LR5 > PSCC > Nik Workflow

[Manfred M]

I know Manfred hates the Lightroom catalogue, but I (and many others) find it an excellent tool for managing images.

Mostly because a had a catalogue got corrupted and I lost all my edits stored there. The backup was of the corrupted file, so didn't work. That being said, the more recent versions of Lightroom have more error checking and redundancy built in, but I guess now that I've been "biurned", I just don't trust the software anymore.

The workaround you suggest in saving to *.psd is a bit of a cludge, but works, but really no better than the Bridge / ACR route.

[DanK]

You are starting with a very long list. Almost none of my images see more than three software packages, and many only one.

As someone wrote, the functions of these packages overlap a great deal, and it often makes very little difference which you use for a given purpose. So, IMHO, the most sensible thing for someone starting out is to develop a reasonable level of mastery over a few.

I use LR for my raw conversion and basic edits. Many of my images need nothing more than what LR provides. I find the interface very intuitive (although it is a bit daunting at first). I like working with a parametric editor that is nondestructive and that doesn't clutter my disk space with extra files until I have a need for them. There are two things you can do to deal with the risk of a corrupted catalog. One is to back up the catalog frequently. The other is to set lightroom to put its edits into external XML 'sidecar' files. If you do that, you can create a new catalog that will have the original and the final result of the edits, although it won't show the steps of the editing in the left-hand panel. I did develop some minor corruption in my catalog that I didn't notice in time to use a back up, but the problem only affects a small number of images, and if need be, I'll read them into a new catalog.

Other than LR, the only software I use often is Photoshop and Zerene (for stacking). Photoshop does some things much better than LR. I think it is important to have something that will let you do masks and layers, among other things. There are a number of competitors to photoshop for this, such as Paint Shop Pro (which I have also used) and GIMP. I suspect that for most people, the choice among them is less important than sticking with one of them long enough to get comfortable with it. Just make sure that you choose one that has a large enough user base that you can easily search the web for help.

I have the Nik software, but I haven't used it all that often, and I don't have a decent level of expertise with it. My main interest in it is that it allows you to apply localized adjustments using a very different technique than the selections in photoshop and paint shop pro. I also like having the B&W effects of Silver Efex, but I don't use it often.

Re noise reduction: Lightroom's has become excellent, and I no longer use dedicated noise reduction software. In theory, I think NR should be applied early, so that you don't sharpen noise, but one of the beauties of LR is that the order in which you apply edits has no impact whatever. The order in which you do them is independent of the order in which the software will apply them.

Re sharpening: I almost never use anything other than two tools: LR's sharpening, and smart sharpening in photoshop. Occasionally there is a reason to do something else, like high pass, but I find I don't need to often. If I want selective sharpening, I do it with selections in PS.

Finally, I think having a default workflow makes sense, but at the end of the day, you should aim to feel comfortable enough with the functions you are using that you can put them in whatever order works for a particular image. My usual order without stacking is LR for all I can do there and PS for anything else, then back to LR for printing and exporting to the web. My basic order with stacking is LR => Zerene => LR => PS (if needed) =>LR. The principle is to do as much as I can in LR because it is a parametric editor. If I see a reason to modify that, e.g., to use Nik filters, I do it.

[Manfred M]

In response to most of the other posters, it seems most of you favor Bridge over LR, and only use a couple of select tools in Nik. I would imagine this is because you are comfortable working with the Adobe Suite. Let me say, as a beginner, the Adobe Suite interfaces can be very intimidating (with the exception of ACR and LR).

The Adobe products have a very long learning curve, that is for sure. The Nik software is simply an overlay that uses existing Photoshop functionality to create specific effects and one can recreate them in Photoshop if one had to. As a user of other Adobe products (Premiere Pro, Illustrator, After Effects, Audition, InDesgin, etc) the common interface is actually quite useful.

All that being said, the learning curve is quite long and there is a lot of functionality there, some of it quite complex.

[Mike Buckley]

one of the beauties of LR is that the order in which you apply edits has no impact whatever. The order in which you do them is independent of the order in which the software will apply them.

I saw a video of a vice president of Nikon saying the same thing about its Capture NX (or it might have been Capture NX2). Though he was correct about some types of edits, he was flat out wrong about other types. I haven't used Lightroom enough to know whether such a claim is true for all types of edits but I'm skeptical. I encourage you to do some careful testing rather than assume the claim is accurate.

[Simon Garrett]

I saw a video of a vice president of Nikon saying the same thing about its Capture NX (or it might have been Capture NX2). Though he was correct about some types of edits, he was flat out wrong about other types. I haven't used Lightroom enough to know whether such a claim is true for all types of edits but I'm skeptical. I encourage you to do some careful testing rather than assume the claim is accurate.

