Interface problem with Lightroom and Photoshop

[Big Stan]

I have recently begun to encounter a problem with Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 6.3. After my pictures have been exported and edited in PS they are no longer appearing in the Lightroom Library. Yes, “Stack with Original” in Lightroom preferences is checked. The edited pictures do appear in my Pictures folder next to the original and they also appear next to the original in Bridge; they are just not showing up in the Lightroom Library.

[Clactonian]

Files from LR edited in PS when saved will appear in the original folder. If you have used keyword search to find a collection of images and then edited one of these in PS it may not be visible unless you go back to the original folder via LR. Try right clicking on the original in LR and then 'show in original folder', with luck the missing files will be there.

[davidedric]

Another long shot. I have found with some plug-ins (not Photoshop, I don't use it) that starting in a Collection the file is returned to the correct folder, but not the Collection.

Dave

[ST1]

Have you tried to synchronise the original folder in Lightroom. Right click on the original folder in the left hand side folder panel choose synchronise folder from the drop down option menu. You could do this to the top most folder (parent) and synchronise all of the child folders.

[mastamak]

After the PS edit are you simply saving the edit or doing a "save as".? If the latter then the edited image will not show up in your Lightroom catalog and you will have to find out where the image was saved and re-import it. If you do a straight save then it will automatically appear in your Lightroom catalog with the suffix "-edit"
Grant

[jcuknz]

For problems like this is why I have never used the filing system found in my editor but continue to use the basic Windows system, bearing mind that 'SAVE' replaces the original file and 'SAVE AS' gives one control to change the file name slightly so the original file is not over-written and one can place the new file in an appropriate place [ such as all photos of my own posted to CiC are under 'CiC/year' ]
IMO these systems are designed for folk who do not know how to organize a filing system, thankfully not me because of my brief library experience early in life ... it is not rocket science by the way

[Ndukes]

For what it's worth, I import all image files from two cameras (Nikon df and Olympus Stylus 1) via Adobe Bridge. I use 'Advanced Rename' to rename all files to a format 'YYMMDD_XXXX', XXXX being the four digit unique identifier contained in the camera generated file name. (The Stylus 1 unique image identifier has 5 digits.) I also have the image import dialogue set to save all files on import in a folder called 'ORIG CURRENT YEAR'.
I use CS6 for all processing and I have an 'Action' set up to save all processed files as TIFF in a folder called TIFF CURRENT YEAR.
So the whole system is automated and reliable and requires only a small housekeeping job at year end to transfer files from the current year folder to corresponding folders for the relevant year i.e. ORIG 2015, TIFF 2015 etc. I have my originals (all in RAW format) and processed TIFF versions in chronological order (regardless of camera) sorted into two separate folders for each year.
This might be useful to other users of Adobe Bridge/CS5 or 6. I'm not familiar with Lightroom so don't know if if there is a facility for setting up an action to save in TIFF to a specified folder.

[mastamak]

For problems like this is why I have never used the filing system found in my editor but continue to use the basic Windows system, bearing mind that 'SAVE' replaces the original file and 'SAVE AS' gives one control to change the file name slightly so the original file is not over-written

John. when you edit an image in Photoshop and press "SAVE" it actually automatically saves the edited copy with a slightly different name, exactly as you recommend above. The beauty of Lightroom is that it puts the edited image straight back into the Lightroom catalog in the appropriate folder and the original file is NOT overwritten - no messing around with Windows folders. This is even more valuable when you are using more than one external editor - swapping between Lightroom, Photoshop, OnOne or Silver Efex, for example. Lightroom allows you to move an image between various editors and you don't have to be concerned that you might be inadvertently altering the original image, where it is located in the directory tree or where the final image will be placed - Lightroom does that for you. I venture to suggest that this would be a very messy task using the Windows folders, "saving as" after each edit and re-opening in the new editor. In fact I struggle to think of a reason to use "SAVE AS" when editing an image in Photoshop (or any other external editor) prior to passing it back to Lightroom. Like you I persisted with the Windows folders method (or directory tree as it used to be known) for many years due to my early experience going back to the computer years pre-MS DOS. However, once I got a handle on Lightroom I chucked all that prior experience (and my clumsy directory tree) out the window and have never regretted it for a moment. Lightroom was designed with photographers in mind, it is virtually foolproof, will not alter or damage your original images and saves a whole lot of unnecessary work in maintaining and organising directory folders. Nowadays I just put all images into a "bucket" called "2015 photos" and organise them by date and keyword - easy to do in Lightroom and easy to find any image with the catalog filter. I am not ashamed to admit I am a Lightroom convert and if you really feel a pressing need to "organise your filing system" it is easier and safer to do that within the Lightroom catalog than to burrow into File Explorer.
Grant

