Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => Luminous Landscape Video => Topic started by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on August 19, 2012, 06:33:23 pm
-
In C2P&S (which is excellent BTW), it is discussed between Michael and Jeff that all image manipulations in LR4 are parametric and so non-destructive to the original Raw file. I accept this, but my question is this - If after working the image, you then wish to do anything with it, other than look at it on your own monitor, such as print it or post it on LuLa for example, you will then need to create some form of output file and by so doing, all the changes and tweaks you applied to the image parametrically in LR4, are then baked into the image just like any other image editing program.
I can only assume that the supposed benefit of this parametric workflow, is to allow you to go back to the image and rework it, but surely you can do that in PS by using non-destructive layers and/or smart objects etc.
I therefore do not understand the supposed advantage of working parametrically, nor the high regard it seems to be given, as it would seem to me, that it becomes totally redundant as soon as you use the image for any and every type of output.
Am I wrong? And if so would someone be kind enough to enlighten me as to why?
:)
Dave
-
Consider:
File size
File management - no extra files
Applying parametric edits to entire shoots - modern photography isn't about processing individual images
-
Once you get it, you will consider parametric editing the best thing since sliced bread :)
Think about, say, D800 36 Mpx files: every time you create a new layer in PS, it adds another 36 Mpx (or whatever the actual number is). Some people end up with dozen of layers, and even hundred is not unheard of, so think about the file size, as John pointed out.
Besides, in PS you have to apply a very disciplined work flow that always uses non-destructive layers and smart objects... LR does it by default, without you having to think about it.
It certainly does not "become totally redundant as soon as you use the image for any and every type of output". On the contrary, it remains as a master file to which you can return many times and rework it just as well, including multiple virtual copies (e.g., b&w version). I actually delete the output file the moment I use it (e.g., post it to LuLa), preventing file clutter.
-
Dave, even if you were working non-destructively in Ps once you save your file then that is it: everything is hardbaked - no going back.
Ps has no memory of what was done to the file the following week or next year.
In Lr when you output a file it is done as something else, a TIFF or DNG, or JPEG, and so the original RAW is untouched and the file that recorded the edits is untouched and at any time subsequently you can undo those edits or change them in any way. Virtual images allow multiple edits of the same RAW file - each virtual image has an edit file containing the history of the edits done and the RAW file itself is not duplicated (a small issue for this topic but this can be a massive saving of HD real estate).
Of course that means generating another TIFF or whatever when an exportable file is required but this is not required if one is printing from Lr.
No doubt that parametric editing in Lr is the way to go.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
In C2P&S (which is excellent BTW), it is discussed between Michael and Jeff that all image manipulations in LR4 are parametric and so non-destructive to the original Raw file.
note that all raw converters are parametric, so why it was/is necessary to mention that again and again, except to FUD that others are somehow not (and even image editors like photoshop can work parametrically), as for "non-destructive to the original Raw file" - there you can actually be destructive to the file (!= raw data) if it is DNG and you instruct LR to save parametric edits/previews back to DNG file ... .
-
there you can actually be destructive to the file (!= raw data) if it is DNG and you instruct LR to save parametric edits/previews back to DNG file ... .
Saving XMP to a DNG is in no way destructive to the raw data...the XMP is only in the headers and doesn't touch the raw data and the preview is the preview, not the raw data. Oi vey...talk about FUD...
-
I therefore do not understand the supposed advantage of working parametrically, nor the high regard it seems to be given, as it would seem to me, that it becomes totally redundant as soon as you use the image for any and every type of output.
Maintaining your original raw file + parametric edits means you always have access to your raw master images. Heck, in Lightroom you can even print your raw images without needing to spawn off a gamma encoded rendered image. If you take your raw image and and render it, yes you must spin off a new rendered image but only if you want to edit it in a pixel editing application like Photoshop.
Yes, one "can" use Adjustment Layers in Photoshop to edit parameters and have a similar parametric editing experience...but painting and retouching in Photoshop is not parametric but pixel-based editing.
-
Dave,
I hope I will ot repaet the other answers too much.
