Tutorials and Sharpening Workflow?

[OleDK]

First I want to thank Jeff and Michael for your excellent tutorials. These tutorials really makes LR shine - and I actually believe that many of the people that dismiss LR as very disappointing have not seen those tutorials.

I just downloaded and watched the print/web/slideshow tutorial. In this tutorial, Jeff mentions that Michael will probably speak about his roundtrips into Photoshop, to do soft proofing and sharpening. But Michael actually never returns to this subject.

How is your printing and web workflow? One of the advantages to the LR print and Web modules are that we don't need to make several versions of each photo in different sizes. But the PS sharpening needs to be done after the automatic resize/resampling done by LR.

For Web, one option would be to let LR do it's work, export the website and then open all the image files in PS to sharpen them (use an action or even a droplet).

But what about print? Do we need to sacrifice the automatic resizing in LR and make a different size for each print size?

Michael, if you have the time, I would be very happy with an insight in your roundtrip workflow.

[grainger]

I would be interested to hear about this as well. Thank you for bringing this up, Ole.

[michael]

You're right, we should have covered it. We will in an update when V1.1 comes out.

I export to Photoshop, use Photokit Sharpener for input sharpening (with sharpening in LR turned off) and then when I print I return to Photoshop to use Photokit output sharpening as well, based on print size.

It's a royal pain. When LR has better sharpening (which it will, but I can say when) the round trip won't be necessary any longer unless one needs to do some local corrects, use masks, etc.

Michael

[OleDK]

Thanks a lot, Michael.

[BFoto]

Thanks a lot, Michael.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for this info.

I must say though, that i am dissapointed that the sharpening and noise reduction functions from RSP, which adobe aquired, were not incorporated into LR. Particularly, i found the the detail exctraction and color noise reduction sliders essential to my workflow, where now i have to edit in PS.

[Schewe]

I must say though, that i am dissapointed that the sharpening and noise reduction functions from RSP, which adobe aquired, were not incorporated into LR. Particularly, i found the the detail exctraction and color noise reduction sliders essential to my workflow, where now i have to edit in PS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108267\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That will change...sooner than you night expect.

[OleDK]

For those of you who haven't seen it yet, Michael has added a detailed description of his current workflow regarding sharpening, noise reduction and soft proofing at Lightroom Illuminated.

Michael, Thanks a lot.

[boku]

That will change...sooner than you night expect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108350\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I sort of figured that Adobe is fast tracking database improvements and sharpening deficiencies. That is so essential.

They need to show 1.1 really fast or the Lightroom reputation will be tarnished as a flawed offering. If that happens, it takes years to overcome. They need to move very quickly and I assume those in the know (like you and Michael) are trying to keep the lid on while Adobe cleans this up.

That sort of makes me feel good. From my perspective, the database architecture of 1.0 makes me feel like I jumped in too soon. Right now, LR is sitting idle in my environment until it is sorted out and stabilized. I have no time to deal with workarounds without knowing how it ultimately fits into the evolving database architecture. So, I'm listening and watching, not using.

[kalex1]

I export to Photoshop, use Photokit Sharpener for input sharpening (with sharpening in LR turned off) and then when I print I return to Photoshop to use Photokit output sharpening as well, based on print size.

It's a royal pain. When LR has better sharpening (which it will, but I can say when) the round trip won't be necessary any longer unless one needs to do some local corrects, use masks, etc.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael,

great tutorial.  i just recently started using lightroom and so far like it.  can you elaborate on your work flow.  specifically i'm looking at after you do your adjustments in photoshop and save the file for printing and sharpening, how do you access it from lightroom?  does lightroom automatically find the file or do you have to import it into lightroom?  

thanks

Alex

[Schewe]

can you elaborate on your work flow.  specifically i'm looking at after you do your adjustments in photoshop and save the file for printing and sharpening, how do you access it from lightroom?  does lightroom automatically find the file or do you have to import it into lightroom? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111738\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not Michael, but I'll tell you what I do...generally the number of images that I actually do final prints on is a relatively small subtotal of the total number of images I shoot. So, I just use the open in Photoshop command-usually from Develop but sometimes from Libray if I'm working on more than one image. Do the stuff I need and the file is auto-imported back into Lightroom for printing...

