Lightroom 7's new Embedded & Sidecar workflow

[Rory]

John - that was a nice article about the embedded / sidecar image viewing in LR - thanks.  However, no good deed goes unpunished apparently.

[digitaldog]

I do feel mirrorless cameras encourage one to expose to make the photo look right in the viewfinder, rather than the optimal exposure for raw processing.

And that idea is incorrect for those who aim is optimal exposure. The sensor and the photon's hitting that sensor don't care about mirrors.

Whenever I hear anyone recommend a raw+JPEG capture, I have to ask them if they fully realize what they are giving up in terms of image data in the raw due to under exposure. I'm not sure you do.
So some know, some don't but they keep recommending the workflow without the warnings.

[digitaldog]

Andrew, I think what they're trying to share with you/all the readers, is a view that it doesn't matter. They are using the JPG as a convenience for quick file viewing, so whether it's exposed properly is kind of immaterial - they use the raw file for that, and it's easy to focus on the raw because most cameras nowadays give you the live histogram where you can see in real time whether/what you are clipping in the raw file. I think it's a pointless discussion. Two different formats serving different purposes.

IT doesn't matter if the raw is optimally exposed; was that recommended? And what of the results of the JPEG by properly exposing for the raw? There's not much convenience IMHO, of viewing a jPEG that's a couple stops over exposed. There's not much convenience IMHO, of ending up with an under exposed raw if a raw has been under exposed a couple stops to view JPEGs.

[digitaldog]

And John, if any one wants to fool themselves relying on a JPG or an EVF view of scene exposure when it's the raw file they intend to process, they need to go back to photography school and learn what the histogram is there for, where the histogram data comes from and how to learn whether their histogram information has a tendency of over-stating or under-stating exposure and DR relative to what comes out in the raw file as interpreted in one's raw converter. One develops a feel for it pretty quickly if one is aware there could be an issue in the first place.

Begging again for a raw Histogram in LR. Not that those shooting JPEG snapshots and moving their entire 1 gig archive of snap's onto the Adobe cloud would have any idea about a Histogram (raw or otherwise) or the idea of optimally exposing for two vastly different kinds of data at the same time.
Some here appear to not fully or perhaps partially understand how to expose optimally:


The current ESP workflow is great for normally-exposed pictures (eg sports in daylight) but not when your work involves less-flat light (eg stage performance, sunsets) when you just can’t judge an underexposed image properly because it’s too dark, or you need to pull back the highlights or open the shadows to see if any worthwhile detail is present. Speed’s no use if you can’t see well enough.

Great for under exposed raws too? Only for those who don't fully care about their data quality!

[Mark D Segal]

IT doesn't matter if the raw is optimally exposed; was that recommended? And what of the results of the JPEG by properly exposing for the raw? There's not much convenience IMHO, of viewing a jPEG that's a couple stops over exposed. There's not much convenience IMHO, of ending up with an under exposed raw if a raw has been under exposed a couple stops to view JPEGs.

For clarity, the "convenience" aspect is just for a quick review and selection of the photos that one may wish to further work on. You don't need perfect exposures for this. It's mainly to quickly check for subject matter, composition, focus etc.

I don't work that way, I don't use the "raw+jpeg" option in camera, only "raw" - I'm just trying to understand the logic of those posting here who do set for both and find it useful.

[Mark D Segal]

Begging again for a raw Histogram in LR. Not that those shooting JPEG snapshots and moving their entire 1 gig archive of snap's onto the Adobe cloud would have any idea about a Histogram (raw or otherwise) or the idea of optimally exposing for two vastly different kinds of data at the same time.
Some here appear to not fully or perhaps partially understand how to expose optimally:


The current ESP workflow is great for normally-exposed pictures (eg sports in daylight) but not when your work involves less-flat light (eg stage performance, sunsets) when you just can’t judge an underexposed image properly because it’s too dark, or you need to pull back the highlights or open the shadows to see if any worthwhile detail is present. Speed’s no use if you can’t see well enough.

Great for under exposed raws too? Only for those who don't fully care about their data quality!

There is Rawdigger for - according to them - correctly seeing raw files.

I don't know what you mean by "ESP workflow" - what's that in English?

Again, I'll repeat, I believe those using JPEG renditions of photos for quick reviews aren't too bothered by JPEG exposure issues, especially if they know they've exposed the raw version correctly. You have a point under other assumptions.

[digitaldog]

You don't need perfect exposures for this. It's mainly to quickly check for subject matter, composition, focus etc.

You (who?) doesn't need perfect exposure for what Mark?
We are shooting raw+JPEG as John recommends. Which gets the optimal exposure? IF the raw, fine and does John's article state anything about either ideal exposure for the raw or what the JPEGs will look like IF you expose optimally for the raw? I didn't see that and instead saw text that appears to be from someone very knowledgeable about software and code for plug-in's and a rather severe misunderstanding about exposure in general! He has now actually stated here in the forums:

I do feel mirrorless cameras encourage one to expose to make the photo look right in the viewfinder, rather than the optimal exposure for raw processing.