When using Lr, you have 2 complete different sets of data. The first opne is the raw file and the second one is / are the steps you did when you developed it. As you can image, the first dataset is a constant which doesn't chnage ever, the second changes everytime you do any developments.
The finished developed ( resultng) image can be seen in Lr as well as printed without the need of creating any physical file like jpg or tif. When you print a file in Lr, Lr reads the raw, applies the changes from dataset 2 and then does the printjob very well. When you want to post it to any site, you will need a physical file, and this can easyly be done by export, and, as you imagine, it consists of the raw data + the developement changes.
This concept has myn advantages - and to be honest, I personally don't see any disatvatages !
Your fimage exists only one time - and you will be able to create any output within seconds. You don't have dozends of jpg lying on your computer with different sizes and dpi for diffeent purposes, just one image file and a set of develpoement steps.
When yo decide later that the developement of a file was not as good as you want, simply go in the history to the step were you want to restart and redevelope it. Pretty simple - !
But, tehre is one important thing to consider - backup both the pictures and the database ( dataset 2 in my example) !
Robert
-
Ah, I see. So LR4's main benefit is to cater for high volume studio photographers, who shoot large amounts of images that require identical edits, but who also happen to have very limited hard disk space. ???
Yes I am being facetious - and I do get it and I can now see why LR4 might appeal to some photographers even though I now know why it has no appeal to me, as I do work on each image individually and the final version remains the final version, well most of the time - although I do think I would be quite worried about relying on the ongoing validity and integrity of your associated LR4 databases. I worked with and coded database systems for quite a few years back in the 90’s and helped create some high end bespoke accounts packages and I know from bitter experience, that databases and their indexing structures will always become corrupt at some point, this is not an if it happens, but a when it happens situation..
But thanks for the info ;D
Dave
-
As someone who does not do a lot of batch editing - limited to multishot panorama's - I cannot really agree with your conclusions.
Being able to start again with an editing process from scratch because "it isn't working" or just reversing one step is an immense help in fine-tuning individual images. Making several virtual copies with subtle editing variations and being able to compare them side-by-side - that cannot be beaten for fine-tuning.
Your comments about the databasing may have some validity but if the database does become corrupted ones images are not ultimately lost just because Lr has forgotten where they are. I may be wrong but I am not personally aware of this being a major issue.
Ultimately, Dave, you may enjoy and prefer a Ps-based workflow (I was there once too) but the reasons that Lr has become the de facto standard for most image editing cannot be ignored (most professional and amateur photgraphers would be in agreement here).
I actually think that the digital-asset-management capabilities of Lr are an immense asset - just ask anyone who understands and uses smart collections extensively.
Sadly you may be damning with faint praise a very fine and robust software package.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Sadly you may be damning with faint praise a very fine and robust software package.
Regards
Tony Jay
I am not damning it Tony please believe me, really I am not, as I now fully understand what all the fuss is about with the parametric editing thing and agree this may well be great for the folks who use it and rely on it. It is just that even though I have a deleted copy licensed to me through my previous teaching (and occasionally ongoing) employment, I still don't use it, as I actually find its automatic cataloguing system extremely annoying, although I am sure if I cared to dig around in the setting enough, there is probably a way to turn that aspect of it off - is there a way to turn it off?
I just wondered if I was missing something with this parametric thing and so needed to give it yet another go after posing the parametric question to the group, which was all I was wanting to know I suppose.
Dave
-
It is a catalogue and that helps you organize your pictures and therefore frees up time for creative tasks. So you can't "turn it off".
-
... I actually find its automatic cataloguing system extremely annoying, although I am sure if I cared to dig around in the setting enough, there is probably a way to turn that aspect of it off - is there a way to turn it off?
I am not sure I understand your point.
Lr cannot edit an image if it doesn't know it exists.
What the catalog does is keep track of images that have been introduced to Lr (ie imported) as well as all the edits done to the image.
Without the catalog Lr has no "memory" of what is done with the image.