[Mark D Segal]

That sort of makes me feel good. From my perspective, the database architecture of 1.0 makes me feel like I jumped in too soon. Right now, LR is sitting idle in my environment until it is sorted out and stabilized. I have no time to deal with workarounds without knowing how it ultimately fits into the evolving database architecture. So, I'm listening and watching, not using.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bob, I'm sort of where you are, but I bought the program from now expecting that up-grades will be either free or inexpensive for a while and painless to install. Meanwhile one can dabble and learn it, because it has some attractive technical features related to metadata, saved active history, web page creation, printing templates, etc. All that said, I won't be using it routinely until several things happen: (1) they put in a point curve that allows one to move the curve off the corners; (2) something like PK sharpener is embedded; (3) something as good as Noiseware is embedded; (4) soft-proofing is embedded. Once all that is there, Photoshop would be needed only if one needs to do things that require layers, layer masks, blend modes, blend options etc. Right now, it isn't clear to me in what respects the round-trip between Lightroom and Photoshop would preserve "non-destructive" editing, if you do certain things in Photoshop then return the file to Lightroom. It's a bit murky in my mind anyhow. I would like to see future instructional material on Lightroom focus less on D.A.M. and more on image enhancement and processing.

[marty m]

There are two other major issues that must be addressed in any upgrade.  These are discussed in other threads:

(1)  It must import ALL files and not only the raw files.  So if the CF card has raw files, jpeg files and wav audio files -- all with the same file name -- all three will be imported into Lightroom.

It is the software equivalent of criminal negligence that Lightroom now arbitrarily imports only the raw files.  That means that when the photographer erases or reformats the CF card, he or she loses all of the other files.

Then Lightroom can incorporate a very simple filter so that only one type of file is seen, and the photographer can delete all the others if you choose to do so.

In the meantime, the import function in Lightroom is so severly crippled that it is essentially useless for importing from CF cards.

Use the import function in Photo Mechanic instead.

(2)  Lightroom need to include the ability to play back audio wav files recorded on Canon pro bodies.  This should be seamless, and Photo Mechanic is an excellent example of how the feature should work.

As long as Lightroom lacks this feature it can't be used for reviewing and editing photo files, not if the photographer makes extensive use of the audio function while shooting and needs to play those audio notes back when reviewing and editing.

[stefpix]

LR imports the RAW and JPG although it only shows the RAW files-
it renames the JPG files according to the renaming of the RAW files.

the problem it does not delete the rejected JPGs relative to the deleted rejected RAWs.

you have to do it manually,
also if you manually move the JPGs to a different folder and reimport it will show both the RAW and JPGs,

clumsy unintuitive behavior.

I would like a command that imports all -
renames the RAW+JPG with the same name but different extension at once and syncs ratings/ metadata.
just a toggle button/menu show RAWs / JPGs/ both

would be amazing - if the JPG is nice a way to auto match the RAW file to the relative JPG for WB/ contrast / brightness / saturation.

[Schewe]

As long as Lightroom lacks this feature it can't be used for reviewing and editing photo files, not if the photographer makes extensive use of the audio function while shooting and needs to play those audio notes back when reviewing and editing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uh huh...and this has what to do with sharpening?

[marty m]

Uh huh...and this has what to do with sharpening?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK. I'll start a separate thread. It will be interesting to see how many items are added to the list that the salesmen and wizards of Photoshop and Lightroom failed to take care of.

[Mark D Segal]

OK. I'll start a separate thread. It will be interesting to see how many items are added to the list that the salesmen and wizards of Photoshop and Lightroom failed to take care of.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Marty, I don't think the issue is "failed to take care of". Those guys know about all kinds of things that can be "taken care of". The problem is that producing software is a commercial enterprise, they are in competition, and they need to make fine judgments about when a product is suitable for the market-place, which is not necessarily the same thing as when the product is totally comprehensive - which it most likely never will be. So they prioritize what stuff gets in the door first, and what waits for future up-grades. These are judgments rather than technical failings. Their judgments will not necessarily correspond with those of each and every user. Such is life. I still think it worthwhile to get into Lightroom on the ground floor, eventhough my usage of it will only become more important as some of the really key (IMO) things I use/"need" eventually get incorporated.