The Case for LR over Classic?

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

I think I disagree or perhaps misunderstand. When a raw file is opened in acr and then opened in photoshop it is a tiff or a psd (unless opened as an object) with the acr changes baked in. That tiff or psd is no longer a raw file but is now rasterized/pixel based. The conversion is lossless for sure. Using the canera raw filter is now fighting against the baked in changes

Perhaps I dont explain properly. Or perhaps I don't understand what you mean - or perhaps we think the same thing.
Your raw file will always be just that - as shot.
Any changes you do in LR or ACR is separate and can be deleted.
If you do an edit in ACR for instance - eg crop - and then open the file directly from ACR in Photoshop (not as an object) you still have a Raw file (or a file that is nothing yet?) , until you save it out as something else (jpeg/psd)
but my point is - once you crop in ACR - and then take the file into PS - and continuing editing - you are now 6 layers later - and decide the crop is not what you wanted. You are stuck - you have to go back to your original Raw file. Open it again in ACR and un-do the crop before you can again apply the rest of your edits. Thats what I mean you have fixed a change in place (the crop) and you can not undo it unless you go back to scratch.

That's how I have it. If you opened it as an Object - then you can go back into ACR. How it would affect the rest of your images adjustments, would depend on what steps you did after opening the object in PS.

I am open to correction of course.

 

[Anjin San]

If he wants to continue with LRc, H needs to get his house on order to do this. I find this is the part they hate the most - that house cleaning.
My choice would be - dump LR and work through Bridge, ACR and PS. But my job is to give my students information, and they have to make the call.

See…that’s where I think you’re making an unnecessary distinction. Whether he uses LR or LrC…the house needs to be in order and the use…or not…of a catalog doesn’t have anything to do with that. The whole discussion/debate about the two different approaches…makes about as much overall sense to me as the debate between User Modes and Banks (for Nikon bodies and whatever the equivalent is for other brands). There’s nothing wrong with either approach…and both have pros and cons…but like file organizing systems…as long as the user picks one and understands and lives with both the pros and cons of that choice…either is just fine.

 

[bleirer]

Perhaps I dont explain properly. Or perhaps I don't understand what you mean - or perhaps we think the same thing.
Your raw file will always be just that - as shot.
Any changes you do in LR or ACR is separate and can be deleted.
If you do an edit in ACR for instance - eg crop - and then open the file directly from ACR in Photoshop (not as an object) you still have a Raw file (or a file that is nothing yet?) , until you save it out as something else (jpeg/psd)
but my point is - once you crop in ACR - and then take the file into PS - and continuing editing - you are now 6 layers later - and decide the crop is not what you wanted. You are stuck - you have to go back to your original Raw file. Open it again in ACR and un-do the crop before you can again apply the rest of your edits. Thats what I mean you have fixed a change in place (the crop) and you can not undo it unless you go back to scratch.

That's how I have it. If you opened it as an Object - then you can go back into ACR. How it would affect the rest of your images adjustments, would depend on what steps you did after opening the object in PS.

I am open to correction of course.

I think I see what is happening. We might be using the word Photoshop differently. Photoshop can't open raw files. It is strictly a pixel editor for files that have already been converted to RGB files. But if one tries to open a raw file in Photoshop it will automatically launch a separate program, ACR, which is a raw converter that creates a file type Photoshop can use (as you know of course). I think I was thinking strictly of Photoshop which can open many file types but not raw files, where you must be thinking of the ACR/Photoshop combo. It's understandable since the two separate programs do work seamlessly together.

Same idea with lightroom classic. Lightroom classic writes out a tiff or psd which is an rgb file Photoshop can read, same as ACR. ACR can read Lightroom edits, and I believe vice versa if in a sidecar.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

I think I see what is happening. We might be using the word Photoshop differently. Photoshop can't open raw files. It is strictly a pixel editor for files that have already been converted to RGB files. But if one tries to open a raw file in Photoshop it will automatically launch a separate program, ACR, which is a raw converter that creates a file type Photoshop can use (as you know of course). I think I was thinking strictly of Photoshop which can open many file types but not raw files, where you must be thinking of the ACR/Photoshop combo. It's understandable since the two separate programs do work seamlessly together.

Same idea with lightroom classic. Lightroom classic writes out a tiff or psd which is an rgb file Photoshop can read, same as ACR. ACR can read Lightroom edits, and I believe vice versa if in a sidecar.

Let's blame it on me being a Nuclear Blond

 

[Replytoken]

Let's blame it on me being a Nuclear Blond

Well, we don't know that Bill is not a blonde as well!

