Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: john beardsworth on October 24, 2017, 09:05:29 am
-
Just noticed this by Martin An introduction to the two new versions of Lightroom and how to decide which is best for you (http://www.photoshopforphotographers.com/lightroom/LRCCC.pdf) (pdf)
UPDATE - title changed
-
John - thanks ever so much for this. I was hoping for a contribution from Martin and will read with interest.
-
As always, a great article by Martin.
I remain, however, left with the feeling that there are still a number of concerns, or rather unknowns, about what exactly happens when concurrently running CC and Classic. Most concern is the existing physical database, where new images exist relative to that database, what happens to existing synced collections, etc.
-
Derek Storey's podcast is also worth a listen this week http://thedigitalstory.com/2017/10/the-clouds-silver-lining-podcast-606.html
-
Thanks, John, for sharing these resources. Martin Evening is a master of detailed, accurate and easy to consume content on Adobe products. This is a fine example of his skills.
-
I love the 'Sum it up" text which reinforces my opinion that for me, LR Mobile through LR (like the last experiment) isn't anything I have any desire to use. Too bad this new version has basically one major new feature (range masking). I recall in the day, you needed a good half a dozen or more serious and actual features (not claiming to make the product faster), to call it a new version. We get basically one. :-\
-
One editing feature plus embedded previews if you are going from 2015.12 to "Classic". Another 4-5 decent sized features if you view 6 to 7 in the old manner. Maybe a bit light for a 2-3 year interval?
-
Andrew, if the new Lr Classic can provide ANY performance improvements after 2+ years of stagnation it's worth it for me. Range masking is a very welcome addition.
Time will tell if Lr Classic is worth the blather. Its unknown to me if Classic fixes any of the performance issues with using a graphics processor.
-
One editing feature plus embedded previews if you are going from 2015.12 to "Classic". Another 4-5 decent sized features if you view 6 to 7 in the old manner. Maybe a bit light for a 2-3 year interval?
Oh boy, embedded previews, what a huge engineering concept and task.
Interesting that the 'other 4-5 decent sized features' are not outlined, do tell us what I'm missing in this amazing new, feature clogged filled version. A bit late for a 2-3 interval, YES! Too much time wasted on mobile nonsense instead of the core product. Oh and Photoshop really isn’t that much different in terms of what features it is (and will) provide: Adobe is running out of ideas or time or the desire (or all three).
-
Andrew, if the new Lr Classic can provide ANY performance improvements after 2+ years of stagnation it's worth it for me. Range masking is a very welcome addition.
Too little too late. And we're told that by subscribing we get regular new features but thus far, the history doesn't back that up. Even John has to admit: Maybe a bit light for a 2-3 year interval?
-
Andrew I'm not apologizing for Adobe. They're fat and happy according to their most recent quarterly profits announcement. They're chasing where they see more money. Lightroom doesn't have a serious contender (yet?). When that changes they make wake up. In the meantime they're more excited about their Sensei AI than Lightroom.
-
Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View, extra local adjustments. And all the mobile stuff too.
-
Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View, extra local adjustments. And all the mobile stuff too.
But none of these features are native to Lightroom (I might be wrong). These all are improvement on the camera raw pipeline. There used to be a time where Lightroom had features that camera raw didn't have. Or at least pushed the camera raw a bit more to get it done. Soft proofing comes to mind.
-
Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View, extra local adjustments.
That's very old stuff John. Try again. And all the mobile stuff is fluff too!
-
But none of these features are native to Lightroom (I might be wrong). These all are improvement on the camera raw pipeline. There used to be a time where Lightroom had features that camera raw didn't have. Or at least pushed the camera raw a bit more to get it done. Soft proofing comes to mind.
Or how about one or more sampler points that stick? We have 10 in ACR, zero in LR. Massive, complicated, difficult to consider engineering? Or just something the mobile user's will not understand, hence, why have multiple sampler points. And how about the CMYK stuff we had that never properly worked so it was just removed. You'll not hear John mention previous broken functionality that's just gone a missing.
