Programs you use in Post Processing?

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

I should have said the actual “photo editor” is the exact same as the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop or Bridge.

But it's not. The photo editor in both applications is not reliant on ACR or Bridge.

And they're different. They both have capabilities that the other does not.

Somewhat related question. Is there anyone here that use to use Bridge and or what had become “Lightroom Classic CC” that now uses what they currently call “Lightroom CC?”

I just don’t get it. It seems to lack many basic features of Lightroom Classic CC and Camera Raw or at least I can’t seem to enable them☹. Like just for example the out of gamut warnings and the post crop vignette options. I understand the cloud storage thing but if I put my portfolio on there I’d have to mortgage my home. Maybe it’s for if your work with a team and so I project is updated by one person then everybody sees the updates? Seems like a narrow use case.

It's not for me either. Even if I could afford the 10s of TB of storage (I don't), I just prefer to work off-line and with the mature toolset that is not lacking in functionality.

But it's not just cloud storage, it's also cloud computing. And sharing work / collaborative process is not something you or I do at our workstations, but in some business environments, it's more common — not so narrow-case, or Adobe probably wouldn't be working so hard at it.

Chris

 

[brett8883]

But it's not. The photo editor in both applications is not reliant on ACR or Bridge.

And they're different. They both have capabilities that the other does not.



It's not for me either. Even if I could afford the 10s of TB of storage (I don't), I just prefer to work off-line and with the mature toolset that is not lacking in functionality.

But it's not just cloud storage, it's also cloud computing. And sharing work / collaborative process is not something you or I do at our workstations, but in some business environments, it's more common — not so narrow-case, or Adobe probably wouldn't be working so hard at it.

Chris

I’m not sure what you mean, both Photoshop and Lightroom use the Camera Raw. Lightroom is the Camera Raw plug in dressed up in pretty clothes but it has no functionality beyond what opening a photo in Camera Raw from Bridge or the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop.

If you are saying it has its own copy of camera Raw built into it I don’t disagree but can you provide one example photo editing wise you can do in Lightroom Classic CC or Lightroom CC that can’t be done in Photoshop? Maybe I’ve missed something.

 

[Phoenix Drone]

I use CyberLink Power Director. Works great! No issues with 4K and H.265.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

I’m not sure what you mean, both Photoshop and Lightroom use the Camera Raw. Lightroom is the Camera Raw plug in dressed up in pretty clothes but it has no functionality beyond what opening a photo in Camera Raw from Bridge or the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop.

Photoshop has access to ACR and you can use it in the filter menu on everything (any image loaded into the editing space, even after loading a JPG). But the native editing space of Photoshop is not just ACR. It is well beyond that, with layers and smart objects and all the rest. For instance, if you load a complex, multi-layer image into Photoshop and select the Camera Raw filter, it's only going to load the current layer (if you select more than one layer, you'll find that the Camera Raw filter is not available in the filter menu, because handling that document is beyond ACR).

So the native editing space in Photoshop is not ACR. You can open a JPG into the native PS space, without using ACR, as a simple raster-based image. Opening a RAW file will always require it, hence the R in ACR. And the C stands for camera for a reason, because PS can be used as an editing component of a work-flow that brings in pieces that a NOT RAW files from camera (vector based objects, etc.).

Lightroom doesn't have that kind of editing space and is basically using ACR and bridge in respect to metadata editing, but it has far more than just 'pretty clothes' wrapped around it. To say it has no functionality beyond that is ignoring the cataloging (obviously, as has already been discussed in this thread) and everything you can do with that, plus the MAP module (one example of utilizing metadata in a way that PS is not capable of without some plug-in) and publishing / web-gallery abilities, plus the most important aspect: it's all integrated into a single user interface for all common users.

That last aspect cannot be overstated. Your familiarity with the core components from the pre-lightroom days is not useful to the current-day Lightroom user. If LR went away, they would not be happy going out and finding all the pieces that will allow them to do the core functionality, figuring out how it all works together, then learn how to run them independently — only to find out that even if they did, they would NOT have everything that their LR package did.