And in the article I read:

The current ESP workflow is great for normally-exposed pictures (eg sports in daylight) but not when your work involves less-flat light (eg stage performance, sunsets) when you just can’t judge an underexposed image properly because it’s too dark, or you need to pull back the highlights or open the shadows to see if any worthwhile detail is present. Speed’s no use if you can’t see well enough.

See a disgraced for optimal exposure and raw processing based on the recommendations of that text?
See what well enough, the improperly exposed JPEG (because he actually did expose for raw) or the properly exposed JPEG and under exposed raw (because he doesn't understand how to expose for the media he's capturing)?

You shoot raw+JPEG, here are the options as I see it:

Raw is optimally exposed, JPEG isn't. Looks pretty bad.
JPEG is optimally exposed, raw isn't. You degraded your data and ignored exposure 101: back to coding, stop trying to 'teach' basic photography.
Neither is exposed optimally: don't even post!

[digitaldog]

There is Rawdigger for - according to them - correctly seeing raw files.

Great and massively important tool. This too:
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/raw-histogram-for-culling
Too bad LR/ACR doesn't have such a simple and necessary feedback of our data.
As for your question: I don't know what you mean by "ESP workflow" - what's that in English?, neither do I, as I didn't even write that! That's all John's doing; ask him. I'm simply pasting what I saw in the URL provided. That's his quote.


Point is, no matter what he states, and what he perhaps (?)didn't appear to understand: you can't optimally capture raw+JPEG whether the camera has a mirror or not. He doesn't appear to fully understand the role of exposing for a specific type of data and/or feels exposing for raw or JPEG at the same time produces equal quality data in terms of JUST exposure. That's simply not factually correct. 

[ButchM]

Andrew ... all I know is I have been using the option to view the embedded jpegs in RAW image files for faster preview generation when on strict deadline in other applications like Aperture 3 and Photo Mechanic for years without any adverse effects ... even when I may choose to occasionally shoot RAW+jpeg for other reasons.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you on your points in principle ... this is a non issue for the purpose at hand.

By all means, please go on and tell us all about how this won't work ... in the mean time I'm just going to use this new capability as needed to serve my clients more efficiently.

[digitaldog]

By all means, please go on and tell us all about how this won't work ... in the mean time I'm just going to use this new capability as needed to serve my clients more efficiently.

Where did I say it doesn't work? I did say if you capture raw+JPEG, one isn't optimally exposed. Is that incorrect or is it correct?
You can under expose film 3 stops and push process it. It will likely appear fine. Will that be an optimal capture and quality? No. Should people recommend under exposing 3 stops either film or digital? I don't think they should without a warning. None appears in John's URL. Again, I only see these options but I'm willing to view another if someone has such a option:

Raw is optimally exposed, JPEG isn't. Looks pretty bad. By all means, use that for faster previewing if you wish.
JPEG is optimally exposed, raw isn't. You degraded your data and ignored exposure 101: back to coding, stop trying to 'teach' basic photography.
Neither is exposed optimally: don't even post!
This so called Embedded & Sidecar workflow should not ignore the basic facts surrounding exposure of our data. Yet it kind of does. 

[digitaldog]

This so called Embedded & Sidecar workflow should not ignore the basic facts surrounding exposure of our data. Yet it kind of does. 

A better workflow and of course one Adobe could offer us (don't hold your breath):

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/raw-histogram-for-culling

FastRawViewer is the only culling tool that displays the true RAW histogram. Using FastRawViewer, you will be able to determine if the shot was exposed correctly.
FastRawViewer is extremely useful when selecting the best shot of a bracketed series.

Useful for those of us interested in shots exposed correctly!

[ButchM]

Where did I say it doesn't work? I did say if you capture raw+JPEG, one isn't optimally exposed. Is that incorrect or is it correct?
You can under expose film 3 stops and push process it. It will likely appear fine. Will that be an optimal capture and quality? No. Should people recommend under exposing 3 stops either film or digital? I don't think they should without a warning. None appears in John's URL. Again, I only see these options but I'm willing to view another if someone has such a option:

Raw is optimally exposed, JPEG isn't. Looks pretty bad. By all means, use that for faster previewing if you wish.
JPEG is optimally exposed, raw isn't. You degraded your data and ignored exposure 101: back to coding, stop trying to 'teach' basic photography.
Neither is exposed optimally: don't even post!
This so called Embedded & Sidecar workflow should not ignore the basic facts surrounding exposure of our data. Yet it kind of does. 

With all due respect Andrew, I began my professional photographic career over 47 years ago shooting action sports on Kodachrome 25/64 ... I think I have ample understanding about exposure and how it works.

As I stated before ... in this instance, it's a non issue.

[digitaldog]

With all due respect Andrew, I began my professional photographic career over 47 years ago shooting action sports on Kodachrome 25/64 ... I think I have ample understanding about exposure and how it works.
As I stated before ... in this instance, it's a non issue.

With all due respect, I began my professional photo career prior to graduating from a very good photo school by shooting the 1984 Olympics, on film. As one of only 50 photographers in the world to have total access to shoot for 7 months for the LAOOC. I did attempt, as I do with all captures of film or digital, to expose optimally.  That's how I was trained.


