Various articles on LR's 7th incarnation (previously Martin Evening article)

[Mark D Segal]

You're probably right, Mark, but I haven't tried the "smart objects" trick yet, as I don't want my computer to prove that it is smarter than I am!   

I see the option there and have read about how to use it, but haven't actually done so either, largely because the kind of adjustments I used to make in Photoshop (mainly perspective correction) never need to be revisited. From the time LR introduced Upright I almost never go to Photoshop - it's that good. Trying to keep life simple - and the prints aren't suffering for it. 

[Hoggy]

The tricky part of the smart object trick, is that LR only sends it over as an embedded smart object.  After being sent to PS, the link to the original raw on disk is then broken.  You CAN change that to a linked smart object after you get it to PS, but rather than just use the original raw that's already on disk, PS wants to write out the new copy that just became embedded.  You can have it overwrite to the original filename, and I'm pretty sure it was tested to be identical (by either me and/or someone on LightroomForums, I forget) - but it still makes me uneasy.

It was half-baked by Adobe.  All they would have to do is create an option to send the original over as a linked smart object - and things would be much smoother without the uneasiness.  But, such is Adobe....

[jrsforums]

I am happy with changing the smart object, as needed, in ACR, as it is set up.  Gives me what I need without messing with original raw file....plus, I am sure I will forget and just mess everything up some time later.

Generally smart object changes can have limited use as many ps activities will not hold true after later adjustments in acr.

[john beardsworth]

It was half-baked by Adobe.  All they would have to do is create an option to send the original over as a linked smart object - and things would be much smoother without the uneasiness.  But, such is Adobe....

That's actually on the lengthier version of the hit list I started on LR Forums suggesting specific features Adobe might add to convince people that Adobe still love real Lightroom. It's high end, clearly-defined, and won't trip up other code. Cheap too -they could probably adapt the existing SO code.

John

PS The beauty of the linked SO method is that I can make further adjustments to the raw file in LR and pass them to the linked SO in a PS  file - for example if I notice further spots, want to tweak Detail, etc. I often maintain a colour and a Silver Efex version of some images (SFX edits are editable if you apply them to a SO), and this means I spend less time on any subsequent raw conversion tweaks. But the hassle of setting up the linked SO means I don't usually bother. Also, think of cases where you might have an image in LR that is used in more than one PS file.

[john beardsworth]

Interview: Adobe’s Tom Hogarty on the future of the Mac, iPhone X camera, and the evolving definition of photography

[Wayne Fox]

Largely correct Eric, but I think you can also open it as a smart object in Photoshop and if I understand correctly this will link the edits in both places so you need only work on the one file from either.

If you open into PS as a smart object, you can double click the smart object to open into ACR and have access to all of your LR editing.  However, if you save that back to LR, it becomes a new tiff file, and any editing in LR applies metadata to the tiff, but not to the original edits from LR.  You can’t access the original edits on that tiff file from within LR, you have to open in PS then open the smart object into ACR.

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks for clarifications Wayne. Very useful. It's a workflow I seldom need to use. If I ever need to go to Photoshop it's usually one round-trip into PS, then back to LR.

[farbschlurf]

Interview: Adobe’s Tom Hogarty on the future of the Mac, iPhone X camera, and the evolving definition of photography

sounds spooky. seems like i am really getting old(fashioned)... not my future. might be tempting to aim at the billions of smartphone „photographers“ for them. maybe they´ll spin out the pro branch one day and let others stay in touch to their old core custumers, who don‘t want to go „mobile mainstream“... i wouldn‘t care about unicorns than...

[Damon Lynch]

Interview: Adobe’s Tom Hogarty on the future of the Mac, iPhone X camera, and the evolving definition of photography

Thanks for linking to the interview John.

Hogarty says "What if Creative Cloud could start to learn from that work, and start to shortcut the effort I have to put into my images by creating something like an auto that’s tailored?" Talk about corporate claptrap. People who talk like that alienate themselves from language.

The irony of this statement with respect to this new machine learning technology is that we photographers will likely become alienated from the fruits of our work, in more ways than one. Who will own the "learning" that that a corporation does when it uses our creative work to improve their algorithms? They will, of course. Not us. That's the exact opposite of democracy, regardless of how Hogarty spins it.

[Jeremy Roussak]

(SFX edits are editable if you apply them to a SO)

John, can you elaborate on that? I've often wished that SFX saved files in re-editable form, and mused that really it wouldn't be that difficult for it to do so.

Jeremy

[john beardsworth]

Hi Jeremy

Although my starting point is LR, I always launch SFX this way, via PS/SO. The flexibility is a big advantage.

Starting from LR, just open an image in Photoshop and convert the Background layer to a smart object (via the right click). If you want to edit the image in Photoshop before going to SFX, eg adding adjustment layers or cloning, you can select multiple layers and convert them into a single smart object.

Still in PS, launch SFX, do whatever you want, and save. Whereas normally you would expect SFX to add a pixel layer, running SFX on the smart object applies its edits as a "smart filter" - a sub item in the Layers panel that you can hide or show, even mask. To change the SFX edits, you just double click the smart filter and SFX launches again with all your control points and other settings available. Fundamentally, that's it.

The method was slightly fancier in the paragraph you quoted. Instead of just opening in PS, from LR you use Edit > Open as Smart Object in Photoshop. The advantage here is that the SO remains raw and you can change its ACR adjustments by double clicking it. There's no difference for the SFX part of the workflow.

The smart object/filter technique works with all filters, not just SFX. It's also a neat way to copy SFX effects between images - you drag the smart filter from a SO in one image and drop it on a SO in the other.

John

[john beardsworth]

Thanks for linking to the interview John.

