Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: wofsy on October 23, 2011, 04:09:13 pm
-
I would like to prepare a Raw file in Lightroom the export it into Photoshop where I will adjust it for making a color print. I think I have a good idea of the Lighroom steps but would like to know if I am missing anything.
The idea is to make a uniform histogram. For this the steps seem to be
- set profile to camera faithful
- set the point curve to linear
- set sharpening to zero
- adjust white balance
- find black and white points with Exposure and Blacks sliders
- adjust brightness with Brightness slider
- reduce contrast with Contrast slider
- reduce noise if necessary with Luminance slider
Will the brightness and contrast adjustments affect the color temperature? Can this be fixed later in Photoshop?
Are there missing steps?
-
The idea is to make a uniform histogram.
Uh, no actually...the idea is to optimize the image and make it look good.
If you don't do that in Lightroom you are leaving potential image quality on the table. Yes, set the end points, but you need to also optimize the tone curve which means using whatever global or local tools in Lightroom to get to the point. Then you indicate zero sharpening? Why would you do that? Lightroom sharpening works in combination with the noise reduction to allow you to get the best you can from the image. Yes, you can fiddle around in Photoshop later but again, that would be suboptimal.
The other thing I gotta ask is why you are going to Photoshop? Unless you need extensive retouching or are soft proofing, you should seriously consider doing everything in Lightroom including the printing. Even if you do open the image in Photoshop I would still suggest returning to Lightroom for the printing...
Based on your proposed workflow, why are you even using Lightroom if you don't want to do the majority of work in Lightroom? Seems like you would be better off using Bridge, Camera Raw and Photoshop.
-
In addition to Jeff's points, there's one other issue: There is no such thing as a uniform histogram. The histogram is a tool used to verify where your light and tonal levels are. As Julianne Kost puts it, a histogram is a display of "piles of pixels." If you have a high contrast image, your histogram will show a pile of pixels on the left and a pile of pixels on the right. Is this right? Is this wrong? The answer (or question) is, as Jeff says, '...does it look good?'. If you end up with a cool looking histogram but the image looks like $%*it, what good is it?
Back to the histogram indications: Pay attention to the left and right "walls" of the histogram. If you see these "piles of pixels" climbing up either, you've got problems in that you're underexposed to black (no detail) on the left, or overexposed (blown out) on the right. Fix those using Exposure and Recovery (for blowout) and Blacks & Fill Light for under exposure. In Develop, there are two clipping tools in the histogram display that you can access to help fix those issues. Hover over them to see your issues, or click on them to activate and show you what you're fixing as you fix it. When done, click on them to turn them off.
I use LR for 95% of image adjustments. Only when I have to swap heads, remove unwanted image elements or combine image elements (as a montage) do I port to PS for adjustments. A good practice is to only send uncropped, un-vignetted (full) images to Photoshop. You'll understand this once you send a cropped, vignetted image to PS and then wish you had the rest of the image to work with. And it sucks to start over.
Here's a tip to decide whether an image is "fixable." If blown out, run the exposure control all the way to the left. If you can see detail, you can work the image. If underexposed, run the exposure control to the right. If you see detail without too much noise, you can work that as well. If no details emerge, you certainly have considerable PS work ahead to "fix" the image. This is when it is good to select a better image.
-
My advice is similar to the others, do as much as you can in Lightroom and only use photoshop for things you cannot do in Lightroom. Currently the only reasons for me to export pictures to Photoshop are detailed cloning/healing and using the "Shadow/Highlight" command. I'm sure the latter can be closely emulated in Lightroom but I find the Photoshop command for that very simple and powerful. Other than that my total workflow is in Lightroom.
-
Jeff, why does Lightroon not have RGB separate level adjustment options to adjust if needed similar to C1? Or is there something I'm missing here...thanks Eleanor
Uh, no actually...the idea is to optimize the image and make it look good.
If you don't do that in Lightroom you are leaving potential image quality on the table. Yes, set the end points, but you need to also optimize the tone curve which means using whatever global or local tools in Lightroom to get to the point. Then you indicate zero sharpening? Why would you do that? Lightroom sharpening works in combination with the noise reduction to allow you to get the best you can from the image. Yes, you can fiddle around in Photoshop later but again, that would be suboptimal.
The other thing I gotta ask is why you are going to Photoshop? Unless you need extensive retouching or are soft proofing, you should seriously consider doing everything in Lightroom including the printing. Even if you do open the image in Photoshop I would still suggest returning to Lightroom for the printing...
Based on your proposed workflow, why are you even using Lightroom if you don't want to do the majority of work in Lightroom? Seems like you would be better off using Bridge, Camera Raw and Photoshop.
-
My advice is similar to the others, do as much as you can in Lightroom and only use photoshop for things you cannot do in Lightroom. Currently the only reasons for me to export pictures to Photoshop are detailed cloning/healing and using the "Shadow/Highlight" command. I'm sure the latter can be closely emulated in Lightroom but I find the Photoshop command for that very simple and powerful. Other than that my total workflow is in Lightroom.
Lee Varis the photographic author disagrees with this. In a recent book he stated that you should do little in ACR or Lightroom and most of your work in Photoshop. He recommends using the LAB space in Photoshop because you have access to more than one channel. :)
-
Opinions will differ but the idea of using LAB in PS has pretty much been tossed into the photo editing wastebin, hasn't it? I'm not sure why you'd, as a general process, give up the parametric, non-damaging editing options of LR or ACR in favour of pixel based editing.
