PART 2 to Lightroom seems too intrusive, suggestions?

<p>In a recent thread:<br /> http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cEgH<br /> I complained about some of Lightroom's behaviors and asked for suggestions. Some of you provided some helpful information and perspectives--thanks!--but I have some follow-up questions (and the original thread got rather long and sidetracked).</p>

<p>Let me phrase my main questions / concerns this way: (1) Is there a raw converter that (a) delivers top-quality results; (b) includes high-quality, automated lens-correction with readily-available profiles for most lenses; and © is available for no more cost than Lightroom? (2) Does the version of ACR that comes with Elements include <em>all</em> of the tools (like lens corrections and curves) that come with Lightroom and the version of ACR that comes with PS?</p>

<p>I find Lightroom's required workflow (import-export process) bureaucratic and nanny-ish for some purposes, but I could live with it to get the results I want. The high-quality lens corrections (particularly geometric distortion and chromatic aberration) <em>through automated profiles available for my main lenses</em> were the big draw. But high-quality basic raw conversion is a must, as is reasonable curves, white-balance, and color-correction functionality. And Lightroom's perspective distortion tools (to sort-of mimic, e.g., front rise) and noise-reduction options are a great bonus.</p>

<p>In the prior thread, several other programs were suggested, but for none was it clear to me whether they met the basic functionality discussed above. So, if you have any further suggestions, I'm all ears. Thanks!</p>

<p>I use Nikon Capture NX2 and it meets your (1) for Nikon cameras and Nikon lenses. ACR in PS Elements does not include all the tools in ACR for LR and PS.</p>

<p>Dave, in your previous thread, already briefed about CaptureOne 7 Express. For me, on point (1), it does meet (a) and ©, and (b) depending on the lenses you have - the <a href="http://help.phaseone.com/en/CO7/Editing-photos/Lens-Correction/List-of-Supported-Lenses.aspx">list of supported lenses</a> has some (massive) gaps for sure, though. For point (1b), the best choice seems to be DxO Optics Pro, it also meets (1c), for point 1a I'll leave that to those who actually used the program :-)</p>

<p>For point (2), no, it does not. Adobe Camera Raw in PS Elements is simplified; you can do the missing items in the editor itself, though that also has limits compared to full-blown Photoshop (i.e. no 16-bits file editing, limited support for assigning colour profiles and some more).</p>

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>Reading your post Lightroom seems to do everything you want. Your only gripe is in the import - export section. Lightroom needs to import your files into a catalogue. This can be as small or as large as you want, your could have one large catalogue containing all your images or small ones for each folder of images. <br /><br />There are different ways of importing images and maybe there is an easier way than what you are currently using that you will find more to your liking. Would be worth spending some time to check out a few of these options before throwing Lightroom into the trash bin.<br /><br />Check this <a href="http://tv.adobe.com/watch/getting-started-with-adobe-">video</a> out to start with.</p>

<p>Dave, if you are on a Mac, I think Iridient Developer will fill your needs. A superb quality converter and apparently it's on sale this month too. <br>

http://www.iridientdigital.com<br>

$75 but there's a 29% discount till the 27th. There's also a demo you can try. <br>

Old review but perhaps still useful to read:<br>

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200607_rodneycm.pdf</p>

<p>Apparently you want a RAW converter that is Windows Explorer based like the combination Bridge/ACR. UFRaw, DCraw or RAWtherapee seem to do the trick and these are freeware.<br>

Lightroom shines when you want/need to convert and organize your files. If that is not your concern indeed use an Explorer based converter.</p>

Photoshop CC W/ ACR 8 built in.

 

By the way, in case no else has pointed it out, you can set up your own file structure in Lightroom and on top that set up sets of collections by subject, or date, or location, etc. plus use keywords and captions to find exactly the photos you are looking for.

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, in case no else has pointed it out, you can set up your own file structure in Lightroom</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Right, I don't get the whole "intrusion" thing. I've had the same file structure for my images since 2001, years before Lightroom. Nothing changed about it when Lightroom happened except that it became a lot easier to find images.</p>

Ditto what Jeff said, Lightroom just follows the structure I have come up with. Plus the advantage of using virtual copies

containing different versions or files for different destinations, in casu clients or agencies or licenses, to me is a huge pro.

