With LR, I make changes to the raw file, but I just see the changed file, not the three versions I need. How can I organize things in LR similarly to what I do in PSE?
Thanks!
Version set equivalent in LR?
Make Virtual Copies (In Contextual Menu), they are auto stacked with original.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Version set equivalent in LR?
Thanks for the help. I still can't quite figure out how to do what I want to do, though. I want to edit a raw file, using LR or PSE or both, and save it as a tif in a stack with the raw file. Then I want to be able to edit the tif with LR or PSE or both and save it in the stack as a jpg.
If I make a virtual copy, I now have the original raw and a virtual copy of it, not a tif. The only way I can see in lightroom to create a tif is with export, but then it doesn't go into the stack.
If I edit the original or the virtual copy in PSE and ask PSE to save it as a tif, it gets saved in the stack, but as a psd. So I'm still stumped.
I think you're trying to use both LR and stacks in ways that are completely different from the way they were intended. The whole idea of LR is that you don't have to create TIFFs and JPEGs. If you need further editing in PS, you export which means to move the image out of LR. If you want it back, you have to import it. Since LR doesn't know where it goes you have to put it in a stack if you want it there.
The idea of stacks is to hide the images below the top one so that they are there and can be brought to the top, but which they are beneath the top one they are hidden from operations like ratings, keywords, and image edits.
Thanks for the info. It seems strange: I shoot in raw, need a tif to upload to have a print made, and a jpg to take to my camera club for projection. I would think many others would want to do similar, but apparently there is no way to do that in LR.
There are ways to do that. THat is Export from LR. Not to be ket in LR. You do them (if they are to look different as VCs in LR and Export (Meaning it leaves LR) to a TIFF or JPEG for these purposes. It is a change in how one does things.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
%26gt;%26gt;Meaning it leaves LR%26lt;%26lt; I had hoped to be able to organize all of my images with the LR library feature, but I guess that's not possible. Would Bridge be any better?
I do all my camera club projections using Slideshow and so don't need a separate JPG. And if I do (say for competition) then it's a disposable file because it's so easily recreatable from Lightroom.
%26gt; do all my camera club projections using Slideshow and so don't need a separate JPG. And if I do (say for competition) then it's a disposable file because it's so easily recreatable from Lightroom.
Works fine as long as Lr can do what you want. What do you suggest for those of us that do extensive file editing outside Lr (sharpening, NR, border framing, localized editing) and want to track the new ''version'' in the Lr library?
Import them?
I frequently edit in an external editor and specify that the result be stacked with the original. Right click on any image to get the option to edit in the external editor(s) you specified. Which you select to edit depends on what you want to do with it. If I just want the original and I'm not going to keep what I do (like to fiddle with i t and email it to someone) I edit the original (and try to remember to keep my wits about me -- well, I do have a backup copy of course). You can also edit a copy of the original (if I don't want to keep it I delete the copy LR makes). And you can edit a copy with any lightroom changes you made.
It doesn't stack the new one on top but that's easy to change.
I don't use export very often except when I need multiple files for something like a slide show or to create web pages. The reason is I have to go find them. With edit in external editor, it pops the application up with my image already open.
I'm still missing something.
In LR, I right click on a raw image and select ''Edit in Adobe Photoshop CS.''
In the dialog box that pops up I check ''Stack with original'' and click Edit.
In PS, I do file%26gt;save as. I pick tif as the format and click Save.
In LR I now have in the stack with the raw image a PSD format image, not a tif. For the life of me, I can't get a tif or jpg format image in LR library
As Elbert describes, I want the jpg stacked back into the library. I understand I can save as a jpg and then import into the library, add back any keywords and stack witht he original. I want this process automated, so it works with all the file formats Lr supports.
Elbert,
Lightroom creates a file for you -- in this case a PSD -- , stacks it with the original and opens it in Photoshop. You don't do save as when you finish, you do a save and it has to be the file type Lightroom gave you. I also don't necessarily like the file type I'm stuck with. If you want a tif or jpg, I think you'll have to go to a lot more trouble.
1) You will have to delete the psd and then ask Lightroom to look for new files in that folder. You have to delete the psd because I think Lightroom will only accept a single file with a particular name, independent of extension.
