI discovered, that 75-90% of my post-processing needs are covered with new LR selective adjustment tool :) I reaaly like nondestructive approach.

 

Jaak

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no substitute for Photoshop. The adjustment brush is a fine toy, but very easy to see it's handywork in the frame. By & large, it takes me less time to make my changes in Photoshop that it does in the new Beta. Also, the range of choices is narrow, very narrow. For throwaway snaps, quick & dirty, that's fine. It's not a very fine tool for processing, but does all the heavy lifting as a CMS. I certainly hope Adobe merges these programs into a modular, coherent system for imaging, with a common interface.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaak, the two programmes are complementary to each other. LR can perform valuable cataloging functions not available in PS and vice versa. I do most of my work in LR, back up my files daily to an external HD and use PS for fine finishing or layers work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be in the very small minority who finds Bridge more than sufficient for tagging and appending metadata and very well integrated with Photoshop in CS4. I've tried LR a couple of different times and felt that it didn't add much to improve my workflow and that many of my most used features are already part of Bridge which comes with Photoshop.

 

My observation is that most that own LR also own PS. However, unless you have a very large, commercial, or complex catalogue system...the newst versions of Bridge probably provide most non-pros with the vast majority of the functionality they need without the additional expense of purchasing LR.

 

Just my two cents. Curious if anyone else shares a similar opinion and uses the Bridge + PS option as their primary workflow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm puzzled by those who say they now print exclusively from LR. If you're one of them, how do you soft-proof? I switch to PS for that and for printing.

 

And SilverEfex Pro runs so slow in my LR that it's unusable. In PS it's very fast. Anyone else have this issue?

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would avoid any software depended archive method because photos shoold be findable also in - maybe - hundred years.

 

I save all selected images in a folder named first by date event, names and location e.g.

 

20100113 Portrait Max Mayer at home Vienna Austria

 

Below this folder I make simply a folder named "processed". In this folder I copy all pictures for post processing and so I always have the original photos.

 

These archive I save regularly on two external USB-Harddisks.

 

In my experience I always have an idea when I took what photos and also can find them with simple search function of the operating system of the computer (any computer).

 

I dont think that it is a good idea to stick on a special application for such a simple task like archiving. I do this in this way since 10 years and have found every picture with this simple system. I have used a lot of different programs for photo editing in these years and it would be horrible for me if I would have to migrate also my pictures every time to the new application.

 

Only my personal experience and opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fewe,

 

Im with you on the folder naming convention, I do use Lightroom and do love it, but have been naming and organizing images like you in named folders since around 1994ish and can still find those.. soo.

 

Lightroom import to just a date folder, so I rename and add the description once imported.

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fewe, I agree with You in that. Universal search must be there after Adobe, as metadata is not written in the RAW files, but in the Adobe catalogue database.

 

Tip for LR users. As LR organizes files into subfolders Year / Date, there is possible to give set name to files during the import. Choose Custom + sequence number and fill in the same info. Windows Vista and 7 indexes everything and simple find over disks is easy with flying colors if main keywords are in the filename.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fewe,

 

Im with you on the folder naming convention, I do use Lightroom and do love it, but have been naming and organizing images like you in named folders since around 1994ish and can still find those.. soo.

 

Lightroom import to just a date folder, so I rename and add the description once imported.

 

.

 

On import, you can make LR imort to any folder you like and on import give the folder any name you desire. Unfortunately, it can't split the import over several folders if you chose custom (named) folder instead of dates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the word 'work' in workflow that is the context of LR. Its is for people who are processing and organising a pile of images, or people who find this tiresome, or people who want to spend the shortest time working with an image.

 

For photographers who can remember the pleasure of the darkroom, working with different papers, or developers, or enlargers, or toners, then Photoshop is the equivalent. I like to work with Curves, Layers, Masks, and filters, not for special effects (which is what some people imagine PS is for), but because it gives full control in resolving how the image was seen (pre-visualised), and how it is eventually printed. LR is a great tool, but I think you really need to decide if you are so amazingly busy or prone to processitis (the fear of processing) that it would be impossible to spend just a little time in ekeing out that last little bit of quality from an image by using PS.

 

Of course the ideal is to use both.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

....

For photographers who can remember the pleasure of the darkroom.....

 

To confuse matters....:p

 

As for emulating those good old wet darkroom ways, esp. the Zone System, nothing beats Light Zone! It is quite different from Photoshop, but once you get the knack, you can do most anything.

 

Especially for B/W conversions, Light Zone has totally replaced Photoshop for me (library management and first edits are done in Lightroom).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...