Just downloaded Lighroom for a free trial

[Dogdots]

Hello Anyone or Everyone,

I just downloaded the trial for Lightroom. Does anyone have any pointers or quick ways into how this program works.

And I'd like to know why this would be good if I have CS3.

I did to a photo really quick on there and WOW it is quick. But.....if you take the same picture and do one in CS3 and the other in Lightroom can you tell the difference in the end?

Any and all imput would be helpful.

----Mary

[SloYerRoll]

Hello Anyone or Everyone,

I just downloaded the trial for Lightroom. Does anyone have any pointers or quick ways into how this program works.

And I'd like to know why this would be good if I have CS3.

I did to a photo really quick on there and WOW it is quick. But.....if you take the same picture and do one in CS3 and the other in Lightroom can you tell the difference in the end?

Any and all imput would be helpful.

----Mary
Hi Mary,

All those bells and whistles on these apps all boil down to mathmatical equations.
So if you punch the same numbers in on each program, you will get the same output.
Some color geeks here will say this isn't so since Lr uses a pseudo prophoto colorspace then converts blah blah..
For your intents and purposes though. The answer is, NO. The results will not look any different if you process it through Lr vs. ACR, Ps. or any other Adobe App.

Go to the video link here (http://movielibrary.lynda.com/html/modPage.asp?ID=364) (I'd start on chap. 2) to get your feet wet w/ the application. Make sure to have the video and lightroom open at the same time.

After that, post some questions in this thread. This can be your one stop shop for Lr knowledge. Dgrinners will be happy to help you out w/ any questions you have.

[wildviper]

I seem to feel that the pictures coming out of LR are NOT that good versus PS CS2. I haven't done a "scientific" test, but from what I see, I have stopped processing files in LR. Once I do my selection, I work solely in CS2.

I feel LR adds a bit too much noise and it always look more crappy. That is my 2 cents.

[colourbox]

I feel LR adds a bit too much noise and it always look more crappy. That is my 2 cents.

Technically, raw converters never add noise, but some remove it better than others. If noise is appearing, it usually means the applied corrections were boosting the existing noise up out of the shadows.

[Pindy]

LR and ACR have the same engine, so what you get in one, you can reproduce in the other, with the exception of the point curve in ACR.

As for getting to know LR, I bought the $15 luminous-landscape.com tutorial video set as a download, which is really helpful and they have good tips for shortcuts, philosophy etc. Highly recommended. I believe there's a free video tutorial over at rawworkflow.com.

If you press command + / (forward slash) you get a panel showing the keyboard shortcuts for the module you are in. Very handy.

For me, the most important and most used shortcuts are:

D — gets to to the Develop module
G — gets you to the grid
E — shows you the Loupe Mode, which is another way of seeing one photo at a time
C — compares two selected photos
N — compares as many photos as you have selected.
R —opens the photo, ready to crop or straighten.

Study THIS MENU:

http://pindy.smugmug.com/photos/211377267-L.png


Ahh, i should add that your life will be better if you know about Tab, Shift-Tab and the F key. Shift Tab gets the panels out of the way. You can individually click their arrows on the sides to show or hide them. Pressing F goes into two versions of Full Screen mode.

[SloYerRoll]

Good post Pindy.

Hey Mary,
I'd print up Pindy's post, download the video if you like. Adn jsutplay in lightroom.
Trying to take more than this in gives the chance for you to get confused. Just play with it, jam the sliders all around.

I'll add three things that have really helped me then let you have at it:
NOTE: I recommend playing a bit on your own then reading these tips..)


To make your workspace less cluttered. ALT click on a menu bar. You will see your triangle next to your word turns into a bunch of dots instead of a solid colored triangle. What this does is make your menus pop up one at a time. So if I have HSL/COLOR/GRAYSCALE open and then you click on Basic, it will close the other menu and onlyleave the basic menu open. Like it the other way? Just ALT click again and it resets the settings back to default.

Develop Module>Basic
slide around the histogram (the colored jagged thing at the top of the screen) and slide around your exposure, recovery, fill light & blacks. You'll see that they do the same thing. If your old school you'll use the sliders, new school will probably use the histogram.
NOTE: You really need to understand what these 4 settings do. These are the foundation of the image. If these settings are off, the rest of your image is already doomed. Like building a mansion on a beach w/ no foundation...

Develop Module>HSL/COLOR/GRAYSCALE
click on the little round circle w/ the arrow on the top and bottom of it (this is in the top left corner of this box). Then bring the mouse over the picture. Click down on the color you want to change, then just push the mouse up and down. It finds all the colors like the one you clicked on and changes them all for you!