Or 2) Name the tif of jpg differently from the assigned PSD and then ask Lightroom to look for new files in that folder. You still probably want to delete the PSD because you didn't use it.
Judy
Judy,
Thanks for your help. What a hassle.
I'd like to switch from PSE to LR because I like the adjustments it lets me make to my images and the convenience with which I can make them. But if I can't conveniently use it to organize my stuff, I'm really disappointed. Why in the world they won't let me do LR what I can easily do in PSE is really baffling.
I'll bet what I want to do is common enough that a bunch of other people are disappointed, too.
Thanks again,
Elbert
Lightroom, because of its master file concept of a RAW negative to which you can attach countless versions via Virtual copies, snapshots or histories, makes it possble, indeed, desirable to not create and store so many derivative verssions. A new way of thinking for many of us.
Thanks for the reply. I've got to be missing something fudamental here. I need a tif to send for printing and a jpg for projection. Each takes different adjustments for sharpening, etc. I don't understand why, after I've done the work to create them, I wouldn't want to save them. And if I save them, why I wouldn't want to keep track of them in LR.
Elbert,
I think you are right. Even if Lightroom allows you to do most things *without* generating new files, there is no reason for it to create obstacles when you *do* need/want to do so.
Besides, even when the 'versions' are created in Lightroom-sanctioned ways (virtual copies, Photoshop edits), the stacking feature is not flexible enough to easily keep track of these versions. For example, keywords and collections are only assigned to the image on top of the stack, and renaming operations skip the 'buried' images.
For these and other reason I have been advocating the creation of a 'versions' structure, alongside 'stacks'. For more details, see
Simon Tindemans, ''Basic Version Management'' #6, 22 Apr 2007 2:27 am in the feature request forum.
Simon
Simon,
Your versioning ideas seem right on target. I think my needs are simpler than yours, but similar, and if your ideas were implemented I think I could learn to like LR a lot. As it is, there really doesn't seem to be a good Adobe approach to keeping track of my images unless I stick to PSE. I'd rather switch to LR, but I'm not sure I'm willing to suffer the aggravation.
Elbert
Elbert,%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;You're missing the whole idea behind LR - it's a different paradigm for working with image files. Consider the following ''diagrams'':%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;PS:%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;original: say raw%26gt; ---[perform editing] ---%26gt; %26lt;derivative: say jpg]%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;If you use DAM software, you need to store both the raw AND the jpg.%26lt;br /%26gt;If you use PS to do more/different editing, the only way you can save the changes is to produce another derivative file, say a tiff this time. Then you need to add that tiff to the DAM.%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;The point is, PS cannot save the data in [perform editing], so you need to produce a new derivative file.%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;LR:%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;original%26gt; ---[perform editing (1)]%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;original%26gt; ---[perform editing (2)]%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;All the data in [perform editing(n)] are stored in a database. Think of LR as a black box that manages the originals, from which you can create virtual copies (they're not real image files, since only the [perform editing] data is kept. Then whenever you need to get a derived image file out of LR, you do an export. But you don't re-import these into LR since it maintains the edit metadata in its database.%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;In your case, you want to get a tiff to send for developing and jpg for your club. Fine, just export these. Any time in the future you need another tiff from your raw, export it again. If you want different versions of an original, create a virtual copy and perform new edits.%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;The one hitch is: What if you want to edit a derivative outside LR because you have other software that does a better job of sharpening, etc? In this case you export and alter the derivative using PS or whatever. Since LR's database doesn't know about the external edits, then you must re-import that image, it becomes a new ''original'', even though you think of it as a derivative. But it's not a derivative or virtual copy to LR.%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;If you use PS, then this process is streamlined. LR creates a new master copy of an image (not a virtual copy, but a new image) and sends it to PS. Once edited, you save the changes (not ''save as'') and the master copy reflects those changes. It doesn't really matter what kind of format this new master copy is in, since you can then export this master copy in LR to tiff, jpg, or whatever - whenever you need it. The point is, you don't HAVE to have that tiff or jpg in the database.%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;That's the way LR is intended to be used. %26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;- Pierre
%26gt; I don't understand why, after I've done the work to create them, I wouldn't want to save them.