<p>Ditto the suggestions to keep using Lightroom and ignore the cataloging stuff. My usage of Lightroom for organizing is still pretty haphazard. But I really like the editing tools and ability to quickly compare edits to photos from the same session, or of the same subject from different sessions. It's easier to ensure a consistent look than with any other tools I've used.</p>

<p>But I keep getting careless with other stuff and tend to rename or move photos outside of Lightroom. Did it again this weekend, even though I've been trying to remember to confine all edits to inside LR. Just a habit, hard to break. In part it's because the default tool for Windows when uploading photos is Windows Explorer. I'll see something I want to fix quickly, and Windows Explorer is already open. So I'll do a quick name change, add a tag/keyword, etc. And suddenly Lightroom gets confused (the dreaded "?" icon) until I tell it where to find the damned photo, even though it's in the same place. Picasa handles this more gracefully - it automagically runs in the background to find photos and add them to the catalog, without demanding a lot of resources.</p>

<p>If I didn't like Lightroom so well for basic editing I'd probably consider DxO, especially because I shoot a lot at high ISOs and DxO seems to handle that very well.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. This has been a genuinely clarifying experience for me.</p>

<p>I should have reiterated that I'm using a Sony A580, and the lenses of most interest to me are my Sony DT 16-50mm f/2.8 SSM, the Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD, and an old Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 (although there are others too). Sony's own Image Data Converter is not bad, but even the latest version (4.2.02) only teases me with non-functioning distortion compensation (and I doubt they'd ever support the Tamron).</p>

<p>My Sony takes Capture One 7 out of the options--no lens support at all. I'm using a Windows 7 64-bit machine, so that means no Iridient Developer. As for UFRaw, DCraw or RAWtherapee--I don't think they have much of a list of lens profiles / automated corrections. Also, I've tried UFRaw, and don't really like it--it doesn't seem to do nearly as good a job as my other options. PS CS 6 / PS CC is more expensive than I can justify, and the whole cloud bit is a non-starter for me.<br>

<br>

Wouter, thanks for confirming my understanding / concern, that the ACR that comes with Elements does not have the full feature set.<br /></p>

<p>So ... looks like I will stick with Lightroom. Thanks all!</p>

<div></div>

<p>Hi, have a serious look at DxO Optics Pro. I prefer it to LR.</p>

<p>regards</p>

<p>Mike</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hi, have a serious look at DxO Optics Pro. I prefer it to LR.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You need to say why, Mike - "<em>I prefer..</em>." tells Dave nothing about whether Optics Pro will address his concerns. </p>

<p>Lex, when you make changes to a photo and leave it in the same folder in Lightroom you can right click on that folder in Lightroom and click on the synchronize folder option. A dialogue box will pop up asking what you want to do. If there are new photos or versions of a photo it will ask you if you want to import them. Click on the Synchronize button and it will add those photos. It will also update metadata or remove missing photos from the catalog.</p>

<p>Hi Dave,</p>

<p>Don't let comments like, "<strong>Your just not using it right</strong>", "or<strong> ignore the catalog</strong>" confuse you.<br>

<strong>You are completely right. I still fight it as I rely on the RAW converter as my Raw is only supported for LR, or C1. So I don't have a choice. I struggle every single day!.</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>For professionals that deal with editing regularly, it really is a slow process to work in LR.<br>

I have used ACR when it was available, as well as LR from v3, and <strong>YES it is a LOCKED system</strong>. You can't even make adjustments and save the file and find it unless you Sync the folder every time. Further you have to switch from LIB mode to DEvelop mode and it is a horrible workflow. It is <strong>slow and often frustrating</strong> to not know what files are in your folders.<br>

Also it <strong>doesn't support DUAL screen properly</strong>. Every time you switch views it has to switch on the other, and limited functions.<br>

Also the <strong>tool sets are locked in place</strong>. You can't change where your tools are.<br>

These are MAJOR issues for user workflow</p>

<p>If you need a catalog, get a DAM. If you want a great converter, there have been suggestions, and I really like DXO.<br>

<br />For DAM, there is Photo Supreme, ACDSee, Photo Mechanic, Extensis, and another dozen apps that will help you browse find your files rate them Metatag them with search keywords, and some make collection like sub sets, AND if you ever care for your files, you can keep them organized in the same FILE structure method so you are not dependednt on 1 Program to retreive your data in the future. With Adobe gone CC on PS, you never know where it is later, and it surely ISN'T the best tool...Yes most popular. </p>

 