[Manfred M]

Grant - as an early Lightroom user (original Beta) you forget one fatal flaw some of us have had with Lightroom, and that is corruption in the catalogue that can (and did) result in the loss of all of my edits. The corruption can be passed on during the backup process. Now granted, Adobe have done a lot of work in an attempt to fix this problem, with a more robust set of checks, but having been burnt twice, I'm not ever using the monolithic Lightroom catalogue structure again. Saving the data in the traditional sidecar file is far more robust and risk free to me.

That being said, if you shoot raw, your original is never overwritten as you can't save to the native raw format.

[mastamak]

Grant - as an early Lightroom user (original Beta) you forget one fatal flaw some of us have had with Lightroom, and that is corruption in the catalogue that can (and did) result in the loss of all of my edits.

I have never had that problem. Manfred, but thanks for the advice. However, one Lightroom feature I really like is that you can back up to an external drive on import so if all goes pear-shaped I always have my original raw files backed up. In addition I back up my catalogue incrementally every day. I must admit I have had a few hard drives crashes over the years but no difficulty re-establishing from my backups.
Grant

[Manfred M]

I have never had that problem. Manfred, but thanks for the advice. However, one Lightroom feature I really like is that you can back up to an external drive on import so if all goes pear-shaped I always have my original raw files backed up. In addition I back up my catalogue incrementally every day. I must admit I have had a few hard drives crashes over the years but no difficulty re-establishing from my backups.
Grant

My primary raw editor is Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), although I have used DxO Optics Pro a lot in the past, I am find I am really liking Phase One Capture One (DxO Optics Pro is more like ACR and Capture One is more like Lightroom).

I've always backed up manually and have my main working files on my editing computer's hard drive. I run two separate Data Robotics Drobo units as backups and also have some critical files stored on DropBox. Again, while I have had hard drive failures, I have not had any data loss.

[mastamak]

Probably a bit off topic, Manfred, but I would be interested to know why you prefer to edit raw files in ACR rather than just go straight to Lightroom?
Grant

[Manfred M]

Probably a bit off topic, Manfred, but I would be interested to know why you prefer to edit raw files in ACR rather than just go straight to Lightroom?
Grant

I guess because I have been using Bridge / ACR for so long it suits my needs. I've been using Photoshop since CS came out (2003). Bridge came out in CS2 (2005) and that has been my browser for the past decade. Lightroom V1 came out in 2007 and it really was pretty basic back then. I did play with the Beta and tried using V1. At the time I told people I thought is was little more than a marketing tool to migrate people over the Photoshop (it really was that basic).

The only part of Lightroom I would use is the Develop Module, and I do not use the Library, so I have to go through an extra (unnecessary, for me) step to import the images. I use other components in the Create Cloud, so Bridge is the browser of choice for those applications. so I have to use it anyway. I found that Lightroom really limited until V3 or V4 (2010 / 2012) and I got badly burned by both V2 and V3, so was quite suspicious of the catalogue system.

Bottom line is that I find the Bridge / ACR / Photoshop workflow far more efficient. I use Photoshop on 100% of my images, so Lightroom is really of limited use to me. The main reason I know it is that is that my wife uses it and I need to know it so that I can help her.