Then there are the 3rd party apps such as LRTimelapse that wouldn't work with just Photoshop.

Ask yourself why Adobe even made Lightroom if all the components were already there and easy to use. And be careful not to denigrate the millions of people using the application when you answer.

My answer would be: streamlined workflow. And that's valuable to a lot of people.

Put another way: if all you wanted to do with Photoshop were the Lightroom-centric editing capabilities (only those things within ACR, not layers / masks and all you can do with them), then Photoshop is an overkill and Lightroom makes more sense to more users because of its more sensible "image development" workflow with large catalog asset management.

Chris

 

[brett8883]

Photoshop has access to ACR and you can use it in the filter menu on everything (any image loaded into the editing space, even after loading a JPG). But the native editing space of Photoshop is not just ACR. It is well beyond that, with layers and smart objects and all the rest. For instance, if you load a complex, multi-layer image into Photoshop and select the Camera Raw filter, it's only going to load the current layer (if you select more than one layer, you'll find that the Camera Raw filter is not available in the filter menu, because handling that document is beyond ACR).

So the native editing space in Photoshop is not ACR. You can open a JPG into the native PS space, without using ACR, as a simple raster-based image. Opening a RAW file will always require it, hence the R in ACR. And the C stands for camera for a reason, because PS can be used as an editing component of a work-flow that brings in pieces that a NOT RAW files from camera (vector based objects, etc.).

Lightroom doesn't have that kind of editing space and is basically using ACR and bridge in respect to metadata editing, but it has far more than just 'pretty clothes' wrapped around it. To say it has no functionality beyond that is ignoring the cataloging (obviously, as has already been discussed in this thread) and everything you can do with that, plus the MAP module (one example of utilizing metadata in a way that PS is not capable of without some plug-in) and publishing / web-gallery abilities, plus the most important aspect: it's all integrated into a single user interface for all common users.

That last aspect cannot be overstated. Your familiarity with the core components from the pre-lightroom days is not useful to the current-day Lightroom user. If LR went away, they would not be happy going out and finding all the pieces that will allow them to do the core functionality, figuring out how it all works together, then learn how to run them independently — only to find out that even if they did, they would NOT have everything that their LR package did.

Then there are the 3rd party apps such as LRTimelapse that wouldn't work with just Photoshop.

Ask yourself why Adobe even made Lightroom if all the components were already there and easy to use. And be careful not to denigrate the millions of people using the application when you answer.

My answer would be: streamlined workflow. And that's valuable to a lot of people.

Put another way: if all you wanted to do with Photoshop were the Lightroom-centric editing capabilities (only those things within ACR, not layers / masks and all you can do with them), then Photoshop is an overkill and Lightroom makes more sense to more users because of its more sensible "image development" workflow with large catalog asset management.

Chris

I feel like we are saying the same thing. This isn’t important anyway. But I dont think I was disparaging anyone. Whatever works for you is the best solution. Also there’s no way to buy Lightroom without Photoshop so it’s really a moot point.

I did figure out that Lightroom Classic CC will apply presets to video and auto exposure works but theres no way to render it out that I can tell. Anybody know anything about that?

 

[kilomikebravo]

I just don’t get it. It seems to lack many basic features of Lightroom Classic CC and Camera Raw or at least I can’t seem to enable them

Brett: As I understand it, when Adobe tried to port LR over to mobile, they immediately had serious performance hits. So, they trimmed it down to work and in that trimming, some functionality was lost. They DID add some features that Classic doesn't support but none of those are remotely important to me.

Bottom line: Most people can ignore the LR CC installation and stick with Classic. I even deleted the shortcuts tuit.

 

[brett8883]

Brett: As I understand it, when Adobe tried to port LR over to mobile, they immediately had serious performance hits. So, they trimmed it down to work and in that trimming, some functionality was lost. They DID add some features that Classic doesn't support but none of those are remotely important to me.

Bottom line: Most people can ignore the LR CC installation and stick with Classic. I even deleted the shortcuts tuit.