The term 'automatic cataloguing system' that you use betrays a fundamental weakness of understanding what Lr is doing (or not doing) to an image file when one is working in the develop module. It certainly has NOTHING to do with "automatically" organizing one's images, unless, one specifically sets up the collections and smart collections to do so.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
I think that the beauty of Lightroom lies in the integrated package. If you don't want to embrace the integrated package (at least database features + development), chances are that you won't "see the light" of any of the subcomponents.
I was very sceptical about Lightroom when I first tried it (I am a "show me the files in Windows Explorer"-kind of guy), but now I hardly use anything else. I still put my raw files into a sensible folder structure prior to import, though.
-h
-
I am not sure I understand your point.
Lr cannot edit an image if it doesn't know it exists.
and ACR somehow can ;)
-
Saving XMP to a DNG is in no way destructive to the raw data...the XMP is only in the headers and doesn't touch the raw data and the preview is the preview, not the raw data. Oi vey...talk about FUD...
that is exactly what I wrote, however the topicstarter was under wrong impression that LR can't change the file itself... granted Adobe responded to that and made it more difficult, yet possible, to overwrite the file - as you perfectly know before it was possible to do w/o any warning.
-
but painting and retouching in Photoshop is not parametric but pixel-based editing.
create a layer and everything become parametric then, consider pixel based editing operation as a single unit of work.
-
and ACR somehow can ;)
Don't know about you but I was talking about how Lr works - not ACR.
You know as well as I do that how one goes about getting an image to be edited in Lr is different to ACR anyway.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
I am not sure I understand your point.
Lr cannot edit an image if it doesn't know it exists.
What the catalog does is keep track of images that have been introduced to Lr (ie imported) as well as all the edits done to the image.
Without the catalog Lr has no "memory" of what is done with the image.
The term 'automatic cataloguing system' that you use betrays a fundamental weakness of understanding what Lr is doing (or not doing) to an image file when one is working in the develop module. It certainly has NOTHING to do with "automatically" organizing one's images, unless, one specifically sets up the collections and smart collections to do so.
Regards
Tony Jay
Thanks again Tony, I have obviously developed (excuse the pun) such a deep and possibly irrational dislike for LR4, that it is stopping me from fully understanding and embracing its finer points and methodologies. So I think it is possibly just as well to think of me as a lost cause on this one - but thanks again everyone for your more than helpful input.
Dave
-
Dave,
A parting shot: here's an 18 page technical paper from Adobe's website on non-destructive editing which may appeal to your software engineering side: http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/non_destructive_imaging.pdf
In addition, I understand your concern about corrupt catalogs (databases). With Lightroom there is an option to store the editing commands in the image file's xmp space (which is a separate sidecar file for raw image files), as well as in the catalog. LR also has a robust catalog checking and backup capability.
Mark
-
Dave,
A parting shot: here's an 18 page technical paper from Adobe's website on non-destructive editing which may appeal to your software engineering side: http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/non_destructive_imaging.pdf
In addition, I understand your concern about corrupt catalogs (databases). With Lightroom there is an option to store the editing commands in the image file's xmp space (which is a separate sidecar file for raw image files), as well as in the catalog. LR also has a robust catalog checking and backup capability.
Mark
Thanks Mark, a very interesting read and I am now even more enlightened, however I think the paragraph at the bottom of page 13 sums me up quite succinctly "Catalog-based non-destructive editing, however, is counterintuitive at first for many photographers. Until one understands how it works, moving between software programs can be mysterious and frustrating, and work might seem to disappear in the handoff..."
I know I should persevere with Lightroom as I know I am probably missing something good and the parametric editing thing was tempting me back for yet another go at it, but I just couldn't see how it was a benefit for any output files over any other software - which I still can't by the way, yes I know it allows you to tweak a non destructive view of the file ad infinitum, but the pixel crunching that goes on during output is the same as the pixel crunching in any other output I still believe.