[SloYerRoll]

To answer your question in another thread.

Photoshop came WAY before lightroom. In fact when you go to look up things for lightroom. You'll find that the Lr is actually called photshop lightroom.

[claudermilk]

Technically, raw converters never add noise, but some remove it better than others. If noise is appearing, it usually means the applied corrections were boosting the existing noise up out of the shadows.

It's most likely sharpening artifacts & most converters apply some baseline sharpening whether you like it or not. That can appear to be "adding noise."

[SloYerRoll]

Hey guys,

In the nicest possible way. Can we keep the thread in a non rocket science world? I know your not going into algorythyms and high end stuff. Mary is just starting out and has tons of time to learn from you all.

Regards,
-Jon

[Pindy]

SloYerRoll, great tip about the alt/option clicking on develop panels. I think they call that "Solo" mode so it's nice to know how to enable that quickly.

I should also point out that simply using the tools to set white and black points is really nice and quick and helps to get you going in LR. Hold down option/alt and drag the Exposure slider or the Blacks slider. It's the same thing as in photoshop when you use the Threshold command to find where your highlight and shadow clipping points are. You'll see blobs on screen when you are clipping or blocking the extremes. Season to taste!

[wildviper]

Well, the main point Mary you will have to make is: What are you using LR to do for you?

- Sorting and Keywording - Its great.
- Maintaining a huge database of your pictures - not so great..very very slow.
- Mucking about changing exposures and stuff - You see for yourself.

I myself only use it for keywording and sorting stuff. After that, everything happens in PS CS2. The reason is that I had 2-3 clients tell me that my pictures weren't as sharp as before. I dug deep and found that I had started using LR to do my curve adjustments and exposure settings.

When I switched back to CS2, the client complaints stopped. So, technically they maybe similar, but none of that matters to me. If my clients complain, I have a problem to fix. In my case, it was LR.

[Dogdots]

I have been printing out everything that shows me the light of any program. Thanks for the link--will studing this in depth. I should sign up for lynda.com---It may make my life easier. And not so bothersome to you all.

After going thru the link I will have a lot of questions I'm sure. So hopefully those reading this will be ready :D .

I'm sure every program has its faults. And wondering if the pictures would turn out the same is important to me. As I'm sure anyone else. I didn't notice that when you use the slider to move the histogram in LR does the #'s for what it changed show up anywhere? Just thinking that if it did -- then I could go into CS3 and see what to change and try it on the same photo. LR is quick--gotta say that for it.

Questions coming---hope not to bore anyone or seem like I'm using up valuable time.

---Mary

[Dogdots]

Well, the main point Mary you will have to make is: What are you using LR to do for you?

- Sorting and Keywording - Its great.
- Maintaining a huge database of your pictures - not so great..very very slow.
- Mucking about changing exposures and stuff - You see for yourself.

I myself only use it for keywording and sorting stuff. After that, everything happens in PS CS2. The reason is that I had 2-3 clients tell me that my pictures weren't as sharp as before. I dug deep and found that I had started using LR to do my curve adjustments and exposure settings.

When I switched back to CS2, the client complaints stopped. So, technically they maybe similar, but none of that matters to me. If my clients complain, I have a problem to fix. In my case, it was LR.

This is going to sound crazy, but in the few minutes I have had to play with it I found the Histogram is awesome. Has that posed any problems for you? Say you use the Histogram slider then move the photo into CS3 and finish it off. I can't see buying this program for just the slider with the histogram. Good marketing tool...put it in LR and not CS programs. That way we have to buy both if we want it......kinda ticks me off.

I also like the key wording which I haven't even used yet. But I see the benefits of it. Everything seems so simple in LR. Also the metadata seems easier to use. Then again I haven't gotten that down in CS3. So I really can't compare it.

And the customer is always right and they will notice the difference sometimes before we will. I had over 100 prints printed out at this one place. And I wasn't happy with the color. It was off. They said I would pick it up, but nobody else would or had. They ran them over for me. Ex. of a customer is right :D

----Mary

[Travis]

Hey Mary,

Something that hasn't really been discussed here is that Lightroom is one part of the workflow equation - it is not designed to be the stand-alone, end all photo editor. For the weekend photographer that shoots 30 or 40 photos and then wants to clean them up, Camera Raw/Photoshop CS2/3 will be all they need. Lightroom really shines if you have a ton of photos to process quickly. A good example is event photography such as a dog show. I may shoot 800 - 1000 photos. Lightroom enables me to quickly catalog them, sort them, reject the losers, and then perform the initial processing (color, tone, contrast, and prelim sharpening). I can make adjustments to a single photo and then copy the adjustments to the entire catalog. This alone saves uncountless hours (seeing that I only have the evening before the next day of the show). As a final step, I can print contact sheets of proofs or generate photo slide shows directly from Lightroom.

