Lightroom andThe use of layers

[Nicks Pics]

I now need to decide what image editing software plan to go with next.

Adobe is trying to sell their Photo shop CC + Lightroom plan pretty prominently now. You can get it on one of two plans: a monthly (with annual commitment) or yearly subscription. It is virtually the same price either way. (about the same aren't they? ).


If I got this plan it would cost nearly as much for a single year as I could buy Lightroom for outright. So why would I consider the photoshop + Lightroom plan? I did some research (eventually started reading from past topics on CiC forum), and if I am correct, the main reason for switching to PS in an editing project is for layers related work. It would be to get the advantage of layers.

Personally, because I shoot for wildlife/nature most, I don't try many creative effects, and process just to make my images look more lifelike (clear, sharp etc.) In this branch of photography, it may be typical to avoid techniques that may be considered "un natural" such as combining peices from separate images, or removing objects, introducing effects, etc. This may be because it would be less interesting to see wildlife/nature photos if they were not genuine captures. These techniques may be largely done using layers right?

Therefore, do I have no use for layers? Or does the ability to use layers still have a place within my photography style?

I know some selective adjustments are often necessary, but note that Lightroom does provide some tools like a gradient filter, radial filter, and adjustment brush.

The conclusion would be that if I do not need layers in my work flow, I would probably buy Lightroom. If they do have a place in my photography style (it would be advantageous for me to incorporate them in my workflow), then I should find program that offers layers.

Thanks in advance for replies!

[Manfred M]

If Lightroom is all you need (for now), then you should be happy and work with it. The Develop Module and Adobe Camera RAW are identical functionally, other than the user interface. It's a parametric editor (i.e. it notes position and the functionality you are using) and stores the data to do these edits in a database

I personally find that at most, Lightroom is an 80% solution and I do at least the final 20% in Photoshop. Being a pixel based editor, you can accomplish changes at a level that Lightroom simply can never touch. Layers, layer masks, clipping masks, etc are absolutely super powerful and I simiple need these to get my image to the point that I like them. Often Photoshop does 80% of the work for me; I will often combine three or more bracketed images shot with using a tripod into a single work.

A shot like this (pano) with smoothing out a mixed lighting situation (about a dozen layers) would be impossible to achieve in Lightroom.

[pnodrog]

For full control of editing you will on occasions need to use layers. Like Manfred I use Lightroom for most of my editing but there are photographs (often my prized images) that I like to adjust using layers and mask to get the fine control I want. If I had to use only one piece of software for all my editing I would forgo the convenience and cataloguing ability of Lightroom and opt for Photoshop. However Lightroom with Photoshop Elements would be a very acceptable compromise if budget was a major concern.

[Nicks Pics]

Thank you for replies.

I would like to be able to process my images adequately, just not sure if the advantage of layers would have part in that, or if it wouldn't because my style does not include creative techniques, but just straight forward enhancing for clarity, quality, etc.

Very nicely lit and colorful panorama.

I think adobe's latest version of photoshop is not for sale outright,. They offer it in this Photoshop CC + Lightroom package for $9.99/month or about the equiv. prepaid one year.

[ST1]

Nick you could use Ligthroom (LR) and combine it with Photoshop Elements11 (PSE11). Both I think are available as standalone software packages. The PSE option would allow you to use layers if at some time in the furture you need that functionality. I have PS5 and to be honest I don't use/have the need for the full functionality of photoshop.

Remember that LR isn't just an image editor it is also a Digital Asset Management (DAM) application which IMO (and as others have stated above) it's editing capability meets a high percentage of both amature and professional photographers editing needs.
Have a look at Adobe TV for tutorials on LR and PSE capabilities. I hope I'm not teaching my granny to suck eggs here

[Mark von Kanel]

Hi Nick, like the others i mainly use LR but and like yourself i rarely see the need for layers, but the clone stamp is very useful as is the pano stitching im sure if i actually took the time to learn PS id use it morei think Gimp does have similar features so why dont you try that for the advanced stiff, or at least do some research on it its free so it wont hurt to play with it.

