Lightroom andThe use of layers

[Glenn NK]

While I only use LR (have a six year old version of PSE which I haven't used in four years), I do realize that CS has some benefits, particularly in the use of layers.

However, my excuse in not using anything but LR is largely based on the fact that I found layers (in PSE) just too much effort and I'm basically lazy. Having said that, I've rarely found that I could not achieve the result I wanted with LR.

Since the advent of LR, it has gained enormously in power and capability, and I strongly suspect that in coming versions it will gain additional capability. I have noticed that the number of LR users is increasing, and I suspect increasing relative to the number of new CS users.

There is one software that for my purposes is more useful than CS - focus stacking (Zerene). While I've only used it for flower closeups, it could be quite useful for landscape work provided that objects don't move between shots - unfortunately this is rarely the case - wind seems to be everywhere.

Glenn

[dabhand]

Hello Folks,

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!

Given the time constraints (offer ends tomorrow) I guess Dan won't mind me jumping in but PPS is on offer until tomorrow as a Lightroom plugin at $99.95 - http://www.ononesoftware.com/landing...suite-overview or as a standalone product + extras at $149.95 - http://www.ononesoftware.com/landing...suite-overview .

steve

[NorthernFocus]

Given the time constraints (offer ends tomorrow) I guess Dan won't mind me jumping in but PPS is on offer until tomorrow as a Lightroom plugin at $99.95 - http://www.ononesoftware.com/landing...suite-overview or as a standalone product + extras at $149.95 - http://www.ononesoftware.com/landing...suite-overview .

steve

There you have it. And LR is commonly discounted. Likely if you sign up with an account at Adobe they will be more than happy to pester you with all of their announcements.

[Nicks Pics]

Hmm, Thanks for the notice. I might check to see if LR goes on sale also sometime, from adobe, ( I don't think I'd buy software from e-bay etc.) If I don't get PPS before offer is out I could get a free trial at least, if I wanted to.

It seems that most who have replied say LR is a staple in their work flow. Perhaps that is because it is effective, and more efficient and easy to use than PS.

[Manfred M]

Perhaps that is because it is effective, and more efficient and easy to use than PS.

No; but it is easier to use.

As I have mentioned before; the Develop Module (i.e. where you will do your PP wrok) is functionally identical to the Adobe Camera RAW module that ships with Photoshop, so it is definitely neither more effective nor more efficient; but it is certainly good enough for many people.

Easier to use; I would definitely have to agree with that. The learning curve for Photoshop is quite long.

[NorthernFocus]

...It seems that most who have replied say LR is a staple to their work flow. Perhaps that is because it is effective, and more efficient and easy to use than PS.

Like many things in life, we all have different perspectives on software based on our needs. I waited a long time to convert my workflow to LR. I won't get into the discussion about what's best etc. However I will say that unless you plan on using the cataloging feature of LR, I would not use it. It is fundamentally a cataloging program with ever improving editing capabilities but it's roots are still in the cataloging(aka DAM) function. That's why so many third parties produce plugins. The additional editing capability turn LR into a full function editor. On the other hand, full blown PS is very expensive to many of us and one pays for a LOT of functionality that is never utilized. ACR is also available with PS Elements so that is another option. If one did not want to monkey with the DAM aspect of LR, ACR(via PS Elements) and Perfect Photo Suite would also be an effective 16 bit editing package.

I will say it again, if one does not intend to use the DAM function of LR, I would NOT recommend using it.

[LocalHero1953]

Like many things in life, we all have different perspectives on software based on our needs

Indeed. I don't actually use the DAM aspects of LR that much, as I basically let it mirror the underlying file structure and don't use key words etc. I use LR because it provides a simple and intuitive (for me) interface and workflow that provides all the pp power that you would get from a traditional darkroom, and helps me efficiently to sort, weed, pp, output and archive a batch of photos after a day's amateur shooting. The three modules I use most are Library, Develop and Print and they give me most of what I need in a structured manner.

I don't see LR and PS/GIMP/PPS as an either/or scenario - they provide different functionality. If you need the pp power of the latter, then get it!

[jcuknz]

Since I use layers with just about every file I edit I have not bothered with Lightroom except to have a look at a couple of versions ... but hundreds, nay thousands, only use LR so I wouldn't try to diswade you. If the financial angle makes you hesitate there is always PSP and dozens more I don't know about probably.

[ajohnw]

I suspect that the GIMP will provide the layer facilities that people commonly use. Elements has been mentioned and it's 8 bit aspect. To be honest providing the raw development is done correctly I don't think that matters at all in the majority of situations particularly if the package or techniques used are none destructive. Providing it does capture the scene correctly best quality jpg's are also good starting points as within reason they will have been developed from raw in a sensible fashion. The main problem with 8bit layers is when the stage from raw isn't done well so further manipulation produces banding and other problems. JPG's are a touchy subject but fact many cameras put 9 EV in them these days that can then be played with. Getting 9 EV out of a raw file isn't a trivial task without a pretty thorough understanding of things like curves. Highlight recovery and fill light sliders can only take things so far. The problem in this area is that when the image finally gets viewed we may have a decent 5 EV available if we are lucky or a rather iffy 6 or 7 with problems at the dark end. One way round this is to never take shots that need more than 7 EV that also have negligible shadows.

