JeffGreenberg

show your pre-processing vs. post-processing image side by side ?!!

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Sorry to be contrary (again) but the adjustment brush has been around for years and was available in Lightroom 4 so certainly in PSCS6 (probably in ACR6 or thereabouts) as was the graduated filter (to me the most indispensable of these tools in fact). The radial filter is available in the standalone version of Lightroom 6. I can't remember if it was available from the beginning of Lightroom 6 or in an update so not sure when it arrived in ACR but the main point is that it is available in the standalone LR 6.

 

No problem. I stand corrected.  Somehow I didn't notice it until I got CC.

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

Tools such as the radial filter and the adjustment brush are only available on the CC version.

 

I couldn't live without my adjustment brush.

 

Jill

 

It's pretty easy to generate a similar effect right back to the early versions of PSE using a well feathered selection mask.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked this. Lightroom 6 introduced the radial filter but it wasn't available in the standalone version of ACR, only the CC version (ACR 8 I think). I was using LR6 and PSCS6 at that time when LR6 and ACR started to go out of sync. It was a bit later that LR6 and LRCC started to go out of sync.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, M.Chapman said:

 

It's pretty easy to generate a similar effect right back to the early versions of PSE using a well feathered selection mask.

 

Mark

 

Not on a raw file though and that is very important both in terms of the quality of the edit (better to work on the raw)  and workflow expediency. You can selectively lighten/darken/sharpen/soften/noise reduction/white balance etc on small and large circular or elliptical areas before conversion. Yes I use the radial filter for all sorts of stuff and it is indispensable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Not on a raw file though and that is very important both in terms of the quality of the edit (better to work on the raw)  and workflow expediency. You can selectively lighten/darken/sharpen/soften/noise reduction/white balance etc on small and large circular or elliptical areas before conversion. Yes I use the radial filter for all sorts of stuff and it is indispensable.

May not be on a RAW file but I do make adjustments on the 16bit TIFF or PSD and can make all the adjustments you mention. I agree LR6 tends to make slightly cleaner job on lightening deep shadows and is sightly better at recovering highlights than my ageing PSE8... Nevertheless, for most of my images I'm very happy with the results in PSE.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

It's pretty easy to generate a similar effect right back to the early versions of PSE using a well feathered selection mask.

 

Mark

 

That occurred to me. Gonna give it a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

May not be on a RAW file but I do make adjustments on the 16bit TIFF or PSD and can make all the adjustments you mention. I agree LR6 tends to make slightly cleaner job on lightening deep shadows and is sightly better at recovering highlights than my ageing PSE8... Nevertheless, for most of my images I'm very happy with the results in PSE.

 

Mark

 

I am not going to convince you and if you are happy with what you are doing then that is fine. But just to summarise my arguments.

 

There are some operations that are much, much better done on the raw file than on the converted version (16 bit or otherwise). These include highlight and shadow recovery, noise reduction and white balance. These can be global or local but the conclusions are similar. It is simply not possible to get the same results working on the converted file and the differences are frequently not slight but are in fact very significant. 

 

The second aspect here is the time taken to convert files and work on them in Photoshop (whatever version). It is simply much, much faster to use the radial (or grad) filter in Lightroom when processing images for raw conversion than to do this in Photoshop. In some cases, depending on the image, it may be possible to batch process them by synchronising local adjustments across a set of images. 

 

Ultimately I think it is  worth paying the tenner a month to have the full benefit of Adobe CC. Of course the perpetual version of LR6 still has many features of the now LR Classic but it misses some very useful stuff and there have been some excellent advances in Photoshop CC over PSCS6. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MDM said:

 

I am not going to convince you and if you are happy with what you are doing then that is fine. But just to summarise my arguments.

 

There are some operations that are much, much better done on the raw file than on the converted version (16 bit or otherwise). These include highlight and shadow recovery, noise reduction and white balance. These can be global or local but the conclusions are similar. It is simply not possible to get the same results working on the converted file and the differences are frequently not slight but are in fact very significant. 

 

The second aspect here is the time taken to convert files and work on them in Photoshop (whatever version). It is simply much, much faster to use the radial (or grad) filter in Lightroom when processing images for raw conversion than to do this in Photoshop. In some cases, depending on the image, it may be possible to batch process them by synchronising local adjustments across a set of images. 

