Workflow question

[jljonathan]

Now that I have brought my images into LR 3 and have added metadata, ratings etc., I am ready to do some edits. I would like to get some suggestions as to a workflow to use. I know that there will be many versions of this, but I just am interested in hearing about how others approach this.
I select a flagged or rated image:
A. Do you go on your merry way and make edits directly to this original version, and then make virtuals for other edits, b&w, toned etc.?
B.Or, do you immediately make a virtual version of the original to edit, leaving the original intact, and then make additional virtual versions for other edits.
Now I have either the edited original or a virtual that I want to print:
A. Do you print directly from LR after sharpening, without softproofing?
B. Or, do you open in PS, make any additional edits needed, resize, softproof and Don't Sharpen, but save back into LR for sharpening and printing.
C. Or, do you open in PS, edit, resize, softproof,  Sharpen and print from there, then save back into LR as a rendered derivative file.
Thanks for any suggestions
Jonathan

[francois]

I'm doing basic edits like cleaning dust spots, correcting chromatic aberrations, vignetting. Then I create virtual copies and work on them. This way, I'm always starting with a clean version and won't have to re-do common processing like dust spots removal again. I might also create virtual copies further along in the workflow if needed.

For printing, I go to Photoshop for soft-proofing. I don't do anything like resizing in PS. I reimport the soft-proof version into Lightroom and print from LR.

HTH

[mikeseb]

The Lightroom paradigm is the ability to make edits that do not affect the underlying file at all unless/until you output the results in tangible form. LR2 is my principal editing software for both digital-camera files as well as scanned-film TIFF's, and this paradigm works beautifully for either. About the only thing I do in PS now is complex dust-spotting that is just easier to do with PS's tools than with LR's. Perhaps you have different needs than I do; but on first pass your workflow seems needlessly complex, and I wonder if you're working against LR rather than using its capabilities to the fullest. No personal criticism intended in saying so. What works for me may not for you.

A. Do you go on your merry way and make edits directly to this original version, and then make virtuals for other edits, b&w, toned etc.?
B.Or, do you immediately make a virtual version of the original to edit, leaving the original intact, and then make additional virtual versions for other edits.

Original version. I'll often save minor variants as "snapshots", and as I've come to understand this feature better I find I'm making fewer virtual copies. A virtual copy now would be reserved for something that's a real departure from the original. In fact, typing this, I'm not sure what that something would be anymore. I find it much simpler to have fewer virtual or real copies of an image file sitting around to be wrangled.

A. Do you print directly from LR after sharpening, without softproofing?
B. Or, do you open in PS, make any additional edits needed, resize, softproof and Don't Sharpen, but save back into LR for sharpening and printing.
C. Or, do you open in PS, edit, resize, softproof,  Sharpen and print from there, then save back into LR as a rendered derivative file.

I do it all in LR. I've encountered few difficulties printing without soft proofing, but anticipate that someday LR will include this capability; meanwhile, its lack hasn't proved crippling to me. LR's sharpening tools, judiciously used, do the job for me quite well. I don't see the sense in outputting all those rendered file variants when you can easily change things nondestructively within LR.

[Scott O.]

Your workflow in LR is completely personal.  There are many ways to do it and none are wrong.  Remember, one of the big advantages of LR is that it is so simple to use.  Don't muck that up by being needlessly complex...if you want complex use Photoshop!  You might consider getting John Shaw's new eBook which describes his workflow in detail.  It will help.  He was always a Photoshop guru who recently switched to Lightroom.  I sometimes think that we have been convinced to make the editing process much more complex than it really needs to be.  The images coming out of modern DSLRs are really wonderful and generally require much less editing than we feel the need to do.

[francois]

… The images coming out of modern DSLRs are really wonderful and generally require much less editing than we feel the need to do.

FWIW, except for soft-proofing, maybe 1% of my photos go to Photoshop from Lightroom. I fully agree that keeping things simple is more productive.

[PeterAit]

FWIW, except for soft-proofing, maybe 1% of my photos go to Photoshop from Lightroom. I fully agree that keeping things simple is more productive.

I appreciate the appeal of the LR-only workflow, but it simply won't work if you want to give each photo individual, in-depth attention. There are so many things I can do in PS that I can't do in LR, and even if I don't end up using a particular manipulation I still want to try it to see if it improves the photo. Don't get me wrong, I love LR, but for me it's only the first step in the process for photos that merit "the full treatment."

[Alan Goldhammer]

I do over 95% of my work in Lightroom.  Photoshop is reserved for some B&W conversions where I want more control over the image than in LR but even that is not always the case.  Photoshop is very useful for getting rid of unwanted things such as an errant tree branch that I didn't see in the viewfinder when composing the shot but blocks a corner of the print.