If a client orders photos (or in non-client situations I want to print for myself), I export the photos as psd's and perform the fine-tuning adjustments in CS3. This includes sharpening for the desired output size/medium and any noise reduction that may be needed.

Do you need a fullscale workflow solution? Only you can answer that based on the number of images that you shoot per session. Camera Raw now has several of the benefits asociated with Lightroom. I personally wouldn't want to manage without it. Are there better solutions for cataloging and preprocessing? Aperature and Extensis Portfolio are better in some areas but Lightroom seems to provide everything that I need for my workflow.

Just a couple of cents from a broke man......:D

[LiquidAir]

Well, the main point Mary you will have to make is: What are you using LR to do for you?

- Sorting and Keywording - Its great.
- Maintaining a huge database of your pictures - not so great..very very slow.
- Mucking about changing exposures and stuff - You see for yourself.

I myself only use it for keywording and sorting stuff. After that, everything happens in PS CS2. The reason is that I had 2-3 clients tell me that my pictures weren't as sharp as before. I dug deep and found that I had started using LR to do my curve adjustments and exposure settings.

When I switched back to CS2, the client complaints stopped. So, technically they maybe similar, but none of that matters to me. If my clients complain, I have a problem to fix. In my case, it was LR.

One major thing Lightroom lacks today is output sharpening. Currently I have a number of Lightroom export settings which output a scaled .psd and launch a Photoshop droplet which drops a sharpening layer (as well as a watermark layer) over the PSD. I then tweak the opacity of the sharpening layer to suit the image and run an action which flattens the image converts it to 8 bit sRGB and saves it as a JPEG. Since the whole sharpening process is so quick, I dump that intermediate .psd file into a temp directory and blow it away when I am done. I find it is less work to regenerate those .psds than it is to catalog them. I hope that some future version of Lightroom will support output sharpening, but for the time being I find processing in Lightroom and sharpening in Photoshop is still faster than an all Photoshop workflow.

Output sharpening is a subtlety that may or may not matter to you. If you want to display the absolute best quality images online, it matters. It is also important if you are making gallery prints at home. However, if you are uploading images to Smugmug for print, it is irrelevant because EZPrints is going to rescale and resharpen your images anyhow.

As for slowness with big databases, I have about 9,000 frames in Lightroom and I haven't noticed it bogging down yet. The one thing I have noticed during the beta is that Lightroom starts getting a bit slow if you put too many files in a single directory. I have gotten in the habit now of not allowing more than about 500 frames in a single folder. It is possible that since the release Adobe has fixed that issue; with my current workflow I wouldn't notice.

[Travis]

One major thing Lightroom lacks today is output sharpening.

I understand where your coming from Ken but I don't believe that Lightroom could build in output sharpening that would fully satisfy everyone. There are just too many variations (2-pass LAB, 3-pass Unsharp, Red Channel sharpen, High Pass, etc.) I think final output sharpening would have to reside in CS. It would be interesting if you were able to call CS functions from Lightroom and save them as part of the non-destructive file so that you wouldn't have to export and then reimport.

[LiquidAir]

Something that hasn't really been discussed here is that Lightroom is one part of the workflow equation - it is not designed to be the stand-alone, end all photo editor. For the weekend photographer that shoots 30 or 40 photos and then wants to clean them up, Camera Raw/Photoshop CS2/3 will be all they need. Lightroom really shines if you have a ton of photos to process quickly. A good example is event photography such as a dog show. I may shoot 800 - 1000 photos. Lightroom enables me to quickly catalog them, sort them, reject the losers, and then perform the initial processing (color, tone, contrast, and prelim sharpening). I can make adjustments to a single photo and then copy the adjustments to the entire catalog. This alone saves uncountless hours (seeing that I only have the evening before the next day of the show). As a final step, I can print contact sheets of proofs or generate photo slide shows directly from Lightroom.


