Lightroom disaster/workflow

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I an looking for an alternative to PS since the advent of CC. My needs are something for Leica DNG and Nikon NEF (raw Nikon).

 

The M9 came with LR which I finally got installed and registered with Adobe with great effort. When you register a download from Leica it does not register at Adobe therefore no upgrades are possible and you can not move it to a new computer. You can manually register if you save the serial and are registered with Adobe. That is another whole painful story.

 

This whole library is a foreign concept . I do not want LR to own the images. I want them in the pictures folder where I have been operating for 5+ years now. It is a perfectly tuned system for me with sub folders fro raw, PS, softproof, resized pictures, etc.

 

Somehow all the raw files ended up in LR, 5 years worth. Made a real mess. I asked how to get them out and was told delete the .ics folder or whatever the LR library was called. It worked.

 

Now the problem is all the raw files are missing from my pictures sub folders. Every last one gone. Thank God for time machine and I am recovering them. This is a painful process.

 

What my goal is to use LR for processing raw and then return the raw files to the proper folders in the picture hierarchy where I can pick what needs to go to photoshop. I do not want to return them all as TIFF as many probably will never see the light of day again. I do not want to build a big library for LR.

I wish to soft proof in photoshop RGB where I have actions set to call out proper profiles and various other functions. I have this almost automated and my commercial printer gets me perfect prints as long as I do my job . Soft proof in LR is a pain and not as accurate and simply does not have the full controls.

 

I realize I am bucking the design of LR, but this is Adobe`s fault with their money grubbing CC software rental program. BTW they sent a 6x9" post card advertising a half price sale for CC. They must be losing customers right and left. What did they expect when they doubled the price and require you to sign up for the rest of your life installments.

 

I am thinking capture one but have yet to try it. Also I have created an Adobe profile editor profile for the M8 and the colors a beautiful. Not what somebody in Germany wants to reinterpret them as. Took me months of work with the M8 trying to get this organized and I do not want to lose it. The M8 has but 7000 clicks and is too young for a rest home.

 

What would be the proper workflow??

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[}{B]

I was under the impression that Lightroom never imported the original RAW files which remain in whatever folder in whatever drive was allocated to them. The original RAW files are never altered by Lightroom, at least that is my understanding. Instead Lightroom creates a 'ghost version' to which all adjustments are applied.

 

As for the folders issue I set up and name them in my computer's hard drive then download the photos to them and then import the folders into Lightroom. That way the original folder structure is on my hard drive and Lightroom only mirrors it. After that Lightroom 4 recognizes which photos in the folder you point it to it has not downloaded before and puts them up on screen for you to choose to import or not.

 

Lightroom can do many things that I have not even tried out and a good reference book to guide you through the process and possibilities is 'The Adobe Photoshop LIghtroom Book' by Martin English.

[250swb]

Tobey, I hate Lightroom for the same reasons as you, I like to know where my folders are and organise them how I want. So I tend not to use it, but just a thought, if you use Adobe Bridge (which I do for CS6) surely you can open your files directly from your folders and into Lightroom from there?

 

Steve

[Jeff S]

'The Adobe Photoshop LIghtroom Book' by Martin English.

 

Martin Evening.

 

Jeff

[}{B]

Martin Evening.

 

Jeff

 

Yes you are right. Memory must be going.

 

It pays to learn a little about how Lightroom works as it can seem very complicated at first. I've found his books on the first two versions of Lightroom very useful.

[Jeff S]

What would be the proper workflow??

 

No such thing as 'proper'...more like 'preferred.'

 

Toward that end, I agree with the suggestion to get Evening's book (or Kelby's) to understand the many options available in LR to organize files. More ways than you probably have considered. Evening discusses his own journey in this regard.

 

Jeff

[leica dream]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I too could not get along with LR so have stayed with PS.

I do have Martin Evening's book about CS5 and it is excellent.

Richard

[otto.f]

I'm with Steve here in post #3. Since I started digital with an M8 CaptureOne has been my most used RAW-converter, especially for colour. Jamie Roberts delivered a perfect colorprofile for the M8 in CaptureOne, which I still use now and then.

For quick search and judgments I use Adobe Bridge, because CaptureOne is slow in that respect. Since my M9 I own LR but I use it less and less. For my Monochrom I preferred CS6 above LR, until CaptureOne updated to Monochrom files. So now I use C1 mostly for M9 and MM, combined with CS6 for some final details and printing. The printing logistics: framing, layout, etc. in CaptureOne are bothersome.

[nggalai]

I was under the impression that Lightroom never imported the original RAW files which remain in whatever folder in whatever drive was allocated to them. The original RAW files are never altered by Lightroom, at least that is my understanding. Instead Lightroom creates a 'ghost version' to which all adjustments are applied.