I'll admit I've not tested it, but I have read Eric Chan (LR designer) saying that the order you apply edits doesn't matter in LR. When rendering the image, LR takes the edit metadata, merges and sorts it into a specific order, then applies them. My understanding of Capture NX(2) is as you said: that order does matter for some edits, although again I've not tested it.

[Mike Buckley]

When rendering the image, LR takes the edit metadata, merges and sorts it into a specific order, then applies them.

My first test would have to do with the order of applying noise reduction and image sharpening and determining whether the results are the same regardless of the order they are applied. If that test conclusively proves that the order doesn't matter, I would move on to other tests. If that test conclusively proves that order does matter at least in that situation, I wouldn't bother with any more testing.

[davidedric]

Re: order of applying edits in Lightroom.

According to Jeff Schewe, it does make some difference. The reason he gives is because all the main sliders are adaptive (I.e. their actual affect on the tones is image dependent), and he recommends setting the exposure and contrast before moving on to the group below.

If it comes to a shoot out between Eric Chan and Jeff Schewe, I'll offer to hold the coats

Dave

[Simon Garrett]

Re: order of applying edits in Lightroom.

According to Jeff Schewe, it does make some difference. The reason he gives is because all the main sliders are adaptive (I.e. their actual affect on the tones is image dependent), and he recommends setting the exposure and contrast before moving on to the group below.

If it comes to a shoot out between Eric Chan and Jeff Schewe, I'll offer to hold the coats

Dave

Let me first say I might be wrong! However, my understanding is that they are both right.

What I mean is this: the effects of some of the later controls (lower down the list of panels) is affected by the Basic Panel sliders. So if you want to judge the effect of those later panels accurately, you should alter Basic Panel sliders first. For example, suppose the sharpening depends slightly on the basic panel settings, then altering the contrast might alter the appearance of sharpening. Hence you should do basic panel first, or you won't see sharpening accurately when you adjust it.

However, when Lightroom renders the image, I think it applies the edits from the metadata in the same order, irrespective of the order you do them. In other words, the order of applying the controls doesn't alter the end result, only what you see while you're doing it - if that makes sense.

Another order issue I have read: lens correction takes more processing power to apply than other controls. If lens correction is applied, is slows down rendering of the image slightly, so for speed best do it last. However, I like to do lens correction and at least an initial crop early on, so I'll put up with any performance hit.

Again, I apologise if I'm wholly wrong about all of this, which is quite possible!

[chauncey]

Do not for one moment assume that there is a right/wrong way to do PP...esp. in Photoshop.
As you traverse the afore mentioned, steep learning cure, you will learn that there may be faster
ways to accomplish your goals but, in the end, there only thing that matters is the coughed out result.

[DanK]

I believe Simon is right. Working in the suggested order (top to bottom) often makes it easier to get what you want, but if you use the same edits, the order doesn't affect the output.

I just did a test to persuade myself and the skeptics. I took a shot with my old 50D at ISO 3200, because that camera will produce a fair amount of noise at that speed, hence making NR visible. I imported the image into LR and made a virtual copy. I then made a quick set of edits to the first, more or less going top to bottom: white clipping, clarity, vibrance, shadows, sharpening, and NR. I then applied the same edits, but in exactly the opposite order, to the virtual copy. They two edits look the same to me. I'll post them here, along with links to the full size jpgs in case you want to pixel peep. Those links are in the image name. However, looking in the light box may be enough.

Original



Order 1



Order 2

[davidedric]

Interesting Dan. I am currently viewing on an uncalibrated tablet, and the two images look quite different.

I'll have a look on my calibrated monitor a bit later

Dave

Ps with apologies to the OP We've wandered way off topic.

[Mike Buckley]

Being perhaps the leading skeptic here, that's a very reassuring test, Dan. The differences are so very slight as to be impractical whether viewing the small images displayed in the Lytebox or the full-size images on my calibrated monitor.

Ps with apologies to the OP We've wandered way off topic.

Mostly my fault, so my apologies are also offered. However, the OP did ask about workflow and this subtopic is certainly pertinent to workflow, albeit at a very different level than initially considered.

[davidedric]

and the two images look quite different.

I'll rephrase that - very slightly different! The flowers are hard to distinguish, but if I look at the blind string (?) to the left of the flowers, it looks slightly better defined with the edits in the "wrong" order. Conclusion for me is that it don't matter!

Dave

[JohnRostron]

The only comment I might make is that you look at using Adobe Bridge / Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) rather than Lightroom.