[LocalHero1953]

I more or less concur with Manfred, though I'd put it slightly differently. 95% (probably more) of my photos can be easily dealt with in LR. The remainder need some treatment that the local adjustments in LR are just too clunky for. Having tried PS and PSE, the former seems to integrate much better with LR, if only because PSE is only an 8bit colour program when using layers. For simple cloning PSE seems quite adequate, though.

As a nature photographer (which I am not) I'm sure you're aware that there has recently been agreement by various international and national bodies about the definition of the subject, including the extent of manipulation and post processing. I believe actions such as removal of power lines, which may need PS's tools rather than LR's, are permitted.

[davidedric]

It all depends.....like most everything else.

Here's my 2p or 2c worth.

Personally, because I shoot for wildlife/nature most, I don't try many creative effects, and process just to make my images look more lifelike (clear, sharp etc.)

That is pretty much where I am. I have Lightroom 5 and PSE 11. I haven't calculated it, but I would guess that I use Lightroom (plus maybe Nik plug-ins) for at least 98% of my processing. Although Lightroom's tools for removing "foreign objects" are not up to those in Photoshop, now that you can paint with the spot healing tool you can deal with simple things OK.

If you asked Manfred which of Lightroom and Photoshop he would keep if he had to give one up, I'm pretty sure he would say Photoshop, because that would allow him to do everything he needs to, at the expense of efficiently managing large numbers of photos. Faced with the same question I would keep Lightroom, and sacrifice the odd things that I might need Photoshop/PSE for.

To be clear, there are some things that Lightroom simply can't do. As well as complicated blending and so on, just simply wanting to combine images in a montage is not possible.

I haven't yet opted into the "photographers' bundle" in Adobe's CC. It would seem an obvious step, because it would give me the full Photoshop plus Lightroom for little more than keeping up to date with the latest release of Lightroom. Why not? It brings me indirectly to my final point: learning curves and being able to use the software well.

Personally, I have found Lightroom more intuitive, easier to learn, and easier to start slowly and build up. I've lost count of the times I have given myself a good talking to, sat in front of some PSE videos, practised a bit, and thought I've got it. Then, next time I need PSE I find I've forgotten it again, and have to re-learn. Of course, your retention may be much better than mine, but the point is that the more tools you have, the more there is to learn to become effective, and the more there is to forget.

There is always plenty of help around, though

Dave

[DanK]

Nick,

I'll throw in my two cents, which is fairly consistent with what some others have posted.

Like you, I don't use editing for highly creative effects. I just want to develop my pictures and get them to look right.

Lightroom is sufficient for the great bulk of my editing. One reason is that over time, it has gotten much better. It has excellent tonal controls, good sharpening tools, good noise reduction tools (which I rarely need), etc. The other reason is the kind of photography I do. I do a lot of macro work, and much of that is under controlled lighting, which reduces my need for some of what photoshop offers.

Nonetheless, I have the photoshop (I own a perpetual license for CS6 and lightroom 5, but I also have the photographer's creative cloud subscription.) Photoshop and other layer-based pixel editors do things that Lightroom doesn't do, or doesn't do as well. I'll give you one example. Take this picture of a dragonfly. It's not a very good photo, but it illustrates the point.



This was taken under horrible lighting conditions--very harsh full sunlight that left the background very bright and part of the bug underexposed. I did my routine editing in Lightroom. I then exported it to Photoshop for three adjustments. First, I wanted to darken the wood background. Second, I wanted to lighten the bug a bit. Third, I wanted to dodge the right side of the bug to make it less underexposed.

To do this, I first created a selection of the overexposed wood. Do do a perfect job of this would be painstaking, but to get a decent enough selection took a matter of perhaps a minute, using the select-by-color function and adding a bit with the lasso tool. I then turned this into a mask and attached it to a levels adjustment layer for darkening the background. Second, I created a second levels layer, copied the mask, and inverted it. This was for lightening the bug. Finally, I created a third layer for dodging.