-
But none of these features are native to Lightroom (I might be wrong). These all are improvement on the camera raw pipeline. There used to be a time where Lightroom had features that camera raw didn't have. Or at least pushed the camera raw a bit more to get it done. Soft proofing comes to mind.
True - though they do still count as part of the 6 to 7 list of new features. The embedded previews and mobile features are outside editing, but Adobe will fail to improve Classic's sync capability. For now on, I doubt Adobe will add any more headline features like face recognition or Book, but they could deliver a lot of value to users by simply polishing existing half-baked features. Lots of small stuff like Title Is Empty, for example, as well as bigger things like embedded previews. But if the only improvements are in camera raw, that would be a bad sign - as if Adobe haven't provided enough already. It's a question of "where's the beef?"
-
................. Too much time wasted on mobile nonsense instead of the core product. .............. Adobe is running out of ideas or time or the desire (or all three).
Well Andrew, if Adobe wants "out of the box" suggestions for seriously core improvements to LR, I can suggest them; but if all they want to do is tinker at the edges of the existing structure, it's not worth my time or theirs'. I'd be happy to open a dialog with their core developers any time they want. The main technical constraint may be whether some of my ideas could be managed in the raw file metadata framework, but I suspect based on what they have added to date that it wouldn't be an issue. That said, all told, for a comprehensive solution from camera to print with minimum file size, high quality output, range of output options and so much flexibility to work between it, Photoshop and various plugins, it's not clear to me that one could push all those buttons simultaneously and do better amongst today's offerings.
-
That said, all told, for a comprehensive solution from camera to print with minimum file size, high quality output, range of output options and so much flexibility to work between it, Photoshop and various plugins, it's not clear to me that one could push all those buttons simultaneously and do better amongst today's offerings.
It may be that Adobe is approaching the point where they have pushed LR Classic as far as it can go and still provide the flexibility inherent in the program. The new improvements, as noted, are not quite as groundbreaking as the introduction of soft proofing within LR was. The question for Adobe is whether there will be a response if a good competitor comes along with a similar offering.
-
Well Andrew, if Adobe wants "out of the box" suggestions for seriously core improvements to LR, I can suggest them; but if all they want to do is tinker at the edges of the existing structure, it's not worth my time or theirs'. I'd be happy to open a dialog with their core developers any time they want.
They don't. That's one of the issues today.
The older I get, the longer I see old time companies change, the more I think; not worth it.
-
Well Andrew, if Adobe wants "out of the box" suggestions for seriously core improvements to LR, I can suggest them; but if all they want to do is tinker at the edges of the existing structure, it's not worth my time or theirs'. I'd be happy to open a dialog with their core developers any time they want. The main technical constraint may be whether some of my ideas could be managed in the raw file metadata framework, but I suspect based on what they have added to date that it wouldn't be an issue. That said, all told, for a comprehensive solution from camera to print with minimum file size, high quality output, range of output options and so much flexibility to work between it, Photoshop and various plugins, it's not clear to me that one could push all those buttons simultaneously and do better amongst today's offerings.
You might be able to acquire a handful of other applications that can achieve basically the same results...but for an easy flow from loading images into LR to labeling and sorting / organizing to processing them for both web view and ready for print...to finally making prints...nothing touches LR / PS combination. I just cannot see myself needing to wander through various applications all with different interfaces to just try accomplish what I can in LR / PS.
Just does not make any sense to me to look elsewhere when an elegant solution sits on my computer already.
-
You might be able to acquire a handful of other applications that can achieve basically the same results...but for an easy flow from loading images into LR to labeling and sorting / organizing to processing them for both web view and ready for print...to finally making prints...nothing touches LR / PS combination. I just cannot see myself needing to wander through various applications all with different interfaces to just try accomplish what I can in LR / PS.
Just does not make any sense to me to look elsewhere when an elegant solution sits on my computer already.
This is exactly how I see it too.
-
It may be that Adobe is approaching the point where they have pushed LR Classic as far as it can go and still provide the flexibility inherent in the program. ..............