LR is a tool for producing what you need -- on demand. It's a workflow issue. For most professionals it's not necessary, or desirable, to populate their limited real estate or computing resources with multiple varients of full sized files. The idea is to create a workflow using ''virtual versions'' of your photos that can be generated only when you need them and on the fly.
This becomes much more evident when you're working with a large photo library. Hope my explanation helps ... :-)
%26gt;You're missing the whole idea behind LR (...)
%26gt;That's the way LR is intended to be used.
Pierre,
I don't think Elbert is confused about the way Lightroom is intended to work . 'The Lightroom way' would be great in an ideal world in which Lightroom could do everything we wanted it to do and do it instantly.
Unfortunately, Lightroom is not this ideal application. This means we need to edit some files in external programs, or that it can be convenient to have exported TIFFs/JPGs lying around for when we need them.
For *real world use* it is important to keep track of versions in one way or another, and to improve cooperation with other programs. I hope the Lightroom team is working on solutions to make this a little easier.
Simon
%26gt;The idea is to create a workflow using ''virtual versions'' of your photos that can be generated only when you need them and on the fly.
Off the top of my head, I can see three reasons not to do so:
* Sometimes you need to perform operations outside of Lightroom (superior output sharpening in Photoshop comes to mind)
* It takes time to re-export files
* AFAIK, there are currently no suitable 'mass' operations in LR to easily create and manage many virtual copies at the same time. They have to be grouped and added to a collection manually, whereas exporting places files in a directory of their own, where they can be managed through the 'folder' interface.
As I mentioned in my long (tiring?) reply - for those times when an external app is needed to do further editing, then yes, you export (or use the direct to PS route) and re-import (auto with PS). These images must be ''originals'' since they contain edits that LR is unaware of.
%26gt;''AFAIK, there are currently no suitable 'mass' operations in LR to easily create and manage many virtual copies at the same time. They have to be grouped and added to a collection manually, whereas exporting places files in a directory of their own, where they can be managed through the 'folder' interface.
I guess you have to develop your own methods (color labels, keywords) and very likely use stacks to keep all versions of a master together. But the last thing you would want with a DAM application is to rely on the folder interface of the system's file manager to keep track of images.
I'm curious, what kinds of ''mass'' operations would you like for working with virtual copies? Perhaps your ideas can be suggested in the private Adobe forums.
- Pierre
Suggesting them here is enough, especially in the Feature Request forum. That is what it is for.
Adobe does pay attention.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
%26gt; Off the top of my head, I can see three reasons not to do so:
for any workflow it's imperative to use the right tool for the right job. i see LR as a catalouging and asset management utility with a side order of ''convenience processing.'' processes meant to yield more than light table convenience and photomart printing, such as:
-- fine art photography,
-- four colour press,
-- scientific processes,
-- etc.
require much greater overhead to process and manage.
imo LR is a better place to start that journey than to manage an infinite number of derivative works. that requires a much more sophisticated environment and processing power than is currently affordable to the average photographer. :-o
%26gt;''i see LR as a catalouging and asset management utility with a side order of ''convenience processing.''''
And yet, LR is not yet a full-featured DAM (compared to, say, iViewMedia Pro). I guess that makes LR a middle-of-the-road (it that's the right description) all-in-one solution.
- Pierre
Pierre,
While it is true that externally edited images are 'originals' in the technical sense of the word, they are a version or derivative to the photographer. Currently, stacks can be used to indicate this relationship, but I think that specialized versioning functionality could simplify the workflow for these images. In addition, this would free up the stacks functionality to group, for example, different variations (multiple raw files!) of the same composition.
As for the 'mass' operations, I found out I goofed on that one. I had overlooked the fact that you can select multiple images and create virtual copies for all of them at the same time, and that these copies are selected after the operation. This allows you to easily assign all VCs to a collection, for later accessibility. Very well implemented, once you figure it out.. :)
%26gt;(...) that requires a much more sophisticated environment and processing power than is currently affordable to the average photographer. :-o
Nunantak, it's not like implementing some slightly more advanced relations between files in the database is going to bring every computer to it's knees. As was noted by Pierre, Lightroom has not yet matured as a DAM. I think that, right now, Lightroom is a 'good' application that has the potential to be great.
Simon
%26gt;... it's not like implementing some slightly more advanced relations between files in the database is going to bring every computer to it's knees.
