Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: ambystoma on October 10, 2014, 01:08:02 pm
-
I do most of my image processing in LR. On occasion I need to send an image over to photoshop CC to finish off. Often using the highlight/shadow control in finish the image. Is it best to apply the sharpening and noise reduction to the image in LR before sending it over to CC as a 16bit tiff? Or is it best to send it over without sharpening and NR applied and then make that the last step when the image returns to Lightroom?
I have tried it both ways and gotten mixed results. So I am curious to know how others handle this problem.
-
Coincidentally, I was just about to post the same question, though related to noise reduction specifically. I have a feeling that NR is best done on a raw file, while it doesn't matter for sharpening. But that is just a feeling, hopefully some of the experts here will help us.
-
Hi,
It depends. If you are happy with LR processing I would suggest doing both NR and sharpening in LR, in all probability they have optimised the process.
If you want to sharpen using a more advanced tool, like Focus Magic, I would use NR in Lightroom and not sharpen at all in Lightroom and do the sharpening in Focus Magic. Why? Because LR sharpening will produce some halos, while Focus Magic can avoid that. So do NR in Lightroom, sharpen in Photoshop and finish up the image in LR.
I would say that LR is good at resizing and output sharpening.
I prefer to do all my processing in LR, but I need to use Photoshop for some tricks some times. I don't like it, as I feel it breaks parametric workflow, but life is harsh…
Best regards
Erik
I do most of my image processing in LR. On occasion I need to send an image over to photoshop CC to finish off. Often using the highlight/shadow control in finish the image. Is it best to apply the sharpening and noise reduction to the image in LR before sending it over to CC as a 16bit tiff? Or is it best to send it over without sharpening and NR applied and then make that the last step when the image returns to Lightroom?
I have tried it both ways and gotten mixed results. So I am curious to know how others handle this problem.
-
I have a feeling that NR is best done on a raw file
my uneducated $0.02 = Adobe's processing model does not do NR (not talking about things like hot pixel suppression) on raw data (because they do demosaick way before such operations)... at best you might claim that they do (they may not though) NR on some "scene referred" data (where "scene referred" means that is before doing any color transforms... or rather non linear color transforms, because some might argue that purely matrix operations might still qualify the data as "scene referred")... doing NR/sharpening outside of ACR may allow you to use more advanced plugins/techniques, but at a cost of time/effort/maintainability and doing that in color-transformed color space (and color transform might make things worse based on the particular arithmetic... in shadows naturally)
-
OK, let me rephrase the question. I am only interested in sharpening and NR using the current Lightroom tools. If I am sending images to photoshop CC for other minor enhancements is it best for me to do the sharpening and NR, in LR5 prior to sending the file to photoshop CC? Or do it once it returns from CC in 16 bit tiff form. Of course I am happy, Eric, with LR sharpening and NR. My question is given the parameter of sending images over to photoshop CC is what is the best point in the workflow to apply sharpening and NR. That is what I am concerned with right now.
-
OK, let me rephrase the question. I am only interested in sharpening and NR using the current Lightroom tools. If I am sending images to photoshop CC for other minor enhancements is it best for me to do the sharpening and NR, in LR5 prior to sending the file to photoshop CC? Or do it once it returns from CC in 16 bit tiff form. Of course I am happy, Eric, with LR sharpening and NR. My question is given the parameter of sending images over to photoshop CC is what is the best point in the workflow to apply sharpening and NR. That is what I am concerned with right now.
if you consider what is better when you work with TIFF - PS or LR, then PS naturally beats LR because PS can use ACR "plugin" to do whatever LR does natively w/ the same data that PS receives ;D and on top of that PS can use the whole bunch of NR/sharpening plugins, some of which are not available for LR (some are, but not all).
now with that said the real choice is whether to do NR/sharpening before output to PS or in PS.
-
...it doesn't matter for sharpening...
On second thought, I think it does.
Scenario 1: all done in LR
A file opens up with a default sharpening: (25-1.0-25-0). I usually go for LR presents, either Faces (35-1.4-15-60) or Scenic (40-0.8-35-0). When I do, it simply REPLACES the default setting by the new one.