I very strongly doubt that. Remember what Bill Gates once said about the maximum amount of RAM any one would ever need in a computer? The technical possibilities for continued growth of core editing capability are probably vast - the main constraints to accelerated innovation would be imagination, time and willingness to invest.
-
You know what REALLY iritates me about Lightroom? The fact that you cannot select an image in a Collection view and delete it from the catalog. Really, why the **** not? Would it be so hard to add that functionality?
-
You know what REALLY iritates me about Lightroom? The fact that you cannot select an image in a Collection view and delete it from the catalog. Really, why the **** not? Would it be so hard to add that functionality?
Probably because the application's designers want to make it super explicit to the user that there is real distinction between a collection of files in the catalog, which is virtual, and the master record, which by comparison is not. The consequences of confusing the two in practice are serious, including accidental loss of the master file in the catalog / publish locations, and even the file system if the user is confused or inattentive.
-
I half agree with you David, but there is this difference between LR showing the file system and the virtual organisation, Aperture only showing you the one.
Anyway, you know Opt/Alt Cmd/Ctrl Shift Delete? No confirmation dialog, so risky.
-
Andrew, if the new Lr Classic can provide ANY performance improvements after 2+ years of stagnation it's worth it for me. Range masking is a very welcome addition.
Time will tell if Lr Classic is worth the blather. Its unknown to me if Classic fixes any of the performance issues with using a graphics processor.
My AMD Radeon Pro WX5100 with latest Q3 2017 driver causes Lightroom classic to crash when switching from library module to develop module with graphics acceleration selected. Works perfectly with GPU acceleration switched off. As the same card works perfectly with Capture One which makes far more use of GPU acceleration than Lightroom I am convinced the problem lies with Adobe not AMD.
Come to think of it GPU acceleration worked OK with the previous version of Lightroom.
Dave.
-
My AMD Radeon Pro WX5100 with latest Q3 2017 driver causes Lightroom classic to crash when switching from library module to develop module with graphics acceleration selected. Works perfectly with GPU acceleration switched off. As the same card works perfectly with Capture One which makes far more use of GPU acceleration than Lightroom I am convinced the problem lies with Adobe not AMD.
Come to think of it GPU acceleration worked OK with the previous version of Lightroom.
Dave.
I just came across this.
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/crash-gpu-directx-enabled.html
I may or may not relate to your problem.
-
I just came across this.
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/crash-gpu-directx-enabled.html
I may or may not relate to your problem.
Thanks, I had in fact found that reference and implemented it. Interesting thing is that if you read it carefully it is not a set of alternatives, having got the GPU in OpenGL mode you are still required to turn off GPU acceleration.
-
Thanks, I had in fact found that reference and implemented it. Interesting thing is that if you read it carefully it is not a set of alternatives, having got the GPU in OpenGL mode you are still required to turn off GPU acceleration.
I also have an issue with AMD-GPU.. But here it's not a crash. It just simply refuses to use GPU, ever since 2015.10.1.
I tried the above for sh*ts and giggles, but it still won't allow me to enable GPU.
Here, it's Win10 AMD A8-3500M w/HD6620G integrated graphics.
I seem to recall that they had problems with AMD GPU acceleration when LR6/2015 came out, as well. I don't understand what it is about AMD, but this is getting tiresome.
-
A few more articles from Martin http://www.photoshopforphotographers.com/CC_2013/Help_guide/pdfs.html - these are on PS, Bridge etc
-
I also have an issue with AMD-GPU.. But here it's not a crash. It just simply refuses to use GPU, ever since 2015.10.1.
I tried the above for sh*ts and giggles, but it still won't allow me to enable GPU.
Here, it's Win10 AMD A8-3500M w/HD6620G integrated graphics.
I seem to recall that they had problems with AMD GPU acceleration when LR6/2015 came out, as well. I don't understand what it is about AMD, but this is getting tiresome.
GPU acceleration works ok in Photoshop so perhaps the Lightroom team ought to talk to the Photoshop team and learn how to implement it properly. This is an Adobe problem not an AMD problem.
