Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: New to LR Questions  (Read 2955 times)

Farkled

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 97
New to LR Questions
« on: December 23, 2008, 03:49:05 pm »

Please forgive what may be stupid questions

I'm about to commit to Lightroom and I want to get it right after running the trial.

Am I better off with metadata in XMP sidecars or in the catalog?  I prefer in the catalog because of file management considerations.  Today's huge disks create huge block sizes.  Seems overkill for a simple text file.  Then there is the danger of disconnecting the CR2 and the XMP.  I want to stay with CR2 because going to DNG prevents the use of DPP and DxO.

To get the trial going I simply imported all my (25,000) images.  Since then I've played with collections and keywords and, of course, didn't get it nearly as right as a fuller understanding now suggests.  I'm not so far down the road that scrapping what I've done (in terms of keywords as opposed to image adjustments) would be all that onerous (losing image adjustments would be painful, but survivable).  Am I better off starting over or fixing what I've done?  Haven't gotten far enough with Library functions to determine that.

Any other words of wisdom for a Lightroom newbie?

Thank you all in advance and a Merry Christmas to you all.
Logged

ajtaylor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
    • http://
New to LR Questions
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2008, 04:16:50 pm »

Quote from: Farkled
Am I better off with metadata in XMP sidecars or in the catalog?

Only you can decide that. If you don't use XMP's, and lose the catalogue, then you've lost everything, but it is easier to back up. If you do use XMP's, you can easily move images + adjustments around, burn to dvd, etc, and keep the adjustments with them (you could also do a catalogue export). You can also use Bridge to see the same adjustments in the browser and in ACR if you use XMP.

Logged

Nat Coalson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
    • http://www.NatCoalson.com/
New to LR Questions
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2008, 05:36:49 pm »

1. As a Canon shooter myself I don't see any benefit whatsoever to using DPP.... especially with the new DNG Profiles from Adobe. You can precisely reproduce DPPs raw rendering in LR, and so far, the only thing I've seen in DPP that I can't do in LR is see what autofocus points were locked at the time of capture. I think this is insignificant.

2. In June 2007 DxO released the first Lightroom plug-in, designed to integrate LR with Optics Pro. More info here

I haven't used this method, and honestly can't vouch for it, but just wanted to let you know that DxO is totally onboard with LR plug-ins. I think you can expect to see much more interoperability in this regard during the coming months.

IMHO, the benefits to DNG and Lightroom far outweigh any disadvantages. Having your XMP embedded in a single raw file represents a HUGE advantage in high-end imaging. I don't see any need to keep .CR2 files around.

Before you rule out DNG, I think it would be a good idea to take some time to really map out your desired workflow more thoroughly and consider whether you really need to keep those .CR2s at all.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2008, 05:38:25 pm by Nat Coalson »
Logged
Nathaniel Coalson
Author of [url=http://

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
New to LR Questions
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2008, 05:57:16 pm »

Quote from: Nat Coalson
... I don't see any benefit whatsoever to using DPP....

At higher ISO, DPP delivers superior noise reduction to ACR, significantly better chroma noise and finer, tighter, film-like luminance noise.

Farkled

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 97
New to LR Questions
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2008, 06:47:36 pm »

Quote from: Nat Coalson
1. As a Canon shooter myself I don't see any benefit whatsoever to using DPP.... especially with the new DNG Profiles from Adobe. You can precisely reproduce DPPs raw rendering in LR, and so far, the only thing I've seen in DPP that I can't do in LR is see what autofocus points were locked at the time of capture. I think this is insignificant.

2. In June 2007 DxO released the first Lightroom plug-in, designed to integrate LR with Optics Pro. More info here

I haven't used this method, and honestly can't vouch for it, but just wanted to let you know that DxO is totally onboard with LR plug-ins. I think you can expect to see much more interoperability in this regard during the coming months.

IMHO, the benefits to DNG and Lightroom far outweigh any disadvantages. Having your XMP embedded in a single raw file represents a HUGE advantage in high-end imaging. I don't see any need to keep .CR2 files around.

Before you rule out DNG, I think it would be a good idea to take some time to really map out your desired workflow more thoroughly and consider whether you really need to keep those .CR2s at all.

This is extremely valuable information - for which I thank you.  Such foundational material can make or break things.  Not having had LR until this trial, my workflow has been to (for the [very] few worthy images only) to process independently in DPP, ACR and DxO to see which I like best.  My most successful approach has been to output DNGs from DxO and have at them with ACR.  I read the PDF on the DxO website and it does not speak to DNGs as input.  If DxO were to accept DNGs as input, the case would be closed, game over.  I seldom use DPP anymore.  There have been a couple instances where DPP lens corrections looked better than DxO to my eye.

Regardless, the very best wind up in PS which ultimately outputs a TIF which I print with Qimage.   I've simply never gotten PS to print anything properly whereas Qimage seems to do it right the first time.  Yes, I have Michael & Jeff's excellent video series "From Camera to Print" and will soon purchase the LR video.

To summarize:  I want the option of using either LR or DxO as the primary converter.  LR handles CR2 and DNG as inputs.  DxO handles only CR2 (RAW files only from my POV).  Thoughts?
Logged

Wolf Eilers

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
New to LR Questions
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2008, 12:52:49 am »

Quote from: slobodan56
At higher ISO, DPP delivers superior noise reduction to ACR, significantly better chroma noise and finer, tighter, film-like luminance noise.

True enough but the cost is a noticeable loss of detail - even at default or 'zero' settings - because of the aggressive noise reduction employed by DPP. Lightroom is not as aggressive, preferring to retain the detail.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
New to LR Questions
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2008, 03:51:25 pm »

Quote from: Wolf Eilers
True enough but the cost is a noticeable loss of detail - even at default or 'zero' settings - because of the aggressive noise reduction employed by DPP. Lightroom is not as aggressive, preferring to retain the detail.

That is simply not true. On the contrary, detail on DPP files looks better (sharper) due to the finer luminosity noise.

And just to make it clear: I am not bashing ACR/Lightroom... I use it daily and prefer it to anything else, simply because of the superior user interface and sheer range of adjustments. However, ACR does have a week spot: chroma noise at higher ISO. So, if that is the critical issue in an image, I then (and only then) switch to DPP. Horses for courses, as they say.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 03:59:48 pm by slobodan56 »
Logged

giles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 209
New to LR Questions
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2008, 06:41:26 pm »

Quote from: Nat Coalson
IMHO, the benefits to DNG and Lightroom far outweigh any disadvantages. Having your XMP embedded in a single raw file represents a HUGE advantage in high-end imaging. I don't see any need to keep .CR2 files around.
I've been using DNG files, which was sensible at the time I started doing it.  It's been pointed out to me that with external storage if backing up via any program that looks for file changes (e.g. rsync, and there are others) that with the XMP-ish data within the DNG file, any image you work on will have its DNG file changed.  With mirroring that wouldn't matter, but with incremental backups, rsync, etc, it will.

Then there's Lightroom performance: in early releases keeping .xmp files was performance intensive; so much so that I turned that option off and haven't tried it again.  What the performance is of catalog v. DNG for keeping such data I have no idea.  (Yet, anyway.)

I'm offering more questions than answers, but if people who've worked through these issues and care to share experiences ...?

Cheers,

Giles
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up