I did figure out that Lightroom CC works in browser so you really don’t need the desktop app. I can see that as a benefit. Use your computer at home and then when you get to work you can open the same project and continue working without having to download anything to your work computer. I see the benefit with that. If photoshop worked the same way and they added back essential features like out of gamut warnings(like really?) then I could potentially become a convert.

 

[kilomikebravo]

Brett: Glad you're happy with what you've learned but I suspect the mobile world will always lag behind the desktop. Mobile platforms will get more powerful, no doubt about that but, having Photoshop or Premiere editing capabilities on an iPad will be further hampered by the next higher video resolution and color depth so I wouldn't hold my breath for that. That said, I certainly see the benefit with collaborating or being able to access your projects remotely in the new LR, I just have no need for it.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

I feel like we are saying the same thing. This isn’t important anyway. But I dont think I was disparaging anyone. Whatever works for you is the best solution.

Sorry for the long-winded post. I agree with last part, right on.

I just stand up against the anti-Lightroom sentiments in a room full of new users who will be asking things like "what' the difference" and "what's the best one for me". Saying something akin to "you can do it all in PS, really — no need for LR" is neither helpful nor (IMO) accurate. If that's not what you were saying, then I apologize.

The best answer I've seen to those new user questions is to use "both". And of course, some people will end up mostly only using one.

Chris

 

[kilomikebravo]

no need for LR" is neither helpful nor (IMO) accurate.

Brett: I didn't mean "don't use Lightroom." What I was trying to say is that *I* don't use the new, lighter version, only Classic and even that, not nearly as often as Photoshop and its plugins. As someone who is seriously obsessive, I have never liked the way LR catalogs files because only LR can use that catalog. So, I still organize with folders. That said..

I commend you for thinking about the newbies who stop by and will undoubtedly have the type questions you talked about. Mobile is SO prevalent these days that I agree with you in that more people will be looking for a simpler solution AND one that will work on their mobile devices. I say, "Rock 'n Roll" and meanwhile, I'll stick with my Windoze confuser.

Whatever floats your bote, I say.

 

[Hegemone]

Lightroom is non-destructive editing/developing of photos and good organizing, cataloging. You never have to worry about clicking save rather then save as. All the edits are maintained in a database rather than altering the original image file. At some point, you export the photo which creates a whole new image. This means you dont have to save a backup copy of a large raw, create a large version for editing or screw up the perfect edited file because you accidentally save over it with a newer version without changing the file name. Not to mention you dont end up with a file folder full of jpgs labeled something akin to cyahogafalls_final_last_reallyfinal_v2finaleit_forsubmission_reviewedwithnewedits_final.jpg

For someone new to Lightroom. the Lightroom plus 1TB cloud for 9.99/mo is a pretty sweet deal as the catalog never has to touch your computer. I run a Surface Pro 6 and running Lightroom CC on my desktop, phone, or any other computer without ever having to move my files from place to place or take up much room locally on my machines is HUGE. If I hadn't already developed an unhealthy relationship with Lightroom Classic I would have switched over to this a long while ago.

Non-Destructive editing is a powerful concept to remember because it allows ongoing tinkering and tweaking without having to same so many iterations of a file or having to open a bunch of different versions in photoshop. Lightroom is much more like working in a dark room. The negative (raw file) never changes and you always have it in your binder ready to print. Photoshop is much more appropriate for altering photos, compositing images and for doing destructive edits. Lightrooms catalog is frankly an amazing place to hang out and discover new stuff in your archive of images.

Just my two cents. Toss them in a well and make a wish.

 

[kilomikebravo]

Hegemone: That is all well and good and I'm very happy that you like it. HOWEVER, what will you do if your LR catalog becomes corrupted? Personally, I'd rather not have all my eggs in one basket.

 

[Hegemone]

My post was mostly about the distinction of Lightroom v/s Photoshop as a point of clarification. The way I personally use it was supplemental. The concept of non-destructive editing is pretty significant.