Scenario 2: round-tripping
Open a file, transfer it to PS, return to LR, apply LR sharpening presets. In this case, the file left LR with the default sharpening, but upon return, the sharpening presets are applied ON TOP of the already sharpened file. The solution would be to zero the default sharpening before round-tripping.
Am I correct?
-
I always open my image into photoshop as a smart object (nothing unique to me, I think many use this workflow), which embeds the raw file into the photoshop document and allows me to re-edit any LR changes with ACR. I can add smart filters to that which are then editable was well (such as smart sharpen for creative sharpening). I’ve been working with Focus Magic some and like what I see, which necessitates a copy of the layer. But I can always get back to where I was with the smart object.
Also any time I “clone” heal, I can then no longer edit the original or the healing layer is obvious, but that’s pretty rare. But keeping that layer insures the raw file and it’s edits are always available.
Not to get into the whole “non destructive” terminology again, but bottom line I can always go backwards or start at a previous step, without having to start over from the lightroom generated file.
Printing for me is always from Lightroom, and the only problem I run into is many of my files end up over 4gigs in size requiring a .psb format which Lightroom doesn’t support These means I have to save a flattened version of the file for printing purposes, which is always named xxxxxx-fromPSB.tif so if I need to edit it I know I need to open the PSB from the finder.
-
now with that said the real choice is whether to do NR/sharpening before output to PS or in PS.
[/quote]
Well, yes, that is the question I am asking and it seems to be consistently not understood. :-\
-
On second thought, I think it does.
Scenario 1: all done in LR
A file opens up with a default sharpening: (25-1.0-25-0). I usually go for LR presents, either Faces (35-1.4-15-60) or Scenic (40-0.8-35-0). When I do, it simply REPLACES the default setting by the new one.
Scenario 2: round-tripping
Open a file, transfer it to PS, return to LR, apply LR sharpening presets. In this case, the file left LR with the default sharpening, but upon return, the sharpening presets are applied ON TOP of the already sharpened file. The solution would be to zero the default sharpening before round-tripping.
Am I correct?
Yes I believe you are correct in your scenario. Yet in my case, I was positing when to sharpen. Which should be understood to mean that no sharpening, default, preset or otherwise has been applied. I make sure the sharpening and NR sliders are zeroed out.
-
Open a file, transfer it to PS, return to LR, apply LR sharpening presets. In this case, the file left LR with the default sharpening, but upon return, the sharpening presets are applied ON TOP of the already sharpened file. The solution would be to zero the default sharpening before round-tripping.
Am I correct?
By default, perhaps; but can't you just zero the sharpening sliders after re-importing?
Jeremy
-
It could depend a little on exactly what kind of edits you are doing in PS but the traditional work flow is to reduce noise early and sharpen late. I think that is a pretty good rule-of-thumb for the following reasons:
- I think the noise reduction processes usually work a little better on an image that is close to its original state. Nothing has yet modified the noise patterns and no drastic changes to exposure have been made yet so the NR algorithms are going to find and address noise better.
- If you do anything more than mild "capture" sharpening initially, you run the risk of creating artifacts as you continue to edit the file, including the possibility of clipping sharpening halos to pure black or white if you make any adjustments to exposure.
- If you are including any sharpening specifically related to your output media ("output sharpening"), you normally want to do that as late in the work flow as possible so that you can save your edited image before doing that sharpening and then have the flexibility to sharpen for different output media.
I hope that maybe gives you some things to think about. I think how picky you need to be about this is going to depend on how noisy the image is, how much sharpening you need to do, and the types and amounts of your edits in PS as I mentioned initially.
-
By default, perhaps; but can't you just zero the sharpening sliders after re-importing?
Jeremy
If you zero it after re-importing, the only sharpening the file is getting is the default one, i.e., the one already applied before leaving LR. I rarely leave it at default, because either Scenic or Faces work better, depending on the image content.