-
Varis recommends using the raw processor for white balance, highlight recovery and noise reduction. All other adjustments occur after the de-mosaic algorithms have been applied so they should be done in Photoshop. No advantage in doing colour and tone adjustments in the Raw processor. Mastering Exposure and the Zone system. Lee Varis published 2011. He states the biggest disadvantage of Lightroom and ACR is that you have only one channel to work with unlike Photoshop which has two or three channels.
-
Varis recommends using the raw processor for white balance, highlight recovery and noise reduction. All other adjustments occur after the de-mosaic algorithms have been applied so they should be done in Photoshop. No advantage in doing colour and tone adjustments in the Raw processor. Mastering Exposure and the Zone system. Lee Varis published 2011. He states the biggest disadvantage of Lightroom and ACR is that you have only one channel to work with unlike Photoshop which has two or three channels.
If you change ~should~ to ~can~ be done in Photoshop, I would agree.
I can't imagine needing to do work on individual channels ... LR perfectly suits my needs as a photographer and I hardly ever use PS anymore.
-
I guess the question then becomes why is there a need for access to the various channels on a regular basis. It seems that there are a good number of books out there that advocate a more complex approach that really may not be necessary except in a few cases. Complexity for no other reason than complexity doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
-
I am all for technology progressing but what dismays me that when new ways of doing things come along not only is the previous ways of doing things discarded but some people then knock the previous ways of doing things. This isn't aimed at you Jeremy. It all depends on how far you want to go with your processing.
-
Whatever floats your boat. There's a large multitude of opinions on proper workflows as well as which pixel editors and/or raw converters are "best". I'm sure that PS can do things LR can't do but for me the question is if I need them often and hard enough to justify my investment in money and time using them.
Coming from a chemical darkroom I find LR "intuitive" with sliders doing stuff I tried but never truly masterd with developer composition & concentration, temperature, time, agitation, toning etc. and I get the results I'm happy with
By the time I go into Photoshop I find myself in a completely new world with digital manipulations that I cannot relate to as well.
This is very personal and pls. don't read it as that I'm advocating PS is bad or not needed, I'm just explaining why I like to do as much as possible in Lightroom and hardly use photoshop.
-
I am all for technology progressing but what dismays me that when new ways of doing things come along not only is the previous ways of doing things discarded but some people then knock the previous ways of doing things. This isn't aimed at you Jeremy. It all depends on how far you want to go with your processing.
I didn't "knock" anything ... and I think I speak for lots of people when I say that telling me I "should" be using Photoshop is a bit over the top.
I "should" be using the tool that does the job ... Lightroom "does the job" for me and lots of other people ... We "should" be using Lightroom.
-
Lee Varis the photographic author disagrees with this. In a recent book he stated that you should do little in ACR or Lightroom and most of your work in Photoshop. He recommends using the LAB space in Photoshop because you have access to more than one channel. :)
I like Lee and we've been friends for a long time but Lee is wrong for the vast majority of photo users. Lee is a Photoshop expert and does substantial image manipulations. All his final work HAS to go through Photoshop for compositing and retouching. He is very familiar with the tools that Photoshop has and perhaps less familiar with Lightroom or ACR.
Contrary to what Lee says, the vast majority of Lightroom users don't send everything over to Photoshop. That workflow would very quickly break down. Lightroom was designed to take over 80% of a photographer's image processing needs to provide a more efficient workflow. As a result, optimizing an image for tone, color and detail before resorting to Photoshop is the most efficient workflow and offer the best potential image quality.
Clearly, there's a lot of things Photoshop can do that Lightroom wasn't designed to do...layers, channels & paths are the power of Photoshop. But I suspect the vast majority of photographers don't need to use the vast majority of Photoshop all the time (as Lee would do).
I'm also not real sure about how accurate your characterization of what Lee thinks is...I'm pretty sure he doesn't think Lab is used simply because you have access to more channels. I'm pretty sure he uses Lab for those things that are unique to the way the color & luminance information is accessed and adjusted. Lab is just another 3 channels color file like RGB or CIE XYZ. And yes, accessing individual channels in Photoshop allows for some powerful image manipulation...how often do photographers need to do that?
Besides, LR & ACR both allow substantial discreet controls over tone and color and has the distinct advantage of doing so parametrically.
BTW, which book?
I think I'll give Lee a call and talk about it...
:~)
-
This is a very interesting thread to me. I have been considering trying out Lightroom as soon as I receive my new computer. Currently, I use Capture 1 for my raw processing and send the files to Photoshop for sharpening. Sometimes, this is the only thing I do in Photoshop. I use (and love) the methodology put forth in the Real World Image Sharpening book.
So, my question is this: Is it possible for me to switch to Lightroom and still enjoy the quality of sharpening I get using my Real World techniques?
I have never used Lightroom and understand that it does not incorporate layers etc, so forgive me for my ignorance in advance.
-
If nothing else, you can use Lightroom for everything up to the point of sharpening, then automagically send the image to PS, apply your sharpening, and return the sharpened image to Lightroom, without applying permanent changes to the original raw file.
-
This is a very interesting thread to me. I have been considering trying out Lightroom as soon as I receive my new computer. Currently, I use Capture 1 for my raw processing and send the files to Photoshop for sharpening. Sometimes, this is the only thing I do in Photoshop. I use (and love) the methodology put forth in the Real World Image Sharpening book.
So, my question is this: Is it possible for me to switch to Lightroom and still enjoy the quality of sharpening I get using my Real World techniques?
With regards to capture sharpening, I would rate LR's ability to capture sharpen to be slightly better than either PhotoKit Sharpener (which I am involved with) or Photoshop's. With regards to creative sharpening, no, Photoshop is still King. But when you are ready to print, I would suggest printing from LR and use LR's output sharpening–which is based on PhotoKit Sharpener's output sharpening.
