LarryBeemer wrote:
I bought Photoshop 4 when it first came out in 1997 and I have since traversed up through every subsequent version. I learned how to use it by reading, visiting AOL forums (remember those?), asking questions, and massive amounts of trial and error....lot's of error. I still don't know all that much about how to take advantage of all the things it can do. I just barely get by. I use Adobe Camera Raw to process and color correct my raw files and then do final minor adjustments in Photoshop. Were I still "in the biz" I might try harder to make it do more things for me but at this stage of the game for me, I just don't see the point.
Until reading some comments in this thread I thought ACR was some sort of "plug in" borrowed from Lightroom that is available in Photoshop. No? Do I only need to rent Photoshop and forget about Lightroom?
I absolutely can not for the life of me wrap my head around the user interface of Lightroom. The most aggravating part for me is that it demands I create a catalog when all I want to do is open a file. One file! But nooooooooo.
TLDR.....Give me Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw and I could care less about Lightroom.
If "I absolutely can not for the life of me wrap my head around the user interface of Lightroom. The most aggravating part for me is that it demands I create a catalog when all I want to do is open a file" - then DxO Photolab 9 works this way. PL9 works like a File Explorer/Finder. There's no subscription either. Another option is Capture One that allows to choose between using a catalog (like LR) or "sessions." A session works directly with image files in an existing (not virtual) folder.
Both PL9 and C1 are powerful processing programs/applications. I use both extensively, for different reasons.
chez wrote:
There’s also the large collection of images you already have edited using LR which you would not be able to further edit if you abandon LR. I quite often go back and red edit or update some images.
Chez,
Couldn't you just export any image as a .dng or a .tiff and continue to edit it in another program?
ruthenium wrote:
If "I absolutely can not for the life of me wrap my head around the user interface of Lightroom. The most aggravating part for me is that it demands I create a catalog when all I want to do is open a file" - then DxO Photolab 9 works this way. PL9 works like a File Explorer/Finder. There's no subscription either. Another option is Capture One that allows to choose between using a catalog (like LR) or "sessions." A session works directly with image files in an existing (not virtual) folder.
Both PL9 and C1 are powerful processing programs/applications. I use both extensively, for different reasons. ...Show more →
LR is a non-destructive editor. It never "opens" a file. Unlike PS which does pixel level changes. LR doesn't alter your image files. It needs a catalog (i.e. database) to store whatever actions you take so it can render the preview correctly.
Most DAM style apps work this way. The upside is that LR doesn't need to lock files as aggressively as a pixel editor like PS does. That's why LR has the option to "edit in..." other apps like PS. There's no file contention.
jeffbuzz wrote:
LR is a non-destructive editor. It never "opens" a file. Unlike PS which does pixel level changes. LR doesn't alter your image files. It needs a catalog (i.e. database) to store whatever actions you take so it can render the preview correctly.
Most DAM style apps work this way. The upside is that LR doesn't need to lock files as aggressively as a pixel editor like PS does. That's why LR has the option to "edit in..." other apps like PS. There's no file contention.
ACR is non-destructive to the raw file as well. PS is non-destructive to whatever underlying file you work on assuming you work with layers. My issues with LR are same as Dan -- Adobe keeps altering the UI and associated menu structures and then the requirement for cataloging. I prefer loading my raws into a well-named filing system, folders named by shoots inside a given year they were taken, then I can easily go back and find anything I want and re-edit as needed. Both C1 and ACR allow this.
Jack Flesher wrote:
ACR is non-destructive to the raw file as well. PS is non-destructive to whatever underlying file you work on assuming you work with layers. My issues with LR are same as Dan -- Adobe keeps altering the UI and associated menu structures and then the requirement for cataloging. I prefer loading my raws into a well-named filing system, folders named by shoots inside a given year they were taken, then I can easily go back and find anything I want and re-edit as needed. Both C1 and ACR allow this.
LR does not enforce any kind of file structure…it just uses whatever directories you decide to import. Once imported then you can tag or rate the images.
Right now I am making a photo book from my travels to Mexico. I have roughly 5000 images that I took over the years and this is where LR really shines. I am going through the images and ranking them for the book. I’ll do another pass of just the images that made the first cut until I weed images down to what I want in the book. Very easy to rag and manage these images. Once I have the images I want, I can create a collection of just these images and begin my work creating the book.
The file structure for these images has not changed…nothing has moved…yet I can quickly just look at the images I want for the book that spans 10 years and 10 different directories.
Jack Flesher wrote:
ACR is non-destructive to the raw file as well. PS is non-destructive to whatever underlying file you work on assuming you work with layers. My issues with LR are same as Dan -- Adobe keeps altering the UI and associated menu structures and then the requirement for cataloging. I prefer loading my raws into a well-named filing system, folders named by shoots inside a given year they were taken, then I can easily go back and find anything I want and re-edit as needed. Both C1 and ACR allow this.
