Moose
I didn’t realise that you used FastStone, and I can’t understand why if you are
importing your files to a LR catalogue.
Your workflow is almost as I imagined; I understand that you want to use layers
extensively, but I should have thought that you could Edit with PS from LR,
saving the .psd file. Surely Adobe’s LR allows saving layered files.
Capture One has no modules: you don’t have to switch modules to perform the
functions. LR having modules seems to me rather an affectation, much like the
silly scrollwork on the interface when I had a look at v1 (I think).
Thanks for showing me another way to do things.
Chris
> On 8 Jan 17, at 20:57, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 1/7/2017 10:57 PM, ChrisB wrote:
>> I’ve long thought about this, Moose: I don’t know how you can deal with a
>> 2-step system that ACR must entail. Is it not immensely time-consuming?
>
> I think you misunderstand the work flow. ACR is the front end for PS, just as
> it is the underpinning for LR. All of the basic LR functions but some very
> recent stuff is in ACR, was in ACR before LR existed, just not as pretty, nor
> with a catalog. Many folk seldom went further than that, using PS as their
> editor for the vast majority of their photos. LR started out as just a
> catalog and a pretty face on ACR.
>
> My work flow is different than that. I do almost no editing in ACR. When I
> press the 'E' key on a Raw file in FastStone, it jumps to PS (which is always
> open) and ACR opens the Raw file as a pop-up window in PS. I adjust WB and
> highlights/shadows when needed, which can't be done the same after
> conversion, click OK and the image is converted to a virtual image open in
> PS. I then do my editing there.
>
> It's really no slower for me than finding an image in the LR catalog and
> selecting the Develop Module, and once open in PS, I can do SO MUCH MORE than
> I can in LR.
>
>> LR. Apple Aperture and Capture One provide a single-step process of Raw
>> conversion, requiring that you import the images to the programme’s library;
>> the Raw conversion is automatic and provides you with a preview and a
>> library system.
>
> I don't know about the others you mention. In LR, you have a choice, import
> the image files themselves - LR moves them from your file structure into its
> own - or add them in place, LR stores a thumbnail and the location of the
> actual Raw file in its database, but leaves it untouched. When you open a
> file and use the Develop Module to change anything at all, LR saves an .xmp
> file (also called a 'sidecar' file) in the same place as the image file. The
> .xmp file stores all the adjustments you made. When you later look at the
> file, you see the modified version, but that is a virtual thing, reading the
> Raw and .xmp files and applying the adjustments from the .xmp before
> displaying.
>
> (All this on the fly conversion is why LR is slow at some things. Select a
> large directory full of subdirectories of many images and watch it take
> forever to display fully sharp thumbnails. Go to the Develop Module and wait
> a moment or two to see more than a half baked image.)
>
> At this point, there has been no Raw conversion outside of memory. It's when
> you export the file as .PDF, .TIFF, JPEG, etc. that Raw conversion becomes
> real, a particular version of adjusted Raw image takes permanent external
> form.
>
> ACR in my workflow does almost exactly the same thing. When I've made WB,
> exposure, highlight, shadow, etc. adjustments and click the OK button, it
> saves an .xmp file, just like LR.
>
>> Once that is done any other process is fine-tuning and the user has no
>> further file management to carry out.
>
> Unless the image is to be used elsewhere, in which case a converted and
> adjusted file must be exported, to disk and/or the web.
>
>> I picture you opening a Raw file in ACR, fine-tuning and exporting the file
>> to your storage location. I understand that you can do it in batches, but
>> it’s still 2-stage, is it not?
>
> Indeed it is, although it need not be. If all I did was make adjustments in
> ACR, I would not need to save another version. Next time I open it in ACR,
> all the changes I've made are still there, read from the .xmp. When LR
> started, the two processes were identical. LR has since added some functions
> not in ACR. Dehaze is one, the ability to apply an adjustment to only part of
> the image is another, so if one does those things in LR, that part of the
> .xmp will not be done if you open it in ACR (at least I think not.)
>
> However, in my case, I WANT to save a second version. I work extensively with
> layers. That's why I find LR so limiting. I want to save that work as layers,
> not all combined, so I can go back in and make changes. I could go on at
> length, perhaps even with some lyricism, about how wonderful layers are and
> what they allow me to do that I can't in LR, but that's another thing. (And
> no, I don't do it in batches, although I could. As I do all serious editing
> in PS, and in layers, batch conversion is no use to me.)
>
> So, rather than an untouched Raw file and .xmp alone, I have those, plus a
> .PDF file with my layers in it. For those that I'm going to post on the web,
> there is also a downsized JPEG file with layers collapsed to upload.
>
>> I know that Chuck could never get his head around how LR dealt with its
>> catalogued files, but for me that is what makes these programmes so useful.
>
> Chuck liked his own file structure, and did almost all his editing in ACR, in
> effect using LR with a different face and without the catalog, as he also
> preferred FastStone and another similar browser, (BreezeBrowser??)
>
>> I don’t like LR, having tried it several times,
>
> Nor do I, also having tried it several times. However, I geocode all my
> images away from home, and the relatively new Maps Module in LR is pure magic
> for finding images I'm looking for. I can go to the geographical location,
> and there are all the photos I've taken there in the last several years. So I
> dutifully import all of my new images into the catalog. I can see there the
> date and camera - go browse them in FastStone and perhaps edit some. To me,
> LR is a geographically smart catalog with a limited editor attached. :-)
>
> When I get an intern, I'll get all those images keyworded, too. :-P
>
>> but it must be useful for millions of photographers.
>
> Of course, but so were Instamatics, drug store processing and photo print
> albums, and so are cell phones, tablets and web based image banks.
>
> At Home in PS Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|