I am purely a hobbyist and yet I still find the workflow to be very helpful. On average I shoot about 150 frames a week. After deleting the junk I still end up adding over 5000 frames a year to my catalog. One of the things we do is produce both a family calender and a neighborhood memory book each year. I am in the process of prepping for those projects now and Lightroom makes the process of selecting photos for each project much easier.


If a client orders photos (or in non-client situations I want to print for myself), I export the photos as psd's and perform the fine-tuning adjustments in CS3. This includes sharpening for the desired output size/medium and any noise reduction that may be needed.


Exactly.

Here is another trick I play. When I need to do significant Photoshop work (major cloning, burnning, dodging or local color correction), I render the entire RAW to a .psd for processing in Photoshop (I always use 16 bit Prophoto RGB for this) and the Photoshop file automatically gets layered over the orginal RAW in my database. Once I am done in Photoshop, I return to Lightroom to straighten and crop the photo. Since I always have the full image on disc, I can always go back and recrop. Over time I often end up with saved Lightroom settings for several different crops. Each time I add a crop to an image, I tag the image with a keyword for that crop which lets me quickly find an image to fill a hole in a layout.

[Travis]

Here is another trick I play. When I need to do significant Photoshop work (major cloning, burnning, dodging or local color correction), I render the entire RAW to a .psd for processing in Photoshop (I always use 16 bit Prophoto RGB for this) and the Photoshop file automatically gets layered over the orginal RAW in my database. Once I am done in Photoshop, I return to Lightroom to straighten and crop the photo. Since I always have the full image on disc, I can always go back and recrop. Over time I often end up with saved Lightroom settings for several different crops. Each time I add a crop to an image, I tag the image with a keyword for that crop which lets me quickly find an image to fill a hole in a layout.

Excellent suggestion! :thumb I never thought of keywording the crops. I'll have to do that from now on.

[Pindy]

I'm sure every program has its faults. And wondering if the pictures would turn out the same is important to me. As I'm sure anyone else. I didn't notice that when you use the slider to move the histogram in LR does the #'s for what it changed show up anywhere? Just thinking that if it did -- then I could go into CS3 and see what to change and try it on the same photo. LR is quick--gotta say that for it.

---Mary

The 4 sections so the Histogram move the Exposure, Recovery, Fill Light and Blacks sliders. A bit like when you move the tone curve.

Something to bear in mind with the settings is that the numbers between ACR and LR will be the same because they are both RAW processors based on ACR's engine. PS CS3 is NOT a RAW processor and that's why they include ACR as a plug-in front-end to PS. So it's a not apple/apples to compare ACR/LR's controls with Photoshop's, given that LR's controls (all of them) are metadata and do not alter the original image file, whereas PS is destructive and is truly an image editor. I doubt the overlapping controls in "Photoshop Proper" are identical to ACR/LR. You wouldn't need ACR for anything other than converting the RAW if that were true.

Whether it is better for your workflow to ignore the RAW conversion/processing stage and simply use PS for all you exposure/tonal/color balancing needs is not mine to say. I would rather take as much advantage of the RAW processing as possible and use PS to do things your RAW processor cannot, like local editing, layers, etc. I don't find LR lacking in image quality.

[LiquidAir]

Whether it is better for your workflow to ignore the RAW conversion/processing stage and simply use PS for all you exposure/tonal/color balancing needs is not mine to say. I would rather take as much advantage of the RAW processing as possible and use PS to do things your RAW processor cannot, like local editing, layers, etc. I don't find LR lacking in image quality.

I have certainly found that front loading as much processing as I can into the RAW conversion stage has improved my end results. Using Lightroom instead of ACR (along with some prodding from Andrew Rodney) has really encouraged that workflow. These days I find that for the majority of my images that, while I could get a better result in Photoshop, what I get from Lightroom is good enough.

[colourbox]

I should also point out that simply using the tools to set white and black points is really nice and quick and helps to get you going in LR. Hold down option/alt and drag the Exposure slider or the Blacks slider. It's the same thing as in photoshop when you use the Threshold command to find where your highlight and shadow clipping points are. You'll see blobs on screen when you are clipping or blocking the extremes. Season to taste!

That's a great tip because it works with both Lightroom and ACR. However, I'm lazy, so I prefer to press the J key shortcut in Lightroom so that both the highlight+shadow clipping colors stay on or off together until you press J again. It's less tiring than keeping option/alt pressed. (On the menu, the command for this is View > Show Clipping.)

[Dogdots]

Interesting information from all of you. I will be re-reading all of this to get it all digested.

1. I understand that LR is non-distructive. I take that to be true for jpegs as well. You can edit the heck out of a jpeg and it stays the same as the time it was shot. Right?

