Glencoe Lochan

[Mike Farley]

Yes, LR is definitely a replacement for Bridge. At its heart is a database which, unlike Bridge, can handle thousands of images. Its options for reviewing and rating images are also much better, e.g. side by side viewing, deletion of rejected images. For processing images, it is Bridge on steroids.

My Lightroom workflow is:

• Import, specifying keywords (LR is set to open Import dialogue automatically on insertion of memory card into reader and add copyright info to the metadata during import)
• Review and rate images in Library, as well as refine keyword settings (especially if imported images cover a variety of subjects)
• Process selected images in Develop, open in Photoshop CC

I prefer to Print from Lightroom as it has more options than Photoshop. Unlike Photoshop Elements, it supports the use of printer profiles, which is an advantage for those using a LR/PSE combo. I never use Map as I do not have a GPS enabled camera. Neither have I used the Book module much, but it is useful to be able specify book and page size, and then drag and drop images straight from the library. Similarly, Web is useful for creating galleries for inclusion in a bespoke website.

You will need to Import existing images, using the Add function, with any keywords and ratings set in Bridge being included automatically. This only adds the images into the LR database, it does not create additional copies so you are not increasing disk space utilisation.

As for the image quality issues, this has not been my experience. Quite the reverse in fact. Can you post an example and describe the workflow to get there?

[davidc]

This one -


The Lonely Mountain - 229/365 by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

Specifically it's the section around the rocks/grass/bushes near the centre of the frame. The look distinctly pixellated & non-sharp at 100% whereas the source image (which I don't have here at work sadly) looks a lot crisper.

The process I used was importing the raw into LR5 > Colour Efex Pro 2 (though I can't remember the filter offhand it served to mainly bring out detail in the mountain) > Photoshop CS4 for noise reduction (imagenomic) and unsharp mask (at 80%)

[Mike Farley]

I presume that you are referring to what happens during Export from Lightroom and that the image looks OK when viewed in CS4 and LR?

There are a couple of explanations. The whole thing looks over sharpened to me, probably as you have inadvertently applied sharpening twice, first in CS4 and then on export from LR which has its own sharpening algorithms in the Export controls. The other possible explanation is that there are JPEG artefacts. When I downloaded the image from flickr onto my computer*, I saw that it has a file size of 458.94 kB. Are you comparing like with like with the same image saved as a JPEG from other applications? I would expect Adobe's JPEG algorithms in CS4 and LR to be identical, but that ain't necessarily so.

Also, are you aware that LR has its own noise reduction controls? It makes sense to do it there rather than later in CS4, as it will be applied during the Raw conversion processing in one step along with all the other adjustments. Until LR3/CS4, Adobe's noise reduction algorithms were quite pathetic, but improved dramatically with the new Raw processing engine. The more steps there are in the workflow, the more the image becomes degraded. With LR I try to do as much as possible there and mainly use PS CC to tidy up things LR could not handle and as the launchpad for SEP2.

* Yes, I bypassed flickr's download restrictions. Initially I tried looking in the browser cache on my computer, but Windows 7 blocked me. So I got it directly from flickr with a few quick key strokes. Not difficult at all and flickr gave it up without any fuss.

[davidc]

Lots to think about there. Unfortunately I won't be at a PC for some time to check out or reply to most of your points. However I did try downloading the full resolution image for the above, while logged into Flickr. The file size for original (ie highest) resolution is 2.1mb.

That's odd because most of my full res images are 10mb+ and it is also larger than what you downloaded too - though I'd be surprised if you had truly downloaded the highest resolution image... If Flickr security was as easily beaten as changing the last few characters I imagine the Internet would be apoplectic

[Mike Farley]

Lots to think about there. Unfortunately I won't be at a PC for some time to check out or reply to most of your points.

No worries.

However I did try downloading the full resolution image for the above, while logged into Flickr. The file size for original (ie highest) resolution is 2.1mb.

That's odd because most of my full res images are 10mb+ and it is also larger than what you downloaded too - though I'd be surprised if you had truly downloaded the highest resolution image... If Flickr security was as easily beaten as changing the last few characters I imagine the Internet would be apoplectic

I believe that what I downloaded was the resized 1024 image, which I was able to obtain despite the no download "restriction". Until your post, I had assumed that this was the size you had uploaded. Since you did not allow display of the full size image, I would not be able to access it unless there was a major flaw in flickr's security, which would indeed cause general uproar. The image I accessed would be sufficient only for a small print, but would be useful for display on a website if someone wanted to use it. I wonder how many people believe that prohibiting download of their images actually works? Most, I would imagine.

