Lightroom and PS -- workflow getting more complex

[Martin_Doudoroff]

Originally Posted by Dennis_Vied

I consider Lightroom to be a "front end" for PS.

I suppose this is one of the things it can be—an alternative or parallel to Bridge. But I hope that—for most photographers—Photoshop is soon demoted to being an optional power accessory for Lightroom.

Originally Posted by Dennis_Vied

There are a couple of things I don't like about it, but perhaps if I understand the methodology, I might appreciate it more. I don't particularly care for the "Import/Export" scheme. I would rather just load a file and work on it, much the same as other programs do. I've figured out that it's because the app maintains a catalog which is why that scheme is preferred, so I've learned to accept it.

Without that catalog, a tremendous amount of the value of Lightroom is lost and you're back to something along the lines of ACR.

Personally, I would prefer to never have to think about files at all. I look at Import/Export is a necessary evil because there remain too many situations where a file is needed. The general trend in software development is away from "file centrism" and towards databases that maintain their state automatically (load/save just happen) and I couldn't be happier about that.

Originally Posted by Dennis_Vied

Also, if you go to transfer a file directly to PS, it creates a separate Edit file alongside the RAW file, which is a departure from the method PS uses, to avoid the possibility of overwriting the original. I understand that, but don't particularly like it.

There are other ways Adobe could have handled that. For example, they could have taken the Photoshop output file and squirreled it away in the Lightroom database so that it doesn't crud up the directory containing your RAW files. They could have even used tricks to make the Photoshop version appear to "replace" the RAW original in the grid.

I don't really have a problem with the overall strategy Adobe adopted, but I do wish their implementation of Stacks was better. I find it extremely difficult to tell which images are stacked and which aren't in Lightroom. I think Aperture got that feature “more right” because the stack groupings are very clear in the UI.


Example of how Aperture shows a stack: the images are enclosed in a distinct gray box.

On the other hand, all current implementations of stacks are geared towards choosing one “keeper” out of a bunch of attempts, rather than associating different variations of a single image where more than one might be equals. Often when I round-trip through Photoshop, I'm producing an alternate version, not necessarily a "better" version. I think there might be room for improvement in this area in both Lightroom and Aperture.

Originally Posted by Dennis_Vied

I teach an Adult Ed course in digital photography, and I consider LR the future of consumer digital processing, although at present it is targeted to the pro community, or at least to RAW shooters. I can foresee an app with the front end of LR and a final stage of PS Elements as a viable product.

Is that what we're coming to, do you think?

I foresee Lightroom remaining oriented towards professionals and serious amateurs. As Lightroom grows and evolves, it should grow gradually eclipse Photoshop for most professionals, while moving further out of reach to consumers, due to the rising complexity inherent in adding more image manipulation features. Lightroom's Develop module—while wonderful to my eyes—is already utterly overwhelming to any consumer I know.

Consumers will continue to be served by products like Apple's superb iPhoto, which combines accessible RAW processing features with a familiar-feeling catalog.

[AndrewRodney]

Originally Posted by MathewLodge

If I read Andrew's posts correctly, the argument seems to go like this:
1) The parametric approach is better for photo editing
2) LR is a "pure" parametric app in the mind of its developers, and features that do not lend themselves to parametric implementation won't get into the product.
3) PS is a bad product because it isn't parametric -- it edits pixels.
4) PS is bad because it is old, isn't particularly well designed and evolved to meet the needs of its users over 20 years.

I don't know that you read my post correctly or I wasn't clear enough. Lets start:

1. Parametric editing isn't better, its different. Just as a screwdriver isn't a better tool than a butter knife, they are different. One is better designed for smearing butter on your toast, the other for dealing with screws. There are all kinds of functionality that is far more effective (fast), non damaging (burning in edits on pixels), allows for copy and paste onto lots of other similar images and that doesn't require the user to open into memory every pixel. It uses instructions to describe an edit. That's in a nutshell what parametric editing brings to the party. LR doesn't care if you're asking for vibrance adjustment on a 22 or 22 megapixel image in terms of speed to build the instructions. When you're done with the instructions, they can be reedited even if you quit the application (unlimited history). Its about building instructions for taking Raw data in its most practical form and building pixels so you can do something with those pixels like edit them in Photoshop which IS a one image at a time pixel editor.

2. The parametric editing is better for photographers in some cases yes. When you don't want to spot out 1000 dust spots all on the same place due to sensor dust, its positively foolish to think about opening each image in Photoshop, finding the area, using the clone tool, saving the data etc (and one should do this on a layer such that they can always go back to the original if need be). It takes seconds to do this task using parametric editing functionality like we see in Lightroom. The same could be said of converting 1000 images into B&W with a tint for output. Or ganging up 10 images on a page in Photoshop (open, size the canvas, size the images, copy, past, line up) compared to the Print Module in LR.

