LR & PS Workflow - cropping

[Rufus]

I used Lightroom to do my initial processing of an image and then used Photoshop to burn various selections and saved the file back into LR. I posted that image in another thread here where it was suggested that I might change the crop to show a larger area.

To do that I would have to go back to my most recent edit in LR and extend out the crop; but then I would have re-do my PS edits. Am I corrrect so far?

One solution would be to crop later in the workflow, but that does not seem sensible as I would be editing areas that would be cropped out later on.

Is there a way of copying the PS edits from the smaller cropped image onto the larger one or is re-doing the PS edits the only option?

At present I don't see a virtual copy or snapshot in LR overcoming this.

[Manfred M]

If cropping is one of the last steps you do in Photoshop, then you maximize your flexibility.

The downside is that you might end up doing a bit more retouching as some of those areas could be cropped out. If you are doing global or areas adjustments, the penalty of doing this extra work is negligible. If these are local adjustments, there could be more time and effort involved. Like everything else, it is a judgement call.

I have a pretty good idea if what I will crop and not crop in the final product, so areas that will take a lot of work and will likely be cropped get ignored. If I change my mind later on, the amount of rework is going to be minimal. In terms of retouching my work flow is:

Global Adjustments -> Area Adjustments -> Local Adjustments.

The example I posted the other day of the Karo Woman with all the layers; those were done to the full image and my final crop to print size (A3 / 13" x 19") was done right at the end. I was looking at two different print sizes and did not make That call until I saw what the final image looked like.

Karo Woman - Before & After

There I make a copy of the image and resized it to the paper size and did my output sharpening once the image was rescaled and cropped as a final print size. I can still go back and print as an A2 / 17" x 22" paper as I have all that data in my working file. In fact, I ended up making two prints; one of the before and one of the after image.

[Donald]

It's interesting to read how others treat cropping and how we all take many approaches to achieve the end. It illustrates that many ways to do something. None is correct and none is incorrect. It is whatever suits you.

I decide my crop before I capture the frame. This is pretty simple with the Canon 5DS and 5D!V because I can set LiveView and/or the Viewfinder (in the 5DS) to show the frame in the crop I have chosen.

[Geoff F]

Yes, before clicking my shutter I have an idea of what will be the finished size; but after seeing the image on a full size computer screen I sometimes change my mind a little.

For straightforward scenes, I crop at the ACR Raw edit stage although sometimes I allow a bit of extra space to allow for a possible later crop in the future when I require the image for a different purpose.

When doing merges of bracketed exposure shots or merged focus points I always wait until after the merging before any cropping.

So, there is never a simple 'one size fits all' answer for my cropping.

[DanK]

I have sometimes run into a similar frustration. Like Geoff, I use different strategies but often crop at the raw editing stage, which is LR for me. However, his suggestion of leaving extra space until the end is a very good one if you are going to move to any external editor, including photoshop.

[Rufus]

Thank you all for sharing your experiences and thoughts. They are very helpful.

I shall be more flexible in my workflow and give more consideration to the overall processing strategy for an image instead of simply assuming cropping falls within the Global Adjustment stage.

[rpcrowe]

I often have a requirement for images in multiple sizes and different crops.

I always shoot in RAW. I open my images using Adobe Bridge and do all of my adjusting EXCEPT the final sizing, cropping and output sharpening in a combination of Camera RAW and Photoshop and then I save the image as a PSD Master Image file. I don't use Lightroom at all. I handle my library using Adobe Bridge...

When I want the image in a specific size or a specific crop is is very easy to just go to the PSD file and then crop/ size and apply output sharpening. All the really hard and tedious work has already been done. I don't need to "reinvent the wheel".

Early in my digital photography, I shot in JPEG and did the corrections including cropping sizing and output sharpening. Then one year I needed a sizable number of images in different sizes and different croppings for some calendars I was producing and was out of luck because of the destructive changes I had done to the original JPEG images.

[Donald]

However, his suggestion of leaving extra space until the end is a very good one if you are going to move to any external editor, including photoshop.

Dan - Could you say why? I am interested in the question and answers being given in this thread. Your statement, "....if you are going to move to any external editor...." has got me wondering. What are the reasons for believing this?

[DanK]

Donald,

Only because cropping in the parametric editor is reversible only until you start editing in Photoshop. I've occasionally run into the problem in the OP. That is, I did some edits in LR, then moved to PS and did extensive edits, only to realize later that some of what I had done in LR--creating the base image for PS--wasn't what it should be. Some errors can be corrected later, but some can't be, or can't be easily. Cropping is one that can't be.

[Manfred M]

It's interesting to read how others treat cropping and how we all take many approaches to achieve the end. It illustrates that many ways to do something. None is correct and none is incorrect. It is whatever suits you.

I would state things a little bit differently. Some methods offer more flexibility than others. Flexibility has a price; potentially a bit more work and definitely a larger file that needs to be stored. The upside with a more flexible approach it allows the photographer to change their mind and minimize additional work and time to complete the image.

I decide my crop before I capture the frame. This is pretty simple with the Canon 5DS and 5D!V because I can set LiveView and/or the Viewfinder (in the 5DS) to show the frame in the crop I have chosen.