In either case, I suggest using LR to do all your global and local adjustments to tone, color and detail in Lightroom before going to Photoshop. For me, I take back out of Photoshop and into LR for printing or other consumption...I hate having to spawn off too many iterations of the original. I use raw when possible but generally make an RGB master for retouching and soft proofing and keep the original raw and rendered TIFF from Photoshop in Lightroom.
-
Jeff, your last post raises a question that I've been wondering about.
Say I've got an image in LR, and I've applied sharpening in LR so that it looks "right" on the screen, to my eyes.
Now I print or export that image, and have the option in either to apply output sharpening. Is that applied on top of the sharpening I've already applied in LR? If I've got the image looking the way I want it in LR, and export to a JPEG for display purposes, why would I want to apply another round of sharpening? Is there any risk of ending up with an oversharpened image, either with export or printing, with this workflow?
Many thanks.
-
Now I print or export that image, and have the option in either to apply output sharpening. Is that applied on top of the sharpening I've already applied in LR? If I've got the image looking the way I want it in LR, and export to a JPEG for display purposes, why would I want to apply another round of sharpening? Is there any risk of ending up with an oversharpened image, either with export or printing, with this workflow?
Taking into consideration of a sharpening workflow first outlined by Bruce Fraser, yes, ACR/LR is built based on the workflow of multiple rounds of proper sharpening at various steps. When you get an image to "look good" in the development, that sharpening won't be optimal for printing. That's why the Print module also has sharpening intended to properly sharpen for print. Same deal if you are downsampling for the web, you'll need the correct sharpening for screen AFTER the downsampling.
It's all part of a sharpening workflow...and while ACR/LR has some limited creative sharpening in the adjustment brush, clearly Photoshop has vastly more power and flexibility than ACR/LR.
-
I'd just like to second everything Jeff has said about LR + PS.
I do most of my grading work in LR these days and leave PS for the fun stuff or for looks I can get in PS that I cannot replicate in LR - these tend to involve layer blending and such like.
-
I like Lee and we've been friends for a long time but Lee is wrong for the vast majority of photo users.
So true, oh so true. To dismiss the power of a good raw processor only to fix the mess from careless rendering, as he suggests in Photoshop, shows a severe lack of understaind of modern image processing.
-
I have watched Lee's videos and have gotten Lee's book on 10 channel processing. He does state that this method is not for everyday work but for the images that are your best "keepers", a small portion of your workflow (at least mine!). I have used his methods and like the results but don't know if conventional processing would equal the results his methods produce as I have been to lazy to test. The benefits are supposedly better color-saturation control in the final image. I don't consider his methods to be careless processing but well thought out. There is no distortion of the original image due to radical curves or hue-saturation adjustments. The basis for the technique is to use the layers of the original image, a lab copy, and a CYMK copy and apply them using blend modes, opacity, and the blend-if command to control contrast and saturation. There are some pretty neat methods for controlling the saturation of shadow areas and for darkening blues. Go on his web site and check out his tutorials and then make up your mind.
Larry
-
...He does state that this method is not for everyday work but for the images that are your best "keepers", a small portion of your workflow (at least mine!).
Uh huh...again, unless you can show a before/after with an optimized original raw in ACR/LR and one sent through the alleged 10 step process done in Photoshop, I'll reserve judgement. I've seen Dan's Picture Postcard process and I'm not in the least bit impressed. The initial steps make the image look like crap only to be saved in the end. I think you'll be better severed optimizing your image from the very beginning rather than "saving" the image in the end in Photoshop.
-
With regards to capture sharpening, I would rate LR's ability to capture sharpen to be slightly better than either PhotoKit Sharpener (which I am involved with) or Photoshop's. With regards to creative sharpening, no, Photoshop is still King. But when you are ready to print, I would suggest printing from LR and use LR's output sharpening–which is based on PhotoKit Sharpener's output sharpening.
In either case, I suggest using LR to do all your global and local adjustments to tone, color and detail in Lightroom before going to Photoshop. For me, I take back out of Photoshop and into LR for printing or other consumption...I hate having to spawn off too many iterations of the original. I use raw when possible but generally make an RGB master for retouching and soft proofing and keep the original raw and rendered TIFF from Photoshop in Lightroom.
Thanks Jeff. As always, your advice makes sense. Well...unless you are giving advice on which shirt to wear.....just kidding...LOL.
-
Thanks Jeff. As always, your advice makes sense. Well...unless you are giving advice on which shirt to wear.....just kidding...LOL.
Well, I always advocate Tommie Bahama Hawaiian shirts (unless you're into "black" TEE shirts which I Also wear when I'm not on camera).
-
BTW, which book?
I think I'll give Lee a call and talk about it...
:~)
[/quote]
Mastering Exposure and the Zone system. Lee Varis published 2011. The main idea of his book is that you have access to different channels in Photoshop as well as using the zone system. I was a little surprised he advocated the use of Lab. Probably as a selling point to be different from other books. :)
-
So true, oh so true. To dismiss the power of a good raw processor only to fix the mess from careless rendering, as he suggests in Photoshop, shows a severe lack of understaind of modern image processing.
What do you mean by careless rendering? It seems like you have alleged this just to score a point with a fellow photographer and author. Have you read the book in question? :(
-
What do you mean by careless rendering? It seems like you have alleged this just to score a point with a fellow photographer and author. Have you read the book in question? :(
Go here:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2011/05/lee-varis-lecture-recording-now-available.html
Watch the video, up to 35 minutes when ACR is thrown under the bus.
Careless rendering, in this context, much like the 10 channle technique Lee appears to have got from Dan M is the idea that one should zero out the ACR sliders, or in Lee’s case, not using them to their full functionality to then fix the mess in Photoshop that could and should be properly rendered in the first place.
