Do you use LR & PS together? If only PS how do you file manage?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by patent10021, Oct 11, 2012.

  1. macrumors 68000

    patent10021

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Location:
    Japan
    #1
    Was reading that PS can do everything LR can and more obviously but LR has all the database/management stuff so I was wondering what some of you are doing?

    Are some of you using LR ONLY for management? I do a lot of compositing work and need PS so there seems no point in using LR but on the other hand file management could become an issue.

    Maybe some of you are using applications that are only file management apps in combination with PS?

    Since I have both maybe I should use LR for everything then whenever I do heavy compositing I can switch to PS? When you're done editing in PS how do you personally manage those edited files with LR?
     
  2. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #2
    I do just still photography, not video.

    I use Lr for 90% of the work I do. I import directly into Lr, and do my organizational stuff immediately. Lr has some very powerful tools for working with RAW images, it's the same RAW engine that Ps uses. I prefer the tool layout in Lr, but that might just be familiarity.

    I find Lr's organizational tools very sophisticated, and very easy to use. The more I learn about how my images are tagged, and how to find them again the more I am impressed with the engineers at Adobe. Most people I know who use Lr are using a small subset of it's features. I'm consciously trying to learn to use more of them as I go.

    Lightroom can pass an image directly to Ps, with or without the Lr image edits. When you are done working in Ps, the edited image will be passed back to Lr to be stored next to the original image.

    I also create montages out of multiple images. In this case I export from Lr to a folder all the images I will be using. Sometimes, I will remember to import the finished image back into Lr - just to make it easy to find later.

    Hope this helps.
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Location:
    PHL
    #3
    I used to exclusively use PS for processing and management. However, since LR4 was released, I use both programs equally. Although I do feel that I spend most of my time in LR then I do in PS. In PS, I usually just make levels, curves, and color adjustments, then sharpen for Flickr or printing. For organization, I think LR does a great job at managing your files. I can easily access old RAW files from previous imports, pull them up, and start editing them.

    Overall, I LR and PS work very well together. Although you can certainly get away with using or or the other exclusively.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 68000

    patent10021

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Location:
    Japan
    #4
    The pass off feature sounds attractive and for me since I commonly create 10-20 layer PSDs.

    Why PS for such minor adjustments?
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    #5
    I have switched from PS to LR4 and am still learning it. I do prefer it's tool selection presentation. As to file organization, I simply import into one file for each month, i.e. October 2012, which contains each of my sub files with I rename from the Canon "156 Cannon" or whatever the camera called the folder in the camera to something more descriptive. Once I have that file topped off I copy it to two separate external HDDs, reformat the card, and put it back in line for re use.
     
  6. Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #6
    I use LR for 99% of my stuff, only will I go into PS for either some specific plugin or work that's not easily done in LR
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    #7
    I can't speak for myself but my uncle is a freelance photographer and president of the ASMP and when he's visiting and working on photos he uses both about the same. Every time I watched him he always used Lightroom first to get rid of lint and things of that nature off of people's suits before switching to PS.
     
  8. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Fukuoka, Japan
    #8
    You can use Lightroom only to manage your photos, but that'd be a waste. Probably I'd stay in Lightroom as long as I can and use Photoshop when necessary to put the finishing touches on your picks.

    Lightroom and Photoshop are well-integrated (if they are of the same »vintage«, they share the same processing engine and going from Lightroom to Photoshop is lossless). Typically you'd sort the picture in Lightroom and do most edits. Lightroom offers everything along the lines of curves, white balance, cropping, dodging and burning, etc. And Lightroom is based on working with multiple files at the same time so that you can lift adjustments and easily apply them to other photos (e. g. I do that with white balance and exposure adjustments all the time).
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 68000

    patent10021

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Location:
    Japan
    #9
    If I was doing a lot of compositing and masking what would you suggest for work flow?
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Fukuoka, Japan
    #10
    Lightroom and Photoshop are made to work in tandem, so if you need Photoshop's capabilities, you tell Lightroom to open it in your external photo editor (= Photoshop). I'm just saying that Lightroom is so powerful that you will probably open it less often than you expect. It takes a lot of time to decide on the picks (= the images you really want to invest time in) and Lightroom is the tool of choice for that. That includes making most of the standard edits. Since Photoshop and Lightroom share the image editing engines, you can move images seamlessly from one to the other.
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 68000

    patent10021

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Location:
    Japan
    #11
    Thanks. How would I handle multiple saves in LR? What I mean is in PS I often have 5-10 different PSDs of an image. PSDs representing different stages of a retouching session. Is there a special option where if I click it it will automatically save a copy as a new version instead of the usual Save As option?
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Fukuoka, Japan
    #12
    You can save »versions« of your image which are automatically managed. As long as your edits are non-destructive, Lightroom will just save a »text file« that contains the edits and render the image from the original using the »slider settings« in the text file. I don't know whether you can create new versions directly from Photoshop, though.
     
  13. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Location:
    PHL
    #13
    I find that I like the way LR handles my RAW files, so I do the majority of my processing there. It's just a personal preference. Plus, it usually takes me about 20 minutes (or less) to edit a file. I really hate spending hours on end at my computer processing and overprocessing files when I can be out in the field shooting more images.
     