IF you are shooting your raws optimally and getting ugly JPEGs to use John's workflow, and you like it, great. I would hope you cannot dispute the answer to a question you didn't answer (I did say if you capture raw+JPEG, one isn't optimally exposed. Is that incorrect or is it correct? ) but I will assume that answer: you are optimally expose for raw, you are letting the JPEG go where it goes and then throw it away. That's fine. It's what John SHOULD recommend to his readers rather than attempt to suggest incorrectly that shooting for the JPEG doesn’t have a negative effect on the raw data. He didn't do that. That's my only point here! In fact, IF you examine my very first post about this 'workflow', I asked John which data he optimally exposes for, the raw or the jPEG. Then he asked a question that gives me the idea he doesn’t understand there IS a difference in how we expose for both. Even if he does, shouldn't his audience know the role of using a raw+JPEG workflow and exposure on both sets of data?


IF someone wants to write an article about shooting raw+JPEG and IF you agree they two demand different exposures for ideal data, should they not discuss exposure and not skirt it giving the impression one exposure for both is ideal for both? It isn't. Unless you or another wants to go on record and state that optimally exposing for the JPEG also provides optimal exposure for raw.


All one has to do is describe the workflow fully and optimally and that wasn't done. Hence my one original question which he didn't answer.

[Mark D Segal]

A better workflow and of course one Adobe could offer us (don't hold your breath):

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/raw-histogram-for-culling

FastRawViewer is the only culling tool that displays the true RAW histogram. Using FastRawViewer, you will be able to determine if the shot was exposed correctly.
FastRawViewer is extremely useful when selecting the best shot of a bracketed series.

Useful for those of us interested in shots exposed correctly!

Yes, this is part of the Rawdigger software offering, purchased bundled or separately.

[jrsforums]

With all due respect Andrew, I began my professional photographic career over 47 years ago shooting action sports on Kodachrome 25/64 ... I think I have ample understanding about exposure and how it works.

As I stated before ... in this instance, it's a non issue.

Let me try, in my own words, say what I think Andrew is getting at.

When trying to expose for optimal quality, jpegs and raws are exposed differently.

JPEGs are exposed to, essentially, give finished results with minimal tweaks needed.

Raws are exposed to provide the minimum of noise in each sensel.  This is done by maximizing the amount of light (exposure) on the sensor.  The limit to the exposure is to not overload the senses for the significant highlights.  In addition, raws will also not have the benefit(?) of in camera settings of sharpening, contrast, white balance, lighting optimization, whatever.  Raws shot this way will require more post processing than jpegs, but CAN result in better images.

This does not mean that jpeg shooting cannot result in fine, acceptable images.  Particularly in the hands of an experienced photographer.  Often, in those hands, processed raw and jpeg will show little difference.  However, depending on conditions, properly exposed raw images can be turned into superior finished images as well as easily corrected for improper exposures.

Where speed of turnaround is important, jpeg and an experienced hand cannot be replace.  The new photogs I know only shoot raw and use Photo Mechanic for quick review and selection.

[ButchM]

Let me try, in my own words, say what I think Andrew is getting at.

When trying to expose for optimal quality, jpegs and raws are exposed differently.

No kidding, really? After shooting RAW (and at times, JPEG) for over twenty years that fact must have escaped my attention. <end sarcasm>

I'm fully aware of that. I am not disputing that is the case. One again at the risk of being repetitive ... IN THIS INSTANCE IT IS NOT AN ISSUE.

[digitaldog]

I'm fully aware of that. I am not disputing that is the case. One again at the risk of being repetitive ... IN THIS INSTANCE IT IS NOT AN ISSUE.

So maybe you can answer the question I asked that John can't** or confirm my assumption of a massive improvement over what John doesn't suggest but should: shoot raw+JPEG, expose optimally for the raw, understand the JPEG will look pretty awful but is only used for previewing and then they will be deleted.


How hard would that be to put into an article on shooting raw+JPEG for an audience that may or may not know there is absolutely a difference in how you expose for either. I'm not sure the author does.....


** http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=121085.msg1007655#msg1007655

[jrsforums]

No kidding, really? After shooting RAW (and at times, JPEG) for over twenty years that fact must have escaped my attention. <end sarcasm>

I'm fully aware of that. I am not disputing that is the case. One again at the risk of being repetitive ... IN THIS INSTANCE IT IS NOT AN ISSUE.

Gee....thanks for your wisdom

[Iliah]

How can the Raw and the JPEG have different exposures? Do any cameras allow you to do that?

If one decides on exposure based on a JPEG look/histogram, this one is a bad exposure:


Quite a different story looking at the raw histogram of the same shot:

[ButchM]

By all means ... anyone who has such dire concerns about shooting RAW+jpeg in order to take advantage of the Embedded & Sidecar workflow for certain camera models ... PLEASE DON"T DO IT!

The capability isn't for you. All this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth isn't worth your effort. Simply maintain your current workflow and let the unworthy trod along aimlessly into the abyss.