Hybrid workflow in the age of LR2--ideas?

[mikeseb]

I'm wondering how the other two lonely hybrid-workflow folks here  are getting things done these days?

I shoot a lot of digital, both DSLR and MFDB; but I also can't break my addiction to medium-format film (please, no digital-vs-film jeremiad: not my purpose here!). I love my Mamiya 7, and 6x7cm at 4000 ppi is a lotta tone and resolution to work with. Just got back from an all-film trip to Manhattan, and at least from a technical standpoint, I am just blown away--once again--by that camera's capabilities.

Heretofore I've used a welter of applications to manage all this: PhotoMechanic for digicam ingestion and bulk metadata; iVMP/Expression Media for cataloging and fine-tuned metadata; LR for digital-source manipulation, PS for film-based images; PhotoKit for capture-sharpening film, and output-sharpening either; and ImagePrint for printing the lot.

With this workflow (flow? more like a levee breach!) I have found myself with at least three versions of each "keeper" image choking my hard drives--the original TIFF with spotting/cleanup work saved to it; a "working" file, with curves/levels, masks, etc applied; and a flattened "output" file, with output sharpening, sizing, and file-format conversion as needed. Surely some consolidation is possible....

I find that LR2 is quite capable for most of my workflow steps; but in three areas I find it suboptimal  for scanned-film TIFF's: dust cleanup, output sharpening, and printing.

For film scans, here's how I'm doing it now:

1. Images auto-ingested into LR2 via watched folder as they roll off the scanner, with bulk metadata applied. Detail metadata and keywording in Expression Media. With 30k+ images, I don't find LR up to snuff yet as a DAM tool. Wish EM and LR2 played better together--at times they act like two toddlers fighting over the same toy, behavior I'm inclined to blame more on EM;

2. Open original TIFF in Photoshop CS3 for spotting/cleanup. I find PS's cloning/healing tools far superior to LR's for the irregularly shaped, squiggly stuff that seems to plague even my pristine, impeccably-processed negatives (ahem.) Changes saved back to the original TIFF--this is my "original", and is not further altered. For 99% of images, this is my last trip into PhotoShop;

3. Capture sharpening, crop, and all the other tone adjustments in LR. Does for me 99% of what PS does, and easier to use. Formerly, this work would have been saved as the "working" version, but with LR2's nondestructive editing, no need.

But how does LR2's capture sharpening compare to PhotoKit's? Mr. Schewe, please tell me you guys already have, or soon will, make a plugin for LR2, or otherwise allow PKS and LR2 to digitally fornicate. I think I'd like to meet the offspring of such a tryst.

From this point forward, anything I might need to do in PS can be done by opening the TIFF as a Smart Object in PS (a keyboard shortcut would be nice.) Of course, with my near-perfect camera and processing technique, I'd never need a complex mask, intricate tone manipulation, or anything like that....

4. Sizing and sharpening for output done in LR, via export preset that sends the images to a "Print Queue" folder for bulk printing in IP. I'd have saved this as an "output" file in times past, but no longer, since I can easily generate these on the fly.

But again, the question arises about LR's print sharpening vs. PKS's;

5. Printing via ImagePrint. The RIP's capabilities are useful for my ancient Epson 4000, especially for B&W images. Perhaps with my next printer I can forsake it and print directly from LR.

Any suggestions or comments you folks have would be welcomed, with my thanks.

[Schewe]

But how does LR2's capture sharpening compare to PhotoKit's? Mr. Schewe, please tell me you guys already have, or soon will, make a plugin for LR2, or otherwise allow PKS and LR2 to digitally fornicate. I think I'd like to meet the offspring of such a tryst.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LR 2 has PKS Output Sharpening already built in...it's equal to or superior to PKS. So, LR has 2/3 of Bruce's sharpening workflow.

[mikeseb]

LR 2 has PKS Output Sharpening already built in...it's equal to or superior to PKS. So, LR has 2/3 of Bruce's sharpening workflow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215519\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, Jeff. How about on the capture-sharpening end? How do the two compare?

[Schewe]

Thanks, Jeff. How about on the capture-sharpening end? How do the two compare?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, since Camera Raw 4.1 and LR 1.1, the capture sharpening has been capable of producing results equal to PKS...no major changes in LR2 for capture.

[Mark D Segal]

Well, since Camera Raw 4.1 and LR 1.1, the capture sharpening has been capable of producing results equal to PKS...no major changes in LR2 for capture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Jeff,

There's one added factor here - noise reduction. If needed, I like to reduce noise before sharpening, so we don't sharpen the noise. I assume the LR workflow operates that way in its internal processing. But my question is whether the noise reduction algorithm in LR2 is as smart and flexible as that provided, say, in Noiseware? And can one target its impact as easily as one can by implementing noise reduction on a layer with a mask which allows it only on selected areas? I ask because if I'm better off reducing noise with Noiseware, then I would opt to do all my sharpening with PKS in Photoshop. Does this make sense?

Mark