 

Apart from “Copy”, there’s also “Move” and “Copy as DNG” available during import. I don’t know what a default Lightroom installation, well, defaults to (has been a while), but chose “Move” and your original files in their original place will be gone. As said, I don’t remember the default settings, but it’s possible that, when importing from mass storage rather than a memory card, Lightroom choses “move” with a first installation.

 

Tobey,

 

Lightroom, first and foremost, is a workflow tool: it’s supposed to streamline what used to take a couple of different tools, and offer it in one application: from image ingestion to RAW development, basic editing, to printing and publishing. More and more functionality was added over the years, now also including photo books, GPS management, closer integration with online services such as flickr, and so on.

 

This approach works well for people who like “integrated” applications. But it breaks as soon as you try to circumvent the central Lightroom module: The library. You can use other geotagging apps alongside (just remember to re-import metadata), other gallery uploaders and book software (just remember to export with appropriate settings), you can use plug-ins to open RAW data in other developers (just remember edits won’t show up inside Lightroom), but you can’t get around using the library module. Lightroom’s Library is the central hub for how Lightroom works.

 

So if you don’t like Lightroom’s library, or media management systems in general, Lightroom’s not for you. Photoshop Elements is supposed to be “standalone”, without CC, so that might be an option if you don’t like the full Photoshop’s CC direction, but are used to Adobe Camera RAW.

 

Then, there’s other RAW developers and photo editors. Personally, I prefer Capture One with Leica files; but there’s also Photo Ninja, Photoline (similar to Photoshop; PC/MAC), RAWTherapee (OpenSource), GIMP (OpenSource), Phocus (by Hasselblad; Freeware but not all options work with non-Hassy files) and probably a dozen others that don’t necessarily rely on a library / asset management system.

 

Cheers,

-Sascha

[spylaw4]

Never had any problem with LR and file structure from the word "go". Set up on hard disc and reflected in LR, one can access them directly on the hard disc. Import as copy not move and make a 2nd copy to wherever you want a backup located. You can rename them to your desire on import as well.

[mark_j]

What you need to do is to "Add" the files to the LR catalog on import and not use the "Move" or "Copy" options. The files are not moved and remain in your existing file structure. Any changes you make to the DNG or NEF files are recorded as metadata (which can be stored in separate xmp files or in the catalog file) and no change is made to the RAW file. You can then edit these files in PS directly from LR and when you are done LR will save a separate TIF file in your existing file structure keeping the RAW file intact and unchanged.

 

However as you are so angry with Adobe you may be better off finding another solution.

[250swb]

What you need to do is to "Add" the files to the LR catalog on import and not use the "Move" or "Copy" options. The files are not moved and remain in your existing file structure. Any changes you make to the DNG or NEF files are recorded as metadata (which can be stored in separate xmp files or in the catalog file) and no change is made to the RAW file. You can then edit these files in PS directly from LR and when you are done LR will save a separate TIF file in your existing file structure keeping the RAW file intact and unchanged.

 

No disrespect but it is exactly all that bollocks that makes Lightroom such a pain. Gone are the days when you simply had a file on your hard drive that you could go straight to and open, edit, and save it to where you want it saved, without wondering what other 'streamlining' operations were being done in the background to 'help'. It should be stressed that no changes are made to any RAW file in any RAW processing engine, so I fail to see why Lightroom is highlighted as something unique? Anybody who uses Photoshop knows where their files are, they know what they want to do with them, they know where they want them saved. Lightroom is for people who once the moment has passed, like sports photographers or other high output users, want to move on ASAP to the next thing, and the automated turnover becomes useful. All it does for other photographers is boost their short attention span, in, out, forget about it, done.

 

Steve

[chrism]

All it does for other photographers is boost their short attention span, in, out, forget about it, done.

 

Steve

 

You know, I could argue with a longer attention span any photographer could actually understand the way LR stores files! For me, I have it set so that the files are in the folders I put them into, and it references them. All changes are in the LR catalog only. I have Aperture set up the same way, referencing the same files in the same folders. That way I can use either and have just one copy of the DNG, which remains unchanged (yes, there are backups).

 

Chris

[kdriceman]

No disrespect but it is exactly all that bollocks that makes Lightroom such a pain. Gone are the days when you simply had a file on your hard drive that you could go straight to and open, edit, and save it to where you want it saved, without wondering what other 'streamlining' operations were being done in the background to 'help'. It should be stressed that no changes are made to any RAW file in any RAW processing engine, so I fail to see why Lightroom is highlighted as something unique? Anybody who uses Photoshop knows where their files are, they know what they want to do with them, they know where they want them saved. Lightroom is for people who once the moment has passed, like sports photographers or other high output users, want to move on ASAP to the next thing, and the automated turnover becomes useful. All it does for other photographers is boost their short attention span, in, out, forget about it, done.

