Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: myotis on December 07, 2018, 05:34:59 am
-
How can I view 4 virtual copies at the same time (ie a block of 4 images) in Lightroom classic CC, with the zooming and scrolling synchronised across all four virtual copies.
I'm not doing very well at googling for this :-(
Thanks,
Graham
-
Try the Survey View. Not sure about the zooming part.
-
I don't think you can. Being VCs isn't really relevant, as this applies to selected photos regardless of whether they are VCs, but Compare view (C) is limited to two images while Survey (N for N Up) view fits the selected images to screen and is unable to zoom.
But as you asked about VCs, it's often helpful to shift or double click the "1 of x" in the grid to select them all. N will fill the screen with them all, and C lets you compare one against the others, zooming in and using Shift drag if you want one image zoomed to a different area.
-
Try the Survey View. Not sure about the zooming part.
Thanks, but this seems to take me back into the library module so I lose the ability to edit and compare: I know I didn't specify I wanted to do this, but I am trying to emulate the variants feature in Capture One and got stuck at this first step of being able to see multiple virtual copies.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I don't think you can. Being VCs isn't really relevant, as this applies to selected photos regardless of whether they are VCs, but Compare view (C) is limited to two images while Survey (N for N Up) view fits the selected images to screen and is unable to zoom.
But as you asked about VCs, it's often helpful to shift or double click the "1 of x" in the grid to select them all. N will fill the screen with them all, and C lets you compare one against the others, zooming in and using Shift drag if you want one image zoomed to a different area.
Thanks John, I'm following up on the last thread where we discussed this with reference to Capture One and a Variant based workflow, and I couldn't remember why I found a virtual copy/snapshot approach in LR so clunky compared to the C1 approach. So I have spent the morning trying to replicate the C1 workflow LR, but it seems that LR just cannot even start to provide the equivalent workflow.
Which is fair enough, as we all get used to working differently, but at least I seem to have confirmed that the LR virtual copy/snapshot approach is nothing like the variant approach in C1, and in terms of workflow the similarity between Virtual copies and Variants, is superficial and misleading.
Very useful to have tried it out however, as every year when the C1 upgrade comes along, I have a period of wondering whether I shouldn't just be using LR, as I'm paying for it anyway.
Cheers,
Graham
-
... but at least I seem to have confirmed that the LR virtual copy/snapshot approach is nothing like the variant approach in C1, and in terms of workflow the similarity between Virtual copies and Variants, is superficial and misleading.
Yes, I guessed where your question originated. But I don't think you've proved any fundamental difference between C1 variants and LR VCs.
What you have identified is LR's inability to simultaneously zoom in on more than two selected items, regardless of whether they are VCs or not. C1 might allow it with 4, LR is limited to 2 items at once. Clearly one would prefer 4 over 2, but that's all you've found, and it is balanced by other ways in which LR is superior handling multiple items. It doesn't make VCs any different from Variants.
-
What you have identified is LR's inability to simultaneously zoom in on more than two selected items, regardless of whether they are VCs or not. C1 might allow it with 4, LR is limited to 2 items at once. Clearly one would prefer 4 over 2, but that's all you've found, and it is balanced by other ways in which LR is superior handling multiple items. It doesn't make VCs any different from Variants.
We are never going to agree on this :-)
It is not just the handling of 2 or 4 virtual copies its all the other things around how C1 has been set up to manage Variants, that makes it a totally different, and more integrated workflow experience with C1 compared to LR.
Variants and virtual copies may well be the same thing "under the hood" , but what matters is the tools that each respective program provides to manage them, and in that respect LR come no where close to working as well as C1, but then as I mentioned in the other thread, C1 is very much designed around a variant workflow.
But, I am not trying to change any ones workflow, just taking on board your comments from the other thread and revisiting virtual copies in LR, which confirmed for "me" that C1 still provides a more pleasant, and largely more efficient workflow.
Cheers,
Graham
-
what matters is the tools that each respective program provides to manage them, and in that respect LR come no where close to working as well as C1,
Could you expand on what you features CO has that makes such a difference ?
I've got both programs here and am struggling to understand how using varients is any better than VCs, what am I missing here ?
-
Could you expand on what you features CO has that makes such a difference ?
I'll try, I did explain what I do on the recent thread that discussed LR History vs C1 Variant/Layers approach, but I will try and give more detail.
First: a new variant, either an unedited version of the original file or a clone of the variant you are currently editing, can be created by pressing a single function key. I know its not much but its easier than pressing two keys in LR.