2. Work flow is so much easier.

3. Editing all like photos is super easy.

4. I haven't even gotten into how to set up files and keywording the files. I"m still trying to figure out how to get all my photos onto there :D . I know it is simple, but just have't played with it enough.

5. Gotta ask....you do some editing in LR and transfer it over to CS3 to do some more---does it do damage in the transfer? Also if you want to transfer it back to LR to file it or do something else....does it damage the photo in the transfer back?

----Mary

[Pindy]

That's a great tip because it works with both Lightroom and ACR. However, I'm lazy, so I prefer to press the J key shortcut in Lightroom so that both the highlight+shadow clipping colors stay on or off together until you press J again. It's less tiring than keeping option/alt pressed. (On the menu, the command for this is View > Show Clipping.)

Another way of doing things in LR that I was ignorant of. Cool!

[Pindy]

Interesting information from all of you. I will be re-reading all of this to get it all digested.

1. I understand that LR is non-distructive. I take that to be true for jpegs as well. You can edit the heck out of a jpeg and it stays the same as the time it was shot. Right?

2. Work flow is so much easier.

3. Editing all like photos is super easy.

4. I haven't even gotten into how to set up files and keywording the files. I"m still trying to figure out how to get all my photos onto there :D . I know it is simple, but just have't played with it enough.

5. Gotta ask....you do some editing in LR and transfer it over to CS3 to do some more---does it do damage in the transfer? Also if you want to transfer it back to LR to file it or do something else....does it damage the photo in the transfer back?

----Mary

1. True. Nothing's baked into the file. When you export, you get a baked file as your output.
2. Some people like Bridge/ACR/PS. I don't, but it works for many. I came from Aperture, so it's a similar layout.
3. This is a major benefit.
4. Again, you can take your pick of 3-4 different methods. One will likely become a methodology you like.
5. when you "round trip" to PS, make sure you set the export prefs to a similar working space, like ProPhoto RGB and 16-bits, which is what LR works in (I won't go into the linear gamma thing—thanks Andrew R). This simply writes your LR settings to non-compressed PSD file (or not—you can tell it to send a copy with no LR settings). When you hit SAVE in PS, it automatically saves the PSD back to you LR library, again, uncompressed. Theoretically, you could round-trip between PS thousands of times in this scenario without degradation from the transfer process at least.

[Art Scott]

Something no one has mentioned or I missed it if they did,,,,,,the book,,,,,,,,,"LIGHTTOOM FOR DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHERS" by Scott Kelby.......it has helpped me a lot, until someone left a window slightly down and it got rain-soaked now the pages are all stuck together......heading for BOOKPOOL soon for another copy....................

[Pindy]

Something no one has mentioned or I missed it if they did,,,,,,the book,,,,,,,,,"LIGHTTOOM FOR DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHERS" by Scott Kelby.......it has helpped me a lot, until someone left a window slightly down and it got rain-soaked now the pages are all stuck together......heading for BOOKPOOL soon for another copy....................

I have heard generally good things about this book. This book is on my list of things to buy (mostly for the workflow stuff—I have a lot of the develop down for my purposes anyway).

[SloYerRoll]

Martin Evenings book Lightroom for digital photographers is much more comprehensive and doesn't assault me with dumb jokes either:D

[Pindy]

Martin Evenings book Lightroom for digital photographers is much more comprehensive and doesn't assault me with dumb jokes either:D

Yes, I've never read a Kelby book, but this seems to be the consensus, if Amazon review writers are to be believed.

[Dogdots]

Something no one has mentioned or I missed it if they did,,,,,,the book,,,,,,,,,"LIGHTTOOM FOR DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHERS" by Scott Kelby.......it has helpped me a lot, until someone left a window slightly down and it got rain-soaked now the pages are all stuck together......heading for BOOKPOOL soon for another copy....................

Hi,

Nope....nobody mentioned this book. I will have to take a look at it.

Sorry to hear a Kansas rain destoryed your book. I've been thru a few of those storms down there------scary.

-----Mary

[Icebear]

I got Rob Sheppard's book, Photoshop Lightroom for Digital Photographers Only from the public library. I own Kelby's book. Maybe i'm a dumass, but Kelby's humor still hasn't completely bored me yet, and I have three of his books. So far, the jokes are mostly new from book to book.:D

Anyway, I find Kelby's book more helpful.