Now here’s an idea. Instead of using whatever you carelessly create in ACR or LR to build channels from some fixed CMYK conversion, USE ACR or LR to build an iteration for a channel you can blend! Instead of making lemonade out of the lemons you got from a lazy rendering, render correctly, even if that rendering is solely to build a channel. Of you could just create a crappy rendering, then use some generic CMYK conversion and hope one of the channels is useful for the blend. GIGO:GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT. Your call.
Now the idea Lee (and originally Dan) came up with, using channels for blending IS useful in some cases. Lee’s example of bulding a mask for shadows to reduce saturation (seen in the above video) is quite useful! But how the process is created is laborious and unnecessary in many ways, especially in light of what we can end up with in Photoshop from ACR or LR.
-
Andrew,
Thanks for posting that. It's been years since I've seen Lee present (maybe since the last 13 Forum). I got a real kick out of seeing his early work. I forgot he did the Silence of the Lambs poster.
As for his 10 Channel demo, yes, it's what I expected. He intentionally processed the raw flat and fixed it in Photoshop. Photoshop is Lee's strength...his approach is more like the old days of film scans where you intentionally waited to do anything other than base cast correction and brought it into Photoshop flat. I used to do that with raw files early back when I had to use the crappy Canon software before Thomas wrote Camera Raw.
Clearly he could have done a lot more to improve the images in ACR/LR (and even admitted he does use LR's controls when he's doing a lot of images). I also thought his corrections were a bit over the top...but something that could be adjusted using masks and opacity.
I did get a kick out of his answer regarding 8 bit–note he was working in 8 bit sRGB and had his workflow settings in ACR to 72PPI and had web output sharpening on. He mentioned my "recreational user" comment regarding not using 16 bit. I suspect he doesn't normally use sRGB–he must had been doing some web images before. I was sort of shocked how slow his computer was running...
The bottom line is it's useful for a user to know many ways to work on images and pick and choose when to do what where. I always go into Photoshop for retouching, midtone contrast and fine tuning with layers and of course, soft proofing. Much of what Lee demoed regarding contrast, color and saturation could easily be done parametrically in ACR/LR and leave some tuning work for Photoshop. I'm not at all convinced that people should ignore the toolset ACR/LR has just to go into Photoshop to fix it, unless maybe you're doing a book on the process. Course, I may be biased since I've been involved with the development of ACR/LR and write a book about ACR. On the other hand, maybe it's because I've been involved that I also know how to use the controls so well.
I'm also pretty darn good at Photoshop as well...Lee and I have been in the biz about the same length of time although I think I've got him beat in terms of shooting for digital manipulation. My first digitally imaged job was in 1984 well before Thomas ever started work on Photoshop. I didn't do the imaging but shot the elements specifically for digital assembly by Rafael at Digital Transparencies Inc in Huston. That was my first taste of what would eventually happen because of Photoshop.
I like Lee, I wish him well and happen to thing he's wrong but provides useful techniques...
-
I'm not at all convinced that people should ignore the toolset ACR/LR has just to go into Photoshop to fix it, unless maybe you're doing a book on the process.
Indeed. Its also a bit alarming to disregard such a powerful tool as a good raw processor, end up with far less than ideal data, then waste a lot of time to fix the resulting mess you’ve made in Photoshop. Useful if you charge by the hour or are inexperienced in raw processing.
I’ve got no dog in this fight in terms of using a good raw processor then moving into Photoshop in terms of selling books on such workflows. It just makes no sense to me to dismiss proper parametric rendering in a good raw converter just to spin my wheels using Photoshop. I’m surprised that some pundits and ‘experts’ suggest people zero out all sliders or ignore all the tools in a good raw processor. Why?
-
I’m surprised that some pundits and ‘experts’ suggest people zero out all sliders or ignore all the tools in a good raw processor. Why?
Well, in the case of Dan, we know why...he doesn't think Camera Raw is a "professional tool".
:~)
-
Quote Digital Dog.
Careless rendering, in this context, much like the 10 channle technique Lee appears to have got from Dan M is the idea that one should zero out the ACR sliders, or in Lee’s case, not using them to their full functionality to then fix the mess in Photoshop that could and should be properly rendered in the first place.
Unquote
Digital Dog,
am I right in saying that you did the same or similar before Raw Processing became the efficient program it is now? It is easy - you are proving it - to knock what went before and dismiss it to the bin. You obviously have a commercial interest in the latest technology and it shows. I think your attitude may put people off buying your books. Personally - I have many books - but I haven't bought any of yours. There are many ways to skin a cat. I have no doubt that a competent user of Photoshop can process an image using "the old ways" that was so good that you couldn't tell it hadn't been processed mostly by raw. BTW you haven't mentioned "polishing turds" was you saving that? :(
-
Are you really happy with your insinuations? Just because someone might have a "commercial interest in the latest technology" doesn't invalidate his opinion that a particular workflow is now less than optimal and its presentation is questionable. Just because there are many ways to skin a cat doesn't mean they are all of equal value. Why advocate arcane turd-polishing workflows when in the same time people can use the latest methods to do more work of equal quality?
-
Having a commercial interest may mean a bias is involved that means objectivity is lost. Your post makes it obvious that you think the "latest" is best and older methods should scorned. These "arcane turd-polishing workflows" still work. I believe you have commercial interests in publishing photographic theories. If I had the time or inclination I bet that I could scour the internet and see some of the things you advocated in the past as being worthwhile. Are they now not worth the paper they were printed on? Lighten up and be more objective. :)
-
Lee has a commercial interest too. So effing what??? Has Andrew or Jeff used that to question his professionalism? Can you not see that while obsolete methods still work, for a variety of reasons they may no longer be best practice? It was 2011 when I last looked.... And what's more ethical, continuing to peddle obsolete methods or pointing out the right ways forward? Frankly, and sorry if you feel patronised by this comment, but if you thought about it you'd realise that it's probably as much in one's commercial interest to dig up up an old turd of a method and promote it as if it's the golden egg. The Lab for B&W book, anyone?