-
Well, yes, that is the question I am asking and it seems to be consistently not understood. :-\
and you were already told that you can use ACR in PS to do the same as you do in LR and much more with things absent in LR... so the question is really - do you want a hassle (time, effort, SmartObjects, etc) or not... not about the quality, because LR does not bring anything over PS on your table, but less in so many cases
-
and you were already told that you can use ACR in PS...
That is beyond the point. If you prefer PS or ACR or whatever, that's ok... but assume for the moment that the OP (and myself, for that matter) for whatever reason, justified or not, prefer to do as much as possible in LR and then... stick to the original question. That is, if you know the answer, if not, let others contribute.
-
and you were already told that you can use ACR in PS to do the same as you do in LR and much more with things absent in LR... so the question is really - do you want a hassle (time, effort, SmartObjects, etc) or not... not about the quality, because LR does not bring anything over PS on your table, but less in so many cases
Smart Objects are not a hassle, but the best way of maintaining quality and editibilty of images when opening images, particularly raw files into PS. Also LR's dev module is far better ergonomically than the clunky ACR interface.
I prefer to do all my processing in LR, but I need to use Photoshop for some tricks some times. I don't like it, as I feel it breaks parametric workflow, but life is harsh…
Not if you open and process images as Smart Objects.
-
I do most of my image processing in LR. On occasion I need to send an image over to photoshop CC to finish off. Often using the highlight/shadow control in finish the image. Is it best to apply the sharpening and noise reduction to the image in LR before sending it over to CC as a 16bit tiff? Or is it best to send it over without sharpening and NR applied and then make that the last step when the image returns to Lightroom?
I have tried it both ways and gotten mixed results. So I am curious to know how others handle this problem.
Why even bother to use PS to do this when you can do Shadow/Highlights in LR anyway?
Though S/H are possible to tweak on smart objects in PS as smart filters, which is handy.
Out of curiosity I tried using S/H in PS to compare. Not used it for years as it was far inferior compared to processing raw files but as a smart filter on a smart object [raw file] it's pretty good now. But still not quite as good as LR/ACR as it tends to start looking HDR ish before ACR/LR does.
-
I always open my image into photoshop as a smart object (nothing unique to me, I think many use this workflow), which embeds the raw file into the photoshop document and allows me to re-edit any LR changes with ACR. I can add smart filters to that which are then editable was well (such as smart sharpen for creative sharpening). I’ve been working with Focus Magic some and like what I see, which necessitates a copy of the layer. But I can always get back to where I was with the smart object.
Also any time I “clone” heal, I can then no longer edit the original or the healing layer is obvious, but that’s pretty rare. But keeping that layer insures the raw file and it’s edits are always available.
Not to get into the whole “non destructive” terminology again, but bottom line I can always go backwards or start at a previous step, without having to start over from the lightroom generated file.
Printing for me is always from Lightroom, and the only problem I run into is many of my files end up over 4gigs in size requiring a .psb format which Lightroom doesn’t support These means I have to save a flattened version of the file for printing purposes, which is always named xxxxxx-fromPSB.tif so if I need to edit it I know I need to open the PSB from the finder.
But isn't it kind of irritating that editing a smart object created from Lightroom has to be edited in ACR rather than Lightroom?
-
But isn't it kind of irritating that editing a smart object created from Lightroom has to be edited in ACR rather than Lightroom?
Yes!
But as you are working in PS and ACR is a part of PS, it makes perfect sense. LR is not part of PS.
Having the option to use LR would be nice, but could prove quite complex to implement.
When Beta-testing PS, one of the things I tried to do was push for updating ACR to a more modern and less clunky interface. But for various historical reasons it was never going to be changed.
Particularly annoying is using the same set of tools from the same company that do exactly the same thing, but with different shortcuts and a very different interface. Very inferior interface in the case of ACR - which was laid out by coders and not by UI designers and originally for a far simpler feature set and a very different workflow to how things are now done.
-
Also LR's dev module is far better ergonomically than the clunky ACR interface.
LR is just horrible vs the simple and elegant ACR UI... and I am not even starting about DAM forced on you when you don't ask for it.