But I think the deeper issue for me I am now realising, is being of the old DOS command line mentality, where I suppose I have become just a bit too much of a control freak with all the files on my computer, whereby I like to see and have access control over all the files, including all the hidden and system files. I also like to move my image files around and delete or duplicate them as and when I see fit and hate it when a program loads without me asking it to do so, or tells me something in my image filing system is no longer correct and needs updating and I will just have to wait until it has done its thing - didn't Vista used to do this kind of thing and didn't we all hate Vista? I also dislike having LR load the moment I put my CF card into the drive and wanting to suck my files into a folder of its choosing and naming, which again I am sure I could change in the settings if I cared to dig around. It just comes down to it that for me at least, LR is just too much of a nag and a nanny, yes it might be the best thing since sliced bread for every other photographer on the planet, but I am obviously too stuck in my ways to allow it to take the control it wants over my PC, unless it gives me back something amazing over and above PS and as yet I am still to be convinced that it would.
So as I said - I think it is best to consider me a lost cause on this one :)
Dave
-
Wow Dave, some of the reasoning here... reminds me a bit of the wife and her headaches...
Seriously though I respect your ability to bend pixels in Ps since I have seen several excellent images that you have posted.
However, your criticisms of Lr just don't hold water:
With regard to output files the process is optimized in Lr to produce the best possible result. Things don't happen in the order that one edits so even if sharpening is the first edit applied by you in the develop module it won't be in generating the output. This is not a disadvantage. You appear to have a programming background so think of the process as analogous with optimizing compilers that generate the most efficient machine code from your C++ or whatever - the result may be surprisingly different from what you thought you had coded - it still does what you want but better!
As for your "command line" mania Lr can be set up in any way you like. Asking Lr NOT to open automatically when a CF card is inserted into the reader - simplicity itself. Where the downloaded files files go, what they are named, what folders and their names - all these things are absolutely in YOUR control. None of these things happen by default on my system - this is all far too important for my digital asset management to allow an arbitrary default approach.
Lr is actually a VERY robust piece of software because everything it does can be set up by the user in a way that complements their workflow to their ultimate satisfaction and then automated if desired for efficiency. Like you, I think, I would not want Lr to automatically apply develop module edits to my images on import, however when it comes to renaming images and organizing my images into the correct folders all of this is done via presaved "macro's" optimized for my needs. Everything that happens happens because I want it to, nothing happens if I don't want it to.
Optimizing Lr to suit individual needs is not hard - it was specifically designed with the needs of discerning and demanding photographers in mind, not programmers, so it is actually quite user friendly.
Dave, you may decide to stick with Ps for your entire postprocessing workflow, but your "excuses" why you don't want to use Lr seem to me to just reflect a desire to convince yourself rather than reflect the actual reality of how LR works.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
So as I said - I think it is best to consider me a lost cause on this one :)
The thing you have to ask yourself, is: what do I know that you don't know? Why do I use Lightroom (and Photoshop) instead of a different workflow that is Photoshop "only" (implying Bridge/Camera Raw)?
Yes, I often use Bridge/Camera Raw...it's quick to browse a specific folder to see what's there. But EVERYTHING I shoot ends up in Lightroom–even if the raw file ends up being processed into Photoshop for retouching or compositing. The key is that I save the retouched image as my rendered RGB master and do all my printing from Lightroom. Why? It's a far better workflow than printing from Photoshop–which is so last millennium...
You go right along and do what you do...and I'll do what I do...whose overall workflow is optimal? You (and I) can decide...I much prefer to use a Lightroom centric workflow...because, well, it's better (for me).
-
Thanks Guys, I really do appreciate the effort you are all putting into pushing me in what is obviously the right direction.
I will bite the bullet one more time and set it back up on my machine and have yet another go at it - I am a bit of a stubborn old mule you know, but I will really try to be less negative this time.
Wow Dave, some of the reasoning here... reminds me a bit of the wife and her headaches...
I bet you will deny that Tony when I tell her ;D
Thanks again.
Dave
-
I bet you will deny that Tony when I tell her ;D
Luckily she has a sense of humour!
Dave feel free to post further questions to help guide you through setting up and using Lr.
There is a massive amount of expertise with Lr on the forum. Apart from Jeff Schewe and Eric Chan another name that comes to mind is John Beardy who has an unusually deep understanding of how Lr works. (Apologies to any others who are also real experts in Lr.)