You need to take a look at yourself and cut out all your silly insinuations....
John
-
Tut tut John. Feeling better? I addressed my comment to the Digital Dog who had - imo - made a scathing remark that I felt was unnecessary. You jumped in with both feet and tried to defend him. I take it you and him are on the same wavelength?
>And what's more ethical, continuing to peddle obsolete methods or pointing out the right ways forward?<
The method worked well in the past and that HASN'T changed because raw processing has improved. Let me guess. In about 5 years raw processing will have been surpassed by something else and the ones praising it will probably be in the same frame of mind? Pissing on it? There are room for all methods and and I feel commercial interests are evident. BTW I am a user of ACR and do most of my work with it. As stated lighten up. ;D
-
I don't think this debate should be based on alledged commercial bias or of "old" technology vs. "new" technology but it would be much better held on the technical merits of the different possible workflows.
I think Jeff and digitaldog have explained why they think it's better to start with the best rendered picture you can get from the raw converter and apply photoshop tricks after that for things you want to do that cannot be done in the raw converter.
However I have not seen a technical explanation why it is better (in terms of workflow efficiency or quality of end result) why it's better to start with a nearly "flat" raw conversion and do all the upgrading in photoshop.
So maybe we should put all the accusitions aside and focus on that aspect of the discussion.
-
The persons that advocate the "flat" raw conversion aren't to my knowledge members of this forum so they can't defend themselves. Anyone interested in their methods will have to Google for information. I started out in digital 11 years ago and I have dozens of books on Photoshop, many from before the advent of raw processing. Raw processing is real progress but it doesn't mean the older methods deserve the disdain of the above adjectives.
careless rendering
lazy rendering
crappy rendering
arcane turd polishing workflows
Six or seven years ago they were the "in thing". A well known Scottish Professional wedding photographer I know was producing amazing images and getting them published four years ago using Photoshop 5.5. I don't know if he has upgraded now. It doesn't really matter how you do it as long as the final image is fine?
-
Again, Stamper, it's you that needs to look at yourself and put a bit more thought into it. The method does the same job now as then, but it has been comfortably surpassed as the best way to work. You seem happy to question the ethics of those who point that out, yet fail to understand that "commercial interests" are pretty well the same, at least in the short term, whether you're promoting the obscure and the obsolete or advocating best practice.
However I have not seen a technical explanation why it is better (in terms of workflow efficiency or quality of end result) why it's better to start with a nearly "flat" raw conversion and do all the upgrading in photoshop.
I wouldn't argue it in terms of quality, but certainly in terms of time effectiveness. Correcting the images in raw means you can get far more images finished to the same level of quality - just switch to Lightroom's AutoSync mode, for example, and with a single drag of the slider you can adjust dozens or even hundreds of images simultaneously. It's not speed for its own sake, but more properly-corrected images in the bag, more of the day is left for whatever pixel-level jiggery-pokery you really need to do in Photoshop.
John
-
It doesn't really matter how you do it as long as the final image is fine?
I agree with this statement...with a small change: It doesn't really matter how you do it as long as you are happy with it.
However, I think that the focus of Andrew's position may be that it is better to be teaching the latest and best processing philosophy to the students. This does not mean that the old methods are terrible, wrong, or unusable. It only means that the latest, proven better, methods are the best to offer first.
If you are happy processing your jpegs from your camera using a freeware program....then more power to you! Nothing wrong with that.
In the end, I think most intelligent and open minded people will eventually realize what is the best method for their workflow, their abilities, and their needs.
-
Change is a difficult thing for a lot of people. Many get 'set in their ways' and it's difficult for them to move off those methods to embrace something new and potentially better. Perhaps Varis fits into that group. As for Margulies, no comment. ::)
Varis, as Jeff points out, has been doing this a long time. He was probably a relatively early adopter of digital processing as it related to scanned film. He may have created a workflow in that era that served him well and that he's continued on with and altered (improved?) over the years to account for new knowledge, new tools in the PS toolbox, etc. If he's firmly entrenched in that workflow then it's possible that he's reluctant to move off it. Could be out of comfort with what he's been doing. Could be a variety of reasons, including wanting to sell books. Whatever the reason, it's difficult to understand why someone of his stature would, apparently, so thoroughly dismiss what is a wonderful advancement in digital image processing.
It seems, to me, that this method he's advocating in the book is complexity for the sake of complexity for the majority of people. Perhaps for his work it's useful but may not be for many (most). I've come up with a method of creating a 'digital zone system' that breaks the image up into true brightness zones. I use it a fair bit in b&w conversion but also for some colour work where LR/PS aren't as effective. I'll probably be the only one to ever use it though because it appears somewhat complex and there are some quirks in PS that are annoying so it's likely no publisher would ever touch it. That and the fact that I'm not a 'celebrity photographer'. But while it appears complex, it does have benefits and has made some images far better than what I could have done with the standard LR/ACR/PS tools. Would it have benefit for enough others to make it worthwhile distributing it or profitable for a publisher? Probably not. And since I have no name caché, people aren't going to buy it just because my name's on it; which is what I think ends up happening with a lot of books that are published. Perhaps including this one from Varis.
-
Quote John
Again, Stamper, it's you that needs to look at yourself and put a bit more thought into it. The method does the same job now as then, but it has been comfortably surpassed as the best way to work.