--Ken

 

[NorthernFocus]

Perhaps I dont explain properly. Or perhaps I don't understand what you mean - or perhaps we think the same thing.
Your raw file will always be just that - as shot.
Any changes you do in LR or ACR is separate and can be deleted.
If you do an edit in ACR for instance - eg crop - and then open the file directly from ACR in Photoshop (not as an object) you still have a Raw file (or a file that is nothing yet?) , until you save it out as something else (jpeg/psd)
but my point is - once you crop in ACR - and then take the file into PS - and continuing editing - you are now 6 layers later - and decide the crop is not what you wanted. You are stuck - you have to go back to your original Raw file. Open it again in ACR and un-do the crop before you can again apply the rest of your edits. Thats what I mean you have fixed a change in place (the crop) and you can not undo it unless you go back to scratch.

That's how I have it. If you opened it as an Object - then you can go back into ACR. How it would affect the rest of your images adjustments, would depend on what steps you did after opening the object in PS.

I am open to correction of course.

I think I see what is happening. We might be using the word Photoshop differently. Photoshop can't open raw files. It is strictly a pixel editor for files that have already been converted to RGB files. But if one tries to open a raw file in Photoshop it will automatically launch a separate program, ACR, which is a raw converter that creates a file type Photoshop can use (as you know of course). I think I was thinking strictly of Photoshop which can open many file types but not raw files, where you must be thinking of the ACR/Photoshop combo. It's understandable since the two separate programs do work seamlessly together.

Same idea with lightroom classic. Lightroom classic writes out a tiff or psd which is an rgb file Photoshop can read, same as ACR. ACR can read Lightroom edits, and I believe vice versa if in a sidecar.

I think this discussion(including a few additional posts above) explain why Elsa's clients are afraid of PS. You think LRC catalogs are hard to understand. Try explaining this to the average non-tecky

Uuuum. OK, I opened PS. Then I opened a NEF file and spent two hours editing it with excruciating detail to remove tiny branches around my little brown birdie. Then I saved it. But when I go back in PS and open the NEF file again non of my changes are there! What gives??? Where is all of my hard work? What do you mean I need a DAM strategy? Why am I paying for the DAM software?

 

[PhotoLover]

As a former IT guy…I’m not sure that a corrupted catalog is inherently better or worse than a corrupted directory that loses your images…but I can see your point. If a person has no file management system…then at least to me the use or lack of a catalog doesn’t make much difference. And a file management system also works if you do it properly…which still seems to me that catalogs get a lot of unnecessary hate. But OTOH…we continually see…irrespective of party…that our President gets plenty of credit when the economy is good and all the blame when it is bad…despite the fact that he has relatively little actual impact on the economy…and I’ve nerves understood that either so I just accept that neither of those issues makes sense and that’s just the way it is.

And if one gets rid of the catalog and goes to the file browser interface of LR…but doesn’t have or understand file system organization…then it still doesn’t make sense to the user. I understand the pros and cons of both catalog…and not…and file organization…and not…really I do, and the hate on catalogs still makes no sense. Oh well…add it to the list I guess.

I don't understand the dislike of the catalog either, but being a software guy, databases (and various layers of abstractions) work for me.

There is what I call "inherent complexity" in organizing a bunch of photos. You can be simple; create a folder for each year, then a sub folder for each vacation/family gathering in that year and maybe that's all the "organization" you need, plus a file browser and something to look at the photos. A lot of people do that, and that's what we did a long time and many photos ago. But once your organizational needs get greater than that, well, managing things is going to get complicated and things like LR Classic collections, smart collections, file renaming, keywords, etc etc really help. But whether you use LR Classic or something else, there is complexity that has to be managed/dealt with when you have a lot of photos. Pick your poison.

(Note: one way of dealing with this, which I confess I have used in the past, is not to worry about it and be disorganized. But I rapidly grew tired of that when I got more serious about things).

 

[DRwyoming]

I am open to correction of course.

If you do an edit in ACR for instance - eg crop - and then open the file directly from ACR in Photoshop (not as an object) you still have a Raw file (or a file that is nothing yet?) , until you save it out as something else (jpeg/psd)

One small point which I think Bill was getting at.

Once you open a raw file via ACR the image you see in PS is no longer a raw file but it is being displayed in Photoshop's working format. Yes, it doesn't become a TIFF or JPEG or something else until you save it but in that working format it's no longer a raw file.

As I recall Adobe uses PSD for its internal working format but it's been a long time since I looked deeply into this.