 

Ultimately I think it is  worth paying the tenner a month to have the full benefit of Adobe CC. Of course the perpetual version of LR6 still has many features of the now LR Classic but it misses some very useful stuff and there have been some excellent advances in Photoshop CC over PSCS6. 

 

 

I do use LR to process all my images, but only to do batch related processing using presets and export a whole batch (shoot) to PSD files which I then finish off in PSE. This batch processing is usually left running unattended, so there's no real time penalty for me. I agree LR is better on highlight and shadow recovery than PSE but IMHO the difference only becomes significant when larger adjustments (almost HDR) are required or if working at high ISO (which I very rarely do).  Personally I'm unconvinced that LR sharpening and NR is significantly better than PSE. I have spent ages experimenting with LR (which IMHO has too many sliders/options) and in the end concluded that I was getting equivalent or even better results more quickly and simply in PSE. If LR had some sliders that allowed alteration of the amount of NR or sharpening based on the local luminance level so that shadow areas didn't need treating separately I might change my mind (PSE doesn't have this facility either, but some other programs have it). An area where I found LR excels is CA removal, so I have that built into my LR presets. I believe CA is removed before demosaicing which is really the best way.

 

Is there a document that discloses which operations (sharpening, NR, WB, etc.) LR carries out before demosaicing and conversion into conventional colour space? This would make it clear which operations can benefit from working on RAW rather than 16 bit RGB data.

 

Finally, I'd be very happy to pay £10 a month if Adobe didn't disable the software if you stop paying. If they had a contract term that said something like "After 12 months of continuous subscription you are allowed to cancel your subscription. You will be able to continue using the software at the Version / revision applicable at that time but will not receive further updates". What I don't want to do is to invest all my images/processing in a tool that I have to keep paying for indefinitely. I refuse to be held to ransom by Adobe. £10 a month mounts up.  If they changed the subscription terms I'd consider converting more of my workflow and image organisation into LR. But as it stands... there's no chance.

 

Apologies if I've misunderstood anything.

 

Mark

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

That occurred to me. Gonna give it a try.

 

The polygonal lasso tool with 250 pixel feather is my favourite way of creating an appropriate selection of any shape/areas I chose to define. I find it's best to zoom out so the image is smaller than the screen so you can click well outside the image (if needed) to avoid feathering in the corners of the image.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I do use LR to process all my images, but only to do batch related processing using presets and export a whole batch (shoot) to PSD files which I then finish off in PSE. This batch processing is usually left running unattended, so there's no real time penalty for me. I agree LR is better on highlight and shadow recovery than PSE but IMHO the difference only becomes significant when larger adjustments (almost HDR) are required or if working at high ISO (which I very rarely do).  Personally I'm unconvinced that LR sharpening and NR is significantly better than PSE. I have spent ages experimenting with LR (which IMHO has too many sliders/options) and in the end concluded that I was getting equivalent or even better results more quickly and simply in PSE. If LR had some sliders that allowed alteration of the amount of NR or sharpening based on the local luminance level so that shadow areas didn't need treating separately I might change my mind (PSE doesn't have this facility either, but some other programs have it). An area where I found LR excels is CA removal, so I have that built into my LR presets. I believe CA is removed before demosaicing which is really the best way.

 

Is there a document that discloses which operations (sharpening, NR, WB, etc.) LR carries out before demosaicing and conversion into conventional colour space? This would make it clear which operations can benefit from working on RAW rather than 16 bit RGB data.

 

Finally, I'd be very happy to pay £10 a month if Adobe didn't disable the software if you stop paying. If they had a contract term that said something like "After 12 months of continuous subscription you are allowed to cancel your subscription. You will be able to continue using the software at the Version / revision applicable at that time but will not receive further updates". What I don't want to do is to invest all my images/processing in a tool that I have to keep paying for indefinitely. I refuse to be held to ransom by Adobe. £10 a month mounts up.  If they changed the subscription terms I'd consider converting more of my workflow and image organisation into LR. But as it stands... there's no chance.

 

Apologies if I've misunderstood anything.

 

Mark

Personally I'm unconvinced that LR sharpening and NR is significantly better than PSE. 