<p>You need to say why?<br>

How about htese for starters...<br>

1. For starters its a true browser!<br />2. It has great RAW dev/adjustment tools. The quality files are great.<br /><strong>3. It doesn't force a catalog within a browser, </strong>most obviouse reason.<br />4. It allows tools to work freely. Customizable interface. <br />5. It supports dual screen without limitations.<br>

<strong> </strong></p>

<p>Thanks, John, that helped! I'd been trying that trick incorrectly. This time it worked just fine. That should help declutter a folder I made a huge mess of earlier this year, but left as-is for fear of messing it up even worse. It's full of those dreaded "?" icons.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For professionals that deal with editing regularly, it really is a slow process to work in LR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Many professionals use LR because it speeds up the process. There's nothing slow about it if you learn how to use it.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can't even make adjustments and save the file and find it unless you Sync the folder every time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is completely untrue. There is no need to sync after adjustments.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Further you have to switch from LIB mode to DEvelop mode and it is a horrible workflow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />It's a single key press. If you find that difficult, then there isn't anything that will satisfy you.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is <strong>slow and often frustrating</strong> to not know what files are in your folders.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You appear to not understand LR as this is not true in so many ways.<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Likewise, to their not being any "intrusion" when importing, there also is not in exporting either. You can export out as you want and where you want quite easily.</p>

I'm a working pro. I shoot commercial, industrial and some editorial work. I agree completely with Jeff Spirer's comments

BUT also recognize that not everyone's brain works quite the same way and what seems intuitive to me may not to

another person - and vice versa.

<p>"Many professionals use LR because it speeds up the process. There's nothing slow about it if you learn how to use it."<br>

I find it slow. After you press the single Key for Dev or Lib, it <strong>delays in allowing you to work</strong> with it. AND you are <strong>stuck in that ONE view. Unexceptable...</strong> Image editor/retoucher, photographer, 2013.... don't you use dual monitors?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"This is completely untrue. There is no need to sync after adjustments."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Yes, there is a need to sync up.</strong> unless you saved the file in the same format. (unlikely) BUT, I would think MANY if not most users who open the file in PS as it defaults to TIF (as it likely should), If you do some <strong>edits with layers and want to save it as PSD then you HAVE TO SYNC</strong>... And don't tell me how I can save a layer TIF file...Thats the last thing I want to do is mix up flat TIF print ready files withs layered TIF files.<br>

So, yes you DO need to sync if you want to save it anything else. The likely usage.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a single key press. If you find that difficult, then there isn't anything that will satisfy you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>See first point response</strong>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You appear to not understand LR as this is not true in so many ways.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <strong>My responses above point out how it IS true</strong>. Having a catalog and developer in the same interface is a backwards way of trying to make very different functions work under one application. This is a major FAIL. (for many production, studio, photographer users)<br>

Teach me oh wise one</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>. After you press the single Key for Dev or Lib, it <strong>delays in allowing you to work</strong> with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Two seconds on my computer, at the most. Faster in LR 5 than before.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Yes, there is a need to sync up.</strong> unless you saved the file in the same format</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

There is no need to save files in LR. This is a failure to understand. If you use Photoshop, you just save it there and it goes back into LR automatically. LR doesn't have a "save files" command.</p>

<p>People who know LR a bit have this metality that all OTHER users are newbies, or don't know what they're doing. Give a person posting a little more credit. <br>

Where did I mention LR saves files? I was talking about how saving files in PS force you to sync...So meaning, unless you saved the file in the same format in PS, LR will force you to sync.</p>

<p>So from all the points you dwindled down to 2, and one failed.<br>

But let me tell you about the one one you are hanging on to...<br>

This is not a matter of 2 seconds screen time. It is a back and forth relationship that is constantly in need of interative switching. THIS is the weak point, and is not acceptable in most fast paced editing stations. Unless you have a pipe in your mouth and have the breeze of the lake in the studio over looking the scenery, and you make 5 master prints every year, and work at a librarians pace...It doesn't cut it.</p>

<p>Let me guess Jeff, you have workshops and teach people how to photograph or work in LR or something close? tell me I'm wrong...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>People who know LR a bit have this metality that all OTHER users are newbies...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Newbies who don't understand how the product acts?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was talking about how saving files in PS force you to sync...So meaning, unless you saved the file in the same format in PS, LR will force you to sync.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you explain step by step what you're talking about? Because like Jeff, I don't know what you're talking about, there's need to Sync/Save there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let me guess Jeff, you have workshops and teach people how to photograph or work in LR or something close? tell me I'm wrong...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's that got to do with the price of cheese? </p>