Moving from LR to PS

[Manfred M]

I uninstalled all except the latest version of Photoshop and it started working, not flawlessly, but working non the same. I think I may have introduced some glitches while working on the Lightroom versions ,so I plan to go back and install Lightroom, latest version and see how that works. Thank you all for your help.

That's great news. When you say not "flawlessly", what do you mean?

[joebranko]

That's great news. When you say not "flawlessly", what do you mean?

I think I was being overly optimistic. I got it to work but then I it wouldn't. By that time I was too tired to in investigate further so I stopped and will have another go today. One more try then Adobe Support.

[Manfred M]

I think I was being overly optimistic. I got it to work but then I it wouldn't. By that time I was too tired to in investigate further so I stopped and will have another go today. One more try then Adobe Support.

In that case, let me suggest one more thing.

When the old versions of Adobe uninstall, it leaves behind some of the old directory structure. I suspect this is done to allow some of the plug-ins and other settings one does not want to lose left behind so that they can be copied to the new file structure.

These can be found in the c:\\Program Files\Adobe\ Try cleaning these up (i.e. deleting them) before doing a clean reinstall.

[DanK]

A safer way to do what Manfred suggested: simply drag the unwanted folders to the desktop temporarily. That way, programs will not find them, but if it turns out you need something that was in an old directory, you can retrieve it. If nothing comes up after a week or so, then delete them. I do this often, not just with Adobe products, if I can't find a clear description of what is and isn't moved by the installation.

Another option that I sometimes use is to rename the directories that I expect to remove. that's harder in a case like Adobe, where the leftover directory structure is quite complex.

[joebranko]

Thanks Manfred.

In that case, let me suggest one more thing.

When the old versions of Adobe uninstall, it leaves behind some of the old directory structure. I suspect this is done to allow some of the plug-ins and other settings one does not want to lose left behind so that they can be copied to the new file structure.

These can be found in the c:\\Program Files\Adobe\ Try cleaning these up (i.e. deleting them) before doing a clean reinstall.

it leaves behind some of the old directory structure
How do I recognize the old directory structure? Do those files have a specific extension? Not sure what I am seeing there and don't want to crash the system.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred.


it leaves behind some of the old directory structure
How do I recognize the old directory structure? Do those files have a specific extension? Not sure what I am seeing there and don't want to crash the system.

They are the same name of the old version of Photoshop. CC2018, for instance.

[joebranko]

Finally I think I have solved the problem, After removing and reinstalling both Lightroom and Photoshop, moving files worked , but occasionally it would fail. After several attempts I felt the problem might lay with not with the software but with the photos I was attempting to edit in Photoshop. I noticed that many of the photos were virtual copies which I could edit in Lightroom but would not transfer to Photoshop. I was unaware of this limitation. I then discovered that there were several photos in my collection that had been mis-filed and that Lightroom could not find and would not transfer to Photoshop with the "edit in Adobe Photoshop" selection. Everytime I use this selection with a good copy of a photo, it has worked,
Thanks everyone for their input ang help.

[DanK]

Joe,

I'm glad you have it working. However, I don't think virtual copies should be a problem. I have no difficulty moving virtual copies from LR to Photoshop with ctrl-E. Perhaps there was something amiss in the way you managed the virtual copies.

I suggest to you to a new image that has no virtual copy, make a virtual copy, and turn it to black and white so it is easily distinguished from the original. Then try moving both the original and the copy to Photoshop. I just did that and had no problem.

Dan

[joebranko]

Joe,

I'm glad you have it working. However, I don't think virtual copies should be a problem. I have no difficulty moving virtual copies from LR to Photoshop with ctrl-E. Perhaps there was something amiss in the way you managed the virtual copies.

I suggest to you to a new image that has no virtual copy, make a virtual copy, and turn it to black and white so it is easily distinguished from the original. Then try moving both the original and the copy to Photoshop. I just did that and had no problem.

Dan

Thanks Dan. I did not think it should be a problem, as Lightroom stated that a virtual copy could be edited. However it was only those photos which would not move to Photoshop. Those copies are generated automatically when I import a photo, so I don't actually do anything to generate them. Another thing to examine is that these virtual copies are used if the original cant be found. This could be the real reason why they don't transfer. I will try your suggestion.
Thanks again for your help,

[Manfred M]

Joe - my understanding of virtual copies is that they are way of letting a photographer using a parametric editor to create different versions of the same image, either as final edits or as edits that are passed on the a pixel based editor. So far as I understand it, as I don't use virtual copies in my own workflow, there is no new copy of the image created, but rather a different view of the image based on the parameters used in the edit.

[DanK]

Those copies are generated automatically when I import a photo,

That shouldn't happen. At least, it has never happened to me, and I have been using Lightroom for many years. How are you moving your images into lightroom? Do I remember correctly that you use a Canon camera? I use mostly Canon cameras, so the files I have imported into LR have mostly been CR2 files, and they have never arrived in LR with virtual copies.

there is no new copy of the image created, but rather a different view of the image based on the parameters used in the edit.