ACR converts the raw to PSD for editing. ACR sits in front of PS. ACR is integrated into LR. Yes, you can store ACR edits made from the PS "open" dialogue in metadata XMP. Those ACR edits are reversible. But anything you do inside of PS after ACR has converted the image is pixel level, not stored in metadata and not reversible.
Unless of course you open your PS files in ACR as a Smart Object, then you can always go back and tweak those ACR settings at any point in the future.
jeffbuzz wrote:
ACR converts the raw to PSD for editing. ACR sits in front of PS. ACR is integrated into LR. Yes, you can store ACR edits made from the PS "open" dialogue in metadata XMP. Those ACR edits are reversible. But anything you do inside of PS after ACR has converted the image is pixel level, not stored in metadata and not reversible.
jeffbuzz wrote:
LR is a non-destructive editor. It never "opens" a file. Unlike PS which does pixel level changes. LR doesn't alter your image files. It needs a catalog (i.e. database) to store whatever actions you take so it can render the preview correctly.
Most DAM style apps work this way. The upside is that LR doesn't need to lock files as aggressively as a pixel editor like PS does. That's why LR has the option to "edit in..." other apps like PS. There's no file contention.
What you say about LR is true.
What you say about PS is less true.
PS can do pixel level changes that aren’t easily undoable. (Though if you use layers you can typically at least delete those and start over.) But htere are a whole lot of things that you can do that are very much undoable. Curves adjustments are one good example, as are things like sharpening settings applied to a smart layer.
And, of course, if you use smart layers you can go back and forth between PS and ACR and edit in ACR to your hearts content. PS actually keeps a unique copy of the ACR-edited file associated with the PS document… which means that you can go to ACR and open the RAW file directly and edit it… with no affect on the version that is in your smart layers in an other PS file.
This is really powerful, and makes using the ACR/PS smart layers connection well worth while.
With all the new tools and improvements in LR Classic I am finding that I use Photoshop less and less. Currently I find making selections in Photoshop is better so if I do a selection in LR and not happy with it I go to Photoshop. My feeling is LR is becoming the pure photographers tool set while Photoshop is more for the Photographic artists.
rjn_design wrote:
With all the new tools and improvements in LR Classic I am finding that I use Photoshop less and less. Currently I find making selections in Photoshop is better so if I do a selection in LR and not happy with it I go to Photoshop. My feeling is LR is becoming the pure photographers tool set while Photoshop is more for the Photographic artists.
What is the difference between “pur photographers” and “photographic artists?”
Are “pure photographers” not “artists?” Are “photographic artists” not “pure?”
It has already been pointed out that LR and PS both utilize the same ACR raw processing engine. If the Abode Camera Raw engine does not work well, then neither LR or PS are ideal. That is exactly what I found about 4 years ago.
When I got my Canon 90D, I did a lot of studies including resolution, high ISO performance, noise reduction, jpeg engine performance, diffraction, etc. For whatever reason, I also compared raw processing between ACR and Canon's DPP4 software. The results were unexpected and disturbing. ACR was very clearly second rate regarding color processing and even more surprising resolution was lost when compared to DPP4.
I have my own system for file management and archiving so I had no use for Adobe's systems. I started processing raws entirely with DPP4. After making color and other adjustments and opening, I saved as Tif files for any additional processing that might be needed using Abode or other software.
I have been told that ACR was updated and improved, but I have not bothered to do additional studies and I have moved to mirrorless and am no longer using the 90D.
gdanmitchell wrote:
What you say about LR is true.
What you say about PS is less true.
PS can do pixel level changes that aren’t easily undoable. (Though if you use layers you can typically at least delete those and start over.) But htere are a whole lot of things that you can do that are very much undoable. Curves adjustments are one good example, as are things like sharpening settings applied to a smart layer.
And, of course, if you use smart layers you can go back and forth between PS and ACR and edit in ACR to your hearts content. PS actually keeps a unique copy of the ACR-edited file associated with the PS document… which means that you can go to ACR and open the RAW file directly and edit it… with no affect on the version that is in your smart layers in an other PS file.
This is really powerful, and makes using the ACR/PS smart layers connection well worth while....Show more →
PS layers only work on bitmap pixel data. Even if you remove all you layers, the underlying PSD image is still a bitmap pixel level conversion from the raw data. Once you open a file from ACR into PS, you cannot go back. You can start over with a new conversion, but you cannot revert to the raw data. ACR --> PS is a one way street.
jeffbuzz wrote:
PS layers only work on bitmap pixel data. Even if you remove all you layers, the underlying PSD image is still a bitmap pixel level conversion from the raw data. Once you open a file from ACR into PS, you cannot go back. You can start over with a new conversion, but you cannot revert to the raw data. ACR --> PS is a one way street.