Simoon, I believe we may be either straying from the initial point.
1. multiple copies of fully rendered large format TIF/PSD files
-- e.g. heidelberg _vs._ iris _vs._ epson variants
contain a lot of information to ingest and process.
Indeed I have several panoramas archived which exceed LR's 10Kx10K pixel limit
2. the ability to apply non-lossy local transformations in LR
-- e.g. masked and feathered sharpening for custom target output
requires much more:
a. disk space
b. processing power
c. applications integration
To condense these capabilities into one application would require an enterprise solution for a single cpu and user -- which imo would be something entirely different from ''slightly more advanced relations between files''.
Perhaps this is why I felt LR is a tool that's been well placed (by design) to render source files on demand. As to DAM, well, it took Photoshop 17 years to get to where it is today. Hopefully it will take less time for LR to evolve into a sophisticated DAM tool that dovetails with a much more complex and sophisticated processing environment. :-)
Thanks to all who replied to my post.
It appears to me that LR has the basic functionality to do what many of us would like for it to do. Apparently it can export a tif, import the tif, and put the tif on a stack with other versions of the image.
I'd just like for that process to be automated: a button that would use the existing export capability to export to the same folder with the original, use the existing import capability to import it, and use the existing ability to add the import to the stack.
Nunatak says most professionals prefer the workflow now available through LR. I certainly can't speak for professionals, but it seems that adding that capability I suggest would significantly improve LR for many of us amateurs, and would not interfere with the workflow that professionals prefer.
Nunatak,
While I agree with you that more powerful editing facilities, especially in combination with larger files, require a lot of computing power and programming, that is not necessarily true for more or larger files alone (your point 1).
Having multiple high-resolution copies of files only costs storage space. When you have put any amount of work into creating those copies, a bigger hard disk may well be cheaper than the time it costs to recreate them.
At this point, the 'low hanging fruit' for Lightroom is in the DAM domain. I think that a few small improvements here and there can yield significant usability gains. Unlike Photoshop 17 years ago, there are plenty of good DAM examples around to learn from. I have high hopes for LR 1.1-2.0...
Simon
Elbert,
%26gt;Nunatak says most professionals prefer the workflow now available through LR.
I don't think I said that, but I did write something equally clumsy:
%26gt;For most professionals it's not necessary, or desirable, to populate their limited real estate or computing resources with multiple varients of full sized files. The idea is to create a workflow using ''virtual versions'' of your photos that can be generated only when you need them and on the fly.
I can't speak for most professionals, only the professionals I work with regularly in my own industry. Amongst them, there is a consensual view that it's better to build the files you need when you need them -- rather than building them in advance all at once and just in case. It's just not smart economics in most cases.
There are many ways to do things and if you have a way that makes better sense for your workflow I feel it's equally as important to consider. :-)
Simon,
%26gt;Having multiple high-resolution copies of files only costs storage space. When you have put any amount of work into creating those copies, a bigger hard disk may well be cheaper than the time it costs to recreate them.
Simon if you're saying that time can be much more valuable than storage space -- we are preaching to the same choir. Any derivative work that's required an investment in time to design and/or an architectural process (layers) needs to be re-preserved as a new ''base file'' -- if only to preserve the investment in time and resources that can't be autoscripted. However, I view this ''new base file'' as an entirely new product, which could still be more efficient to autoscript for various outputs.
%26gt;I have high hopes for LR 1.1-2.0...
Me too! I appreciate your dilligence in discussing these viewpoints. :-)
''there are currently no suitable 'mass' operations in LR to easily create and manage many virtual copies at the same time.''
''I'm curious, what kinds of ''mass'' operations would you like for working with virtual copies''
As i have requested, an easy solution WOULD BE to have LR generate an AUTO Keyword 'Virtual Copies', and potentially to allow it placed as a child keyword under the parent you are working on. (as you would be working anywhere BUT the folders)
Ideally, this would apply while working in the develop module, thus saving time having to return to the Library after each VC is made. Then, when you return to the library (AFTER developing your images as desired), highlight all the images in the VC child keyword, and set as a collection.
Go to the new collection and batch convert as needed.
That would be the ideal from my point of view.
PS: also requested, while in develop, auto keyword generation for black and white. but thats another discussion in another thread.
No comments:
Post a Comment