Hogarty says "What if Creative Cloud could start to learn from that work, and start to shortcut the effort I have to put into my images by creating something like an auto that’s tailored?" Talk about corporate claptrap. People who talk like that alienate themselves from language.

The irony of this statement with respect to this new machine learning technology is that we photographers will likely become alienated from the fruits of our work, in more ways than one. Who will own the "learning" that that a corporation does when it uses our creative work to improve their algorithms? They will, of course. Not us. That's the exact opposite of democracy, regardless of how Hogarty spins it.

I don't disagree with you, Damon, and I find the language alienates me - until I see simple, practical benefits. I assume you know Photoshop's content aware fill, but have you seen the Max demo "Deep Fill" which shows where it may be going? I could have used it earlier this week when I had a similar job on a violin that had been partly covered by a mike and needed my knowledge of violins (negligible) and other images. My colleague was certainly annoyed that he hadn't found a viewpoint that minimized that risk, but I think he saw the task as correcting, not falsifying, and he "owns" the final image. Are we strong enough to decide whether we use or abuse the artifice element of AI?

[rdonson]

Kind of off topic...

I'm not sure if I like what I see for the next 5-10 years.  Between advances in camera tech and the advances in post processing with advances in Sensei AI you'd have to point your camera at your feet to end up with a lousy photograph.   For me it might take some of the "magic" away from the skills needed to create a great photo and print.  It will likely sell a lot of 50-100 MP cameras and software to newbies but it might also diminish what we love about photography.  What will the remaining skill set for photographers look like?  Composition skills?  When the camera can talk to an external AI will it guide us to a slightly different location from where we're standing to facilitate acquiring the "Kodak Moment"? 

[Chris Kern]

I'm not sure if I like what I see for the next 5-10 years.  Between advances in camera tech and the advances in post processing with advances in Sensei AI you'd have to point your camera at your feet to end up with a lousy photograph.   For me it might take some of the "magic" away from the skills needed to create a great photo and print.

Yup: just click on the Lightroom make my photo look great button. . . .

[David Mantripp]

Another thing that annoys me (a lot) is why I cannot send a Raw file to an external editor WITHOUT Lightroom adjustments applied. Why is that option greyed out? As far as I remember in Aperture I could choose with or without. If I want to edit in, say, SFX, or Exposure, maybe I want to start from scratch.

Possibly by holding down 5 keys at the same time and crossing my fingers I can do this - but why does Lr not just offer the option? It’s going to create a TIF anyway, so what‘s the big problem?

[john beardsworth]

Lightroom, like Aperture, was intended to be a complete raw workflow in itself.

For you, as a mac user, the easiest way would be to drag the thumbnail to the other app on the dock (though that wouldn't help with SFX as it can't decode a raw file). My OpenDirectly plugin is effectively doing this, but cross platform and regardless of the screen mode.

Alternatively, in Export, export the file in the original format, and set the other app up in the post processing step (follow its link to the Export Actions folder and place a shortcut to the other app in that folder). Save this as a preset. This produces a copy of the raw file.

John

[Jeremy Roussak]

Hi Jeremy

Although my starting point is LR, I always launch SFX this way, via PS/SO. The flexibility is a big advantage.

Starting from LR, just open an image in Photoshop and convert the Background layer to a smart object (via the right click). If you want to edit the image in Photoshop before going to SFX, eg adding adjustment layers or cloning, you can select multiple layers and convert them into a single smart object.

Still in PS, launch SFX, do whatever you want, and save. Whereas normally you would expect SFX to add a pixel layer, running SFX on the smart object applies its edits as a "smart filter" - a sub item in the Layers panel that you can hide or show, even mask. To change the SFX edits, you just double click the smart filter and SFX launches again with all your control points and other settings available. Fundamentally, that's it.

The method was slightly fancier in the paragraph you quoted. Instead of just opening in PS, from LR you use Edit > Open as Smart Object in Photoshop. The advantage here is that the SO remains raw and you can change its ACR adjustments by double clicking it. There's no difference for the SFX part of the workflow.

The smart object/filter technique works with all filters, not just SFX. It's also a neat way to copy SFX effects between images - you drag the smart filter from a SO in one image and drop it on a SO in the other.

John

John,

Thank you, thank you! All these years I have been editing with SFX, thinking that being able to use it non-destructively would be wonderful and never realising that it was possible.

Jeremy

[adias]

Kind of off topic...

I'm not sure if I like what I see for the next 5-10 years.  Between advances in camera tech and the advances in post processing with advances in Sensei AI you'd have to point your camera at your feet to end up with a lousy photograph.   For me it might take some of the "magic" away from the skills needed to create a great photo and print.  It will likely sell a lot of 50-100 MP cameras and software to newbies but it might also diminish what we love about photography.  What will the remaining skill set for photographers look like?  Composition skills?  When the camera can talk to an external AI will it guide us to a slightly different location from where we're standing to facilitate acquiring the "Kodak Moment"?

It does not affect me at all. I am on the camp that it's the photographer who makes the photo. Machines may make very good images but they are not 'photographs'.

It is like a modern car vs a classic sports car. The newer car may be 'better', may actually drive you, but I much prefer the connected chassis of a great classic sports car. Of course, one needs driving skills to drive those, as in most of the newer cars, as witnessed by distracted drivers, driving is mostly optional. ;(

[john beardsworth]

Thank you, thank you! All these years I have been editing with SFX, thinking that being able to use it non-destructively would be wonderful and never realising that it was possible.

I actually wrote about the method as long ago as 2012, Jeremy, and it's in my book Advanced B&W Photography (2nd edition). It's currently out of print -but Amazon list used copies from £0.01!

John

[brianrybolt]

What does SFX mean?  It has been used approximately 25 times and I still can't figure out what it stands for.

Thanks