I don't do this as I often have multiple uses for the same image. I look at taking each shot so that I can use it in a variety of formats. There are usually a minimum of three views for every shot I take:

1. Standard format print - this can vary as there are many different standard frame sizes and not all my shots are printed to being at maximum size, so there are subsets of this. I generally like sticking to these as there frames tend to be the most economical;

2. Non-standard format print - the composition may simply not work well in a standard sized print, so I will go to a custom size to fit the material. Panoramic shots are an obvious example of this; and

3. Projected image competitions - I generally enter at least three or more images a month into local or regional competitions and generally enter the projected image divisions. For me this is simply a practical consideration as the logistics (and costs) of getting matted prints out are a bit of a pain. I probably enter about five prints a year into competitions, but more like 25 as projected images. I'm not including the CiC monthly or mini-comps in this count, just the formal juried competitions that I enter my work in.

These competitions have maximum image sizes, based on the hardware used to project these image, 1920 x 1080 appears to be the most common size, but there are others, so I will shoot so I can crop to this aspect ratio / format. This gives maximum impact to the judges.

4. Image showcases - Outside of formal competitions, a number of the organizations I belong to have monthly or quarterly showcases. I probably submit 60 or 70 images a year to these events, including the occasional prints. These tend to fall into the formats listed in points 1 and 3, although the PSA (Photographic Society of America) Digital Dialog has maximum dimensions of 1024 pixels wide by 768 pixels.

[george013]

I used Lightroom to do my initial processing of an image and then used Photoshop to burn various selections and saved the file back into LR. I posted that image in another thread here where it was suggested that I might change the crop to show a larger area.

To do that I would have to go back to my most recent edit in LR and extend out the crop; but then I would have re-do my PS edits. Am I corrrect so far?

One solution would be to crop later in the workflow, but that does not seem sensible as I would be editing areas that would be cropped out later on.

Is there a way of copying the PS edits from the smaller cropped image onto the larger one or is re-doing the PS edits the only option?

At present I don't see a virtual copy or snapshot in LR overcoming this.

All the edits are done on that rgb rasterimage, except for some tools in a converter that are based on the raw data.
All the edits are done on the actual pixel values.
When going backwards, that's only possible if the program builds a list with the used tools and there parameters. In that case the program can only undo the latter edits or recalculate the latter edits again.
When parsing the image from lr to ps the rgb image is parsed, not the edit list.
I wonder how you manage to parse the image from ps to lr. If that's done with an intermediary file, then that image in lr is a complete new image.
With capturenx and dxo I found that a crop will be undone when editing further. You can just activate it afterwards again. Meaning all the edits are done on the total image. No reason to bother of editing to much. You might check that in lr.

Just my thoughts.

George

[DanK]

All the edits are done on that rgb rasterimage, except for some tools in a converter that are based on the raw data.

"Except for some tools in a converter that are based on the raw data..." Yes, that is what lightroom edits are.

I wonder how you manage to parse the image from ps to lr.

Lightroom opens a TIFF file (or another format, depending on settings) that has been created in photoshop. That fact underlies most of the comments posted above.

[george013]

"Except for some tools in a converter that are based on the raw data..." Yes, that is what lightroom edits are.



Lightroom opens a TIFF file (or another format, depending on settings) that has been created in photoshop. That fact underlies most of the comments posted above.

That means you don't use lr as a plugin. You call for lr to open a complete new image.

George

[Manfred M]

That means you don't use lr as a plugin. You call for lr to open a complete new image.

George

George - people tend to use Lightroom in two ways.

The first one is to use it as the only editor that they use and to make all the changes there without using any other external editor, like Photoshop. In commercial photography, wedding and portrait photographers often work this way. This is often referred to as "retail photography", where the clients are the general public. As a general statement, Lightroom is very good for global edits, is okay for some area edits and is generally not all that good when doing precise local edits.

The second way is to use it as a raw convertor and to do some limited editing before sending the file over to Photoshop to do things that Lightroom (or Adobe Camera Raw) cannot do. Photoshop is not quite as strong as the other tools in some aspects of doing global edits, is stronger in doing area edits and much stronger in local area edits. This is why a lot of people start of with Lightroom (or Camera Raw) and then pass that work off to Photoshop. People that use the Lightroom / Camera Raw + Photoshop approach tend to be the ones that do higher end work. Work for commercial clients such as publications (print or online), fine art photography, high end portrait photographers, etc. will use this approach.

With the second approach, there is always a debate between how much work to do in Lightroom (or Camera Raw) and how much to do in Photoshop. One school of thought is to do as much as possible in Lightroom or Camera Raw and to just do the things that cannot be accomplished there in Photoshop and the other group will tend to do little more than raw conversion in Lightroom / Camera Raw and do everything else in Photoshop. That is essentially what the comments in this thread are about.

[george013]

George - people tend to use Lightroom in two ways.

The first one is to use it as the only editor that they use and to make all the changes there without using any other external editor, like Photoshop. In commercial photography, wedding and portrait photographers often work this way. This is often referred to as "retail photography", where the clients are the general public. As a general statement, Lightroom is very good for global edits, is okay for some area edits and is generally not all that good when doing precise local edits.