Yeah but. What you can do in PS is save that layer stack and apply to a differently converted version of the same raw if that's your jam...
I never really got into LR. Didn't like the DAM, and didn't like the slow sliders. That's probably changed now, but I got into the habit of using Bridge and ACR. ACR was and still is fast and I am much more comfortable with that approach. With all the recent advancements in LR/ACR, I have seen a shift in my work to ACR. I guess I am about 80/90% ACR now with some remaining layers in PS - usually no more than 4 or 5 layers now as compared to many many layers in PS in earlier years. I still like the cloning, clean up tools in PS more, I do focus stacks and Panos in PS (yeah, I know I can do panos in LR, but I generally prefer the PS output more). Generally do some very slight contrast work, mostly using TKA and levels. That's usually it. Each image is different tho.
Camperjim wrote:
It has already been pointed out that LR and PS both utilize the same ACR raw processing engine. If the Abode Camera Raw engine does not work well, then neither LR or PS are ideal. That is exactly what I found about 4 years ago.
When I got my Canon 90D, I did a lot of studies including resolution, high ISO performance, noise reduction, jpeg engine performance, diffraction, etc. For whatever reason, I also compared raw processing between ACR and Canon's DPP4 software. The results were unexpected and disturbing. ACR was very clearly second rate regarding color processing and even more surprising resolution was lost when compared to DPP4.
I have my own system for file management and archiving so I had no use for Adobe's systems. I started processing raws entirely with DPP4. After making color and other adjustments and opening, I saved as Tif files for any additional processing that might be needed using Abode or other software.
I have been told that ACR was updated and improved, but I have not bothered to do additional studies and I have moved to mirrorless and am no longer using the 90D. ...Show more →
Hey Jim ... it's been a minute.
I recall our former discussions about DPP4 vs. ACR. That was around the time I picked up C1 ... and then an ACR iteration shortly after that is when I noticed that ACR seemed improved. Maybe not quite to the DPP4 / C1 levels (as mentioned above regarding relevance to C1), but a significant gain (imo) still from the era that we were formerly discussing it. If you recall our discussions, I advocated (still would) that an OEM software (DPP4) mated to an OEM camera algorithm, "should" be optimized better than ACR / 3rd party. I'm not on Canon anymore, so it's a non-issue for me, as well.
That's not to suggest I think ACR is top dog for everything, but ... it's definitely got a bigger bark than it used to (again, imo).
I thought I remembered hearing that ACR was improved so perhaps this is not an issue anymore. In any case I am fairly happy with DPP4. It is a bit slow, but while it is spending 30 seconds to open a raw, I let it work in the background and make adjustments for the next image.
Another positive factor is the diffraction correction algorithm. It makes no sense to me how it works but it seems to pull details out that were lost due to diffraction. I have no idea if the current ACR has a similar processing capability. High res sensors cost a lot and have some downsides, so I appreciate getting the most resolution out of the sensor I have.
In addition to the above, I have a couple of other querks that probably interest almost no other modern photographers. I really want simple software needed for minimal processing. I compose almost entirely in camera and most of my images have little more than old darkroom level processing; i.e., exposure, dodge/burn, hue, saturation, contrast and sharpening. The vast majority of times my processed raw files look very similar to OOC jpegs. I should probably just avoid all similar discussions since my pp interests are so minimal.
C1 allows you to do local edits on layers. It also has a lot of very powerful editing tools. Unfortunately it's still rather 'pro' centric and nowhere near as well documented as it could be. Could it replace photoshop for me? If I spent enough time to learn it better, only been using it daily in the studio for 10 years That and if they significantly improved the stitching engine and revamped the scripting which is so old and out of date that most of it no longer works any more.
jeffbuzz wrote:
PS layers only work on bitmap pixel data. Even if you remove all you layers, the underlying PSD image is still a bitmap pixel level conversion from the raw data. Once you open a file from ACR into PS, you cannot go back. You can start over with a new conversion, but you cannot revert to the raw data. ACR --> PS is a one way street.
No, it most certainly is not “a one-way street.” On this point you are dead wrong.
That’s why you have the open as smart object option in ACR when you convert the raw file and open it in Phhotoshop.
Also, adjustment layers in PS can be re-edited at any time: curves, color adjustments, and more.
By linking the RAW file in ACR to PS as a smart object you can do almost ALL editing non-destructively. (There are a few exceptions, but in most cases you probably don’t have to use them.) And because of the relatively new and quite sophisticated masking features (and others) in ACR, this power is even greater now than it used to be.
That and if they significantly improved the stitching engine and revamped the scripting which is so old and out of date that most of it no longer works any more.