Lightroom Classic vs Lightroom CC

[JoelKlein]

Again, I do not use PS, so my workflow revolves around LRC. But I guess the question I would ask you is do you want to base your work in LRC or PS? If the former, then I would do as much as possible in LRC and then send the image to PS for final adjustments. I cannot imagine a workflow that starts in PS and then ends up in LRC, given the difference it how files are edited, but it is possible that there is a workflow that might make sense to someone. Perhaps you can elaborate on what you want to do in PS rather than LRC? This might guide folks to a more tailored response.

--Ken

Sure!
As of now our workflow is Bridge and ACR.
Last week we added in LRC for its ability to batch export edited RAW and PSD files to sRGB and 1998 in 2 folders with one click.

When do we use PS?
On a newborn baby that has pimples, rashes, etc. PS healing, content aware is essential.
When all is good and done, we look at the picture and decide, Hmmm, the face can use a little more color, or any other adjustments that we would normally do in ACR. So good Adobe includes a PS filter called Camera RAW which gives us the ACR sliders,
Or, if it needs Topaz sharpening on a mask or second layer to brush only the eye lashes, etc. then we save it as a PSD. but obviously its not working on a RAW file anymore.

So, I’m at the point of trying to learn how to do this properly.

 

[SandyW]

It really corresponds with how many layers and adjustments you have done within Photoshop. I’ve had some massive landscape files with numerous layers. You can also flatten the image before exporting it to decrease the size. Then after you reach a certain threshold, it goes to a PSB file which is the largest file you can export from Photoshop.

Interesting. I've run into PSB on occasion, but like you say it is a massive landscape. I will experiment with tiff next time that happens.

 

[sh1209]

Interesting. I've run into PSB on occasion, but like you say it is a massive landscape. I will experiment with tiff next time that happens.

It’s also interesting when you change one to a DNG like whenever you run a file through DXO they double in size.

 

[sh1209]

Interesting. I've run into PSB on occasion, but like you say it is a massive landscape. I will experiment with tiff next time that happens.

One other thing I would like to add to that is I never shoot any kind of compressed raw. I always use the largest files I can, especially with macro photography because I think the dine details are noticeable when you compare the two.

 

[JoelKlein]

A moderated could merge the 2 threads we discussed the same subject matter together.

 

[NorthernFocus]

When do we use PS?
On a newborn baby that has pimples, rashes, etc. PS healing, content aware is essential.
When all is good and done, we look at the picture and decide, Hmmm, the face can use a little more color, or any other adjustments that we would normally do in ACR. So good Adobe includes a PS filter called Camera RAW which gives us the ACR sliders,
Or, if it needs Topaz sharpening on a mask or second layer to brush only the eye lashes, etc. then we save it as a PSD. but obviously its not working on a RAW file anymore.

So, I’m at the point of trying to learn how to do this properly.

Everything you described above can be done in LCR. No muss, no fuss.

 

[JoelKlein]

Everything you described above can be done in LCR. No muss, no fuss.

Photoshop J tool does a much better job.

 

[sh1209]

Everything you described above can be done in LCR. No muss, no fuss.

I totally agree, and with the addition of masking and lots of other features they’ve added in the last couple years,, I have significantly cut down on how many images I even sent a photo shop anymore.

 

[NorthernFocus]

It’s also interesting when you change one to a DNG like whenever you run a file through DXO they double in size.

A DNG file is basically a TIFF file with sidecar data. And a PSD is like layers of TIFFs. If you convert a RAW file into all three formats typically the size will get larger from RAW>TIFF>DNG>PSD.

 

[sh1209]

A DNG file is basically a TIFF file with sidecar data. And a PSD is like layers of TIFFs. If you convert a RAW file into all three formats typically the size will get larger from RAW>TIFF>DNG>PSD.

The main difference is a DNG doesn’t attach a color profile and the tiff does

 

[sh1209]

Photoshop J tool does a much better job.

You’re right there for certain because corrections just aren’t on the same level in Lightroom as they are in Photoshop. I think they will eventually get them better.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I totally agree, and with the addition of masking and lots of other features they’ve added in the last couple years,, I have significantly cut down on how many images I even sent a photo shop anymore.

I have never used PS at all. I used to use another pixel editor but haven't even opened it in a couple of years since the improvements/additions to LRC. The only reason I can think of to use a pixel editor at all now would be to create composite images or adding "canvas" to an image.

 

[SandyW]

It’s also interesting when you change one to a DNG like whenever you run a file through DXO they double in size.

Sure does. So does LR enhance etc options. I usually don't keep the DXO DNG once it gets sent to PS.
I'm also using PS less than I used to, but when I use it I need it.
There is no one right way!
Very deep rabbit hole!

 

[BarkingBeans Coffee]

I have never used PS at all. I used to use another pixel editor but haven't even opened it in a couple of years since the improvements/additions to LRC. The only reason I can think of to use a pixel editor at all now would be to create composite images or adding "canvas" to an image.