[Dogdots]

I got Rob Sheppard's book, Photoshop Lightroom for Digital Photographers Only from the public library. I own Kelby's book. Maybe i'm a dumass, but Kelby's humor still hasn't completely bored me yet, and I have three of his books. So far, the jokes are mostly new from book to book.:D

Anyway, I find Kelby's book more helpful.

Hi,

I like Kelbys humor. And I need all the humor I can get learning this stuff :D

---Mary

[Ann McRae]

Lightroom really shines if you have a ton of photos to process quickly. A good example is event photography such as a dog show. I may shoot 800 - 1000 photos. Lightroom enables me to quickly catalog them, sort them, reject the losers, and then perform the initial processing (color, tone, contrast, and prelim sharpening). I can make adjustments to a single photo and then copy the adjustments to the entire catalog. This alone saves uncountless hours (seeing that I only have the evening before the next day of the show). As a final step, I can print contact sheets of proofs or generate photo slide shows directly from Lightroom.



So I have just made a big switch - from a PC with PSPXII and RSE to a Mac with PSCS3.
I use sports photography to feed my glass habit.
With my previous set up, I used RSE to convert my RAW files (DUH), qnd for sports photos would copy the settings to all photos of the series (where starting exposure was the same). Then RSE converted to .jpg and I used PSP to finish up.
RSE allowed exposure correction, fill light, highlight and shadow correction and saturaton changes.
In PSP I would typcally play with curves, sharpen, crop and be done.

How can I best mimic that work flow with my new tools? I like ARC - it has more fine tuning ability that RSE.
I would like to have some batchability though. For example, I have about 6 Gig of basketball shots to run through to find 'a good shot' of each of about 45 players.

ann

[Pindy]

So I have just made a big switch - from a PC with PSPXII and RSE to a Mac with PSCS3.
I use sports photography to feed my glass habit.
With my previous set up, I used RSE to convert my RAW files (DUH), qnd for sports photos would copy the settings to all photos of the series (where starting exposure was the same). Then RSE converted to .jpg and I used PSP to finish up.
RSE allowed exposure correction, fill light, highlight and shadow correction and saturaton changes.
In PSP I would typcally play with curves, sharpen, crop and be done.

How can I best mimic that work flow with my new tools? I like ARC - it has more fine tuning ability that RSE.
I would like to have some batchability though. For example, I have about 6 Gig of basketball shots to run through to find 'a good shot' of each of about 45 players.

ann

As you may know, the author of Raw Shooter works on the Lightroom team now and elements of RSE have been incorporated into LR and in some cases improved upon. What are you using now besides CS3? I believe Adobe gives a free crossgrade to Raw Shooter owners. Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ann McRae]

As you may know, the author of Raw Shooter works on the Lightroom team now and elements of RSE have been incorporated into LR and in some cases improved upon. What are you using now besides CS3? I believe Adobe gives a free crossgrade to Raw Shooter owners. Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Very interesting - I did not know that. I only had RSE - the free version, so that wouldn't work.

I am only using CS3 - after all, plunking down $800 when PSP was $120 was a big enough shock....

And I only bought all this last Thursday. Still working out how to catalogue, what my workflow should be etc.

Tips greatly appreciated.

ann

[Pindy]

Very interesting - I did not know that. I only had RSE - the free version, so that wouldn't work.

I am only using CS3 - after all, plunking down $800 when PSP was $120 was a big enough shock....

And I only bought all this last Thursday. Still working out how to catalogue, what my workflow should be etc.

Tips greatly appreciated.

ann

Yeah not with the free version, I'm sure.

Still, "only" CS3 is up there with the best tools available, since you get the very fine ACR with that. Bridge is the built-in browser for images, which should let you do ratings and keywording, though it's not a database per se. You may find a more digital asset manager-type of app would help if you need an app to look after your organisation for you. Lightroom, Aperture, iView, etc., do this all with variable success for your needs.

I can tell you that Aperture, despite the things that made me stop using it, had very solid control over photo management.

[Travis]

So I have just made a big switch - from a PC with PSPXII and RSE to a Mac with PSCS3.
I use sports photography to feed my glass habit.
With my previous set up, I used RSE to convert my RAW files (DUH), qnd for sports photos would copy the settings to all photos of the series (where starting exposure was the same). Then RSE converted to .jpg and I used PSP to finish up.
RSE allowed exposure correction, fill light, highlight and shadow correction and saturaton changes.
In PSP I would typcally play with curves, sharpen, crop and be done.