-
A few more articles from Martin http://www.photoshopforphotographers.com/CC_2013/Help_guide/pdfs.html - these are on PS, Bridge etc
Thanks John; these are really good papers from Martin; worthwhile keeping up to speed with them.
-
Too little too late. And we're told that by subscribing we get regular new features but thus far, the history doesn't back that up. Even John has to admit: Maybe a bit light for a 2-3 year interval?
Seems to me that, all too often, when Adobe makes significant feature upgrades to LR, we often see reduced performance and bugs. Don't mind slower progress on features if that means they get the performance right. As far as I am concerned, at this point, the new version seems to work more smoothly for me and I can now even activate the use of the graphics processor without slowing things down (though I am not entirely sure what functions that is helping with yet). As far as I can tell from early adopters at this point, I am hearing of very few performance issues with the current update.
-
Seems to me that, all too often, when Adobe makes significant feature upgrades to LR, we often see reduced performance and bugs. Don't mind slower progress on features if that means they get the performance right. As far as I am concerned, at this point, the new version seems to work more smoothly for me and I can now even activate the use of the graphics processor without slowing things down (though I am not entirely sure what functions that is helping with yet). As far as I can tell from early adopters at this point, I am hearing of very few performance issues with the current update.
And improving performance is a big feature in itself...at times much more difficult and resource draining than adding a new feature.
-
A few more articles from Martin http://www.photoshopforphotographers.com/CC_2013/Help_guide/pdfs.html - these are on PS, Bridge etc
Thanks, John!!! Very useful!!!
-
I note that they still haven't fixed the issue where, when the image is saved back to Lightroom after editing in Photoshop, the the selected Lightroom history state reverts back to the initial state instead of the most recent one. Really, Adobe?
-
I note that they still haven't fixed the issue where, when the image is saved back to Lightroom after editing in Photoshop, the the selected Lightroom history state reverts back to the initial state instead of the most recent one. Really, Adobe?
That seems right to me. The image saved back from PS is a new file, with all the previous LR changes and PS edits baked in.
Remember: LR is a parametric editor, but PS is not. Going into PS from LR requires that the LR edits be baked in before going to PS.
Since LR is a parametric editor, the file that comes back from PS has the baked in LR edits plus whatever you diid in PS, and is now a new file (typically a tiff.) It starts over in LR with no new edits yet. If you want to change something from before the excursion into PS, you must work on the version from before going into PS.
-
That seems right to me. The image saved back from PS is a new file, with all the previous LR changes and PS edits baked in.
Remember: LR is a parametric editor, but PS is not. Going into PS from LR requires that the LR edits be baked in before going to PS.
Since LR is a parametric editor, the file that comes back from PS has the baked in LR edits plus whatever you diid in PS, and is now a new file (typically a tiff.) It starts over in LR with no new edits yet. If you want to change something from before the excursion into PS, you must work on the version from before going into PS.
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.
-
That seems right to me. The image saved back from PS is a new file, with all the previous LR changes and PS edits baked in.
Remember: LR is a parametric editor, but PS is not. Going into PS from LR requires that the LR edits be baked in before going to PS.
Since LR is a parametric editor, the file that comes back from PS has the baked in LR edits plus whatever you diid in PS, and is now a new file (typically a tiff.) It starts over in LR with no new edits yet. If you want to change something from before the excursion into PS, you must work on the version from before going into PS.
I am talking about editing the original Tiff file, not creating a new Tiff.
-
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.
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! ;)
-
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.
-
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.... ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Interview: Adobe’s Tom Hogarty on the future of the Mac, iPhone X camera, and the evolving definition of photography (https://9to5mac.com/2017/10/24/interview-adobe-tom-hogarty-future-of-mac-iphone-x-camera-photography/?es_sh=9e1e8bf4c491c882c5c189b4d0672b16&es_ad=50318)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Interview: Adobe’s Tom Hogarty on the future of the Mac, iPhone X camera, and the evolving definition of photography (https://9to5mac.com/2017/10/24/interview-adobe-tom-hogarty-future-of-mac-iphone-x-camera-photography/?es_sh=9e1e8bf4c491c882c5c189b4d0672b16&es_ad=50318)
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...
