Hybrid use of LR and PS???

[picnic]

I've been happily going along using PSCS3 (as I've used PS for years) and using Bridge much more than in the past--but with no keywords.  I  use PS for almost every image, so that seemed the reasonable way to go.  However, I still often edit in RSP.  I've used many RCs over the years---but really like ACR 4.1 so that's a given now.  I've used Imatch for a DAM for quite awhile, but sometimes, for my usage, its more work than worth it--other than cataloging.  

I've had LR since the beta--and since I'm an RSP license holder, got the final version too.  I've upgraded to 1.1 also, but was not using it.  However, after watching  Camera to Print--I got curious.  Then--to bring myself up to speed quickly, I got the LR tutorials.  Now--I'm in a dilemma LOL--is it counterproductive to use both LR and PS??

I really like editing in LR--I like the ability to change to grid and one image quickly (Imatch user that I am--and in Bridge I created my own 'favorite' with large preview area and filmstrip at the bottom, etc) but I really like using keywords in LR--they are easy to apply (I'm experimenting with importing keywords from LR to Bridge--not sure I've 'got it' yet LOL), I like the UI of LR to view---BUT, and its a big but--I go into PS to process more for just about every image--and to print or prepare for the web.  I tried the 'roundtrip' today--but it isn't totally satisfactory to me--other than it will assure that the newer processed versions will appear in the catalog without importing (I do like the ability in Imatch to just renew the folders without doing anything else when I change things in a folder).   I"ve imported all my 2007 image files so that gives me a lot to work with--and I went back and watched the keyword section of the LR tute so that helped.

I do import and reference from my disks and one thing that kept me from embracing LR in the beginning was the fact I didn't understand that I could have the folders/catalogs show without the image files being present on that disk.  I use a number of HD for archiving--and only have this year's photos on one of my HDs present on the comptuer.  Everything else has to be hooked up.  Michael made it clear that I could do that without any problem so that put aside one issue for me--having the 'unfound' folders in red alerts you quickly.  

However, I actually prefer to do the RAW conversion in PS--I just find it easier to deal with the UI in ACR rather than LR--prefer tabs to scrolling, etc.

So--is it even reasonably productive, workflow wise, to use the 2?  I don't know--I don't shoot huge amounts of files at a time normally, am no longer doing the parttime commercial work--maybe one here and there.

Looks to me as though I will have to work out a reasonable way to proceed if I'm going to do this.   I've found that when I import from a card (or storage device) that I can import and copy to the folder of choice--I have my own organization---so that works fine.  In essence, I suppose this is no different than using a 3rd party RC, then opening in PS for processing--except I will have to import 'final' versions I suppose.

Any thoughts??  Anyone else reconsidering workflow??

Addendum:  Can anyone enlighten me on importing keywords to Bridge--if its totally possible to search there then.  It appears that I did---but I'm not sure LOL.  I did import a txt file--but, after reopening Bridge, it seems as though I have keywords for the one folder I exported from.  I've never used keywords in Bridge, so don't know if they are even worth trying.  Using keywords and searching in LR is so nice.  Gosh--'twould be nice if it was all in one bundle--but I DO understand their differences--and the reasons therefore.

Diane

[Kalin Wilson]

Diane,

I think LR and CS3 fit very well into a complete and integrated workflow - they are not mutually exclusive. You'll find many statements to that effect online.

While LR and ACR may have some overlap for RAW processing (and jpeg/tiff), and while you can do some of what LR does in CS3, I find that LR is the better tool for managing my library and globally correcting exposure and color. Once I have an image the best it can be in LR based on global ajustments, I bring it into CS3 (with the LR adnustments) and apply sharpening (with PK Sharpener) and make any local ajustments or corrections needed. I think print from either CS3 or LR and let LR manage the master file.

They are both great tools with vast potential. They complement each other well if you don't get hung up on either tool having to be the one-tool-that-does-everything syndrome.

Good luck!

[picnic]

Diane,

I think LR and CS3 fit very well into a complete and integrated workflow - they are not mutually exclusive. You'll find many statements to that effect online.