Second: the viewer window in C1 allows viewing and editing, this is crucial.
From the browser you can cmd+click on any variants and have them all viewed side by side in the viewer. Once in the viewer you can remove one by cmd+clicking on it again.
All the variants in the viewer can be enlarged or scrolled in sync, by holding down the shift key to keep them in sync.
I find that controlling the variants with a function key and key plus mouse click, allows me to very quickly create variants and control their number I without thinking about the mechanics of creating them
For example, if I'm not sure of an edit. I can hit F3, click on the new cloned variant to open it in the viewer, and view both variants at the same time in the viewer.
I can then edit the cloned variant while directly comparing it with the original variant. Clicking on a variant opens up the relevant tool panels so I can see how the settings differs between variants. And I can synchronise any inspection of the two variants.
F3 and a mouse click will add a third cloned variant to the viewer, where I can add further editing for a third comparison.
After working on, usually up to four variants, I normally delete the three "helper" variants, and carry on editing with the fourth.
If I feel I have reached an important "step" in the editing. I will sometimes clone this fourth variant and leave the "fourth" clone as a snapshot, before continuing editing with this newest clone.
The important thing for me is the speed that I can do this, I like the sided by side comparison and that I can edit any of the clones while comparing them, and easily see the settings of each option. And I like that its easy to create a snapshot by simply leaving a variant behind.
I hope that makes sense, its actually easier to do than explain, and now that I've got used to it, I find it an incredibly useful and easy to use workflow tool.
Cheers,
Graham
-
You're confusing Variants/VCs with other aspects of the interface.
-
You're confusing Variants/VCs with other aspects of the interface.
No confusion on my side. All through this thread and the other thread, I have made it clear I have been talking about how variants integrate into the C1 workflow.
I see no point in discussing a feature independently of how it integrates with the workflow/interface.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I will try and give more detail.
Thanks for taking the trouble to set all that out so clearly.
I can see how that could be a helpful workflow for some people or situations. Something I may try the next time I'm working with CO and am trying out different approaches.
I still like CO renders a lot, but I find LR far easier and faster to work with than CO, but neither program is perfect and both have features the other could benefit from.
-
I can see how that could be a helpful workflow for some people or situations. Something I may try the next time I'm working with CO and am trying out different approaches.
I still like CO renders a lot, but I find LR far easier and faster to work with than CO, but neither program is perfect and both have features the other could benefit from.
Its not something I do all the time, but i would really miss it, if I didn't have it. Both programs have pluses and minuses, and although I actually find C1 easier and faster to use than LR, but this is a personal preference, and will depend on the kind of work you do. Even though I've used LR since version 1, i've never felt that comfortable with it and quickly took to C1. I like being able to customise pretty well everything in C1, but there are still things I find LR does "much" better e.g dealing with bad purple fringing and of course the DAM in C1 is still only "OK" and no where near as robust as LR.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Sorry, but you really are confusing interface preferences and use of variants / VCs. Take one example you mention, "the viewer window in C1 allows viewing and editing". That's simply the different interface, nothing to do "how variants integrate into the C1 workflow".
VC's for multiple variations/experiments can also integrate into the LR workflow. One wouldn't need to do so as much, since one has Before/After and History, but let's go down your route and say other interface details are integral to this Variant/VC workflow. So you might say ah, in LR this workflow is not so good because one can't simultaneously zoom 4 selected items in LR. OK, true. Yet I might simply respond that in C1 you can't simultaneously make the same adjustment to all 4 with a single drag (AutoSync mode). One keystroke to create a Variant, two to create a VC - but B/A and History mean one wouldn't do it so much. In each case, it's a general interface preference, not really specific to using VCs/Variants for variations/experiments.
-
I don't think either of you two fellows is going to convince the other that your preferred work flow or program is the better one.
-
Sorry, but you really are confusing interface preferences and use of variants / VCs. Take one example you mention, "the viewer window in C1 allows viewing and editing". That's simply the different interface, nothing to do "how variants integrate into the C1 workflow".
As I said in an earlier post, it's obvious we are never going to agree on this. I can only repeat, that you cannot evaluate a feature without also assessing it in terms of how you interact with that feature , and how it affects your workflow.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I don't think either of you two fellows is going to convince the other that your preferred work flow or program is the better one.
No, but it's interesting to read of different approaches to processing photos and maybe learn some new tricks :-)
-
I don't think either of you two fellows is going to convince the other that your preferred work flow or program is the better one.