Having uploaded my images, I almost always begin in Bridge. I use it for two main reasons. Firstly, I can rename files and folders should I want to. Then, more importantly, I use it to add Metadata. I find the Bridge Metadata panel more comprehensive and easier to use than that of Lightroom. I have a number of Metadata presets that I can choose from to add to my images. I know Lightroom has metadata preserts, but they are not as comprehensive as those of Bridge.

Having done this in Bridge, I then import my images into Lightroom and take it from there. Typically, having imported them, my first step is the Map Module. Both my cameras have GPS, but this only records where the camera is, not where the subject is. I can easily modify this from Map.

John

[JohnRostron]

I believe Simon is right. Working in the suggested order (top to bottom) often makes it easier to get what you want, but if you use the same edits, the order doesn't affect the output.

I downloaded these two images, and loaded them into a stack. They are identical by any criterion Photoshop can devise.

John

[Panda77]

Thanks again everyone. You have given me quite a few things to consider when determining my workflow. Hopefully, as I become more proficient with the Adobe Suite, I will be able to give you some feedback on my progress.

[ShaneS]

Reviving this thread with a very specific question regarding the preferred method for noise reduction...

I have only two pieces of software for photo editing: PS CS6 and NIK.

I shoot in raw and have started working on my hand held street shooting at night. In a recent shot I was at ISO 3200 and needless to say there was a fair amount of noise in the image. Here is a 100% crop of a portion of the image in question SOOC (no sliders moved):



So, my question is very simple. Do you use ACR for your noise reduction? If so I have read that you shouldn't go above a setting of 70 (I think) to avoid losing too much detail and I would like some opinions on that.

Or, do you do all other basic edits in ACR and then take in into NIK's Dfine to do the noise reduction?

Does combining the two make sense or is that just like taking the luminance slider to high?

Thanks in advance!

[Polar01]

Shane I think better understanding of exposure would be of a greater help then the use of noise reduction programs. The data states that you used a D7000 with a 17-55mm f/2.8 lens set to f/5.6, 1/160sec shutter and a ISO of 3200 I ask myself why. You could have easily used f/4 without that much lose of DOF, that one stop more light would have pushed the shutter speed to 1/320sec then using exposure compensation of 2 stops have over exposed the image by those two shops resulting in a shutter speed of 1/80sec and with that lens there is no reason that you could not have hand held it still. Those 2 stops of overexposure would have pushed the histogram to the right thus more data (info) would have been captured in the shadows thus lowering the noise.

Cheers: Allan

[ShaneS]

Thank you so much Allan...I'm going to have wrap my head around this so hang with me please. I am posting a couple more examples from another indoor restaurant scene taken the same night.

If I am understanding correctly, shadows or dark scenes are more prone to noise so a compromise has to be made in terms of the exposure triangle. That means that the high ISO isn't the main noise culprit but the darkness of the scene captured and the amount of light reaching the sensor?

Here is a 100% crop of a similar scene working where I realized the first one was too dark so made an adjustment to the aperture. Both were shot at ISO 3200 and handheld.

Settings:

F5.6 1/100 (no exposure compensation)



f3.2 1/60 only this time I used exposure compensation of -.67 because the overhead lights were blowing out.



There is less noise in the second image but from what I understand based upon what you wrote above I shouldn't have used negative exposure compensation or maybe changed the aperture? That would have resulted in even less noise, right?

The first question still remains about the workflow to remove noise but now I have a second question.

How do you maintain the mood of the scene when it was dark and an exposure like the second one above without noise loses all the darkness of the scene? I will attempt to answer this question but am VERY happy to be corrected

If the scene is correctly exposed and has less nose you can bring back the ambiance with contrast and/or other adjustments selectively applied???

On a side note I am also going to research the depth of field at various distance as well as I am scared of shooting wide open and losing depth of field which is why I opted for 5.6 in the first place in the first two images.

Thanks again Allan, I really appreciate the education and hope others learn something from this as well.

[dje]

So, my question is very simple. Do you use ACR for your noise reduction? If so I have read that you shouldn't go above a setting of 70 (I think) to avoid losing too much detail and I would like some opinions on that.

Or, do you do all other basic edits in ACR and then take in into NIK's Dfine to do the noise reduction?

Does combining the two make sense or is that just like taking the luminance slider to high?

Thanks in advance!

Shane when using ACR for NR I usually wind the Luminance and Color sliders up as much as necessary to make the noise level acceptable. Then I adjust the Luminance Detail and Color Detail sliders to sharpen up the edges (compensating for the loss of detail with the NR sliders). But don't go too far with the detail sliders or the noise will re-appear. Using this technique, I don't see why you can't set NR to 100.

This is what it did to your image (Luminance and Color sliders set to 100, Luminace and Color detail to about 65-70).

Dave