-
Smart Objects are not a hassle, but the best way of maintaining quality and editibilty of images when opening images, particularly raw files into PS.
not sure what it has to do with quality though... unless you are referring to workflow/using layers/non destructive editing in PS.
-
LR is just horrible vs the simple and elegant ACR UI... and I am not even starting about DAM forced on you when you don't ask for it.
As usual, perception of ease of use is what one is most familiar with... :-)
-
I do most of my image processing in LR. On occasion I need to send an image over to photoshop CC to finish off. Often using the highlight/shadow control in finish the image. Is it best to apply the sharpening and noise reduction to the image in LR before sending it over to CC as a 16bit tiff? Or is it best to send it over without sharpening and NR applied and then make that the last step when the image returns to Lightroom?
I have tried it both ways and gotten mixed results. So I am curious to know how others handle this problem.
I'm just wondering why you would use highlight/shadow control in Photoshop. I find the highlights and shadows sliders in Lightroom so much better and have not used Photoshop for this purpose in years (since Lightroom 4 came out).
-
Yes!
But as you are working in PS and ACR is a part of PS, it makes perfect sense. LR is not part of PS.
Having the option to use LR would be nice, but could prove quite complex to implement.
When Beta-testing PS, one of the things I tried to do was push for updating ACR to a more modern and less clunky interface. But for various historical reasons it was never going to be changed.
Particularly annoying is using the same set of tools from the same company that do exactly the same thing, but with different shortcuts and a very different interface. Very inferior interface in the case of ACR - which was laid out by coders and not by UI designers and originally for a far simpler feature set and a very different workflow to how things are now done.
Maybe hard to implement editing smart objects in Lightroom rather than in ACR, but I believe it could be done. Not intending an implementation suggestion, but Photoshop knows (or should know) that the smart object was created from LR and therefore there should be a link back to LR so that the either the RAW file could be edited from LR when editing the TIFF or PSD file or updated to the original RAW file in Lightroom that was the basis for embedding should simply go into that TIFF or PSD file. It could even be a virtual copy. In general there are missing other relationships. If you create a pano in Photoshop from LR why does LR not know which files was included in the pano? Same thing if opening a number of photos from Lightrom as layers in Photoshop. Why should I relay on naming RAWs or virtual copies to know which files went into creating some other photos in Photoshop. Why should the RAW file even be embedded inside the TIFF when it was created from LR? Yes, it would require engineering work, but could be made so much more elegant and tied together. Adobe should get rid of ACR and Bridge and make a new architecture together with LR where parametric and pixel editing would seamlessly fit together.
And I agree on the UI of ACR.
-
+1
Erik
I'm just wondering why you would use highlight/shadow control in Photoshop. I find the highlights and shadows sliders in Lightroom so much better and have not used Photoshop for this purpose in years (since Lightroom 4 came out).
-
Hi,
In general, I feel it is a bad idea to apply sharpening on sharpening. I would also say that once I am in PS and blown up that nice 36 MP file too 144 MP of 16-bits TIFF, I can as well sharpen in PS, using a better tool like FocusMagic. But really, I prefer to work parametrically and staying within Lightroom.
The problem with sharpening in several steps is that sharpening more often than not introduces some artefacts, any additional sharpening may sharpen those artefacts.
Something that makes some sense to me is to apply a good sharpening early on, and applying a mild sharpening like 15-20% using a large radius, like 2-3 pixels. That pushes the low frequency detail to higher contrast.
Dear Lord, give me a parametric version of FocusMagic…
Best regards
Erik
On second thought, I think it does.
Scenario 1: all done in LR
A file opens up with a default sharpening: (25-1.0-25-0). I usually go for LR presents, either Faces (35-1.4-15-60) or Scenic (40-0.8-35-0). When I do, it simply REPLACES the default setting by the new one.
Scenario 2: round-tripping
Open a file, transfer it to PS, return to LR, apply LR sharpening presets. In this case, the file left LR with the default sharpening, but upon return, the sharpening presets are applied ON TOP of the already sharpened file. The solution would be to zero the default sharpening before round-tripping.