Basically a raw file is just numeric lists of brightness data along with info on the camera resolution, Bayer matrix and EXIF data along with some extra stuff like embedded jpegs for viewing. It's not a raster graphic image in raw format and what you see on the screen when working in PS prior to saving the image isn't really a raw file but a demosaiced raw file in an intermediate wide gamut working format.

 

[Anjin San]

I don't understand the dislike of the catalog either, but being a software guy, databases (and various layers of abstractions) work for me.

There is what I call "inherent complexity" in organizing a bunch of photos. You can be simple; create a folder for each year, then a sub folder for each vacation/family gathering in that year and maybe that's all the "organization" you need, plus a file browser and something to look at the photos. A lot of people do that, and that's what we did a long time and many photos ago. But once your organizational needs get greater than that, well, managing things is going to get complicated and things like LR Classic collections, smart collections, file renaming, keywords, etc etc really help. But whether you use LR Classic or something else, there is complexity that has to be managed/dealt with when you have a lot of photos. Pick your poison.

(Note: one way of dealing with this, which I confess I have used in the past, is not to worry about it and be disorganized. But I rapidly grew tired of that when I got more serious about things).

Actually…if the feature set was there in LR…I could use the file manager interface as I’ve always organized my images anyway…folders by year then folders by location, then folders with 4 digit names (MMDD)…and then collections and keywords. But…too many missing features still…and I discovered playing around with LR yesterday that Open in Photoshop uses the beta of installed and not the released version.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

One small point which I think Bill was getting at.

Once you open a raw file via ACR the image you see in PS is no longer a raw file but it is being displayed in Photoshop's working format. Yes, it doesn't become a TIFF or JPEG or something else until you save it but in that working format it's no longer a raw file.

As I recall Adobe uses PSD for its internal working format but it's been a long time since I looked deeply into this.

Basically a raw file is just numeric lists of brightness data along with info on the camera resolution, Bayer matrix and EXIF data along with some extra stuff like embedded jpegs for viewing. It's not a raster graphic image in raw format and what you see on the screen when working in PS prior to saving the image isn't really a raw file but a demosaiced raw file in an intermediate wide gamut working format.

Correct - It's a bit like Schrodinger's cat - It's neither Raw nor .psd till you open the box

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Actually…if the feature set was there in LR…I could use the file manager interface as I’ve always organized my images anyway…folders by year then folders by location, then folders with 4 digit names (MMDD)…and then collections and keywords. But…too many missing features still…and I discovered playing around with LR yesterday that Open in Photoshop uses the beta of installed and not the released version.

The associations seem to favour Beta once it's installed, but it's not consistent - okey I am sure it actually knows what it is doing - I just havent cottoned on.

There is this on Adobe help: https://community.adobe.com/t5/ligh...shop-opens-in-beta-not-photoshop/m-p/14077586

And you can check your associations - or Perhaps someone has a better idea ?

I am not promising this will work, but check where to change associations: ( MAC )
Go to Bridge
Right click on a NEF file- and go to OPEN WITH
On the fly out menu, scroll down to associations
Then check in your full list of associations (and for Nikon files) and if you click on down arrow, you can see all options.
If anything changed to BETA, change it back
After I installed BETA - my photos as listed in FINDER, defaulted to opening in Beta as well. That you change differently - select the photo by highlighting it. then click (command + i ) and change association - set to default

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

 

[bleirer]

I tried to find the answer to how Lightroom and ACR render on the screen. What we see on the screen is definitely rendered from the raw, but not sure how. I read about a format called .raw that ACR can read but cannot write. So I suspect that is how both Lightroom and ACR render/demosaic. I know Lightroom does not give any choices for color space or bit depth until export, I think it uses Adobe RGB for library and prophoto for develop always 16 bit. But in lightroom you can softproof. ACR lets you set color space and bit depth.

 

[Replytoken]

FWIW, Victoria, aka "The LR Queen" put up a blog post today:

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/should-i-move-from-lightroom-classic-to-lightroom-local/

--Ken

 

[bleirer]

FWIW, Victoria, aka "The LR Queen" put up a blog post today:

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/should-i-move-from-lightroom-classic-to-lightroom-local/

--Ken

That's a good summary of the differences between classic and non classic. Not that I was changing but it sure cements why I'm not changing.

 

[Anjin San]

I’ll take a look at the associations…but it’s an academic exercise for me at this point…LR still has missing features I need and want to be a viable place to live. I do keep it on my iPhone and iPad so I can show people images in bars and such though.
Edited because autocorrect didn’t.