Unquote
John you have one book in your site for sale on Lightroom and two for Photoshop. You're stating Lightroom is the way to go in preference to Photoshop. You seem to me to be selling two books that have been superseded by Lightroom. I take it this means the buyer's have a choice about which method suits them?
Quote
I wouldn't argue it in terms of quality, but certainly in terms of time effectiveness. Correcting the images in raw means you can get far more images finished to the same level of quality - just switch to Lightroom's AutoSync mode, for example, and with a single drag of the slider you can adjust dozens or even hundreds of images simultaneously. It's not speed for its own sake, but more properly-corrected images in the bag, more of the day is left for whatever pixel-level jiggery-pokery you really need to do in Photoshop.
Unquote
The italics are my emphasis.
What is the point of doing this if you care about the quality of your image.
-
am I right in saying that you did the same or similar before Raw Processing became the efficient program it is now?
In a word, no. When I was scanning, I used good software (ColorQuartet on the drum, LinoColor on others) and used all the tools available to produce the best possible ‘rendering’ if you will, before Photoshop ever entered the picture.
You obviously have a commercial interest in the latest technology and it shows.
I have an interest in using the right tools for the right job. You can if you wish, use a kitchen knife as a screw driver. I personally prefer a good screwdriver.
I think your attitude may put people off buying your books.
You obviously confuse me for someone that gives a shit <g>. I’m not in the book selling business.
Personally - I have many books - but I haven't bought any of yours.
I have only one, published way back in 2005 and have zero interest in either writing another and don’t really care if you buy it or not. If you want to discuss using tools for quality workflows, I’m all ears. You’ve only stated you don’t like my attitude which is fine, but have made no comments on the salient points I’ve raised about how Lee dismisses the tools we have for rendering data before Photoshop enters the scene. I’m interested in continuing that discussion with you if you want, I have no interest to discuss what books you may or may not buy including mine. And yes, I’ve been know to use the term polishing turds, an activity that some go to great lengths to teach and can be useful when there is no other option available (you’re handed a rendered turd and no raw accessible). In this case, the instructor and author had a raw file.
Next question?
-
The persons that advocate the "flat" raw conversion aren't to my knowledge members of this forum so they can't defend themselves.
They are certainly free to come here and ‘defend’ themselves although the original brainchild who came up with this idea (of which I suspect Lee has latched onto) never ventures outside his closed and highly censored list. You might want to invite him here but it will fall on deaf ears. Ask yourself why.
-
What is the point of doing this if you care about the quality of your image.
It's not about whether one cares about the quality of the image. To suggest that making bulk or batch adjustments to a set of raw files is an indication that the photographer doesn't care about the quality of the images is, frankly, ridiculous. There are times when batch changes make complete sense. As in when editing a series of images from a specific shoot. A studio shoot, for example, shot under specific lighting conditions and where an adjustment to one would be applicable to all. It's about efficiency and effective use of time. As someone else said, if a person is charging by the hour and wants to clockspin (a borderline ethical practice) then they can go about using whatever convoluted workflow they wish. But for the photographer who wants to be effective and efficient with time and make a living but not make a living off every client and still produce top quality work, then making use of tools that enable or support that philosophy makes absolute sense.
Back to the book; however, why does Varis suggest that any alterations made in LR/ACR after demosaicing are pointless?
-
John you have one book in your site for sale on Lightroom and two for Photoshop. You're stating Lightroom is the way to go in preference to Photoshop. You seem to me to be selling two books that have been superseded by Lightroom. I take it this means the buyer's have a choice about which method suits them?
Huh? It clearly depends on the specific task. I did not generalize to say Photoshop has been superseded by Lightroom or say it is the way to go in preference to Photoshop - for many purposes, yes, other purposes no. In the specific case we've been discussing, it looks to some of us that most of it could be done better (ie quicker, more readily by most people) in Lightroom / ACR.
quote
I wouldn't argue it in terms of quality, but certainly in terms of time effectiveness. Correcting the images in raw means you can get far more images finished to the same level of quality - just switch to Lightroom's AutoSync mode, for example, and with a single drag of the slider you can adjust dozens or even hundreds of images simultaneously. It's not speed for its own sake, but more properly-corrected images in the bag, more of the day is left for whatever pixel-level jiggery-pokery you really need to do in Photoshop.
Unquote
The italics are my emphasis.
What is the point of doing this if you care about the quality of your image?
I specifically said "to the same level of quality" and "properly-corrected".... And to repeat my answer to Pegelli's question, the choice between the methods isn't one of the ultimate quality one can achieve but of how much you can get done in your day. Why follow a method that allows you to finish two images when you could use another that lets you finish ten and where the drudgery is done quickly and leaves you time for really fiddly stuff that only Photoshop can handle?
-
... The method worked well in the past and that HASN'T changed because raw processing has improved...
Typewriters (mechanical) worked well in the past and that HASN'T changed because electrical ones and computers emerged. A 20-year old car (in working order) will get you from point A to point B today as it did 20 years ago, and that HASN'T changed because new models emerged. But a new car will do it with less gas, less pollution, in greater comfort, and will keep you safer in case of an accident. Which one you would prefer to use today? That is not to say there aren't people still preferring mechanical typewriters or vintage cars. That is not to say there are no idiosyncratic pleasures in using a well-design tool or car from the past occasionally. But the real issue is that for most people and most of the time, new and improved things are preferable.
-
Typewriters (mechanical) worked well in the past and that HASN'T changed because electrical ones and computers emerged. A 20-year old car (in working order) will get you from point A to point B today as it did 20 years ago, and that HASN'T changed because new models emerged. But a new car will do it with less gas, less pollution, in greater comfort, and will keep you safer in case of an accident. Which one you would prefer to use today? That is not to say there aren't people still preferring mechanical typewriters or vintage cars. That is not to say there are no idiosyncratic pleasures in using a well-design tool or car from the past occasionally. But the real issue is that for most people and most of the time, new and improved things are preferable.
