Anybody shooting manual-focus lenses on a DSLR?

[Darren Addy]

I'm not sure what you mean by "RAW files in conversion". As I'm sure you know, programs like Aperture and Lightroom do non-destructive editing, meaning that the original RAW file remains unaltered and your transformations are taking place on a copy. This is a big change of thinking for users of Photoshop, as explained here:

Non-destructive Editing
While Lightroom may not have all of Photoshop's editing features, it scores off Photoshop in one important regard. Photoshop has a mix of destructive and non-destructive editing features -- if you've used an Adjustment Layer in Photoshop, then you're familiar with non-destructive editing. However, all the edits you make in Lightroom are non-destructive. A non-destructive edit doesn't alter the original pixels in your image.
The advantages of non-destructive edits are that you can undo any edit at any time, and in any order, and you can go back and change the parameters of any edit at any time.
In a non-destructive editing system, your original master data file is stored alongside a list of the edits that you want made to the image. The image editor applies the list to the original master data on-the-fly, any time the image needs to be displayed, printed, or output to a file.
In Lightroom, this editing data is stored inside the application's Managed Photos folder, whether you choose to import your images into the managed library or leave them in their original locations and import them as references. (You can change the default location of the Managed Photos folder using Lightroom's Preferences dialog.) If you're working with raw files, you can also choose to have the edits and metadata changes stored in sidecar XMP files, just as you do in Bridge. To activate this feature, go to Preferences > File Management, and check the "Automatically write changes into XMP sidecar files" option.
Once you get used to the flexibility of a non-destructive editing system, it can be hard to go back to a destructive system. However, bear in mind that if you make edits in Lightroom, and then want to give a copy of the edited image to someone else, you must export a rendered, processed version that includes your edits. Your original image is never adjusted, so Lightroom needs to create a new image with your changes.

-source

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I'm not sure what you mean by "RAW files in conversion". As I'm sure you know, programs like Aperture and Lightroom do non-destructive editing, meaning that the original RAW file remains unaltered and your transformations are taking place on a copy. This is a big change of thinking for users of Photoshop, as explained here:


-source

I mean RAW files in conversion, lol. Lightroom isn't just for RAW is it? I'm talking RAW the format, not RAW as the original(even if it is the same in RAW format's case). Photoshop can do masks, obviously, but not in RAW file conversion. It can do them non-destructively to the TIFF file created from the converted RAW file. So far I've not seen any RAW converters offering masking options(and maybe lightroom or aperture already have, I don't know). So since I didn't think Lightroom was strictly a RAW file converter, I thought maybe it's masking options might not be available for RAW file conversion.

That quote still doesn't single out the use of masks on .RAW files, but I am guessing with this ap it is available.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

"..not only is it worth the upgrade, you may well have no reason left for Photoshop..."
-Thanks for that hot tip - Mr. Addy

Looks like Lightroom2 is quickly winning this race for my decision to buy.
Doesn't/hasn't anybody used the Corel Photo X2?!?

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I mean RAW files in conversion, lol. Lightroom isn't just for RAW is it? I'm talking RAW the format, not RAW as the original(even if it is the same in RAW format's case). Photoshop can do masks, obviously, but not in RAW file conversion. It can do them non-destructively to the TIFF file created from the converted RAW file. So far I've not seen any RAW converters offering masking options(and maybe lightroom or aperture already have, I don't know). So since I didn't think Lightroom was strictly a RAW file converter, I thought maybe it's masking options might not be available for RAW file conversion.

That quote still doesn't single out the use of masks on .RAW files, but I am guessing with this ap it is available.

I haven't messed with Lightroom 2, but I know Lightroom 1 allowed masking in the RAW editor. It wasn't nearly as intuitive or powerful as the adjustment layer masking in Photoshop, but it was still pretty amazing and cool that you could do it to the RAW file and have the changes saved as a sidecar xmp file. Saves a lot of storage space if you do it that way, since you don't need to output to TIFF or JPEG until you need the TIFF or JPEG for some specific purpose. The main attractiveness of Lightroom is how quickly you can process batches of photos at once.

Photoshop currently won't let you do masking in the RAW editor but, as it's quite popular in Lightroom, I suspect that this won't always be the case.

 

[Darren Addy]

Photoshop currently won't let you do masking in the RAW editor but, as it's quite popular in Lightroom, I suspect that this won't always be the case.

— says the one with Inside Knowledge (probably bound by a nondisclosure contract) , cryptically.

 

[James Langford]

I'm not sure what you mean by "RAW files in conversion". As I'm sure you know, programs like Aperture and Lightroom do non-destructive editing, meaning that the original RAW file remains unaltered and your transformations are taking place on a copy. This is a big change of thinking for users of Photoshop, as explained here:


-source

Well, I believe that technically the original RAW file remains untouched with Photoshop as well, right? You have to pull the RAW through Bridge (Camera RAW) to transform it into an editable format (TIFF, JPG, PS, whatever). The changes you make in bridge are not destructive, and are saved in a secondary file the sits alongside the original RAW. I like this, as I can always go back to the original RAW if need be. Even when working in PS, if you use layers and save the file in a PS format, it's not destructive, as the original layer can stay unmodified. When you are ready to save, save as a final JPG output, and still your original is unmodified.