How can I best mimic that work flow with my new tools? I like ARC - it has more fine tuning ability that RSE.
I would like to have some batchability though. For example, I have about 6 Gig of basketball shots to run through to find 'a good shot' of each of about 45 players.

ann

Hey Ann,

If I have a big shoot like an auto event or dog show and I have a prelim schedule or list of contestents, I try to setup my catalogs in advance. Of course, I will add to the folder structure as necessary but it helps save time out of the gate. For instance, if I know that a car event is being judged class, year, and type, I would set up my catalogs in that hierarchy in advance. For shows with preassigned locations for people to park their vehicles, I arrange my catalogs based on sections. Because the the presets work best with a constant exposure, it also helps to further group the images within set timeframes. That way I just need to dump the RAW images into their respective folders as the day progresses.

As part of the import to Lightroom, the images are renamed (naming schema depends on the type of show), keyworded, and a preset is ran with basic tone, vibrance, and clarity settings. At the end of the day, I run through the images and mark the rejects. I assign all prospective keepers a rating of 2 or 3 with 2 being marginal keeper and 3 being a definite.

I filter the 2 ratings and make a pass to see if cropping, straightening, or an exposure adjustment would bring them to definite keeper status. If so, the adjustment is made and the rating is moved to a 3.

I filter on the 3 rating, select the first image, and make my contrast, moderate noise reduction, and moderate sharpening adjustments. I then select all and sync the adjustments. From there I export them as jpgs for proofs. Any orders received later are exported from Lightroom as PSDs and detail edited in PCS3 before export to jpg and being sent to print or cd.

Others may have a more efficient workflow but this has worked for me thus far on days where I had to shoot hundreds of images with little time for PP. There are some good workflow tutorials out there. You might want to check out www.lightroomkillertips.com . Adobe's site also has some good info. Hope this helps....

[Dogdots]

Lightroom is tooted as being non-destructive to jpegs when editing. But isn't CS3 non-destructive to?

[Travis]

A jpg is a flat single layer file. You can work on a jpg in Photoshop by copying the base layer and performing your adjustments on th ecopied layer; however, if you safe the file as a jpg, it will flatten your layers and the changes will become permanent (assuming your saving over the original copy). Continued editing, flattening, and saving will diminish the quality of the jpg.

In Lightroom, the adjustments are not made to the jpg itself. Instead they are written to a sidecare file (think of it as a little briefcase containing the adjustment instructions). Since the jpg is unaltered, you can always revert to the original with damage done.

With that said, I would suggest that you do not edit jpgs in PCS. Instead save the image as a psd so you can maintain the layered document and only convert it to a jpg when you want to output it for printing.

[Pindy]

Lightroom is tooted as being non-destructive to jpegs when editing. But isn't CS3 non-destructive to?

True what Travis said. It saves the instructions of what it's doing. You don't actually make an altered image file until you export (or round-trip to Photoshop or another editor)

[Dogdots]

A jpg is a flat single layer file. You can work on a jpg in Photoshop by copying the base layer and performing your adjustments on th ecopied layer; however, if you safe the file as a jpg, it will flatten your layers and the changes will become permanent (assuming your saving over the original copy). Continued editing, flattening, and saving will diminish the quality of the jpg.

In Lightroom, the adjustments are not made to the jpg itself. Instead they are written to a sidecare file (think of it as a little briefcase containing the adjustment instructions). Since the jpg is unaltered, you can always revert to the original with damage done.

With that said, I would suggest that you do not edit jpgs in PCS. Instead save the image as a psd so you can maintain the layered document and only convert it to a jpg when you want to output it for printing.

Very interesting. I wonder why Adobe didn't put that valuable tool in CS3 for jpgs. Hummmm......Good marketing tool :D Thanks for the info!

---Mary

[SloYerRoll]

Very interesting. I wonder why Adobe didn't put that valuable tool in CS3 for jpgs. Hummmm......Good marketing tool :D Thanks for the info!

---MaryPs does have that functionality. It's called layers!

[colourbox]

Very interesting. I wonder why Adobe didn't put that valuable tool in CS3 for jpgs. Hummmm......Good marketing tool :D Thanks for the info!

Actually, it's in there. If you edit a JPG with Adobe Camera Raw (new feature in Photoshop CS3), the corrections aren't permanent until you export a new copy. So now you have that option, in addition to the normal JPG editing in Photoshop itself that permanently changes the pixels.

[Dogdots]

Ps does have that functionality. It's called layers!