+1 ~ Well said.
-
I would love to ditch Nikon's Capture NX 2 and do more of my processing in Lightroom/ACR + Photoshop but prefer CNX2's rendering; ACR seems to give me slightly less appealing pics.
As Lee points out at the start of the video, contrast is more important than colour. While ACR/CNX2 have good global contrast handling, they are less adept at local contrast (ACR has clarity), CNX has high pass and USM sharpening, and Nik's Tonal Contrast filter. ACR also has the capability of saturating and controlling the luminosity of a range of colours. However, they are obviously not as flexible as the full panoply of Photoshop's channel luminosity blending, plug-ins, etc.
My own preference is to get a neutral image from CNX2 that has as full a range of tones as possible (no clipping) and then go into Photoshop to optimize the global and local contrast, and to make it more colourful in a way appropriate to the subject. Going into Photoshop is necessary, as I usually have other things to do.
This is a low-volume workflow. If I want to process tens or hundreds of photos, I would stick to ACR.
So for me, it really boils down to the absence of sophisticated control over contrast and the limitations of "finishing" features in CNX2 that leads me to work the way that I do.
If I did more studio work, I dare say that the balance would tip to doing more in the raw processor, but as it is, it makes more sense to make the most of Photoshop's power since I am going there anyway.
-
Typewriters (mechanical) worked well in the past and that HASN'T changed because electrical ones and computers emerged. A 20-year old car (in working order) will get you from point A to point B today as it did 20 years ago, and that HASN'T changed because new models emerged. But a new car will do it with less gas, less pollution, in greater comfort, and will keep you safer in case of an accident. Which one you would prefer to use today? That is not to say there aren't people still preferring mechanical typewriters or vintage cars. That is not to say there are no idiosyncratic pleasures in using a well-design tool or car from the past occasionally. But the real issue is that for most people and most of the time, new and improved things are preferable.
On the other hand: if you are able to write great novels on a typewriter, but get writers block everytime you boot your mac, then the choice is really easy, no matter how large the technical advantages of the mac are?
-h
-
I would love to ditch Nikon's Capture NX 2 and do more of my processing in Lightroom/ACR + Photoshop but prefer CNX2's rendering; ACR seems to give me slightly less appealing pics.
As Lee points out at the start of the video, contrast is more important than colour. While ACR/CNX2 have good global contrast handling, they are less adept at local contrast (ACR has clarity), CNX has high pass and USM sharpening, and Nik's Tonal Contrast filter. ACR also has the capability of saturating and controlling the luminosity of a range of colours. However, they are obviously not as flexible as the full panoply of Photoshop's channel luminosity blending, plug-ins, etc.
My own preference is to get a neutral image from CNX2 that has as full a range of tones as possible (no clipping) and then go into Photoshop to optimize the global and local contrast, and to make it more colourful in a way appropriate to the subject. Going into Photoshop is necessary, as I usually have other things to do.
This is a low-volume workflow. If I want to process tens or hundreds of photos, I would stick to ACR.
So for me, it really boils down to the absence of sophisticated control over contrast and the limitations of "finishing" features in CNX2 that leads me to work the way that I do.
If I did more studio work, I dare say that the balance would tip to doing more in the raw processor, but as it is, it makes more sense to make the most of Photoshop's power since I am going there anyway.
Maybe you don't prefer the way LR/ACR handle local contrast but tools are available. The Adjustment Brush can be a terrific local contrast tool if used well.
-
On the other hand: if you are able to write great novels on a typewriter, but get writers block everytime you boot your mac, then the choice is really easy, no matter how large the technical advantages of the mac are?
True but the words, either typewriter or Mac are the same. I’m hard pressed to believe the final results and image quality is the same using a convoluted set of fixes in Photoshop on poorly rendered data versus properly rendered data. Sure, if the two processes produce identical results but the differences are the time spent, not a huge big deal if you don’t mind the extra time spent (or as said, charge by the hour). The argument is more than which method is faster. Parametric editing is more flexible, especially if you trying different variations using virtual copies. Its totally non destructive. You’ve got an unlimited history in terms of time spent editing that image. You’ve got tremendous control over tone (just try fixing blown highlights on a rendered image, or adjusting white balance that’s way off).
In the end, there are tools Photoshop offers that a raw processor can’t and vise versa.
-
True but the words, either typewriter or Mac are the same. I’m hard pressed to believe the final results and image quality is the same using a convoluted set of fixes in Photoshop on poorly rendered data versus properly rendered data. Sure, if the two processes produce identical results but the differences are the time spent, not a huge big deal if you don’t mind the extra time spent (or as said, charge by the hour). The argument is more than which method is faster. Parametric editing is more flexible, especially if you trying different variations using virtual copies. Its totally non destructive. You’ve got an unlimited history in terms of time spent editing that image. You’ve got tremendous control over tone (just try fixing blown highlights on a rendered image, or adjusting white balance that’s way off).
In the end, there are tools Photoshop offers that a raw processor can’t and vise versa.
I never had enough patience to learn photoshop - I use Lightroom 99% of the time. Not beause it is necessarily technically best, but because it does most of the things that I want rapidly, intuitively and easily.
My point was that if you feel more "inspired" by one set of tools that may or may not be blessed by the experts as "best", then chances are that you will make the best end-results using your favourite tools. This may not be true for anti-virus programs, but it probably is true to some degree for activites that involve a minimum of artistic work.