Don't get me wrong. I do like Lightroom's non-destructive approach a lot. However, the same thing can be done in PS as well, just not as easily.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I hate new programs! Sucks feeling lost again. About to drive myself nuts in there. Sort of cool so far though. I figured out the graduated ND filter mask usage. Other than that though, I haven't seen the other masking options. I doubt you'll be able to paint in the mask quite like photoshop or use "select color range" and then blur your masks. Then again that one link made it look pretty good. Hmmm. Until one is as powerful as photoshop is at it, I'm not dropping $300 on a RAW converter(since PS does everything else anyway as it is). Will play with it more. I think I'll stop with my part in this thread jacking.

Praying photoshop will do something for RAW file conversion like they have for use on regular files, as far as masks go.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Well, I believe that technically the original RAW file remains untouched with Photoshop as well, right? You have to pull the RAW through Bridge to transform it into an editable format (TIFF, JPG, PS, whatever). The changes you make in bridge are not destructive, and are saved in a secondary file the sits alongside the original RAW. I like this, as I can always go back to the original RAW if need be. Even when working in PS, if you use layers and save the file in a PS format, it's not destructive, as the original layer can stay unmodified.

That's true! It's just that right now Lightroom lets you do many more nondestructive changes to images than Photoshop. And it is also true that saving things as PSDs in layers is a nondestructive edit to a photo -- it's just that if you make 15 changes to a photo and save it as a 15 layer PSD, it'll be darn near a hundred megabytes, whereas if you make 15 changes to a RAW file in Lightroom, it doesn't take up any more disk space than if you'd made no changes at all.

It's a weird sort of balance right now. Photoshop is and probably always will be the dreadnaught of image editing applications that can pretty much pulverize anything that tries to stack up as a competitor, including Lightroom. But Photoshop was never meant to be an image cataloging/keywording/all-around-photographer-workflow application; that's what Lightroom is. If you like Lightroom, the best combination is probably to catalog and keyword and do initial RAW edits and conversions in Lightroom, with final edits in Photoshop. Lightroom is built to facilite that kind of workflow; it keeps track of edits you've made in Photoshop and, when cataloging the images, associates them with the original RAW file.

I personally don't use Lightroom any more; it's a pretty cool program, but for whatever reason I found myself better able to catalog images just by making a mess of folders full of images on my storage drive with names like 20060604KansasChase, and browsing those folders either in Windows or Adobe Bridge. Bridge, which comes with Photoshop, is not a terribly bad photo cataloging application in itself.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I hate new programs! Sucks feeling lost again. About to drive myself nuts in there. Sort of cool so far though. I figured out the graduated ND filter mask usage. Other than that though, I haven't seen the other masking options. I doubt you'll be able to paint in the mask quite like photoshop or use "select color range" and then blur your masks. Then again that one link made it look pretty good. Hmmm. Until one is as powerful as photoshop is at it, I'm not dropping $300 on a RAW converter(since PS does everything else anyway as it is). Will play with it more. I think I'll stop with my part in this thread jacking.

Praying photoshop will do something for RAW file conversion like they have for use on regular files, as far as masks go.

You actually can paint masks a lot like Photoshop, but somehow, it just doesn't seem to work as easily or as well... but you're still doing it to the RAW file, so that's cool. Actually, I could be wrong, but I think Lightroom will also do nondestructive edits to JPEGS and TIFFS -- if you edit them in Lightroom, Lightroom simply saves an XMP sidecar file that goes with the JPEGS and TIFFS that tells Lightroom what to do if you ever want to export those images into new, changed JPEGS and TIFFS.

Here's a Youtube video I found that goes into the Adjustment Layer brush in Lightroom 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh1oCs3fbhE

He rambles for a while, but if you skip to around a minute into it, he gets going.

 

[Darren Addy]

For those trying the demo or considering purchase, you might want to check out the Lightroom 2 Basics on Adobe TV:
http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/lightroom/articles/lir2am_videotutorials.html

There are 16 of 'em there, so that ought to keep you busy for a while.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Lightroom2 looks like the 'better beanery' all right - for $300 it has a lot of bang for the buck.

But Corel has noise reduction, water marks, HDR. infrared simulation, lens correction, it even accepts many Adobe plug-ins, but only modest RAW conversion for a limted group of cameras. It also requires a fast PC - which I have already. So long as that RAW support list includes the Canon XTi, it is still a candidate. The $100 price tag makes it three times as appealing as the Adobe contraption. I'm not quite sure that it is a non-destructive process - though - and that would be a pivotal consideration IMHO.