You have the Lr video tutorial already but also consider downloading the DAM tutorial starring Seth Resnick.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
... EVERYTHING I shoot ends up in Lightroom–even if the raw file ends up being processed into Photoshop for retouching or compositing. The key is that I save the retouched image as my rendered RGB master ...
Jeff,
Do you worry that in the (perhaps distant) future the processing engines will render today's parametric and layered images differently than they do today? Does that prompt you to save, say, rendered and flattened TIFF files as a hedge?
Mark
-
You have the Lr video tutorial already but also consider downloading the DAM tutorial starring Seth Resnick.
No I haven't bought Mike and Jeff's LR tutorials. Because I've had this mental block about LR, so didn't think I would need to buy the guide. I have got so deeply into PS and for so long, that I thought what use could LR ever be to me, but as promised, I have been trying it out again today and as I am very familiar with PS and a variety of plug-ins, I can usually pick things up pretty quickly just as long as the red mist doesn't descend. So I will continue playing with it and learn it intuitively at first and then buy the tutorial in a while if and when I need to.
I am easing myself into it by using it more as a replacement for bridge at the moment, which is fairly painless.
Dave
-
Do you worry that in the (perhaps distant) future the processing engines will render today's parametric and layered images differently than they do today? Does that prompt you to save, say, rendered and flattened TIFF files as a hedge?
Nope...I don't really worry about that for several reasons, one of which is that as raw processing keeps getting better and better, I actually go back on reprocess older images when needed. I'm not really concerned about preserving an older look. As far as layered files, are you referring to Photoshop? I doubt that Photoshop will change the look of an older layered file and I can open an image produced in Photoshop 2 from early 1992 in Photoshop CS6. Course, there weren't "layers" in version 2...going backwards would of course be impossible :~)
-
...I can usually pick things up pretty quickly just as long as the red mist doesn't descend. So I will continue playing with it and learn it intuitively at first and then buy the tutorial in a while if and when I need to.
I am easing myself into it by using it more as a replacement for bridge at the moment, which is fairly painless.
Dave
I don't find everything in LR to be intuitive; maybe it's my engineering background. This may be presumptuous, but here's a couple hints. Using LR as a replacement for Bridge is not a bad way to start. To edit in Photoshop: right click on an image in the Library, then select Edit In / Open as Smart Object in Photoshop (which lets you get to ACR as usual).
After editing in PS you might want to save the result in the same folder as the source. Upon return to LR your file may not be in the catalog. Easy way to get it there: in the folders panel on the left, right click on your folder and select Synchronize Folder, then follow prompts.
P.S. Beautiful Misty Isle shots on your site!
-
...As far as layered files, are you referring to Photoshop? I doubt that Photoshop will change the look of an older layered file and I can open an image produced in Photoshop 2 from early 1992 in Photoshop CS6. Course, there weren't "layers" in version 2...going backwards would of course be impossible :~)
I was referring to Photoshop regarding layered files, considering both the PS processing engine and ACR used for smart object layers containing raw (or jpg etc.) images.
OK, I'm convinced. Adobe is firmly committed to backward compatibility, and even if Adobe is someday taken down a different path, there will be preservation choices. After all, we can still hear old 78 recordings without a Victrola.
-
I don't find everything in LR to be intuitive; maybe it's my engineering background. This may be presumptuous, but here's a couple hints. Using LR as a replacement for Bridge is not a bad way to start. To edit in Photoshop: right click on an image in the Library, then select Edit In / Open as Smart Object in Photoshop (which lets you get to ACR as usual).
After editing in PS you might want to save the result in the same folder as the source. Upon return to LR your file may not be in the catalog. Easy way to get it there: in the folders panel on the left, right click on your folder and select Synchronize Folder, then follow prompts.
P.S. Beautiful Misty Isle shots on your site!
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the heads-up and I am still only dipping my toe into LR, because as I think you can see from the images on my website (and thank you very much for your comments, much appreciated), I had already developed quite a solid and repeatable workflow, that I have grown more than comfortable with sans LR, so I suppose it all comes down to that single question - will LR add anything to my workflow?
Dave