 

[Nimi]

FWIW, Victoria, aka "The LR Queen" put up a blog post today:

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/should-i-move-from-lightroom-classic-to-lightroom-local/

--Ken

Funny shade they threw at Matt K straight off

 

[Replytoken]

Funny shade they threw at Matt K straight off

Well, it did cause quite a panic for some based on the title he chose.

--Ken

 

[RecalcitrantRon]

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the robust conversation (that was what I was hoping for). So I used LR (not Classic) for my last 2 shoots and there are a couple of things I do not like enough that will keep me from switching (at least for now). First is thumbnail size. I use them, Classic's are much larger and better suited for my use, especially on my laptop. Second, I like the overlay of the shooting information in the upper left corner of the image when reviewing in the Classic Library. I often take multiple photos of the same subject with different settings and this is a convenient way for me to see the image differences and the settings together. LR does not seem to do this. Instead, I have to click on the right and a window slides out and then I have to click to close it which slows me down. Third, the main advantage to getting rid of the Catalog would be to put my photos on a NAS and then access them from anywhere on any device (yes I know there are workarounds for catalog placement but I do not care for any of them). I currently store my images and catalogs on a single 4TB external drive which gets backed up regularly. It is easy and fast enough to take it from my iMac upstairs and use on my MacBook Pro elsewhere and when traveling so I do not see the need to switch to the NAS at this time (plus I am saving $$$ for a move to mirrorless in 2024). Sooner or later, Adobe will force the issue, but at least for now, I am content to stay where I am.

 

[bleirer]

Glyn Dewis is covering this topic tomorrow in a livestream, I'm sure the recording will be up the next day.

Is LIGHTROOM the FUTURE WORKFLOW for PHOTOGRAPHERS???

Is Lightroom the future workflow for Photographers? What about Lightroom Classic? Lightroom (cloud) now has Local Storage but is this enough to make Photogra...

www.youtube.com

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

The Glyn Dewis Video conversation with Brian Matiasch was very good.

 

[Anjin San]

The Glyn Dewis Video conversation with Brian Matiasch was very good.

I watched as well…and with a couple of caveats it was very good. Brian (like Matt K) has drunk the kool-aid as they say and is all in with LR…and he’s trying to sell his course and dispel some of t(ex dumbing down questions and comments he sees. I get his points…and frankly have no real care either way about t(e catalog anyway…and he’s right that people already understand the file browser thing…but he and others keep harping on the evils of the catalog..and frankly I think that’s just a distraction for the most part. One comment from a viewer was that it was a different mindset and that’s right on. I do have issues with Brian’s comment about uploading only the ones you want to edit and deleting the rest…that seems dumb to me. For instance…say one is spending $20K to go to Serengeti with Steve in April like I am…and suppose one comes back with 20,000 frames..that’s a dollar a frame. While he’s probably right that 90% will never get processed…tossing out the out of focus or clearly bad shots might knock down to 15K images…and I’m fine with deleting the 5,000 bad ones…and suppose I cull and pick 1,000 to import into LR for processing everywhere…that’s 50 or 60 GB to import and upload so one is already into the need more cloud space cost. But his suggestion is to import that 1,000 and delete the other 14,000 of unprocessed images…and deleting 95% of the shots from a bucket list trip like that isn’t going to make economic sense for almost all users because you might want to come back to them 5 years from now. Putting them in local storage works…but then you lose all the benefits of backup and edit anywhere…but the user still needs to back them up himself in that case…because deleting them seems stupid to me beyond the bad ones. As they said…the interface looks more modern than LrC does and I like it albeit some things are in a different place but I could get used to that. If they add plugin support (and that will really only happen for macOS and Windows versions, not iOS or iPadOS or Android)…then I could see myself switching…and the whole catalogs are evil isn’t part of that thinking. If Adobe was a bit more agreessive about additional storage size options and prices…and if they add in some of the missing features it becomes a lot more attractive option. But as Brian said…LR is as a business decision aimed at the fastest growing user segment…the smartphone shooter, and not really at the pros or people like us who have traditional cameras. I don’t think there will ever be feature parity…but layers in PS, Smart collections/collection sets, and plugins would close a majority of the lost features for most people…there are workarounds for the plugin issue but there shouldn’t have to be because if you can open in PS (which actually opens the beta if you have it installed instead of the release version: then layers and Topaz or DxO or whatever just needs the preference pane to set up those plugins and potentially some updating of the plugins to match any new architecture required. Long term though…its like the Borg, we will be assimilated I think but not until feature near parity is reached.