-
Interview: Adobe’s Tom Hogarty on the future of the Mac, iPhone X camera, and the evolving definition of photography (https://9to5mac.com/2017/10/24/interview-adobe-tom-hogarty-future-of-mac-iphone-x-camera-photography/?es_sh=9e1e8bf4c491c882c5c189b4d0672b16&es_ad=50318)
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.
-
(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
-
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
-
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" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqRY92AcY6k) 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?
-
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"?
-
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. . . .
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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. ;(
-
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
-
What does SFX mean? It has been used approximately 25 times and I still can't figure out what it stands for.
Thanks
-
Sorry, Silver Efex.
-
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!
Shows how I like to keep my finger on the pulse, eh? Now I just have to work out how to do the export to PS and the load into SFX with a single keystroke. Shouldn't be too hard using Keyboard Maestro.
Your book is indeed on Amazon at £0.01, with delivery at 309 times the cost of the book. Or you can buy a copy for £44.
Jeremy
-
Somewhat OT, but I can also recommend Vincent Versace's "From Oz to Kansas - Almost Every Black and White Conversion Technique Known to Man", New Riders, 2013. Don't worry about the title, or the modest qualifier "Almost" - I, at least, can't detect what he's left out. It includes using LR (LR 4 when he wrote the book), as well as a Chapter on SFX Pro2, amongst a whole lot else. That said, personally, I find the latest versions of LR thoroughly satisfactory for a high percentage of my B&W conversions.
-
Somewhat OT, but I can also recommend Vincent Versace's "From Oz to Kansas - Almost Every Black and White Conversion Technique Known to Man", New Riders, 2013.
George Jardine's video is also excellent and free.
http://mulita.com/blog/a-few-thoughts-on-black-white-conversion-past-and-present/
-
George Jardine's video is also excellent and free.
http://mulita.com/blog/a-few-thoughts-on-black-white-conversion-past-and-present/
The blog article containing the link to the video is from 2011, which is a long time ago for digital. For that matter, the Versace book is from 2013.
Any useful techniques to add since that info?
-
The blog article containing the link to the video is from 2011, which is a long time ago for digital. For that matter, the Versace book is from 2013.
Any useful techniques to add since that info?
Yes! Ignore the date, examine the data!
-
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.
And this is why it is shameful that they are charging us $10 to use a service (Lightroom CC in particular), while they leech our work once it goes into their cloud to train a service which they then re-sell to us. When Google, Apple, Facebook or other companies do it, it is debatable as well but at least they are giving you a free product. It is similar to how I believe CaptureOne is also logging data regarding your images (I believe DxO asks you for permission first but it could be the other way around).
-
The blog article containing the link to the video is from 2011, which is a long time ago for digital. For that matter, the Versace book is from 2013.
Any useful techniques to add since that info?
For B&W nothing new (maybe linked SOs), but I had already written up all the new techniques in 2012 :). I don't know if Vincent also noticed them. In any case, software techniques are less important than developing an understanding of how to use whatever techniques may be available. And Ansel wrote that up.
-
George Jardine's video is also excellent and free.
http://mulita.com/blog/a-few-thoughts-on-black-white-conversion-past-and-present/
Thanks for the link, Andrew.
For those of you who have gone to the blog posting, please note that I have made all these videos open, meaning... no need to enter your e-mail address. You'll find direct links to the B&W video on this page, as well as a bunch of other stuff that I hope you'll find useful.
https://mulita.com/blog/free-videos/
George
-
The blog article containing the link to the video is from 2011, which is a long time ago for digital. For that matter, the Versace book is from 2013.
Any useful techniques to add since that info?
George Jardine's videos are also some of the best on how to think about adjustments in LR. If you can nail the thinking behind the sliders, behind what you are doing, that seems to me half the battle.
David
-
George Jardine's video is also excellent and free.
http://mulita.com/blog/a-few-thoughts-on-black-white-conversion-past-and-present/
++ great video