It is for this reason that I only post lo-res images with a small file size. For an image to be displayed, it has to be physically present on the viewer's computer and can be readily accessed. It is possible to make it more difficult to do this, for example by creating a Flash based gallery, but for those with the requisite knowledge that can be bypassed as well. flickr does not employ such controls as it needs its site to be universally accessible and has to adhere to standard HTML coding. Flash is unsuitable due to the lack of support by iOS, so images could not be viewed on iPada and iPhones.

The one image of mine which I know has been stolen was published at a much larger size than I would have wished without copyright info on a couple of websites. Publication was with my permission, but I was not consulted beforehand about the image size. Since then, both websites have removed the image as historical information has been deleted, but it was there long enough to get into the wild.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=631#p3180

Incidentally, I see that your image is no longer being displayed in the earlier thread. Have you now removed it from flickr?

[davidc]

I presume that you are referring to what happens during Export from Lightroom and that the image looks OK when viewed in CS4 and LR?

There are a couple of explanations. The whole thing looks over sharpened to me, probably as you have inadvertently applied sharpening twice, first in CS4 and then on export from LR which has its own sharpening algorithms in the Export controls. The other possible explanation is that there are JPEG artefacts. When I downloaded the image from flickr onto my computer*, I saw that it has a file size of 458.94 kB. Are you comparing like with like with the same image saved as a JPEG from other applications? I would expect Adobe's JPEG algorithms in CS4 and LR to be identical, but that ain't necessarily so.

Also, are you aware that LR has its own noise reduction controls? It makes sense to do it there rather than later in CS4, as it will be applied during the Raw conversion processing in one step along with all the other adjustments. Until LR3/CS4, Adobe's noise reduction algorithms were quite pathetic, but improved dramatically with the new Raw processing engine. The more steps there are in the workflow, the more the image becomes degraded. With LR I try to do as much as possible there and mainly use PS CC to tidy up things LR could not handle and as the launchpad for SEP2.

* Yes, I bypassed flickr's download restrictions. Initially I tried looking in the browser cache on my computer, but Windows 7 blocked me. So I got it directly from flickr with a few quick key strokes. Not difficult at all and flickr gave it up without any fuss.

OK back in front of a computer now
The sharpening - I was initially quite pee'd off if LR was applying sharpening without me knowing about it but looking into it, the default setting for sharpening is "off". Still, is there a way for a more precise application of raw conversion sharpening other than "glossy" or "matte"?

In the end I tried reprocessing the image in my existing ACR > PS workflow, adding in the same color efex pro step too. I think that this version is better although have noticed the greenery now looks "even more green" - closer to what I saw but still noticeably different to my eye.

I think the main improvement is in the quality though, this image is now tens of MB as opposed to only 2mb and the jpeg artefacting isn't visible to my eye. I can only assume the oversharpened effect you saw was due to this low resolution, I don't think this version looks oversharpened? Which is ironic because this time it's sharpened it in ACR and in photoshop which is MORE sharpening than I knowingly applied earlier!

The old link has disappeared because I replaced the image on flickr with the new one - I assumed the link would simply point at the new image but it's given it a different URL completely.

Overall I much prefer this new version and will need to iron out the wrinkles in the LR-based process so I can get the same quality of output.

I had a quick look at the noise reduction tools in LR and will have to compare them with imagenomic's results. In general though I find imagenomic to be extremely good so LR has quite the standard to beat. If I get time I'll post a comparison.

[Mike Farley]

OK back in front of a computer now
The sharpening - I was initially quite pee'd off if LR was applying sharpening without me knowing about it but looking into it, the default setting for sharpening is "off". Still, is there a way for a more precise application of raw conversion sharpening other than "glossy" or "matte"?

The sharpening in Lightroom is based on Photokit Sharpener, which has been licenced from PixelGenius and is designed to apply intelligent sharpening. Aside from the two paper options, it is also possible to sharpen for the screen. Since people's tastes in sharpening differ, there are options to apply different strengths, ranging from Low, through Standard to High. Personally, I have no issues with it and leave everything in the Standard mode for the relevant media. As much as anything, it saves the hassle of having sharpened and unsharpened versions of images. If your mileage varies or you want to do selective sharpening, then you still have the option of your sharpening tool of choice in PS or wherever and leaving LR sharpening turned off.

http://pixelgenius.com/sharpener2/

In the end I tried reprocessing the image in my existing ACR > PS workflow, adding in the same color efex pro step too. I think that this version is better although have noticed the greenery now looks "even more green" - closer to what I saw but still noticeably different to my eye.