People look for tutorials. Another problem. They often only cover the glossy simple aspects of using a package and no one doing this sort of thing will demo it on a shot where the techniques used just wont work. Finding tutorials that cover the basic uses of layers isn't easy. Fortunately there are some for the GIMP so there are probably about for other packages as well but they are likely to be thin on the ground.

John
-

[DanK]

As I thought about this more, it seemed to me that there is one more thing to note: the best software is sometimes what you are used to. As an example, Glenn and I do somewhat similar flower macros, and these often require fussing with the backgrounds--say, to make a mottle black pure black, or to blur unwanted detail. Glenn is a master at doing this in Lightroom. I find it much easier to do it with layers and selections in Photoshop. Which is "better"? For Glenn, it is Lightroom, and for me, it is Photoshop.

[Nicks Pics]

Hi,

Thanks to everyone for your shared knowledge and suggestions on this matter. Manfred mentioned that ACR is identical to the LR develop module. I downloaded what I thought was called Camera RAW and DNG converter and it did NOT seem to be identical to the LR develop module. Perhaps Camera RAW in that form is not still available.

As I thought about this more, it seemed to me that there is one more thing to note: the best software is sometimes what you are used to.

Good point, it seems most people here acknowledge that the decision is somewhat a matter of what works for you best.

I will say it again, if one does not intend to use the DAM function of LR, I would NOT recommend using it.

In this case, since you, along with many other photographers on this thread, say LR is used significantly in your work flow, I would assume that you either do not think your software solution is recommendable to others, or that you do use the cataloging feature of LR. Can you clarify that for me?

Thanks again!

[Manfred M]

I downloaded what I thought was called Camera RAW and DNG converter and it did NOT seem to be identical to the LR develop module. Perhaps Camera RAW in that form is not still available.

You downloaded the stand-alone convertor. I have not used it, so have no direct user experience with it.

Camera RAW is part of the Photoshop package and you can access it if you download the trial version of Photoshop. When I say "identical"; again, the engine is identical, but the user interface is different. You could argue that the differences are cosmetic, but as I said in previous posts, I prefer the ACR implementation to the Lightroom one; but this is purely personal taste.

[Nicks Pics]

Thank you Manfred,
An adobe representative gave me that link, and they are not always very clear/consistent in what they say IMO.

[Brownbear]

Hi Nick,

I thought it might be helpful if I shared my experience since I'm still working on improving my post processing skills and I love to photograph nature. Albeit I'm still learning my way around Lightroom and have yet to use this program to its full capability.

I adore Lightroom for its ease of use and use it as my primary processing program, ie nothing fancy needed. I signed up for the Adobe Cloud program a few months ago which comes with Photoshop CC. And likely everything I do in Photoshop CC could be done in Elements. I don't have any other plug in programs and at this point in time I'm not keen on having other programs because it is just something else to learn about post processing, and my understanding is that everything one wishes to do can be done in Photoshop CC.

One of the features that I especially like about Adobe Photoshop/Elements is that I can use my Bamboo Pen which gives lets me select things with more control and finesse than I can manage in Lightroom when using a mouse. For example if I photograph a bird in flight over water or a blue sky (often at a high ISOs) I can use layers to sharpen just the bird (minimizing noise in the background) and I can also apply noise reduction to just the water or the sky, and keep the detail in the bird. (I print a lot of my images full size) This can also be done in Lightroom but I find it far easier to do in Photoshop using a pen for selecting... ie; far more control as it is like drawing/tracing. But others manage so perhaps I'm just a klutz when using a mouse.

As I learn to post process some of the features that I like about layers is the ability to perform selective adjustments. For example in scenes with waterfalls/clouds I may wish to bring out more detail in the water using the curves tool, and this is easy to do in Photoshop/Elements to selectively. As are simple things like lightening/darkening shadows, colour adjustments, to a certain part of the image etc. (And removing colour casts from portions of the image - once I learn how to do this properly)

I also like the fact that if I can't manage an edit that I like today, I can revisit the image in future and all the steps that I tried out are in layers that I can revisit easily to try again.

Also one day I hope to develop the skill be able to combine images of say an image of a series of birds in flight (captured in sequence) to create a more artistic image. So although the tools available to me in Photoshop CC far exceed my current processing ability, I like the extra control available in this program. So for me it is nice to have as a part of the package.. ie; Even though I use mostly LR having Photoshop now allows me to learn to do little things with it in small steps at a leisurely pace.

[ajohnw]

I've always thought that the package people pick is very likely to have an effect on what they do in the future. In some cases people may never get as far as effectively using layers. It also seems to be seen as difficult at times. I suspect that is largely down to the tutorials that are about. There are several about that document what layer modes do numerically but vanishingly few show what the actual effect on an image is or how they can be used.