  14. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #14
    Lr is a different beast than Ps, so you need to start thinking about it differently. In Lr edits are done non-destructively, so you can 'reset' back to RAW file at any time. As well, you can take, iirc, snapshots. I don't use this feature, but if memory serves, it basically allows you create saved points in the editing process. Instead of 'resetting' right back to the original RAW file, you just snap back to the previous snapshot.

    However, there is another option. At any point you can 'clone' the image. This creates a new image with all of the edits (and metadata) of the original. (Technically, that's not quite true. It creates a duplicate of database entry that records the edits ... so you can have as many cloned images as you want and not use up any more storage room). Each of the cloned images can be reset back to the original RAW, as well as the image you cloned from.

    In your case, I would suspect you would pick the images that you were going to composite together in Lr, and then export them to a temporary working directory. Then you would pass the key photo from Lr to Ps. In Ps you would do your masking and and whatnot. Maybe doing the Save As thing too. I work the same way, tbh. At the end you "save" the key photo and that puts the finished image back into Lr. Then you delete the working photos from the temporary directory, archive the versions you want to keep.... Walla! Sell the piece to the Tate Modern.
     
  15. thread starter macrumors 68000

    patent10021

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Location:
    Japan
    #15
    Hmmm Well if Lr can save the progress for me at various stages then that would be great. Then I wouldn't need 5-10 PSDs of one image for redundancy. I'll have to look into this iirc you're talking about.
     
  16. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #16
    Just in case you weren't trying to be funny. :). Iirc = if I recall correctly.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #17
    As said above, there is no concept of saving in LR. It saves everything you do without you having to worry about it. It sounds like you can use two features in particular - snapshots and photo stacking.

    I haven't worked with snapshots yet but you can take a snapshot at any time while working on your image.

    When you edit in PS you have the option of editing a copy. This can be similar to a snapshot but it is more memory intensive as it makes a copy of the image. Then in your catalog you will see something like 1 of 3, 2 of 3, etc. These can either be listed side by side or in a "stack."

    I'm still getting a handle on the work flow but PS + LR is a winning combination IMO.

    ----------

    Oh, and if you adjust levels in PS Camera RAW and then synchronize across several images it will be much faster in LR. Since it only has to open the command files to apply the changes instead of every image.
     
  18. thread starter macrumors 68000

    patent10021

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Location:
    Japan
    #18
    :d

     
  19. thread starter macrumors 68000

    patent10021

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Location:
    Japan
    #19
    :d

     
  20. thread starter macrumors 68000

    patent10021

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Location:
    Japan
    #20
    :d

     
  21. macrumors 68000

    mofunk

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Americas
    #21
    I use LR for photo editing. PS when I get a great shot but forgot to change my settings in the camera. lol

    File managing for me is keep everything organized by year - date - event. Regardless if I'm using LR, iPhoto, PS, or Aperture. Back to a DVDr and external drive.
     
  22. macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #22

    I'm sure this has been said but they're not comparable programs. LR (and Aperture) are digital asset management programs with raw processing capabilities. PS is a full blown image editor who (in my opinion) doesn't have as nice of raw processing capabilities and definitely not the same level of digital asset management.

    As for using both, it depends on your photography style. I rarely have to Photoshop my pics and do all adjustments in Aperture (I used Lightroom up until the last released then switched but both programs give identical results if you know what you're doing in them).

    If you do a lot of commercial photography or portraiture PS will probably be used a lot more for retouching.

    Think of the two programs as compliments of each other. You import your photos into LR, do all you can raw processing and organization wise, then take the ones that need some extra love into Photoshop for some more processing.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    doug in albq

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    #23
    Simple answer to the OP's question: Adobe Bridge.
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    #24
    My workflow:

    1. Create LR library for shoot.
    2. Import files into LR library.
    3. Create meta/exif template for shoot. Apply to photos.
    4. Run through photos and flag as picks. Repeat until satisfied.

    For each pick:
    1. Do basic white balance / color temp mods.
    2. Tell LR to open in PS.
    3. Do modifications in PS and save (save to separate dir structure for PSD files).
    4. Go back to LR and PSD shows up in library (if not, import PSD).
    5. Create Virtual Copy of PSD and do any final minor mods (e.g. crop).
    6. Modify meta/exif if applicable (e.g. Model/subject name).
    7. Create specific export template if applicable.
    8. Export to JPEG (using export template and watermark template as applicable).

    Repeat 5-8 above as necessary (for instance if I need different crops of the same photo).
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #25
    If you use a Nikon camera, and your job is not to process 200-300 images of a shoot, but just a smaller selection, I really suggest to use NX2.
    The combination with a Nikon camera is so much more natural. If you have a nice JPEG in camera, then it takes serious work to get the same in LR from the RAW. NX2 on the other hand, copies all the applied settings from the JPEG to your default RAW conversion setting, so that is an easy start. Things included are vignetting removal, aberation removal, WB, lens correction, sharpening, shadow and highlight recovery (d-lighting in camera). In LR you just start very raw. I use it with Graphic Converter. I don't like library management systems that create tons of duplicate and unwanted files.
     

Share This Page