This sounds complicated, but once you have learned to do this sort of thing, it takes very little time. This allowed me to make the three adjustments quickly and independently of each other. Moreover, by turning the layers on and off, I could see the effects of each adjustment. If one of the adjustments was a mess, I could simply modify that one layer or delete it and replace it.

So, the logical question is: could I have done all of this in Lightroom? Yes, using the adjustment brush, but not as well, and it would have taken me much longer.

If I were doing less macro, I think I would use photoshop more.

So, my general advice to people is:

-- get really comfortable with Lightroom. It is an enormously powerful tool, and it is worth the time to learn it well.
-- learn how to use a pixel editor with layers. it doesn't have to be photoshop. It could be Gimp, Paint Shop Pro, or PSE, for example. I don't know enough to compare them. Photoshop is far more powerful than I need, and the range of things it can do actually complicates matters for me, but at least it has everyone one can find in these tools.

Dan

[ajohnw]

The big advantage of layers is that a lot of aspects can be changed by using modified versions of the original image. The modifications being done with the direct use of tools such as desaturate, invert and others. The extent of these effects can then be controlled with a slider from nothing to full extent. Throw in what some wisely call the bold use of brushes of one sort or the other and the effects can be localised.

I just showed Brian how to use a couple of simple ones in a thread called GIMP and Rawtherapee. Also more in Christina's thread on bears. None of these take long to do or take very precise brush work.

Then layer masks can be added to this but in my world it's better to fully utilise modifications based on copies of the original image first as that will always align perfectly with the original image.

Another aspect. If the underlying software was studied in say Lightroom people would find that it is creating layers to do many of the things it does otherwise it would be a bit like using a paint program. It just creates and uses them in a manner that the users aren't aware of. Having access to these layers can add to flexibility allowing more to be done.

John
-

[HaseebM]

Manfred, that's an excellent pano. Now only if I understood how to utilize those layers and masks.

[Manfred M]

Just to clarify; I generally do not use Lightroom, I prefer the ACR user interface and was one of the users that was burned by a database corruption issue with an early version of the product, so I don't trust the product completely anymore. I prefer the parameters stored in the individual sidecar files. As I said before, Lightroom Develop module and ACR have identical functionality, so from an editing standpoint, they can be looked at as being interchangable.

My wife uses LR for all of her editing needs, so I mostly use it when she gets stuck during her PP work.

Lightroom and Photoshop complement each other in many ways. All of the professional photographers I know who use Lightroom also use Photoshop. Lightroom is used for their "run-of-the-mill" work; small print or images delivered on disks. They all tell me that any larger print (larger than 8x 10 / A4 formats) are finished in Photoshop, because these images do need some of the fine finishing control that cannot be achieved in Lightroom.

Make no mistake about it; Photoshop is NOT just used for "special effects". I predominantly use it where fine local adjustments are required on top of places where I need really heavy lifting (like in my previous example).

Like many other aspects of photography, you'll know when you need it when you repeatedly find you can't achieve the image you want in Lightroom.

[ajohnw]

Hoping Dan doesn't mind but adding to his point. This is the result of adding 2 layers to the shot generated from the original image and some very rough brush work on one of them. One that needed the brush work to leave the wood as is has boosted the colour contrast. The other increased the brightness of dark areas - note much scope for that here. Literally a few mins work.



If you do mind Dan I will delete it.

John
-

[DanK]

John,

Thanks for checking, but I don't mind at all. It's a helpful illustration.

Dan

[NorthernFocus]

Since my solution to this dilemma hasn't been mentioned yet, I'll chime in. I went through the same exercise of software selection and revamped my workflow as well. One difference is that I do use layers quite a bit. Historically more than I do now since switching to LR. But layers still come in handy.

As mentioned the limitation of PSE is that layers only work on 8bit images. And if you don't need all of the wizbang graphic artistry stuff then full blown PS isn't warranted. What I've finally settled on is LR with the OnOne Perfect Photo Suite(PPS). PPS can be used as plugins while working in LR or can be run stand alone. In addition to 16bit layers there are some excellent editing tools including content aware removal that surpasses PS, clone stamp comparable to PS, dynamic contrast(one of my favorites), etc. The Perfect Resize plugin was previously known as the much heralded genuine fractals resizing tool.