In my case I run purely open source software. For raw I started with Ufraw which some would find appalling. No highlight or shadow recovery at all so everything like that has to be done via curves and the exposure setting. In some ways I think that is a good thing as I had to learn to use them. Similarly with the GIMP so much can be done without layers but past that they need to be used. I also have a package that will do 99% of the things people want to do to images without going near me having to use layers. Manfred posted a what to do with this shot recently. This package didn't have much trouble dealing with it other than having 3 attempts. One quick to see where it went and 2 others with more care as it's not easy to backtrack and make changes with this particular package. It generally is easy to back track and make changes when layers are used and I feel that is it's major advantage providing there aren't too many. Some package store the modifications and run them each time any are changed. I use one called Rawtherapee that works like that as well. Loads of sliders. It can take some time to learn that there is a need to apply them in the right order. Things are much the same when layers are used.

Post processing for me and many others is an ongoing learning process. One thing I have noticed is that most capable people on here do make use of layers somewhere in the workflow when they are needed. I'm slowly going the same way. What I find is that it's very easy to do some common tasks. Take a simple one - only sharpen the main subject in a photo. Have the same image in 2 layers and sharpen one then brush away the parts that don't need sharpening so that the underlying image shows through. Or us a layer mask etc. It needn't be sharpening. It can be any process. Opacity sliders can be used to vary the blend of layers. Even curious looking layers can be produced that do nothing other than sharpen the image underneath. They can be brushed away as well or blended or applied in several different amounts. That is part of the problem the list is endless.

John
-

[Nicks Pics]

Thank you Cristina, I much appreciate your shared experience with the actual functions and tools available in both programs.

I think now , after people have given me so much response about this, I should , at least in time, get something with more flexibility than LR alone has.

[NorthernFocus]

...In this case, since you, along with many other photographers on this thread, say LR is used significantly in your work flow, I would assume that you either do not think your software solution is recommendable to others, or that you do use the cataloging feature of LR. Can you clarify that for me?...

I do use the cataloging functionality. It is a bit of a hurdle to get started with but is a great tool once you take the plunge. I was sorely in need of organizing my files and it has made the task doable.

There are some comments in this thread and I've historically heard many complain about the LR interface. I would recommend you seek clarification as to which version of LR people are basing their comments on. I can only speak to LR5 because that is where I started with it. I find it to be very intuitive and laid out in a natural order for post processing. I have read comments from Kelby and others that the user interface was dramatically improved over the last couple of versions as was the basic light/color editing "engine".

IMO the 30 day trial version of LR is pretty much useless. Due to the complexities of learning/understanding the cataloging aspect, one needs to commit the same amount of time to thoroughly evaluate the software as to start using it in earnest. So if you are considering it, my advice would be to watch some of the video tutorials on the Adobe website and decide whether the functionality looks like what you're looking for. I believe Kelby Training also has one or two free tutorials on their site. If it looks like what you need, then perhaps download the trial version and get started or simply take a leap of faith based on the size of the professional user base and get going.

I have no interest in favor or against LR. As said previously, different things work for each of us. Just sharing my own experience and encouraging you to get timely data from which to decide. Also keep in mind all of my comments are based on the assumption that LR will be supplemented with the something like the previously mentioned plug-ins to enhance editing capability.

[Glenn NK]

As I thought about this more, it seemed to me that there is one more thing to note: the best software is sometimes what you are used to. As an example, Glenn and I do somewhat similar flower macros, and these often require fussing with the backgrounds--say, to make a mottle black pure black, or to blur unwanted detail. Glenn is a master at doing this in Lightroom. I find it much easier to do it with layers and selections in Photoshop. Which is "better"? For Glenn, it is Lightroom, and for me, it is Photoshop.

Dan:

Thanks for saying what I should have said: "the best software is sometimes what you are used to".

It seems to be a human trait - what we learn first, we find easier and/or better.

Glenn

[rpcrowe]

A combination of Lightroom and Perfect Photo Suite will provide many of the capabilities of Photoshop at a far lower price...

OnOne Perfect Photo Suite:
http://www.ononesoftware.com/landing...FUYA7AodoB8Anw

[Glenn NK]

I've always thought that the package people pick is very likely to have an effect on what they do in the future.

John
-

John:

So true - refer to my previous reply to Dan.

I started with DPP, but soon discovered LR 1. DPP (Canon software) was difficult to understand for a beginner and its tools were primitive.

I then bought PSE to do some "advanced" editing (making the BG black), but I found it awkward.

But the fact that I had to convert my RAW files to a TIFF or a PSD really put me off because then I had duplicates which doubled the size of my storage requirements (I would never destroy my originals).

One feature that isn't mentioned often in Lightroom: One can make duplicates of the RAW files, but what's important is that the full file isn't duplicated, only the sidecar file that has the edits is duplicated. Typically the sidecar files are so small that their storage requirements can be neglected.

The result is that in LR, I can have ten or more "duplicates" on which I can try various PP options, but it takes virtually takes no HDD space (and of course, the original RAW is not altered).

It's often said that "HDDs are so cheap that one should not be concerned about running out of storage". But when you find that your 2 TB HDD is nearly full, it's not that simple, particularly when your desktop already has four HDDs and all the bays are occupied.

Glenn