Over the last few iterations of ACR, Adobe has made a couple of major improvements to the processing. In LR3/CS5, it introduced a new processing engine, but left the controls the same. Then, in LR4/CS6, it changed the controls and these can have totally different effects to what you might have been used to. This might explain why you are seeing differences in rendering. Adobe has left the old algorithms in place, so you can specify which process you want to use. The original 2003 which goes up to LR2/CS4, 2010 for LR3/CS5 or 2012 for all subsequent versions.

One of the benefits of using LR5 is that you get the latest ACR processing, but do not need to upgrade your image editor if you do not need the latest enhancements. LR also has some comprehensive colour adjustment options, which I have been using recently trying to recreate the hue I saw on a Morning Glory which was not right OOC.

I think the main improvement is in the quality though, this image is now tens of MB as opposed to only 2mb and the jpeg artefacting isn't visible to my eye. I can only assume the oversharpened effect you saw was due to this low resolution, I don't think this version looks oversharpened? Which is ironic because this time it's sharpened it in ACR and in photoshop which is MORE sharpening than I knowingly applied earlier!

A while back, a guru called Bruce Fraser wrote a book on his findings about sharpening. If you want to know everything there is about sharpening, or simply have trouble sleeping, this is the book for you. Bruce espoused the idea of pre-capture sharpening at Raw conversion as well as at final output and Adobe incorporated this into ACR. When Bruce died before the book could be updated, Jeff Schewe did the revisions. Jeff is also one of the people behind the Photokit Sharpener used in LR, which is one of the reasons why I have faith in its abilities since he has an incredible breadth of knowledge where matters relating to image quality using Adobe's products are concerned.

The old link has disappeared because I replaced the image on flickr with the new one - I assumed the link would simply point at the new image but it's given it a different URL completely.

Overall I much prefer this new version and will need to iron out the wrinkles in the LR-based process so I can get the same quality of output.

I cannot find the new image. Can you post a link.

There is bound to be a learning curve with any new piece of software before you start getting the results you want, especially one that is as functionally rich as LR. Many people, pros as well as amateurs, are using LR in their workflow, so I would be surprised if there are any major processing issues.

I had a quick look at the noise reduction tools in LR and will have to compare them with imagenomic's results. In general though I find imagenomic to be extremely good so LR has quite the standard to beat. If I get time I'll post a comparison.

LR does not force you to use its NR, but I find it more convenient to do everything in one place and with as few processing steps as possible to maximise image quality. Unless Imagenomic shows marked benefits, I would stick to Adobe's NR.

[davidc]

For the sharpening I'll do more research, however I instinctively prefer a tool I can use, like USM in CS4, that is a sliding scale of sharpening rather than just three stock levels. While I can understand include defaults for beginners to use or allowing more experienced users the chance to setup "screen/gloss/matte" options, personally I want the ability to adjust the sharpening to a level suitable to the image.

As for noise reduction, a chap called Scott Kelby who is quite well known for his work with photoshop has recommended imagenomic as the best tool bar none for noise reduction. That claim was enough for me to check it out and I have to say it's extremely good. Rather than an NR button or slider, this is a bespoke plugin that lets you adjust NR by luminance, colour and a whole host more. I took a picture at ISO 6400 that was essentially unusable and between imagenomic and USM in CS4 rescued it completely. It's brilliant.

[Mike Farley]

For the sharpening I'll do more research, however I instinctively prefer a tool I can use, like USM in CS4, that is a sliding scale of sharpening rather than just three stock levels. While I can understand include defaults for beginners to use or allowing more experienced users the chance to setup "screen/gloss/matte" options, personally I want the ability to adjust the sharpening to a level suitable to the image.

As for noise reduction, a chap called Scott Kelby who is quite well known for his work with photoshop has recommended imagenomic as the best tool bar none for noise reduction. That claim was enough for me to check it out and I have to say it's extremely good. Rather than an NR button or slider, this is a bespoke plugin that lets you adjust NR by luminance, colour and a whole host more. I took a picture at ISO 6400 that was essentially unusable and between imagenomic and USM in CS4 rescued it completely. It's brilliant.

For me, one of the good things about LR is that it fits in with individual worklows, rather than imposing its own way of doing things. So if something else works better for you than Adobe's own tool, there is every reason to use it. I must admit, I had not heard of Scott Kelby's recommendation for Imagenomic, so I might check it out if I get a particularly knotty image. I do find ACR works well enough most of the time and due to the different pixel densities noise always looks worse on screen than in a print.