 

Steve

Not really Steve. I use LR extensively and my file is right where I import it (which is where I tell LR to put it) . I can access it from LR, from PS or directly from the hard drive with any other program I want. The file just sits there on the hard drive waiting for some program, any program to open it. When I choose to use LR it provides an interface that allows me to easily see, edit, manage and organize one or multiple photos. It also allows me to send the image (with or without LR edits) to PS, Nik or other editing programs using a right click menu and when I'm done with that edit it will - if I want - send it right back to the LR catalog as a new tiff file - OR - I can save it independent of LR. The problem with LR isn't LR, it is that people just jump into it without learning how it works... then end up frustrated that it didn't do what they wanted it to do.

[euston]

Like the OP and others in this thread I had developed over many years a file structure that suited me. It worked fine with Photoshop/ACR but, try as I might, I couldn't get Lightroom to work my way. The fault was mine. Even after reading Martin Evening's book, I couldn't see how to do it. In fact, it is perfectly straightforward once you make the breakthrough in understanding that Lightroom's library/file management system requires. I'm now using Lightroom 5 and I'm still using the file structure to which I'm accustomed.

 

The catalyst to understanding for me was spending time in Adobe TV, in particular with the tutorials of Julieanne Kost at Getting Started with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 | Adobe TV

 

I recommend having a look at some of these videos - watching them more than once if necessary - before you turn to Martin Evening's Lightroom 5 book which, by the way, you can also get for Kindle.

[250swb]

Like the OP and others in this thread I had developed over many years a file structure that suited me. It worked fine with Photoshop/ACR but, try as I might, I couldn't get Lightroom to work my way. The fault was mine. Even after reading Martin Evening's book, I couldn't see how to do it. In fact, it is perfectly straightforward once you make the breakthrough in understanding that Lightroom's library/file management system requires. I'm now using Lightroom 5 and I'm still using the file structure to which I'm accustomed.

 

The catalyst to understanding for me was spending time in Adobe TV, in particular with the tutorials of Julieanne Kost at Getting Started with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 | Adobe TV

 

I recommend having a look at some of these videos - watching them more than once if necessary - before you turn to Martin Evening's Lightroom 5 book which, by the way, you can also get for Kindle.

 

 

Can't you just tell us? Short and sharp!

 

Steve

[euston]

Can't you just tell us? Short and sharp!

 

Steve

 

Well, the breakthrough for me was finally grasping that you can export an image in any format to any folder on your hard disk, so there's nothing to stop you using the same folder structure that you've always used. This applies to the undeveloped DNG file as well as any derivatives that you prepare. That's it in a nutshell. Whatever it is that is preventing you from getting LR to work your way may be something different but that simple realisation was what unblocked things for me.

 

Do take a look at Ms Kost's online videos. It really is time well spent. Time you spend in her tutorials you'll save many times over by being able to create presets to automate the export and other processes.

[mark_j]

No disrespect but it is exactly all that bollocks that makes Lightroom such a pain. Gone are the days when you simply had a file on your hard drive that you could go straight to and open, edit, and save it to where you want it saved, without wondering what other 'streamlining' operations were being done in the background to 'help'. It should be stressed that no changes are made to any RAW file in any RAW processing engine, so I fail to see why Lightroom is highlighted as something unique? Anybody who uses Photoshop knows where their files are, they know what they want to do with them, they know where they want them saved. Lightroom is for people who once the moment has passed, like sports photographers or other high output users, want to move on ASAP to the next thing, and the automated turnover becomes useful. All it does for other photographers is boost their short attention span, in, out, forget about it, done.

 

Steve

 

Am not sure which part of LR is bollocks (or maybe it was my explanation) but in my experience you can get it to do as much or as little file management as you want. I know exactly where all my files are and if LR vanished from my computer tomorrow I would still have everything I need to carry on.

 

I think people sometimes don't understand the difference between LR and PS. LR is a database management tool with a RAW processor (same as ACR) and some simple pixel editing tools. PS (once you have been through ACR) is a very sophisticated pixel editor. If you don't need the database management (or find the LR catalog implementation too complex) then Bridge/PS is the simpler way to go.

 

For me LR is ideal, it suits my OCD and short attention span perfectly.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[IkarusJohn]

What he said

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Jeff S]

I think people sometimes don't understand the difference between LR and PS. LR is a database management tool with a RAW processor (same as ACR) and some simple pixel editing tools.

 

I think you understate the capability of the current LR version as an editing tool. While I still have PS on my system, my need to use it has become increasingly rare. LR file management is important, but wouldn't mean much to me if the editing tools hadn't made such dramatic improvements over the last 4 or 5 years. And with minimal additional cost.

 

Jeff