-h
-
Maybe you don't prefer the way LR/ACR handle local contrast but tools are available. The Adjustment Brush can be a terrific local contrast tool if used well.
I can see that, but I don't like to "paint" if I can avoid it. Takes too long. Channel curving and blending is fast and effective.
-
I can see that, but I don't like to "paint" if I can avoid it. Takes too long. Channel curving and blending is fast and effective.
And that's fine. That's personal preference. But saying the tools aren't available isn't accurate. That was all I was trying to convey.
-
Having a commercial interest may mean a bias is involved that means objectivity is lost. Your post makes it obvious that you think the "latest" is best and older methods should scorned. These "arcane turd-polishing workflows" still work. I believe you have commercial interests in publishing photographic theories. If I had the time or inclination I bet that I could scour the internet and see some of the things you advocated in the past as being worthwhile. Are they now not worth the paper they were printed on? Lighten up and be more objective. :)
I think, perhaps, it's you that need to be more objective. Once upon a time, a horse and buggy was the best way for a family to travel. You could still use that horse and buggy to do so (in fact, many Amish still do). But I don't think many would argue that just because it still works it's a good approach. So yes, doing all your image correction in PS still works, but compared to doing it in LR it's kind of a horse and buggy.
-
I wonder if the originator of this thread is beginning to regret asking the question ;D
-
I wonder if the originator of this thread is beginning to regret asking the question ;D
Why? It's been a discussion of differing points of view with, arguably, valid points on both sides. No one's got nasty. Some of the commentary is more informed than others but there's probably something for a lot of people to take away from it and say they learned from it.
-
Guess I should spend more time in Lightroom discussions even though I only use ACR. Nothing goin' on in ACR forum. Just stumbled upon this one and saw the Lee Varis video. First I've ever seen of his work.
Did Lee know that the image of the red church didn't look right after he was done? I mean it looked like an old hand colored post card from the 1930's only new looking. It also looked like a miniature with all that micro contrast.
Or was he just showing all the channel blending and Apply Image techniques for instruction purposes only. I lost track of all the steps but the only image that looked sort of right was the power plant in the desert. That's a lot of work for what I thought would give a whole lot better results than doing it in ACR/LR.
Is anyone else seeing Lee's results as odd looking?
The black kid skin lightening technique was good but at a certain point it left posterized facial highlights that resembled a skin pigment disorder known as vitiligo. Probably should've dialed back the opacity slider on the High Pass layer.
That was a long hour and a half watch for something I can't even remember to do.
-
When I think back to the B&W darkroom I had in my parents basement when I was 13, all I can say is, ain't it grand to have all these tools to use in whatever way inspiration leads?
Perhaps you're ALL right (although it helps to state your case w/ a modicum of cool).
While I usually follow a set workflow that's evolved as new tools have come along, I often discover a breakthrough for making an image work when I'm in an experimental frame of mind and go against my own conventions.
Viva la difference!
-
Typewriters (mechanical) worked well in the past and that HASN'T changed because electrical ones and computers emerged. A 20-year old car (in working order) will get you from point A to point B today as it did 20 years ago, and that HASN'T changed because new models emerged. But a new car will do it with less gas, less pollution, in greater comfort, and will keep you safer in case of an accident. Which one you would prefer to use today? That is not to say there aren't people still preferring mechanical typewriters or vintage cars. That is not to say there are no idiosyncratic pleasures in using a well-design tool or car from the past occasionally. But the real issue is that for most people and most of the time, new and improved things are preferable.
Slobadan, I think your analogy is superb. I think the reason it doesn't work for most cases of the "LR is superior to PS debate" is that most of us just have basic driving skills, and we are not too invested in them.
I have had this debate with perhaps 40 friends/photographers. Just this week a photographer told me "I already have a workflow, why do I want to learn a new one?" Of course us LR converts would say "because the new one goes 10 times as fast, no pollution, has air conditioning, power windows (etc)."
Overall my conclusion from these personal debates boil down to a person's true ability to understand and use computers and software (particularly db's). For "real" software people, when something better comes along, they move. It's obvious. I believe for the people stuck in LoPS (Land of PhotoShop), their mastery has come at such a hard price they cannot bear to consider another option. Almost as if they had built their car from raw steel themselves.
If everyone thought like LoPS people, Apple would have sold about 3 iPads. Everyone else would be saying "I already have a Mac, why do I need one that is like a big telephone?"
-
... their mastery has come at such a hard price they cannot bear to consider another option. Almost as if they had built their car from raw steel themselves...
I am now firmly in LR for 90% of my needs. I did resist initially for the following reason: I knew if I switch, my Photoshop skills, already modest, are going to suffer even more. I knew if I stay in PS I would need to use it on a daily basis and would need to dig deeper and deeper. Practice makes perfect, as they say. I downloaded hours and hours of PS video tutorials, started watching them... and would not last more than halfway through.
There is always that nagging feeling that everything worth learning or doing requires considerable effort... no-pain-no-gain* type of thing. I also used to drive a stick shift, and thought those who drive automatic are "girly men" (as Governator would put it so eloquently ;))... until I had a chance to drive an automatic, after which there was no turning back. I also used to listen to the music via a class A amplifier (iPhone today). Sooner or later we all succumb to the siren song of ease, convenience and/or sheer laziness. Especially if the end result is better, the same or, as a minimum, indistinguishable from the old "macho" ways of doing things.
In other words, for me, it was a blessing in disguise, i.e., that I never learned PS to the level of mastery.
* Now, if only there would be a pill to get me six-pack abs without diet, discipline and exercise ;)
-
* Now, if only there would be a pill to get me six-pack abs without diet, discipline and exercise ;)
Slo, you are my kind of guy!