I'm surprised at that as the differences in noise reduction are very noticeable between working ona  raw versus a PSD or TIFF. I will post something on Dropbox when I get time and you can download and check what I am saying.

 

If LR had some sliders that allowed alteration of the amount of NR or sharpening based on the local luminance level so that shadow areas didn't need treating separately I might change my mind

LR does have this in the most recent version - color and luminance masking for local adjustments - very useful. But it can also be done anyway in older versions by performing local adjustments on different areas of an image.

 

Finally, I'd be very happy to pay £10 a month if Adobe didn't disable the software if you stop paying. If they had a contract term that said something like "After 12 months of continuous subscription you are allowed to cancel your subscription. You will be able to continue using the software at the Version / revision applicable at that time but will not receive further updates".

 

I agree but there is no choice really if you want the latest and it is worth the £10 a month for sure. But I am keeping my perpetual version of LR plus my Photoshop CS6 indefinitely. The key thing is to make sure you write all raw conversion data to xmp.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

The polygonal lasso tool with 250 pixel feather is my favourite way of creating an appropriate selection of any shape/areas I chose to define. I find it's best to zoom out so the image is smaller than the screen so you can click well outside the image (if needed) to avoid feathering in the corners of the image.

 

Mark

 

Thanks, I'll give that a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MDM said:

Personally I'm unconvinced that LR sharpening and NR is significantly better than PSE. 

I'm surprised at that as the differences in noise reduction are very noticeable between working ona  raw versus a PSD or TIFF. I will post something on Dropbox when I get time and you can download and check what I am saying.

 

 

 

Thanks, I'll be very interested in that. If you're happy to put the RAW there too, I'll see what happens when I process it in my PSE.

 

Wise move to keep your perpetual licence LR and to save the xmp files. But... as LR CC gets updated, isn't there a danger that XMP files produced from the latest version of LR CC will contain process steps that are incompatible with the older perpetual licence version?

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to do all of the heavy lifting in LR (noise, shadows, highlights, exposure, colour balance) but for detailed selection I generally use PS. Just more comfortable doing it that way, with  tools that I am familiar with and, if required, more accurate selection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2018 at 20:55, M.Chapman said:

 

Thanks, I'll be very interested in that. If you're happy to put the RAW there too, I'll see what happens when I process it in my PSE.

 

Wise move to keep your perpetual licence LR and to save the xmp files. But... as LR CC gets updated, isn't there a danger that XMP files produced from the latest version of LR CC will contain process steps that are incompatible with the older perpetual licence version?

 

Mark

 

On 13/02/2018 at 16:40, MDM said:

Personally I'm unconvinced that LR sharpening and NR is significantly better than PSE. 

I'm surprised at that as the differences in noise reduction are very noticeable between working ona  raw versus a PSD or TIFF. I will post something on Dropbox when I get time and you can download and check what I am saying.

 

 

I've been thinking how best to do this to show a valid comparison as it is very easy to remove (luminance) noise but it is important that it doesn't cause softening of the image so there needs to be some way of measuring that. In other words, I could give you a raw file (no problem with that) and you could remove the noise but it remains subjective as there is no real way of saying how efficient the NR is without looking at sharpness and overall image quality as well. I'm thinking and will be back on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2018 at 20:55, M.Chapman said:

 

 

Wise move to keep your perpetual licence LR and to save the xmp files. But... as LR CC gets updated, isn't there a danger that XMP files produced from the latest version of LR CC will contain process steps that are incompatible with the older perpetual licence version?

 

Mark

 

You are right about new processes in later versions being unreadable by earlier versions. As far as I am aware, the subscription license allows you to open, read and presumably export files but you can't make any changes as the Develop Module is disabled so I would still be able to read and export raws. I keep all my layered PSDs in any case and would only ever likely rework a small number of raws down the line so I'm not worried. I think I would only quit the subscription if there was a very good non-Adobe alternative and Adobe were to enforce a cloud subscription for file storage which I can't really see happening as it would effectvely cut a huge chunk out of their professional market.

 

Finally, I always kept up to date with Photoshop and Lightroom so the cost is actually less than I used to pay with 18 month upgrades. Photoshop has advanced massively over the years and it has been well worth it to me keeping up to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now