Fortunately, I'm not trying to convince anyone that any preferred workflow, or program is better than any other. Both are excellent programs. I use them both and workflow depends on so many things, that I would never try and push one as being better than another, even though I might and have suggested possible workflows that someone might find worth considering.
All I was doing here was to try and get help with matching workflows between the two programs as John, in another thread, insisted, when I said that I couldn't duplicate my C1 variant workflow with a LR virtual copy workflow, that there was no difference between the two programs.
As he is still doing here, but it's an argument I still can't follow, and John still, as he did in the previous thread, dismisses my workflow/interface integration argument. So we have an impasse :-(
I obviously, just look at these things from a completely different perspective to John, which is fine, we can't all agree about everything.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I don't think either of you two fellows is going to convince the other that your preferred work flow or program is the better one.
Maybe because that's not what the discussion was about?
-
The thing is, one can duplicate your specific C1 workflow - but only up to a limit of 2 in LR. VCs are identical to Variants, but what's different is zooming multiple items - an aspect of the interface that in entirely unrelated to VCs. Only because you specify 4 items I can't duplicate the workflow.
Turn it round and imagine I pursue a VC workflow like yours but where my equally-arbitrary requirement is to apply the same adjustment to all items (ie AutoSync). C1's inability to do this is unrelated to its Variant feature.
-
To view 4 images (any type which includes Virtual Copies) you will need to either display the film strip at the bottom (F6) or Grid View (g) then simply hold (command Mac or Control Windows) and click on the outside frame of an image (not the image). Once you have the 4 selected, then hit N for Survey Mode. This will display the images all at once. If you no longer want Survey mode, Hit E for Library module or D for Develop. Hope I have not misunderstood the problem. Afterwords, keep in mind that the 4 images are still selected with one being the primary selection - probably best to select the one you wish to work on by clicking the outside frame (otherwise edits may be applied to all 4 images) which may or may not be what you want. Hope that helps.
-
The thing is, one can duplicate your specific C1 workflow - but only up to a limit of 2 in LR. VCs are identical to Variants, but what's different is zooming multiple items - an aspect of the interface that in entirely unrelated to VCs. Only because you specify 4 items I can't duplicate the workflow.
Turn it round and imagine I pursue a VC workflow like yours but where my equally-arbitrary requirement is to apply the same adjustment to all items (ie AutoSync). C1's inability to do this is unrelated to its Variant feature.
I still don't understand why the tools that a program offers to manipulate and manage a feature ( virtual copies in this case ) is entirely unrelated to the usefulness/value of that feature. I want to replicate my variant workflow from C1 both in terms of speed and function in LR. So its intrinsically related to the interface of each program and has to be at the core of this discussion.
I chose four items, because 2-4 images is the number I often use in C1, and as you increase the number the more you appreciate how well C1 handles this feature. It wasn't just an arbitrary number.
Some things I prefer the LR way and for some things I prefer the C1 way, this just happens to be one of the things that C1 does better for me, and it has been a useful exercise. But the importance of this difference depends how it benefits my workflow, but again I know from the last thread that you consider workflow irrelevant, so we just come back to where we started.
As an aside, C1 has always had toggle to switch on and off "edit all selected variants" which sounds very like autosync in LR. But this wasn't part of the workflow I described in the other thread and not relevant to what I was trying to replicate here.
Cheers,
Graham
-
To view 4 images (any type which includes Virtual Copies) you will need to either display the film strip at the bottom (F6) or Grid View (g) then simply hold (command Mac or Control Windows) and click on the outside frame of an image (not the image).
Thanks, that is useful, and someone did point me towards the survey view in an earlier post.
However, although I didn't mention it as it didn't seem relevant at the time, this was just the first step in trying to replicate the way that Capture one allows you to view and manipulate virtual copies (variants in C1). And one of the key differences is that C1 allows you to edit multiple images while viewing them and allows for synchronised zooming and panning of multiple images which I use a lot when making multiple comparisons.
In theory I think you can do this with an unlimited number of images, but in practice I tend to work with a maximum of four.
Thanks again,
Graham
-
AutoSync has nothing to do with switching Variants/VCs off. As I wrote, it is a single drag of a slider that applies that adjustment to all the selected images. Imagine I have 4 VCs and while other adjustments might differ, they all need the same NR or WB. I just drag the slider to 55, or 65 or whatever, and all are updated simultaneously. No need to copy and apply adjustments (LR can do that) or to create a preset first (ditto), it's one drag of the slider. It's a general feature of the application and no more integral to Variants/VCs than zooming more than 2 simultaneously, but adjusting simultaneously is as relevant to handling multiple images as zooming them together. Each of us will weight such things differently, of course.
