Question about lightroom and Photoshop CC
May 25, 2015 05:19:04 #
bud 77 wrote:
Gene51, I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest o... (show quote)
Bud, I had a file and folder organization scheme in place for 12 yrs before I started using Lightroom. I also used Capture One for a while before switching to LR. The one thing that has remained constant is my structure. When I started with LR, I just told it to go look at my Pictures folder, which I had created on a different internal drive (not the system drive), and add all my images to the catalog - which it did.
Currently, when I import the contents of my memory card I use copy, and in the process I select other destination, which opens a Windows Explorer screen. I use Windows command to create a new folder, then let LR select it and press enter. All the files are then placed in a subfolder in the folder I created, by year and date. It's easy, and I still keep my original decade old folder scheme.
This way, in the event I stop using LR one day I can still find my "stuff."
May 25, 2015 19:56:07 #
Gene51 wrote:
Truth is, although I see lots of "finished" images out of LR, I have yet to see one, among 1000s, that cannot be improved upon with subtle simple additional adjustment, at the pixel level, in either PS or in any one of a number of plugins. The ability to selectively extract detail seems to be a big one, but there are many other areas where improvements can be made.
Gene is right on the money with everything that he has said about lighroom and photoshop. That includes the part that you won't learn it all in a month or even a year. You can spend a lifetime learning all of the intricacies of photoshop and still occasionally find something new. However, you can start using both programs quickly and learning the parts of the program that you use the most frequently is fairly easy.
Also Gene is right that almost any image can be improved given enough time and skill photoshop can improve almost any image.
May 25, 2015 21:12:02 #
bud 77 wrote:
Gene51, I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest o... (show quote)
I have been teaching Windows OS for near 20 years now.. first classes were Windows 3.1.
I teach file and folder management using the fundamental structure and features of Windows OS.
As such, I still have my own system in place, and manage my own files. I tried to use PSE organizer, and after corrupting "catalogs" on a regular basis, I learned how to disable the Organizer in PSE from PSE4 to current version.
Similarly, I made a couple of attempts (or more) to import image files into LR 4 and 5 trials... no luck. Never achieved a full and complete import.
I like LR as an editor, and am a follower of Morganti on YouTube. Good training.
But the Organizer in LR... please... keep it.
My own system works for me, and has for years. I use it outside any of the Adobe organizer products.
The problem I have found repeatedly is that if you start to use LR, or PSE to manage your files, you must never use manual organizing techniques OUTSIDE the program, or you will constantly be hunting files that can't be found by a "corrupted" catalog.
On my PSE Programs over the last decade, you cannot even open the Organizer. The internal Organizer command in PSE to do so, has been crippled... by me. I'm not suggesting this for everyone. I do recommend just don't use the Organizer.
All of my backup routines are "copy" routines to various drives and location... no encrypted backup software and all the complications thereof. No incremental backups and lose portions of your total backup.
Just Windows file and folder commands ... Cut, Copy, Paste and a good understanding of the workings.
You can bring your work files individually into the editors of PSE, Light Room, and CS6 and all previous versions, as needed. One file at a time, or a batch if you like. But KNOW where your files reside in the system at all times.
I don't move, copy or relocate ANY files in my system with the corruptible PSE, LR, or CS systems.
May 25, 2015 21:27:57 #
Kuzano wrote:
I have been teaching Windows OS for near 20 years ... (show quote)
I can see why you and so many Windows users who are accustomed to DIY file mgmt in Windows Explorer.
In over 4 yrs of using LR, I have yet to lose anything, or "corrupt" as you characterize it, a catalog. I have over 130,000 images in my current catalog, and I can put my finger on anything in seconds. Eagle pictures taken between 2007 and 2009 and those taken in 2014 at Croton Point - done! It took longer to type the search criteria than for LR to find it. The indexing is very efficient and lightning fast - and I don't even make full use of keywording. The search I just described was done entirely based on Windows folder names, the text of which is all searchable.
The key to using LR effectively is to abandon DIY file management. LR has everything you need to do anything you want to do, and it will never "lose" anything if you follow the simple rules and the underlying logic.
I just finished the upload of my weekend's shooting - 1100 images at an airshow, and another 145 images at a botanical garden. 100% of the files, as always, got imported.
I do think you are missing out on the real value of LR by not taking advantage of the catalog. I have to admit, at first I was totally confused, having switched to LR from CaptureOne, which was job based, and didn't use a catalog at the time. I tried to set up LR the same way, making a new catalog for each job. Stupid me. I realized that LR can only have one catalog open, making searches across catalogs impossible. So I added all of my files, at the time I had about 40,000, to the catalog and it all made sense from that day forward.
May 26, 2015 08:22:00 #
bud 77 wrote:
Thank you Gene51 for your well thought out reply. I will get started on light room. I know there many study video for light room and Photoshop CC. Just got a new camera and had to read a couple of aftermarket books on it. I was using elements 12 and could not open my RAW files. I see an advantage in the monthly rental fee because of the constant upgrades and the program will last for a long time. bud
Adobe charges $9.99 a month. If you are here and talk about the cameras and the $$ that they cost. The fee is nothing.
To me, it's less than one drink at Bobby Vans. Once a month I have one less drink......Okay, that's a lie.
May 26, 2015 14:15:02 #
collhart wrote:
Adobe charges $9.99 a month. If you are here and talk about the cameras and the $$ that they cost. The fee is nothing.
To me, it's less than one drink at Bobby Vans. Once a month I have one less drink......Okay, that's a lie.
To me, it's less than one drink at Bobby Vans. Once a month I have one less drink......Okay, that's a lie.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Good for you for posting a perspective that makes sense.
May 26, 2015 14:25:18 #
bud 77 wrote:
I am a long time user of Elements and am quite com... (show quote)
Hi LR and Photoshop cc/cs are different programs. Each is designed for different applications. One is no better than the other.. LR is designed for a photographer that takes large amounts of shots on a shoot, & makes selections easy as well as having exposure and other PP features. Photoshop CS is for editing on a pixel level. More a graphics program. I use both and hop out of LR to go to Photoshop cs and then back again to LR. One feature I do like about LR is that you can export large amounts of post edited files at once. I feel that LR is more designed for wedding photographers that take a thousand shots at a time, rather than a hobbyist that take a few shots of the family, pets or birds.
May 26, 2015 14:38:22 #
May 26, 2015 14:55:20 #
canon Lee wrote:
:thumbup:
Lee, the workflow is so fast, and I am so accustomed to it, I no longer waste time in ACR, even though it provides the same results. LR's user interface is better organized and that means I can reduce 1000 images to a decent set of proofs in an hour or so. But for delieverable material I always - and by that I truly mean without exception - take the file through Photoshop for finish work, as a 16 bit PSD in ProPhoto color space.
May 27, 2015 13:45:55 #
Gene51 wrote:
Lee, the workflow is so fast, and I am so accustomed to it, I no longer waste time in ACR, even though it provides the same results. LR's user interface is better organized and that means I can reduce 1000 images to a decent set of proofs in an hour or so. But for delieverable material I always - and by that I truly mean without exception - take the file through Photoshop for finish work, as a 16 bit PSD in ProPhoto color space.
:thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.