3. PS isn't a bad product because its not a parametric editor (it in some respects is, look at adjustment layers). Its really good as a pixel editor where you need to work at a very precise level on pixels. Or work with layers etc. But go back to the dust spot analogy and you can see, for that task (and others), its "bad" in terms of efficiency for someone working with lots of images. It was never designed for these tasks. It was designed from day one to open a single image, maybe a few, and work on one at a time by manipulating pixels. Global correction here is slow (depending on the document size) because you're asking to open, view and manipulate every pixel. We've seen attempts over the years to remove these restrictions (Live Picture being one of the last to do so somewhat successfully). The heavy lifting is done on export, when you don't need to sit around while the computer processes the instructions into the pixels you previously told it you wish.

4. PS is "bad" in that its nearly a 20 year old application that is trying to do all things to all users. Even having two versions (Standard and Extended) was only a baby step in making it an easier to use, discoverable application. And no matter what is done, its not aimed only at Photographers (or designers or illustrators, or those doing medical forensics). Its a big, complicated, feature-stuffed-for-all-kinds-of-possibly-imagined application. Lightroom is a focused, small application designed by and designed for photographers.

[Noel_Carboni]

Alas, here I sit watching the state of computing crumble into unusability, the crowd cheering as it goes...

So file systems are becoming passe in light of fancy new databases, yet the file system is the ONE storage system you can actually trust. No database is ever going to be able to replace a file system for sheer ability to actually FILE data and KEEP it safe. Corrupted file systems are a thing of the past (when's the last time you had to run CHKDSK?). Corrupted databases are becoming the norm. Why does a database seem better? Because you haven't outfitted your system with the tools you need to be able to use your file system effectively.

Pixel editors are becoming passe in light of "workflow-based" and "non-destructive editing", yet people who complain that life has gotten more complicated and that they can't get their jobs done any more are being told they are dinosaurs and that the "coolness" factor of new software is "where it's at". Give me a break!

Let's get real here...

Photoshop is powerful and immensely popular PRECISELY because it's got a zillion features that can be combined a kejillion ways. Not because it "defines a new workflow". It's because it's a TOOL and doesn't define any flow - it leaves that to us!

As each year passes the software and options that actually make things work are being hidden deeper and deeper under layers of fluff. It's all Window Dressing! Who today, designing software, is any smarter than the folks who came before? When I meet such a person I'll let you know.

Each new release purports to be "more user friendly", yet actually becomes more frustrating as the crap around the edges of the windows and applications becomes thicker and deeper (where are my boots), while the really useful things become unavailable or hidden behind "click here dummy" screens. Bottom line is the places to actually get anything done are becoming smaller and smaller.

And "Web 2.0". Don't get me started. Let's redefine slow, unreliable, and utterly useless. Suddenly bloated, unreliable databases on one computer alone don't look so bad.

I don't want to work the "database" way. It's bogus. It doesn't suit me. I don't find it "cool". What I want, as a power user is to have the tools to work the way I want. I've spent a lifetime learning how to be a power user. For God's sake, let's not wish for that power to be taken away!

Sigh, resistance is futile I suppose.

Rant over.

-Noel

[AndrewRodney]

Originally Posted by Noel_Carboni

Photoshop is powerful and immensely popular PRECISELY because it's got a zillion features that can be combined a kejillion ways.

A real swiss army knife of a tool. They are immensely popular too. Sometimes one good feature more than offsets a zillion OK ones. I still carry a swiss army knife but also have a garage filled with specialized tools and I know when to use one or the other.

[Noel_Carboni]

Funny thing... I always thought of the "Filters" menu as a garage filled with specialized tools myself. How I combine them defines what I want to build, and more importantly how I want to build it.

Do any of you who worry over this or that little color shift actually LOOK at your photos while you're working on them? A tool does what it does; if it does not do exactly what YOU want it to do just learn what it DOES do and optimize your use of it. It's a tool, not an end-all. These are two utterly different things.

It's good that the Adobe folks don't shift what the tools do every release, so those of us who actually come to know what they do and actually rely on them doing it don't get jammed back to "newbie" status every release.

Case in point: Brightness/Contrast. I applaud what Adobe has done; the roll-off behavior (opposed to clipping) has made the tool more useful interactively. However, I have actions that EXPECT the clipping behavior, so as to do useful things with it. If Adobe had simply re-engineered the Brightness/Contrast function without providing a [] Legacy checkbox, my actions would have been broken. Bravo to Adobe for doing EXACTLY THE RIGHT THING here.

-Noel

[Pro Photo Store]

Visit the B&H Pro Photo Store for the best Gear Prices and regular specials!

Brilliant Color for any Digital SLR
White Balance Cap
The Pros Agree on ColorRight
What People Are Saying