Even Picasa2 - which is 'free' from Google - is a non-destructive process.

But Corel/X2 seems to be the way to go for the beginner - like myself. I might just get the Corel Photo X2 for under $100 and use it long enough to appreciate the Lightroom 2. I'll eventually buy it too and chalk up the cost the Corel to the learning process. So long as it is a non-destructive process...

 

[Darren Addy]

You certainly don't HAVE to use Photoshop. Mike Umscheid, for instance, describes his workflow here and it's Adobe-free:
http://www.underthemeso.com/blog/?page_id=265

I'm not sure if that is STILL his modus operandi, but I LOVE his results!

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Umsheid's Workfow is not the common one - and his results are anything but common.
Great color is the distiguishing factor IMHO.

If I understand his explination correctly, he turns the camera's color selector to Adobe sRGB; then RAW conversion is handled by "RawShooter Essentials' by Pixmantec. He then preforms minor adjustments within this program AND THEN sends it off to "PaintShopProX" for final tweaking.

This sounds like the info I set out for - this morning!

Thanks again for that hot lead, Mr. Addy.
Maybe Mr. Umsheid can clarify this rendition better - if/when he reads this thread...
I wonder if Mr. Umsheid is using PSPX2 yet?

 

[Mike Umscheid]

In my opinion the Corel PSP suite is to "point and shoot camera" as Adobe's Lightroom/Photoshop combo is to "dslr camera".

I have been using Paint Shop Pro version X since about late 2005. It does all I need when I am using a high-quality RAW conversion software like Lightroom. After Pixmantec was gobbled up by Adobe a couple years ago, I was forced to switch over to Lightroom. Since making the switch to Lightroom, I have grown very accustomed to it. It is the choice RAW converter of many professional photographers -- probably because of the "Adobe" name tied to it... and also because it does excellent RAW conversion IMHO. The cataloging system is a lot different that what I was used to with Pixmantec, but I have a cataloging system that works quite well for me.

I only use PSPX for my most favorite images I wish to thoroughly process and eventually print later on. With PSPX, I can do the typical 16-bit processing of curves, levels, etc., paint on masks like Mike H mentions among other things. I do not use external "HDR" software. My mode of "HDR", if any of my images need it, is simply working in multiple layers in PSPX and adjusting tones in specific areas of the images using mask layers and gradients -- not too dissimilar to how a landscape photographer manipulates light with graduated neutral density filters.

All this being said, I need to keep up with the Joneses. I am way overdue for an upgraded workflow/workstation for digital imaging processing. I'm about to fork over some serious $$ for a top-end computer (probably still windows-based) and a CRT-quality LCD screen for color gamut. (probably an Eizo ColorEdge). In addition to this, I will finally get Photoshop CS3 after all these years and upgrade to Lightroom 2. (I am currently using 1.4). When it comes to doing serious color management type work that landscape photographers need, Photoshop CS3 is still king and will always be (working with and managing color profiles for printing, etc.). There is a reason Photoshop costs what it does, and it is usually because of true workhorse type stuff and color management that professional photographers require (landscapers, wedding photogs, etc).

Other than that, I just find the best soft light I can, which doesn't require much post-processing :-D

 

[James Langford]

That's true! It's just that right now Lightroom lets you do many more nondestructive changes to images than Photoshop. And it is also true that saving things as PSDs in layers is a nondestructive edit to a photo -- it's just that if you make 15 changes to a photo and save it as a 15 layer PSD, it'll be darn near a hundred megabytes, whereas if you make 15 changes to a RAW file in Lightroom, it doesn't take up any more disk space than if you'd made no changes at all.

It's a weird sort of balance right now. Photoshop is and probably always will be the dreadnaught of image editing applications that can pretty much pulverize anything that tries to stack up as a competitor, including Lightroom. But Photoshop was never meant to be an image cataloging/keywording/all-around-photographer-workflow application; that's what Lightroom is. If you like Lightroom, the best combination is probably to catalog and keyword and do initial RAW edits and conversions in Lightroom, with final edits in Photoshop. Lightroom is built to facilite that kind of workflow; it keeps track of edits you've made in Photoshop and, when cataloging the images, associates them with the original RAW file.

I personally don't use Lightroom any more; it's a pretty cool program, but for whatever reason I found myself better able to catalog images just by making a mess of folders full of images on my storage drive with names like 20060604KansasChase, and browsing those folders either in Windows or Adobe Bridge. Bridge, which comes with Photoshop, is not a terribly bad photo cataloging application in itself.

All good points.

That's pretty much what I do too. Date/Description based folder ordering, which makes sense to me but probably wouldn't to anyone else. ;-) I also agree on making change in RAW overlays, which are preferable in many ways. Those PS files can get huge! CS3 even strains my new quad core 3 Ghz Intel machine, which has 3 Gbs of ram. Too crazy.