 

[BarkingBeans Coffee]

Haven't followed this thread but has Adobe Portfolio been mentioned. I am thinking of focusing on this soon where I take my images I like and put them in the Cloud portion and they they can be synced to a Portfolio website as I understand it. All part of your Photography Plan.

 

[Anjin San]

Haven't followed this thread but has Adobe Portfolio been mentioned. I am thinking of focusing on this soon where I take my images I like and put them in the Cloud portion and they they can be synced to a Portfolio website as I understand it. All part of your Photography Plan.

I’m gonna need to take a look at that as well.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

I watched as well…and with a couple of caveats it was very good. Brian (like Matt K) has drunk the kool-aid as they say and is all in with LR…and he’s trying to sell his course and dispel some of t(ex dumbing down questions and comments he sees. I get his points…and frankly have no real care either way about t(e catalog anyway…and he’s right that people already understand the file browser thing…but he and others keep harping on the evils of the catalog..and frankly I think that’s just a distraction for the most part. One comment from a viewer was that it was a different mindset and that’s right on. I do have issues with Brian’s comment about uploading only the ones you want to edit and deleting the rest…that seems dumb to me. For instance…say one is spending $20K to go to Serengeti with Steve in April like I am…and suppose one comes back with 20,000 frames..that’s a dollar a frame. While he’s probably right that 90% will never get processed…tossing out the out of focus or clearly bad shots might knock down to 15K images…and I’m fine with deleting the 5,000 bad ones…and suppose I cull and pick 1,000 to import into LR for processing everywhere…that’s 50 or 60 GB to import and upload so one is already into the need more cloud space cost. But his suggestion is to import that 1,000 and delete the other 14,000 of unprocessed images…and deleting 95% of the shots from a bucket list trip like that isn’t going to make economic sense for almost all users because you might want to come back to them 5 years from now. Putting them in local storage works…but then you lose all the benefits of backup and edit anywhere…but the user still needs to back them up himself in that case…because deleting them seems stupid to me beyond the bad ones. As they said…the interface looks more modern than LrC does and I like it albeit some things are in a different place but I could get used to that. If they add plugin support (and that will really only happen for macOS and Windows versions, not iOS or iPadOS or Android)…then I could see myself switching…and the whole catalogs are evil isn’t part of that thinking. If Adobe was a bit more agreessive about additional storage size options and prices…and if they add in some of the missing features it becomes a lot more attractive option. But as Brian said…LR is as a business decision aimed at the fastest growing user segment…the smartphone shooter, and not really at the pros or people like us who have traditional cameras. I don’t think there will ever be feature parity…but layers in PS, Smart collections/collection sets, and plugins would close a majority of the lost features for most people…there are workarounds for the plugin issue but there shouldn’t have to be because if you can open in PS (which actually opens the beta if you have it installed instead of the release version: then layers and Topaz or DxO or whatever just needs the preference pane to set up those plugins and potentially some updating of the plugins to match any new architecture required. Long term though…its like the Borg, we will be assimilated I think but not until feature near parity is reached.

There is no way on gods green earth I keep 15k out of 20k of photos. I might end up with as much as 1k, and half that will be documentary shots (the once-in-a-life-time-but-crap shot)
Holiday snaps don't count for the purpose if this conversation. And if you get 15k brilliant images out of 20k, we wouldn't be having this conversation - you would be rich and sitting on your own island with someone else doing your editing.

As for storing all your photos in the cloud - better make sure you have connection then. Unless I am on a paid shoot that demands immediate delivery of photos, I don't edit while on a trip. I am on a trip to take photos - not sit in front of my laptop.

Besides documentary photos, I ONLY process and keep portfolio photos. Maybe some alternatives get saved but the rest goes. I am sitting with several HD of images I will most probably never look at again. In all honesty - what are the chances I will sell a photo taken on a D70? Slim. Very slim. Caveat - journalism is not in this category.

Interesting that you find LR (local) aimed at the smartphone shooter and not really at the pro - May I remind you that actually LR is the dumbed down version of Photoshop, so some might say a real Professional photographer will not even bother with LR. Photoshop is paired firstly with Bridge and ACR and does not use catalogs. Never has and never will. Even Abode understands this.

While LR of any hue is enough for many many photographers - Photoshop is the ACTUAL professional editing and retouching program. LR is simply not on the same professional level as Photoshop. So many have said that ppl just don't understand the catalogs properly. I would say people who use LR do so because they don't understand how to use Photoshop.
Stone-throwing may commence