That's right. LR never creates copies of the image file until you export them. All you are creating is parametric edits, stored either in the catalog or in XML sidecar files. A virtual copy is simply a visual representation of the original image file with a different (or partially different) set of XML edits.

However, LR can move files to Photoshop either with or without its edits. In the case of files other than raw images, it asks you which you want. With raw images, it includes the edits automatically.

So in the case of the test I ran to make sure I was remembering correctly, I took an edited image, made a virtual copy, converted it to B*W, and hit ctrl-E. It popped up in Photoshop as a black and white image.

[Round Tuit]

Thanks Dan. I did not think it should be a problem, as Lightroom stated that a virtual copy could be edited. However it was only those photos which would not move to Photoshop. Those copies are generated automatically when I import a photo, so I don't actually do anything to generate them. Another thing to examine is that these virtual copies are used if the original cant be found. This could be the real reason why they don't transfer. I will try your suggestion.
Thanks again for your help,

Joe,
I think that you and Dan are referring to two different things when you talk about "virtual copy". I believe that you are actually talking about "smart previews" which can be generated automatically upon importing if the appropriate checkbox is checked. Smart previews can be edited if the original file is on an external drive that isn't connected to the computer at the time.

[DanK]

Andre,

That's an interesting idea. I never use smart previews because I never edit photos with their home drive disconnected. But wouldn't they appear differently? In the case of virtual copies, unless the original and copies are collapsed into a stack, the copies will appear next to the original in the grid view and the film strip. I'm not sure about this, but isn't it true that smart previews don't appear separately next to the originals? If that's true, it should be easy to figure out which these are.

Dan

[pschlute]

I find the whole idea of virtual copies very confusing. I dont use them. I am capable of deciding whether to save an edit, or to to save an edit as a new filename. I dont see the advantage of the Adobe virtual copy/preview at all.

[DanK]

I find the whole idea of virtual copies very confusing. I dont use them. I am capable of deciding whether to save an edit, or to to save an edit as a new filename. I dont see the advantage of the Adobe virtual copy/preview at all.

It depends on your workflow. I don't store any files created by LR other than the XML file. I find it helpful to be able to have more than one fork in the parametric editing flow. This lets me do that without making any edits before the fork destructive. However, what I do find confusing is that there is no way (as far as I know) to rename virtual copies to something that makes sense--they are just copy 1, copy 2, etc. I understand why the core of their name has to be the original file name, because they are not new files. However, it would be very handy to be able to append more text in the name. For example, suppose the original is IMG_4578.cr2. It would be handy to have the ability to use names like "IMG_4578 Copy 1 no sharpening" or the like. As far as I can tell, this can't be done, and I end up getting confused if I have more than one.

When I do edits in external software, which does create new files, I change the file names within lightoom to reflect that if I have more than one of them.

[pschlute]

It depends on your workflow. I don't store any files created by LR other than the XML file. I find it helpful to be able to have more than one fork in the parametric editing flow. This lets me do that without making any edits before the fork destructive. However, what I do find confusing is that there is no way (as far as I know) to rename virtual copies to something that makes sense--they are just copy 1, copy 2, etc. I understand why the core of their name has to be the original file name, because they are not new files. However, it would be very handy to be able to append more text in the name. For example, suppose the original is IMG_4578.cr2. It would be handy to have the ability to use names like "IMG_4578 Copy 1 no sharpening" or the like. As far as I can tell, this can't be done, and I end up getting confused if I have more than one.

When I do edits in external software, which does create new files, I change the file names within lightoom to reflect that if I have more than one of them.

But how is any of that more helpful than you doing an edit and choosing the "save as" filename ?

[DanK]

But how is any of that more helpful than you doing an edit and choosing the "save as" filename ?

Where is there a "save as" in Lightroom?

The advantage relative to saving via export is that the edits prior to the fork are nondestructive and can be reversed. For example, suppose that you are editing in B&W and make a bunch of edits--adding contrast, texture, clarity, etc. Then you decide that you want to try it in color. You make a virtual copy at the top of the edit list. Then go to the virtual copy and put it back into color. The B&W conversion in LR is nondestructive. Then let's say you want to reduce contrast and clarity in the color version. just adjust the virtual copy accordingly, and it will undo that portion of the edits.

I find this convenient in a relatively small number of cases. But it's like anything else: others may not find this tool useful.

[pschlute]

Perhaps I should have said I use PS for editing. I rarely use LR for the editing process except for HDR merges.

[DanK]

Perhaps I should have said I use PS for editing. I rarely use LR for the editing process except for HDR merges.

Then I see why virtual copies wouldn't be much help. I do as much as I can at the parametric stage, and for various reasons I find LR more useful for me than ACR embedded in Photoshop.

[pschlute]

Then I see why virtual copies wouldn't be much help. I do as much as I can at the parametric stage, and for various reasons I find LR more useful for me than ACR embedded in Photoshop.

I think for all of us we end up with an editing process as the result of a trial and error process. I use Silkypix DSPro as my primary raw converter. I then do further TIFF editing in PS before saving as a jpeg. I then import these into LR which I use as a catalogue program. If my startout into editing had been different I am sure my workflow would be different, but it is what it is and it works for me.