Lightroom - Photoshot workflow: I'm just beginning to lean into learning Photoshop. Up to no I have done what I can using LR. However I have noticed that there are many who use a combo...

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

I'm just beginning to lean into learning Photoshop. Up to no I have done what I can using LR. However I have noticed that there are many who use a combo of LR and PS to produce their final image.

I'm trying to determine at what point in the process do I take an image from LR to PS.

So lets assume I have a ok image but I want to make changes that LR can not. say I'm going to darken or blur a background and I do not want to have a band of pixels between my subject and the background.
What is the , considered, normal process through importing my RAW file into LR, doing what there, then moving into PS.

Should I do all that I can in LR and THEN move to PS for fine tuning?

Sorry if this sounds vague but I'm just not beginning to form questions based on what I am learning not only from PS but LR as well.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

WDCash wrote:

I'm just beginning to lean into learning Photoshop... (show quote)

Do all that you can in LR and resist moving to PS at all if possible. When you think you need PS ask yourself if you're really sure LR can't do the job and if you're not sure find out.

There's real advantage to a raw workflow that is 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable. If you move from LR to PS you're giving up some or a lot of that advantage. Do it if you have to, but since it's going to cost you make sure it's necessary.

Joe

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

If you need to work with pixels then you need to go to Photoshop. I prefer to use layers on just about anything so use Photoshop exclusively since Lightroom only has the one layer.
It's a misunderstanding that many folks have, BUT Photoshop does not have to be destructive. You can use just one layer, like in Lightroom, or a hundred if that's what you need.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Ysarex wrote:

Do all that you can in LR and resist moving to PS at all if possible. When you think you need PS ask yourself if you're really sure LR can't do the job and if you're not sure find out.

There's real advantage to a raw workflow that is 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable. If you move from LR to PS you're giving up some or a lot of that advantage. Do it if you have to, but since it's going to cost you make sure it's necessary.

Joe

FWIW - By working in Layers or smart objects within PS you do not lose the non-destructive capability.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Dngallagher wrote:

FWIW - By working in Layers or smart objects within PS you do not lose the non-destructive capability.

I said 100%. Using layers and smart objects in PS is the right thing to do but it will not in all cases produce a 100% non-destructive raw workflow. One of the prime reasons to make the jump to PS is to be able to get a clone/heal job done that LR can't do. The minute you do any clone/healing work 100% non-destructive ends.

Joe

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

CPR wrote:

If you need to work with pixels then you need to go to Photoshop. I prefer to use layers on just about anything so use Photoshop exclusively since Lightroom only has the one layer.
It's a misunderstanding that many folks have, BUT Photoshop does not have to be destructive. You can use just one layer, like in Lightroom, or a hundred if that's what you need.

In a raw workflow if you do anything in PS that requires a raster layer (or 100 raster layers) like cloning then Photoshop has to be workflow destructive.

Joe

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

WDCash wrote:

I'm just beginning to lean into learning Photoshop... (show quote)

FWIW - Once you start getting comfortable using Photoshop, you will end up using it more and more. It can work non-destructively with smart objects or layers. If you call it from Lightroom with "edit in" you easily get an edited imaged stacked with the original raw image when you get back to Lightroom - I set mine up to save as a PSD from Photoshop. The PSD file will contain the original unedited image on a background layer, then layers for each edit step that was done in Photoshop. Lightroom still has the original untouched raw file as well.

It is often said that you can edit in Lightroom, but Photoshop finishes the image.

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Dngallagher wrote:

FWIW - Once you start getting comfortable using Ph... (show quote)

Yes this is what I am seeing as I experement with the CC vids and PS.
Just spent a couple hours with it.
Lots to learn.
From LR, "edit in photoshot 2020", then close to save the new edited version.
Lots to learn and unfortunitly it seems that it can do so much so many ways that the path to learning it like feeling my way in a fog. But the fog is starting to clear a little.

As long as I leave my raw file in LR it seems.it will always be unchanged.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

WDCash wrote:

Yes this is what I am seeing as I experement with the CC vids and PS.
Just spent a couple hours with it.
Lots to learn.
From LR, "edit in photoshot 2020", then close to save the new edited version.
Lots to learn and unfortunitly it seems that it can do so much so many ways that the path to learning it like feeling my way in a fog. But the fog is starting to clear a little.

As long as I leave my raw file in LR it seems.it will always be unchanged.

Exactly. I used to say I did 90% of my edits in Lightroom and 10% in Photoshop, now it is more like 40% in Lightroom and 50% in Photoshop and 10% in another editor. I uas DXO Photolab 3 for some, it can get me to a point faster than it seems Photoshop can (But am sure I just don't know the right tricks yet in PS ) , but that can change. I also like the DXO PRIME noise reduction - does a very nice job.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Ysarex wrote:

I said 100%. Using layers and smart objects in PS is the right thing to do but it will not in all cases produce a 100% non-destructive raw workflow. One of the prime reasons to make the jump to PS is to be able to get a clone/heal job done that LR can't do. The minute you do any clone/healing work 100% non-destructive ends.

Joe

Nondestructive workflows are often misunderstood, their importance is often overrated. Anyone who started in film will likely have a different perspective. There is something to be said for committing to editorial changes, instead of relying on a raw workflow with all of its inherent limitations just to have that non-destructive thing.

Before I started using raw converters, if I needed nondestructive, I just duplicated the file or the base layer. Now we can use all sorts of tools and later mgmt to achieve nondestructabilty - enough to be able to enjoy the benefits of a solid raster editor.

When I need to revisit edits I find it easier to just start over anyway.

Different strokes I guess.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

WDCash wrote:

I'm just beginning to lean into learning Photoshop... (show quote)

HI. I use LR and PS. I use LR to process all images. I do use layering in LR, it's just different. I use the brush tool to layer on adjustments. Most of the time I like how the LR brush tool works better than when I try the same thing in PS. I go to PS for deleting large objects, cloning and clean-up as needed, sometimes for sharpening, using masks for various things, and when I want to add a background layer or work with individual layers on the same image. You'll have to figure out the work flow that is right for you.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Dngallagher wrote:

FWIW - Once you start getting comfortable using Ph... (show quote)

Agree, my workflow also

rond-photography Loc: Connecticut

WDCash wrote:

I'm just beginning to lean into learning Photoshop... (show quote)

I use PS or Affinity about once every 5 shoots. I only do there what can't be done in LR. For example, if I absolutely need to remove an object or a lot of dust spots, then I go to the photo editor and use the more powerful clone or heal brushes they have. Also, I have created some composites and note cards, so for those I use the photo editor.

No, don't bother too much with PS or other editors unless you are looking for special effects.
Note also that when you use the external editor, you create a file that has all your LR edits, so you are using additional disk space for every photo you process that way. If the file created is a tiff, then it is usually quite large as well.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I’m in the same spot as you are. I do all I can in LR thane move over to PS.

morkie1891

A good tool for learning photoshop is a free video by Sean Bagshaw. He is a teacher turned pro photographer and has many videos explaining Tony Kuyper’s luminosity masking tools. But his ‘intro’ to PS is free and well organized. Google Sean’s name and go to his website. I think it can also be found on Tony Kuyper’s website.