Lightroom and PS -- workflow getting more complex

[AndrewRodney]

Originally Posted by Jerry Skrocki

Lightroom and Photoshop CS3 use the same raw processing engine.

No, Lightroom and Camera Raw use the same processing engine. Photoshop itself can't even handle Raw data (that's why a plug-in is supplied).

[AndrewRodney]

Originally Posted by MathewLodge

Now I am doing selects in Lightroom, using develop to adjust contrast etc (no macro possible), then exporting to TIFFs and processing in CS3. However, once I get into CS3 and look at an image at 100%, I am seeing defects that were not apparent in Lightroom -- like color noise.

LR will not review noise reduction or sharpening unless you're viewing at 100% or greater (1:1 or higher in LR terms).

My favourite plug-in of all time, Focus Magic, is only available for PS. So I have to go there for that. But I also love the Lightroom curves tool because it doesn't generate color shifts in the image, unlike PS.

Photoshop doesn't cause color shifts in images. Where did you get that idea? You probably need to read this URL about what's going on in PS curves:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/pdf/Curves2.pdf

So when contrast isn't quite right in CS3, I sometimes have to go back to Lightroom, re-import the RAW image, fiddle with it again, re-export to PS CS3... you get the picture. Same for the vibrance slider -- which beats the pants off the saturation slider in PS. None of this helps me get through the backlog of images I have yet to process.

I am open to all and any advice.

Do ALL the global heavy lifting in LR. The render the pixels for use in Photoshop to do all the necessary selective work or work that can't be done in LR (layers, work with blending modes, soft proofing etc). You're now done with all LR edits. You CAN re-import the data back into the Library for building web galleries, printing etc. But the idea of going back and forth for editing isn't effective at all since one product is a metadata, Raw converter, the other is a pixel editor. These are two vastly different tools.

[Jerry Skrocki]

Originally Posted by AndrewRodney

No, Lightroom and Camera Raw use the same processing engine. Photoshop itself can't even handle Raw data (that's why a plug-in is supplied).

Adobe Camera Raw is part of the Photoshop CS3 package, not a separate entity.

From the Adobe website:

"The camera raw functionality in Adobe® Photoshop® software provides fast and easy access within Photoshop to the "raw" image formats produced by many leading professional and midrange digital cameras. By working with these "digital negatives," you can achieve the results you want with greater artistic control and flexibility while still maintaining the original "raw" files.

The Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in became the latest must-have tool for professional photographers when it was released in February 2003. This powerful plug-in has been updated to support more cameras and include more features, and is available as part of Adobe Photoshop CS3. Adobe Photoshop Lightroom is also available and is built upon the same powerful raw processing technology that is available in the camera raw plug-in."

My point was that the raw processor is the same....

[MathewLodge]

Originally Posted by Martin_Doudoroff

3 - The same as #2, but manually re-import the finished TIFF files back in Lightroom so you have the finished work sitting "next to" the RAW file. (This is what folks like Michael Reichmann seem to be doing.) There may be a way to employ a tool like Hazel to semi-automate this step—some kind of directory-watching automation—but I haven't explored this yet.

Yes, Martin Evening seems to do the same thing too. Yet more disk space and more to back up, unfortunately...

Each of these approaches has its pros and cons. In none of them is the back-and-forth movement between Lightroom and Photoshop you describe "desirable".

I guess it creates a problem for Adobe -- there has been some good innovation in tools for Lightroom that needs to find its way into PS -- and vice versa. I want a vibrance tool for PS that works the same way as the one in LR, for example. The question is whether these should be separate apps at all. In a way, PS becomes like a second "Develop" tab. Going the other direction, the equivalent of Actions or scripting in LR would really help with automation.

I figured out what my problem was with unexpected results. Some of it is due to the exceptionally good JPEG processing in Canon cameras, which does a really good job of automatically dealing with sensor noise at different ISO levels while retaining detail. In LR, you need your own set of presets for each ISO level (yet another step, unfortunately) to set noise sliders appropriately. Failure to do this results in ugly noise at 100%.

The other part is purely a GUI thing -- it's easy to scoot around an image when zoomed in to 100% in PS using the keyboard and/or window sliders and that's what I have learned. In LR, there's no image window and therefore no sliders, and the "grabber" isn't anywhere as useful at 100%. Lots of picking up the mouse and putting it down again in order to drag the image around. I can't find good keyboard alternatives -- Page Up & Page Down seem to do up and down image panning, but what about left-to-right?

Mathew

[Noel_Carboni]

You've touched on what has bothered me for a while now...

With regard to Photoshop and Camera Raw: Why implement a whole new photo processing package in a raw converter, when the intent is to open the file into Photoshop and process it? With a bit of innovation anything fancy the raw converter can do can be done in Photoshop proper. Is this a case of "more features is better" gone wild?

-Noel

[Martin_Doudoroff]

Originally Posted by Noel_Carboni

With regard to Photoshop and Camera Raw: Why implement a whole new photo processing package in a raw converter, when the intent is to open the file into Photoshop and process it? With a bit of innovation anything fancy the raw converter can do can be done in Photoshop proper. Is this a case of "more features is better" gone wild?

I think "features gone wild" is an a pretty good summation of Photoshop itself. Photoshop is this Frankenstein's monster of technology—much of it industry-leading, much of it just legacy—and it's all grafted onto an ancient rusty platform. Photoshop is a truly remarkable example of progressive re-engineering, but it's growing more and more absurd with each incarnation. I blame the void of competition in the space for leading us to this point. It's high time to take the old monster out back and shoot it in the head. We already have an idea how Adobe intends to proceed.

[AndrewRodney]

Originally Posted by Noel_Carboni

You've touched on what has bothered me for a while now...

With regard to Photoshop and Camera Raw: Why implement a whole new photo processing package in a raw converter, when the intent is to open the file into Photoshop and process it? With a bit of innovation anything fancy the raw converter can do can be done in Photoshop proper. Is this a case of "more features is better" gone wild?

-Noel

Photoshop is a pixel editor, pixels that are rendered and almost always gamma corrected. It has no provisions for Raw processing (for that, it calls on a plug-in). Least you think its easy to take a large, basically 20 year old application and pop that kind of functionality in, instead of using a plug-in, I would suggest a conversation with Mark Hamburg and Thomas Knoll (who both did produce a new application from the ground up to do this, its called Lightroom).

I love the bit about "with a bit of innovation" as if what you request is just copying and pasting around a few lines of code.