Am I correct?
-
LR is just horrible vs the simple and elegant ACR UI... and I am not even starting about DAM forced on you when you don't ask for it.
Nope, ACR is one with the clunky and faffy interface, one that struggles with all the later features crammed into the cramped layout that was only simple when it was first designed a decade or so earlier.
As for the ridiculous statement about DAM being forced on you there are a couple of things wrong with that. Firstly people specifically buy and use LR for it's integral organising (and superior design of Dev module).
Secondly, if you have large amounts of digital media only a masochist avoids using a DAM of some kind.
-
not sure what it has to do with quality though... unless you are referring to workflow/using layers/non destructive editing in PS.
Well if you use smart objects, then the whole issue of when to sharpen is moot. Thus preserving quality.
-
Maybe hard to implement editing smart objects in Lightroom rather than in ACR, but I believe it could be done. Not intending an implementation suggestion, but Photoshop knows (or should know) that the smart object was created from LR and therefore there should be a link back to LR so that the either the RAW file could be edited from LR when editing the TIFF or PSD file or updated to the original RAW file in Lightroom that was the basis for embedding should simply go into that TIFF or PSD file. It could even be a virtual copy.
You may open an image from LR, but image is parametrically processed through/into PS by ACR.
The more practical solution is to make ACR less cack and more LR like, otherwise you will have to place LR inside PS.
Adobe should get rid of ACR and Bridge and make a new architecture together with LR where parametric and pixel editing would seamlessly fit together.
Bridge serves a very different role to LR, so merging is not practical or sensible.
-
That is beyond the point. If you prefer PS or ACR or whatever, that's ok... but assume for the moment that the OP (and myself, for that matter) for whatever reason, justified or not, prefer to do as much as possible in LR and then... stick to the original question. That is, if you know the answer, if not, let others contribute.
+1
-
I feel sorry for the original poster to have his thread totally hijacked out from under him without anyone actually answering his question. I appreciate that almost everyone has some interesting things to contribute, but most of them are totally beside the point of the OP.
-
Actually, uh, no. Sometimes the shadows and highlights sliders will only take you so far in LR. By taking it image over to CC the shadow/highlight adjustment has much more control. Allowing you to set amount, tone and radius. LR does not allow that. Understand now? I never should have asked this question as I knew instead of answering it all I would read is questions about why I choose to on occasion, when necessary need to take the image over into CC from LR to use the shadow highlight control that is a much finer tool than its equivalent in LR. Also it is my workflow choice to always start in LR. That is how I do prefer to work for my own particular organizational purposes.
-
I disagree completely. This has nothing to do with my original question. My question has to do with whether or not it is better to apply sharpening and noise reduction in LR before making the round trip to CC and back. That was my question. The shadows/highlights control in CC is a much finer tool. I work with a lot of very tiny highlights. In LR I just can't get them under control. But when I do the best the LR H and S sliders allow and I take it over to CC I can really get the result I want and need. But again, my initial question had nothing to do with that. It was a simple workflow question wondering, given my stated workflow preference------ when is it best to apply sharpening and noise reduction? Before making the round trip to CC and back? Or not?
-
I disagree completely. This has nothing to do with my original question. My question has to do with whether or not it is better to apply sharpening and noise reduction in LR before making the round trip to CC and back. That was my question. The shadows/highlights control in CC is a much finer tool. I work with a lot of very tiny highlights. In LR I just can't get them under control. But when I do the best the LR H and S sliders allow and I take it over to CC I can really get the result I want and need. But again, my initial question had nothing to do with that. It was a simple workflow question wondering, given my stated workflow preference------ when is it best to apply sharpening and noise reduction? Before making the round trip to CC and back? Or not?
It's been answered. Use smart objects and do sharpening whenever you want as it doesn't matter. ;D
Also you need to specify what sort of sharpening you are talking about, capture sharpening, creative sharpening and output sharpening. The latter should only be done when a file is exported for print/web/end use etc. Capture sharpening on import and creative sharpening whenever is appropriate.