As for your reply, I have zero concerns regarding what you describe. I make a weekly backup of the catalog (takes 2 minutes) and save it locally and in the cloud. But let's just say the sky fell and Lightroom was suddenly wiped from the earth; at absolute worst I would lose the temporary edits that I didn't export out for publication (which I do if I feel really good about the image). Anything I have exported is still there as are all the originals in the same nicely organized file folders (which in my case exist in two locations, one onsite and one off) The catalog is simply a supplement to the original files so the catastrophic loss of the catalog has minimal impact on the archive. I also don't have to worry about protecting a large psd file alongside the raw file and risk looking at all the information that is trapped inside the .psd. Also, I don't have to keep a ton of bulky .psd files hanging around to keep hold of tentative edits. So there are benefits to using Lightroom over photoshop for editing photo editing and keeping photoshop for manipulation and those types of tasks.

I would be much more concerned for folks that keep all their files locally, even on a nifty raid NAS. Poke around the internet there are very few mentions of the type of issue you are talking about. Even a corrupted catalog typically will only lose a few edits and doesn't ever ruin the original files. There is a reason Adobe has been the industry standard in all aspect of media editing for a very long time. We may not like the price, the plans, the changes they make along the way but the results and quality of their products speak for themselves. Other folks might get more press or have better evangelists but at the end of the day, Adobe has made themselves indispensable to a very large number of people, companies, and industries.

Again just my opinions, based on my experiences. For me it's not a point of pride or ego, I would jump off the Adobe ship if I ever found something as so well rounded, so well developed, and so well supported, and so well documented for the same price. Which I have done from time to time just to make sure I wasn't being a fanboy. My last exploration was into Skylum Luminar side by side with Lightroom. For my setup, the performance was night and day. I won't get into details but I didn't go much farther with them.

Hope that helps expand on where I am coming from, and my personal preferences.

edited for grammar and clarity.

 

[PedroV07]

I tend to use Airmagic through Skylum and then throw it in Lightroom CC to edit it some more. I did use Luminar 3.1 temporarily but the slowness of the program was unbearable to deal with. I find Lightroom to be perfect for use and it has the tools needed to really get your post production picture to where you want it.

 

[OFAP]

as an IT person (UX/UI design) i came into this field with, literally, decades of adobe experience...photoshop/lightroom for stills, premiere pro/aftereffects for video.

lightroom classic is an excellent starting point...full featured and a not-so-steep learning curve. don't waste your time with bridge; it's purely an organizational app, and limited (compared to LR) at that.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

HOWEVER, what will you do if your LR catalog becomes corrupted? Personally, I'd rather not have all my eggs in one basket.

Aside from the automatic Lightoom periodic backup -- and it keeps more than one old copy -- I back up my entire collection (catalog, images, etc.) backed up in triplicate. Everyone should have a normal drive backup that is outside of the LR catalog-only backup.

And of course, the catalog is just a database (catalog-only -- the images are not in there) -- these days databases have very robust failure and recovery protection.

It just isn't a concern.

Chris

 

[kilomikebravo]

NASOC: I'm way obsessive so I have backups and yes, that would help with a corrupted file. I just don't like the way cataloging is implemented, that's all.

 

[Hegemone]

Makes sense. It took me a bit to really figure out how to get it set perfectly for my tastes. Several tries at cemening my own folder strategy and tagging schema. Frankly I think Linux has some options that are just as good for that. Linux has always elimanted a lot of the fluff I have struggled with on Windows apps.

 

[ruplaw]

Final Cut Pro any good for video work.........?

 

[brett8883]

Final Cut Pro any good for video work.........?

I like it. I think it’s more intuitive then Premier Pro and runs smoother. The use of proxies is much easier and exporting options are much clearer. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve rendered out in Premier Pro only to realize that I chose the wrong codec presets. Premier Pro literally has hundreds of codec options (Adobe Media Encoder) where Final Cut Pro is just like, “do you want to export in ProRes, a codec for YouTube, for computer, or mobile device?” You can add more if there’s something you really need but it’s a lot cleaner and easier. It’s faster too on a Mac.