Editing in lightroom 5

[StuartR1953]

Hi,

I've recently upgraded to Adobe CC so now have access to the latest versions of Photoshop, Bridge and Lightroom for the reasonable cost (I think) of £8.75 a month.

I've not used Lightroom before and I'm going through a steep learning curve at the moment but, after watching an instructional video on Adobe TV, I thought I'd try converting a Canon RAW file just using Lightroom. For those that are not aware, Lightroom 5 has similar (if not the same?) functionality as the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw. As with Lightroom itself, I've not used ACR before either.

Anyway, this is my first attempt from a fairly murky CR2 RAW file shot a few years back on my 350D (It's of my 3 year old granddaughter Maisie).



I normally use DxO Optics Pro to convert my RAW files and I'd say I would still probably get marginally better results via that route. The ability, however, to "develop" and catalogue my collection using Lightroom would probably speed things up significantly over my prior workflow of Picasa > DxO > Photoshop CS4.


Thanks for looking,

Stuart

[Shadowman]

Hi Stuart,

Nice image. To what format did DxO Optics convert your RAW image?

[Manfred M]

I had to learn Lightroom so that I could teach my wife the basics of editing in it. She has no interest whatsoever in working in Photoshop, so I have become reasonably competent in using LR / ACR.

I personally prefer the ACR user interface to Lightroom's (not as cluttered), but that is just personal taste. For critical work, I tend to use either DxO Pro Optics 9 (it simply does a better job that LR / ACR) or use Nikons View NX2, as I find that the colours turn out better that LR / ACR. That being said; the integration of the Adobe products makes them the easiest to use.

[StuartR1953]

Hi Stuart,

Nice image. To what format did DxO Optics convert your RAW image?

Hi John & thanks. DxO can output TIFF, DNG or JPG. I tend to go with TIFF. If I want a JPG version of a particular file for web or mail use I normally do the conversion in Photoshop. I've always thought it necessary to store my edited images in the highest quality format, which is why I went the TIFF route.

Next thing I need to work out is how to integrate DxO into my workflow if I'm going to use Lightroom to at least catalogue my images (assuming I find Lightroom not quite up to the task for RAW conversion). I really like DxO, I've used it for years now, right back to the early versions which were unstable and suffered from appalling product support (both issues now resolved thankfully) but the non-destructive conversion / editing in Lightroom seems to me to be a real bonus and could save me from storing all those big TIFF files - just output the ones I need, as and when I need them.

Stuart

[Shadowman]

Hi John & thanks. DxO can output TIFF, DNG or JPG. I tend to go with TIFF. If I want a JPG version of a particular file for web or mail use I normally do the conversion in Photoshop. I've always thought it necessary to store my edited images in the highest quality format, which is why I went the TIFF route.

Next thing I need to work out is how to integrate DxO into my workflow if I'm going to use Lightroom to at least catalogue my images (assuming I find Lightroom not quite up to the task for RAW conversion). I really like DxO, I've used it for years now, right back to the early versions which were unstable and suffered from appalling product support (both issues now resolved thankfully) but the non-destructive conversion / editing in Lightroom seems to me to be a real bonus and could save me from storing all those big TIFF files - just output the ones I need, as and when I need them.

Stuart

I use Elements on another computer and when I convert to TIFF I lose my ACR white balance options. I can still adjust WB, I have to manually apply rather than using the presets. I started using DNG converter to maintain WB capabilities. I have LR4 on another computer and that conversion let's me at least utilize WB variations in program. I tend to transfer photos to whichever editing program based on how much post processing is needed.

[StuartR1953]

I had to learn Lightroom so that I could teach my wife the basics of editing in it. She has no interest whatsoever in working in Photoshop, so I have become reasonably competent in using LR / ACR.

My wife doesn't do ANY post-processing. I have to do it all for her I think it's probably easier that way, I'm not a patient teacher! To be honest, her Lumix G3 outputs some pretty good JPGs straight from the camera and she's normally happy with them.

[dje]

Nice shot Stuart. It looks to me that it may not have needed a lot of pp work !

Dave

[rpcrowe]

Great shot, rich colors, perfect focus, nice framing and a subject who is destined to break the hearts of many guys...

[StuartR1953]

Great shot, rich colors, perfect focus, nice framing and a subject who is destined to break the hearts of many guys...

Probably Richard, but she's 10 now and much more self-conscious. The days of her being prepared to pose naturally like she did on this shot have, I fear, gone forever...still, I got 20 or so good shots that day, most of which will be in my book of best shots..if I ever get round to doing it that is!

[StuartR1953]

Nice shot Stuart. It looks to me that it may not have needed a lot of pp work !

Dave

You're right Dave, just a crop and a little levels, sharpening, skin softening and eye enhancement. My old 350D (Rebel XT / Kiss n) that I used at the time served me well and is still doing the business for my brother who inherited it when I moved on to the 40D. It's probably time I moved up the model ladder again, maybe later this year. I'd like to go full-frame but that would mean replacing my EFS lenses so would be a much more expensive move..

[rpcrowe]

I also used a 350D for a while and replaced it with a 30D and a 40D which I used in tandem. The old 350D captured some nice images but, I hated the ergonomics of that camera... I used the 30D and 40D in tandem for many years and they are both, especially the 40D, great cameras.

However, I really think that the 7D was quite an upgrade from the 40D, especially in the area of auto-focus. In fact, I purchased a second 7D because I saw the "writing on the Canon wall" and fully expect that any enhancement to the 7D in a successive model will be in the area of video and mega-million ISO capability.

[dedro]

great image richard

[mknittle]

I also used a 350D for a while and replaced it with a 30D and a 40D which I used in tandem. The old 350D captured some nice images but, I hated the ergonomics of that camera... I used the 30D and 40D in tandem for many years and they are both, especially the 40D, great cameras.

However, I really think that the 7D was quite an upgrade from the 40D, especially in the area of auto-focus. In fact, I purchased a second 7D because I saw the "writing on the Canon wall" and fully expect that any enhancement to the 7D in a successive model will be in the area of video and mega-million ISO capability.

I would buy another 7D in a heartbeat but that would be impossible to explain why I need two.