Yep :D

[Dogdots]

Actually, it's in there. If you edit a JPG with Adobe Camera Raw (new feature in Photoshop CS3), the corrections aren't permanent until you export a new copy. So now you have that option, in addition to the normal JPG editing in Photoshop itself that permanently changes the pixels.

How do you open a jpg in Raw on CS3?

[colourbox]

How do you open a jpg in Raw on CS3?

See second paragraph of this page (http://livedocs.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/10.0/help.html?content=WS43B6DFCC-DBBE-4a9a-A985-7871DF914288.html). Works with TIFF images too.

You can also use the Open dialog and select a JPEG, but change the Format pop-up to Camera Raw before you hit the Open button (otherwise it sticks to the JPEG default and opens without Camera Raw).

I should add, though, that although I have CS3 and it can do all this, the same workflow is so much smoother and faster in Lightroom that I use Lightroom for the bulk of editing and only send Photoshop the images that need detailed help.

[Dogdots]

See second paragraph of this page (http://livedocs.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/10.0/help.html?content=WS43B6DFCC-DBBE-4a9a-A985-7871DF914288.html). Works with TIFF images too.

You can also use the Open dialog and select a JPEG, but change the Format pop-up to Camera Raw before you hit the Open button (otherwise it sticks to the JPEG default and opens without Camera Raw).

I should add, though, that although I have CS3 and it can do all this, the same workflow is so much smoother and faster in Lightroom that I use Lightroom for the bulk of editing and only send Photoshop the images that need detailed help.

Cool thanks! I printed it out and ready to do it. I know LR would/should be the way to go....I just can't justify it yet even tho it would save me so much time. I kick myself everytime someone says "I just use LR for that" :D

[colourbox]

Ps does have that functionality. It's called layers!

Layers work great, as long as you save as TIFF or PSD. The interesting thing about opening JPEG in Camera Raw is that it stays a JPEG with correction metadata attached to the header, so you don't have to save a much larger TIFF or PSD just to get a few nondestructive corrections.

[stuffjunkie]

I have Kelby's book. I read parts of it while traveling...and haven't gotten back to it, yet. Unfortunately, I have a shelf of books in the same state.

I have learned A LOT about LR from the various podcasts available thru iTunes. If you have trouble finding time to read/browse thru a tutorial, I recommend checking out the many well done 3-10 minute demo/tutorials available FREE online.

[Dogdots]

I have Kelby's book. I read parts of it while traveling...and haven't gotten back to it, yet. Unfortunately, I have a shelf of books in the same state.

I have learned A LOT about LR from the various podcasts available thru iTunes. If you have trouble finding time to read/browse thru a tutorial, I recommend checking out the many well done 3-10 minute demo/tutorials available FREE online.

Thanks for the time saving tip--I will check it out :D

[Icebear]

I just can't justify it yet even tho it would save me so much time. I kick myself everytime someone says "I just use LR for that" :D

If it's a hobby, who cares how much time you "waste" on it?:rofl What else you gonna do? Play with the kids? Smooch with your Sweetie? Reconcile your bank statement?

If you're trying to make it pay, $300 for Lightroom pays for itself in the first couple of assignments. Really. Actually, I think Lightroom really does make it more fun. So BUY IT even if it's just for your hobby. And NO, I did not say "just a hobby."

[Dogdots]

If it's a hobby, who cares how much time you "waste" on it?:rofl What else you gonna do? Play with the kids? Smooch with your Sweetie? Reconcile your bank statement?

If you're trying to make it pay, $300 for Lightroom pays for itself in the first couple of assignments. Really. Actually, I think Lightroom really does make it more fun. So BUY IT even if it's just for your hobby. And NO, I did not say "just a hobby."

Its on my Christmas list :D As I need some kinds of organization with all these photos just waiting for a home.

----Mary

[Pindy]

If it's a hobby, who cares how much time you "waste" on it?:rofl

There is no such thing!

[kitkatkaplan]

I use LR for shoots where I have to edit 20 or more prints and the client is in a hurry to get their 4x6 prints, usually weddings and parties. You can batch adjust them very easily and automatically but I find that if I need to produce a large quality print, photoshop is better for refined adjustments and things like noise reduction.

For organizing, adding meta tags and batch processing LR is a breeze.

The BEST thing with LR is printing and beats PS any day. You don't have to open the files, you can set up any number of printing templates, including designing your own, and you can adjust images as you go along.

I sell hundreds of prints at street fairs in the summer and it is a joy to print with LR and was a nightmare with PS.

I also tend to never look at instructions and found LR very intuitive.