[Rob Ekins]

I feel the same way as Manfred,

I have been using Photoshop since 1996, for me, I can do any of the develop stuff in ACR so there is no need for Lightroom, I download every new version of LR and I have always uninstalled them.

As an aside, I find myself using ACR less these days as the layer functions in PS are so powerful. I use ACR for lens and colour correction on interior shots but for other images I typically open in ACR and export as a smart object just in case I need to get back to ACR quickly but I rarely do.

[DanK]

I'm at the other extreme: I use Lightroom as my core software. I did lose a catalog once, when upgrading several versions ago. The new version had problems with the old catalog. I called Adobe, and they fixed it. Foolishly, I didn't write down how.

However, I always keep LR set to write its edits to XML 'sidecar' files, not to the catalog. If you do that and your catalog becomes irretrievably damaged, you can create a new one that will include your edits. However, at least in old versions, it would not show the edit history, just the final results.

I have only begun to make use of the cataloging functions of LR, but even with limited use, I find them helpful.

While a few of the editing tools are IMHO actually better than photoshop's, in the aggregate, it's editing capabilities are clearly much more limited than photoshop's. However, I find that they are sufficient for the majority of my images. This is particularly true of images taken under controlled lighting conditions, which lessens the need for selections. I suspect that I might find it less often sufficient if I did more daytime landscapes, for example.

I find the integration with other software very helpful. For example, some of my flower macros require both stacking and selections. I do the basic editing in Lightroom, then export directly into Zerene. Zerene's LR plugin exports them in the format I want (16-bit ProPhoto TIFF), executes Zerene, and loads them into Zerene. When I am done stacking, there is one hiccup: I have to import that saved composite into LR. When it is time for Photoshop, I export from LR to Photoshop. When I save in Photoshop, it automatically imports the saved TIF into LR, as one of the earlier posts noted. When I post it on the web, I can export directly to Smugmug with a plug-in that lets me choose name, sharpening level, dimensions, etc.

I also find the LR print module so useful that I do all of my printing from it. Some people will turn up their noses at the output sharpening, which has only a few settings, but I have found that those settings work well. The built-in side-by-side softproofing works well. You can save print templates, which I use all the time.

What I think this illustrates is that the best software is whatever gets you where you want to go with the least difficulty. That's obviously different for different people.

[Thlayle]

I guess because I have been using Bridge / ACR for so long it suits my needs. I've been using Photoshop since CS came out (2003). Bridge came out in CS2 (2005) and that has been my browser for the past decade. Lightroom V1 came out in 2007 and it really was pretty basic back then. I did play with the Beta and tried using V1. At the time I told people I thought is was little more than a marketing tool to migrate people over the Photoshop (it really was that basic).

The only part of Lightroom I would use is the Develop Module, and I do not use the Library, so I have to go through an extra (unnecessary, for me) step to import the images. I use other components in the Create Cloud, so Bridge is the browser of choice for those applications. so I have to use it anyway. I found that Lightroom really limited until V3 or V4 (2010 / 2012) and I got badly burned by both V2 and V3, so was quite suspicious of the catalogue system.

Bottom line is that I find the Bridge / ACR / Photoshop workflow far more efficient. I use Photoshop on 100% of my images, so Lightroom is really of limited use to me. The main reason I know it is that is that my wife uses it and I need to know it so that I can help her.

Manfred, I have been using LR/PS for about two years now & I have to ask about your comment on using ACR and preserving your edits. When I do edits in LR, certainly they are still there when I return in LR. Is that always the case with ACR in PS? It doesn't seem to be, but I am still using PS on a very limited basis so far.

And as a matter of practice, are you saving your work as DNG files or something else?

As of this point, I still have not had database corruption problems. I did see some of that when I was still using Aperture, but I never actually lost data in the process. On the issue of data loss, my biggest issues have been hardware failure, OS installation problems and especially -- my poor archiving habits.