Depending on your attitude about changing the scene the new Depth Blur Neural Filter may be useful for wildlife. There are other ones for various applications.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Depending on your attitude about changing the scene the new Depth Blur Neural Filter may be useful for wildlife. There are other ones for various applications.

Hmmm. For those of us who can't afford a 400 2.8?

But no. Not enough incentive to suffer through the learning curve. Just opening PS makes my head hurt. I'll rely on the real thing. My feeling of satisfaction still comes through the lens rather than the computer screen. For now....

 

[sh1209]

Sure does. So does LR enhance etc options. I usually don't keep the DXO DNG once it gets sent to PS.
I'm also using PS less than I used to, but when I use it I need it.
There is no one right way!
Very deep rabbit hole!

Usually once I have the DNG back from the DXO I’ll either finish it off in Lightroom or take it to photoshop then obviously it will come back as a tiff and usually smaller. I think DXO is the best noise reduction software out there but that’s just my opinion.

 

[sh1209]

I have never used PS at all. I used to use another pixel editor but haven't even opened it in a couple of years since the improvements/additions to LRC. The only reason I can think of to use a pixel editor at all now would be to create composite images or adding "canvas" to an image.

I use it a lot for removing distractions and use luminosity masking quite a lot in photoshop.

 

[Replytoken]

I know, that was the theoretical part since Adobe only offers 8 and 16 Tiffs. So the Tiff we get out of Adobe is actually 14 for 14 sensors?

I think the TIFF that Adobe creates is either 8-bit (i.e. 24-bit) or 16-bit (i.e. 48-bit). @bleirer touched a bit upon this in his post above yours. Not sure if that answered your question or not.

--Ken

 

[Replytoken]

Sure!
As of now our workflow is Bridge and ACR.
Last week we added in LRC for its ability to batch export edited RAW and PSD files to sRGB and 1998 in 2 folders with one click.

When do we use PS?
On a newborn baby that has pimples, rashes, etc. PS healing, content aware is essential.
When all is good and done, we look at the picture and decide, Hmmm, the face can use a little more color, or any other adjustments that we would normally do in ACR. So good Adobe includes a PS filter called Camera RAW which gives us the ACR sliders,
Or, if it needs Topaz sharpening on a mask or second layer to brush only the eye lashes, etc. then we save it as a PSD. but obviously its not working on a RAW file anymore.

So, I’m at the point of trying to learn how to do this properly.

Pretty much everything that you are doing I would normally do in LRC. I cannot say that LRC is better, the same or worse in results since I do not use PS, but I have been happy with the results. But if you want to keep a PS workflow, then others may have to advise as to preferred orders of processing. Thom Hogan posted this article this morning and I thought of you and this thread when I read it: https://bythom.com/newsviews/the-when-of-processing.html . Processing has become a bit more complicated as tools and technology have improved of late.

--Ken

 

[Nimi]

I think the TIFF that Adobe creates is either 8-bit (i.e. 24-bit) or 16-bit (i.e. 48-bit). @bleirer touched a bit upon this in his post above yours. Not sure if that answered your question or not.

--Ken

Right. So a 16 bit tiff generated from a 14 bit sensor has how many bits? That's my (theoretical) question.

 

[Replytoken]

Right. So a 16 bit tiff generated from a 14 bit sensor has how many bits? That's my (theoretical) question.

I am going to defer to Bill @bleirer for a second opinion, but since you are converting a raw file into a TIFF, I would say that the data is now 16-bit RGB (i.e. 48-bit). The camera creates a raw file which is not really a file format that we can read without a raw converter.

--Ken

 

[Nimi]

I am going to defer to Bill @bleirer for a second opinion, but since you are converting a raw file into a TIFF, I would say that the data is now 16-bit RGB (i.e. 48-bit). The camera creates a raw file which is not really a file format that we can read without a raw converter.

--Ken

Thats two orders of magnitude of color depth which didn't exist, so my guess is the color TIFF is 14.

 

[bleirer]

Koo

Right. So a 16 bit tiff generated from a 14 bit sensor has how many bits? That's my (theoretical) question.

It's still going to be 16 bit, but per channel. So really its 48 bits since there are 16 bit for red, green, and blue. Where the camera but depth doesn't have channels since it is monochrome. The camera bit depth I think just affects the dynamic range of the raw file, where in Photoshop you might do edits that use more.

 

[JoelKlein]

We did photoshop work on a baby.
Opened as a smart object, but added new rester layers on top. Basically the RAW layer was at the bottom and not even visible.
It was saved as a PSD.

When exporting it from LRC, it retained all Exif Data.

 

[Milos]

I did not like that you have to bring pictures into the Lightroom so I started using Bridge. I do most of my editing right there in Camera Raw. If more serious processing needed I do it in Photoshop.