If you watch for pricing specials you can get into LR and the Perfect Photo Suite for under $200US.

[davidedric]

Mummmmmm in a fit of something I did buy PPS in one of their promotions, but have never really learned it. Some folks suffer from GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), but I think I have its evil twin SAS (Software Acquisition Syndrome) . Prompted by Dan, I think I need to have a proper look at it.

Dan, in addition to the resources on the OnOne site, can you recommend any good learning materials?

Thanks,

Dave

[chauncey]

I have yet to PP an image that Photoshop wasn't involved in some way. Granted that sometimes
LR might have proved sufficient, I enjoy the minute/major tweaking available in PS.

[NorthernFocus]

There is a good overview video by Matt Lakowski(?) from Kelby training. It gives a good idea of capabilities but not real in depth. The interface is set up to mesh well with LR(i.e. mimic). It really is designed to be used in conjunction with LR. It has a basic lighting/colors module but VERY basic. It works best when lighting, colors, wb are taken care of in LR. Then jump into PPS for dynamic contrast, cloning, masking, etc. They use some different terminology. For example the "perfect eraser" tool is what PS calls the content aware healing brush. They refined that tool with the recent v8.5 release and it removes stuff really seamlessly. I was slow to warm to the software but after a bit of use am becoming a fan.

[Thlayle]

I know some selective adjustments are often necessary, but note that Lightroom does provide some tools like a gradient filter, radial filter, and adjustment brush.

The conclusion would be that if I do not need layers in my work flow, I would probably buy Lightroom. If they do have a place in my photography style (it would be advantageous for me to incorporate them in my workflow), then I should find program that offers layers.

Thanks in advance for replies!

Nick,

You may or may not ever have the need for Photoshop, depending on where your interests take you. With all the great feedback here, there's not a lot for me to add other than to compare my own experiences & choices.

I am slowly migrating away from Aperture, a product very similar to Lightroom. This move is something that began for me quite a while ago when I started seeing that my interests in photography were outgrowing what Aperture could do. Now Apple has settled this question for me: they are discontinuing Aperture.

Like you, I mostly prefer nature/wildlife shooting (and I have a special interest in night photography). It was these specific elements that drove me to try out Photoshop originally: HDR, panoramic stitching and lens correction. Only the lens correction works within Lightroom without the aid of Photoshop and even then the range of correction abilities are much greater. I can see already for myself that the editing power of Photoshop far exceeds that of Lightroom. Like the others who have commented here, it might only be a small percentage of the time that I will use those features -- but I am glad to have access to them and would not be inclined to settle for just Lightroom on its own.

GIMP and some other 'small' programs like Double Take (photo stitching) have been great for workarounds for me. They do not work as well as Photoshop, which is not to say that you cannot get them to work as well. It's just that Photoshop, despite its steep learning curve, is extremely effective.

[Nicks Pics]

Hello Folks,

Firstly,Thanks to everyone who responded to this help request!

It looks like I must have been gone a week, I only started this topic at 11 last night! The point being, I appreciate the helpful experience and many suggestions that were promptly shared. Many of my questions were covered. I am happy to hear from experienced users of photo editors about this.

I don't think I will go with the adobe PS + LR package, for a couple of reasons, including excess complication of PS CC, and a poor $ deal, but LR sounds like a good idea to buy, as it seems to be widely used and I would like to think I'm getting the advantages of quality software. (I have liked it in the trial download ). Perhaps I should also get an additional program or plugin to give the possibility of layer adjustments, at least once I find out more about where to use them in my work flow (though I appreciate the ideas given above).

If you watch for pricing specials you can get into LR and the Perfect Photo Suite for under $200US.

Dan, I assume you would need to buy these separately, as I think they come from different makers, so I am curious to know where you would look for those prices?

Thanks to all again!