Regards,

Randy

[Manfred M]

Randy - ACR has the same ways of preserving edits as Lightroom does, other than the catalog system. When you press the ACR "Done" button the edits are saved to either the .xmp sidecar file or .dng format if you happen to use this file format (I do not). Same thing happens when you click the "Open Object" button, but your file is then opened in Photoshop. Press "Cancel" and your edits are not saved.

The files that have had edits stored are noted when you use the Adobe Bridge browser. Once I edit in Photoshop, I use the .psd format.

[mastamak]

I convert to .dng on import to Lightroom simply because I find the .xmp sidecar file a distraction which can be subject to careless erasure as I rather stupidly did several years ago. No such problem with the .dng files as the edits are contained within the master image file and cannot be misplaced or moved inadvertently. One LR feature I could not live without is the virtual copy which allows you to edit an image in several different ways without having to save the entire edited image each time - very tidy and saves a lot of disk space. I have not used ACR or Bridge since converting to LR but I don't recall that either of those programs have virtual copy capability. But IMO the real power of LR is in the catalogue. Once committed to LR you have to make the catalogue the centre of your editing workflow - basic edits in LR, export to PS or whatever external editor you use for more sophisticated editing then, when saved, you are taken back to LR with the edited file placed correctly in the catalogue and with all original keywords and EXIF data intact. It is very easy and quite smart.
Grant

[Manfred M]

I convert to .dng on import to Lightroom simply because I find the .xmp sidecar file a distraction which can be subject to careless erasure as I rather stupidly did several years ago. No such problem with the .dng files as the edits are contained within the master image file and cannot be misplaced or moved inadvertently. One LR feature I could not live without is the virtual copy which allows you to edit an image in several different ways without having to save the entire edited image each time - very tidy and saves a lot of disk space. I have not used ACR or Bridge since converting to LR but I don't recall that either of those programs have virtual copy capability. But IMO the real power of LR is in the catalogue. Once committed to LR you have to make the catalogue the centre of your editing workflow - basic edits in LR, export to PS or whatever external editor you use for more sophisticated editing then, when saved, you are taken back to LR with the edited file placed correctly in the catalogue and with all original keywords and EXIF data intact. It is very easy and quite smart.
Grant

The problem I have with the dng is that it is a one way street. I find that Adobe's raw converter is good (and has been since 2012), I sometimes prefer the results out of a different piece of software (I use Phase One Capture One, DxO Optics Pro and in the past Nikon's ViewNX2). This is not possible when you convert to the DNG. While the Capture One software has the catalogue function as well, I find that I like the raw conversions better than LR, especially for landscape work and Optics Pro does the lens corrections / CA better than ACR / LR as well. I have found that Capture One is far more stable than LR for tethered shooting, as well.

As for the catalog; having lost all of my edits twice (due to catalog corruption issues) and know several other photographers that have had that issue, I'm not risking that again. That being said, they have added some of the basic data integrity checks by the time version 5 (or was that v4?) rolled out, so the risks have decreased as the software has improved.

That being said, the implementation of the catalog is still "flawed". It has to reside on each individual computer. No shared catalog that can reside on my file server. If I want to edit in the field while on the road, there is no simple easy way to transfer my edits to my desktop. Yes it can be done, but it is less work to do so with the .xmp files (or .dng if you go that route. Erasing the .lrdata file is just as easy as deleting the .xmp file...

As for the virtual edits' PS layers do this for me and I can try things on different layer and only activate the ones I am working with. Yes, the files may be larger, but storage has gotten so inexpensive, that this argument is really rather moot. No only that, but the edits can be far more sophisticated, as the local editing capabilities of LR are quite limited when compared to PS. A parametric editor can only take you so far, but a pixel based editor can take you all the way.

So to sum up, every photographer has different needs. I can easily find work-arounds and other (better?) alternatives to Lightroom, to suit my needs.

[mastamak]

All good and interesting points, Manfred, and I think you have summed the debate up rather well - " every photographer has different needs", and I guess we all settle into a workflow and software usage that best meets those needs.
By the way, I took the opportunity to look at your website. Some wonderful images there. I particularly liked sepia toned ghost town series.
Grant