Maybe there is always a feeling that the grass is greener in the other field?
-
AutoSync has nothing to do with switching Variants/VCs off. As I wrote, it is a single drag of a slider that applies that adjustment to all the selected images.
I don't think that has any relevance to how Graham want to use variants to work on the same image in different ways.
Maybe you should try this approach in CO and then you'll understand this approach and it's merits better.
-
AutoSync has nothing to do with switching Variants/VCs off. As I wrote, it is a single drag of a slider that applies that adjustment to all the selected images. Imagine I have 4 VCs and while other adjustments might differ, they all need the same NR or WB. I just drag the slider to 55, or 65 or whatever, and all are updated simultaneously. No need to copy and apply adjustments (LR can do that) or to create a preset first (ditto), it's one drag of the slider. It's a general feature of the application and no more integral to Variants/VCs than zooming more than 2 simultaneously, but adjusting simultaneously is as relevant to handling multiple images as zooming them together. Each of us will weight such things differently, of course.
Maybe there is always a feeling that the grass is greener in the other field?
OK this is different from toggling the edit all variants option, In C1 as you need to anticipate wanting the same edits on multiple variants, rather than doing it retrospectively.
The nearest in in C1, to what you describe, would be to select the variants you want to copy an edit to and then use the send to option to send the edits to all the selected variants. Not sure how big a difference this is in practice, as its not something I have ever done in either program.
"Maybe there is always a feeling that the grass is greener in the other field?"
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you admitting that you may be biased because you consciously need to convince yourself that the grass isn't greener in the other field ie that C1 might actually be better than LR.
At a program level, I would find it hard to argue that C1 is better than LR, or vice versa, they are just different. Some things I prefer in LR and some in C1, on balance I prefer C1, but that doesn't make it better, just better for me - and even then not for everything. Both are excellent programs and choosing one over the other, will depend on individual circumstances, maybe both are equally green?
But again I repeat myself as I have already made a similar point in several posts.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I don't think that has any relevance to how Graham want to use variants to work on the same image in different ways.
Maybe you should try this approach in CO and then you'll understand this approach and it's merits better.
I have, which is why I make the point. I feel Graham is not looking beyond his precise workflow and is therefore limiting the comparison to zooming in on more than two images. Fair enough, if that's all you do, but handling multiple versions of an image (the generic workflow rather than Graham's particular one) involves doing things other than zooming, and adjusting is one that is an equally-normal need.
The nearest in in C1, to what you describe, would be to select the variants you want to copy an edit to and then use the send to option to send the edits to all the selected variants. Not sure how big a difference this is in practice, as its not something I have ever done in either program.
As I noted, LR can do copying and pasting. But it doesn't need to - AutoSync means a single drag of the slider sets a precise value for all the selected items.
"Maybe there is always a feeling that the grass is greener in the other field?"
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you admitting that you may be biased because you consciously need to convince yourself that the grass isn't greener in the other field ie that C1 might actually be better than LR.
No, it is exasperation. Sorry.
John
-
I have, which is why I make the point. I feel Graham is not looking beyond his precise workflow and is therefore limiting the comparison to zooming in on more than two images.
Strangely, that is exactly what I feel you are doing, I am trying to look at a feature in a broad workflow context and you keep on saying its nothing to do with workflow, and reduce things to a very narrow comparison. This is the part of your argument I find perplexing, and to use your word a little exasperating.
I have tried to explain how there are "multiple" small things, that make me prefer the way C1 works variants into the workflow that I find more useful and efficient, than the way LR does it.
But really, it was you that forced me down this narrow road when you insisted, after I had described how I use variants in C1, that Variants and Virtual copies worked "exactly" the same in LR as they do in C1. Which, I assumed was referring to how I had described using them.
My memory of Virtual Copies in LR was that they did not work exactly the same way, and that replicating this part of my C1 workflow in LR was either not possible or very clunky. But I took you at your word and went about spending some time revisiting LR, where I have confirmed to my satisfaction that in terms of workflow, in particular the way I use them in my workflow, Virtual copies and Variants are not implemented and managed in exactly the same way in both programs.
There was never any requirement to look beyond this precise aspect of my workflow, as that wasn't what this was about. A general comparison of workflows between the two programs is a much bigger task, and I think, it would be impossible to arrive at any conclusion on which might be universally better. I certainly wouldn't attempt it.
Cheers,
Graham