While LR and ACR may have some overlap for RAW processing (and jpeg/tiff), and while you can do some of what LR does in CS3, I find that LR is the better tool for managing my library and globally correcting exposure and color. Once I have an image the best it can be in LR based on global ajustments, I bring it into CS3 (with the LR adnustments) and apply sharpening (with PK Sharpener) and make any local ajustments or corrections needed. I think print from either CS3 or LR and let LR manage the master file.

They are both great tools with vast potential. They complement each other well if you don't get hung up on either tool having to be the one-tool-that-does-everything syndrome.

Good luck!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131675\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks--that's pretty much what I've come to think.  I prefer, for now, the global adjustments with 4.1 (the same--just a different UI) probably because I'm used to PS/ACR--but I think I'm liking managing my library and editing with LR.  I'll just have to see how I decide in the end to put it together.  I have both--no reason not to use them for the parts I like and need from each--and then figure out what the best workflow is.  Since I use PKS and definitely prefer to print from PS (and softproof), then I expect I'll spend more time there--but we'll see.

Diane

[picnic]

Actually, I think I posted this in the wrong forum--but......   I've now loaded almost 5 years of image files (prior to that they are on DVDs so I may put those on drives and load also) and am really amazed that it hasn't seemed to affect the speed or functionality of LR at all.  I've gone back to the tute a couple of times to clarify something for myself--and sometimes just had to try something to see if it worked the way I expected.  

As I understand it--when I reprocess or even add a virtual copy and process it--that is saved in a file within Lightroom--doesn't affect my folder on my external HDs at all.  The worst part (or maybe the best)--as I loaded the old files I found files I should have processed more, or I like them 'again'--or maybe they just hit me differently--and I find I'm going to redo or 'do' files again---but will end up exporting to a current working drive, at least temporarily, until they are done and I suppose add them back to the original archive drive--and then have to import to have them included in LR catalog.  

I really need to think this through carefully before I bung up my organization LOL---but I have to admit that LR has moved me to reprocess--or process some that weren't done---simply by seeing them in the grid, starting to keyword them--and looking at them more closely in this environment.  I remember Jeff saying that LR is terrific for looking at your pics LOL--he's right.

Diane

[rdonson]

Thanks--that's pretty much what I've come to think.  I prefer, for now, the global adjustments with 4.1 (the same--just a different UI) probably because I'm used to PS/ACR--but I think I'm liking managing my library and editing with LR.  I'll just have to see how I decide in the end to put it together.  I have both--no reason not to use them for the parts I like and need from each--and then figure out what the best workflow is.  Since I use PKS and definitely prefer to print from PS (and softproof), then I expect I'll spend more time there--but we'll see.

Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131677\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, I prefer to use LR as my RAW converter and only use CS3 on those files that need it.  Jeff Schewe says that a future version of LR should have soft proofing and better sharpening.  That may allow you to skip the print fro PS step and use PS just for pixel wrangling.  The print features and especially layout are already ahead of PS.

[picnic]

Actually, I prefer to use LR as my RAW converter and only use CS3 on those files that need it.  Jeff Schewe says that a future version of LR should have soft proofing and better sharpening.  That may allow you to skip the print fro PS step and use PS just for pixel wrangling.  The print features and especially layout are already ahead of PS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since I actually do do a fair amount of PS work (dodging, burning, frames on online gallery shots, masking, etc), I expect to almost always go into PS,  If I'm in LR--I imagine I will move to using LR for RC and just get more used to the UI.  

I did hear Jeff say that he expected soft proofing--but it would have to have the equivalent of PKS for me to be happy about printing.  I am doing my capture sharpening now prior to conversion---but I often use the brushes in creative sharpening, like the layer setup of PKS, so its unlikely I will be happy with sharpening in LR for a good while.

I need to try the printing setup from LR though---I've just really skipped it all along from the beta on--so need to go back and watch the print module video in the LR tute and just give it a whirl.

Diane