Lightroom 5 to photoshop CC question

[deejjjaaaa]

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.

[jrsforums]

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...  :-)

[Hans Kruse]

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).

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

+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).

[ErikKaffehr]

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?

[jjj]

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.

[jjj]

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.

[jjj]

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.

[ripgriffith]

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

[ripgriffith]

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.

[ambystoma]

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. 

[ambystoma]

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? 

[jjj]

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. 
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.