The second way is to use it as a raw convertor and to do some limited editing before sending the file over to Photoshop to do things that Lightroom (or Adobe Camera Raw) cannot do. Photoshop is not quite as strong as the other tools in some aspects of doing global edits, is stronger in doing area edits and much stronger in local area edits. This is why a lot of people start of with Lightroom (or Camera Raw) and then pass that work off to Photoshop. People that use the Lightroom / Camera Raw + Photoshop approach tend to be the ones that do higher end work. Work for commercial clients such as publications (print or online), fine art photography, high end portrait photographers, etc. will use this approach.

With the second approach, there is always a debate between how much work to do in Lightroom (or Camera Raw) and how much to do in Photoshop. One school of thought is to do as much as possible in Lightroom or Camera Raw and to just do the things that cannot be accomplished there in Photoshop and the other group will tend to do little more than raw conversion in Lightroom / Camera Raw and do everything else in Photoshop. That is essentially what the comments in this thread are about.

I'm referring to the way back: from ps to lr.

George

[Manfred M]

I'm referring to the way back: from ps to lr.

George

I know that some people have this in their workflow but so far as the Edit Module is concerned, that is generally not recommended. The underlying algorithms in the two pieces of software are not 100% compatible and moving back and forth between them can result in subtle problems that are impossible to resolve. Most knowledgeable users I have spoken to feel that from an editing standpoint, the workflow should be one-way. Once edits have been started in Photoshop, all further edits should be done there. With Photoshop CC, the introduction of the Camera Raw filter, this allows the user to make any edits that one can make in Lightroom, so there is no practical reason to use Lightroom itself for further processing.

Having the finished image back in Lightroom and in the Library Module allows the image to linked with the keywording / asset management aspects of Lightroom. Some people prefer using the Lightroom Print Module to output their work. The workflow is simpler than the Photoshop one.

[Rufus]

... moving back and forth between [Lightroom and Photoshop] can result in subtle problems that are impossible to resolve. Most knowledgeable users I have spoken to feel that from an editing standpoint, the workflow should be one-way. Once edits have been started in Photoshop, all further edits should be done there. With Photoshop CC, the introduction of the Camera Raw filter, this allows the user to make any edits that one can make in Lightroom, so there is no practical reason to use Lightroom itself for further processing.

Having the finished image back in Lightroom and in the Library Module allows the image to linked with the keywording / asset management aspects of Lightroom. Some people prefer using the Lightroom Print Module to output their work. The workflow is simpler than the Photoshop one.

It is a very good point that there is no practical reason to transfer back to Lightroom for editing. I started doing so because with my inexperience I found the Lightroom tools fewer and simpler to use. Now I am starting to understand Photoshop a little better I can appreciate what you are saying, Manfred.

The main reason to transfer back for me is, as you describe, to take advantage of the functionality of Lightroom's Library and Print modules. But then the cropping issue raised it ugly head!

I am still researching why sometimes a file that I have edited in Photoshop finds itself into the Lightroom Library but not on other occasions. My workinh hypothesis is that files that DO make it into the Library are the ones where I just click Save in Photoshop once editing there is complete. Files that are created by Photoshop with new file names (eg after focus stacking) do NOT find their way into the Lightroom Library.

[george013]

It is a very good point that there is no practical reason to transfer back to Lightroom for editing. I started doing so because with my inexperience I found the Lightroom tools fewer and simpler to use. Now I am starting to understand Photoshop a little better I can appreciate what you are saying, Manfred.

The main reason to transfer back for me is, as you describe, to take advantage of the functionality of Lightroom's Library and Print modules. But then the cropping issue raised it ugly head!

I am still researching why sometimes a file that I have edited in Photoshop finds itself into the Lightroom Library but not on other occasions. My workinh hypothesis is that files that DO make it into the Library are the ones where I just click Save in Photoshop once editing there is complete. Files that are created by Photoshop with new file names (eg after focus stacking) do NOT find their way into the Lightroom Library.

Just one thing and I stop.
Where is this based on?

One solution would be to crop later in the workflow, but that does not seem sensible as I would be editing areas that would be cropped out later on.

Do your editing without cropping. Later you can crop using all kind of programs. And if you save the original you can redo it again, and again and again.

George

[Stagecoach]

Do your editing without cropping.

Things are not always that straightforward George.

As an example I work on many images that I can crop in very different ratios, where some stages of my editing are very specific to the final crop and ratio used.

Of course I always have the original to go back to as required.

[DanK]

I am still researching why sometimes a file that I have edited in Photoshop finds itself into the Lightroom Library but not on other occasions. My workinh hypothesis is that files that DO make it into the Library are the ones where I just click Save in Photoshop once editing there is complete. Files that are created by Photoshop with new file names (eg after focus stacking) do NOT find their way into the Lightroom Library.

File_save: file goes back to LR and is synced to the catalog

File_save_as, even if the name isn't changed: the file is saved to the same directory but is not imported into the catalog. You have to sync manually.