Getting Organized - Creative Cloud

[Colin Southern]

I'm surprised to learn that. What are some examples?

Cataloging

[HenkB]

Evolutionary successor would tend to indicate a level of superiority of over the predecessor that will lead to the eventual obsolescene of the predecessor; and this is simply not the case.

Evolution does not necessarily imply superiority at anything other than exploiting a hitherto under-exploited niche in the ecosystem. Lightroom has evolved directly from the experience and technology base of the Photoshop design team as well as photographers familiar with and, presumably, not entirely satisfied by Photoshop. In this sense, Lightroom is filling a hitherto underexploited niche in the market. Think back to the finches of the Galapagos.

Perhaps you find successor too strong a term but I think not. LR has wrested a substantial population from PS and that seems enough like succession to me to justify my wording. Of course PS and LR will co-exist while pursuing different paths but their DNA (ACR) will likely keep them very close cousins (& capable of interbreeding? ) for as long as the ecosystem allows. Whether one will eventually win all the marbles or not is somewhat beside the point.

Or so it seems to me.

[Manfred M]

You're apparently referring to a context that software engineers use that I'm ignorant of. Thanks for explaining that.

Not just software engineering; the context is used in other fields (including other engineering disciplines) as well as the basic biological context.

I'm surprised to learn that. What are some examples?

I'm thinking functions outside of the develop and print modules; there is cataloging, map, book functionality in Photoshop.

[Manfred M]

Evolution does not necessarily imply superiority at anything other than exploiting a hitherto under-exploited niche in the ecosystem. Lightroom has evolved directly from the experience and technology base of the Photoshop design team as well as photographers familiar with and, presumably, not entirely satisfied by Photoshop. In this sense, Lightroom is filling a hitherto underexploited niche in the market. Think back to the finches of the Galapagos.

Perhaps you find successor too strong a term but I think not. LR has wrested a substantial population from PS and that seems enough like succession to me to justify my wording. Of course PS and LR will co-exist while pursuing different paths but their DNA (ACR) will likely keep them very close cousins (& capable of interbreeding? ) for as long as the ecosystem allows. Whether one will eventually win all the marbles or not is somewhat beside the point.

Or so it seems to me.

Actually Hendrik, if you look at the history of Lightroom, while it did have Photoshop roots, it was very much a different product (I've been using Lightroom since one of the late beta releases) and was originally touted as an asset management solution with limited editing capabilities. So far as I can determine, the bulk of the Lightroom development team originally came from the ImageReady group (this used to ship with Photoshop up to CS2 and was primarily aimed at web development).

As for your comments regarding of wresting a substantial population from Photoshop; I rather doubt that. That would not have been in Adobe's best self interest, as PS is a premium product, while LR is not. I suspect that much of the growth was incremental, capturing people who found both Photoshop and Elements too complex for their editing needs.

I know a number of professional photographers and 100% of them use PS, a susbstantial group also uses LR, but a large group does not. The ones that do a lot of wedding photography seem to be the ones that use LR a lot; while the product and specialist photographers do not.

Lightroom is simply too basic a tool for serious graphics arts work.

[Mike Buckley]

I'm thinking functions outside of the develop and print modules

That's cheating.

Cataloging

So is that.

[Colin Southern]

Hmmm.

Not really sure what we're arguing about here folks. I don't think anyone would dispute that LR "is what it is" - a package that's designed to provide parametric edits to photos and to assist with batch processing & cataloging of the same. Being low-cost (compared to PS) makes it appealing to certain markets and groups. On the other hand, the features of Bridge + ACR + PS make it appeal to a different group. Adobe want each photographer to use BOTH, not either (have a look at Julieanne Kost's presentation on the two).

I don't think there's any dispute over the "common gene pool" either - not should there be.

On the other hand, if it's being implied that LR is "the prodigal son that rose from the ashes of PS to lead the way into the future" then I'd have to say that folks are mistaken; I don't see LR as having any "ease of use" advantage over Bridge + ACR + PS ... They're different as chalk and cheese - Bridge is multi-user for a start, and handles objects from many Adobe applications. ACR is functionally equivalent across both products (although I need to say that personally, I far prefer the ACR interface to the LR one), and when one gets into Photoshop "proper" (a-la pixel-based editing and all that) you can't compare "ease of use" because LR simply can't do it.

For me personally, LR offers me no advantages; I can do my batch image handling from Bridge - ACR is ACR - and all of my images require additional processing that would be extremely clunky in LR if it were even possible at all (happy to provide details to any non-believers!).

[Manfred M]

Colin has summed up my feelings on the two products quite well. There are somethings that Lightroom offers that I can't do in Photoshop; but these are the "peripheral" functionality that I generally would handle differently (use InDesign to do eBooks, rather than the Lightroom book module).

The main reason I know Lightroom is so that I can help my wife (and now my daughter); this tool is "good enough" for 95% of their post-processing needs. For anything "difficult", they hand over the files for me to do in Photoshop. Anyone who uses ACR can use the develop module, but I would agree with Colin that the user interface in ACR works far better for me.

Ease of use is a bit more difficult to assess; Photoshop can do anything that Lightroom's develop module can do, only far faster and better (and usually more than one way to approach a specific editing situation); but there is no question that the learning curve is a LOT longer. I simply could not live without layers (and layer masks), blending modes and selection tools.

So if Lightroom takes care of all of your editing needs; great. You have a tool that works for you at a reasonable price. If you find that you can't get the results that you need; consider upping your game and learn Photoshop.

[Mike Buckley]

Peter Krogh wrote an excellent piece for dpBestWorkflow about parametric image editing. You can find it here.

[Manfred M]

Peter Krogh wrote an excellent piece for dpBestWorkflow about parametric image editing. You can find it here.

Sorry; but I cannot agree with much of what Peter has written; and perhaps that is because what he considers to be an advantage is really a disadvantage to my way of working. He is writing as a media photographer, which means he has a totally different set of requirments for workflow that most of us. Media photographers were the ones on tight deadlines, trying to get images in by cutoff time; these are the photographers that still shoot SOOC for this reason. This is a totally different requirement than someone who is a fine art photographer like yourself.

I personally find a lot of his statements a bit misleading; and certainly he is only telling part of the story and is spinning a particular context to make his point. Certain things he views as an advantage, I find to be a disadvantage, certainly for my own requirements.

A parametric editor works by storing information on the each edit made to the file. So far, so good. This means that one has to be able to write an equation for each step. It also means that one has to run the equation over and over again every time the user makes a change. Add too many steps and you get the thread about how Lightroom slows down and gets bogged down. As well, there are some processes where it would be diffiecult, if not impossible to write an equation to do the edit. The upside is that storing the data that drives the equations is very space efficient.

None of these constraints apply to a pixel based editor; even though the actual work is done by applying mathematical forumlas to the affected pixels. The final result is stored and it can be reproduced very quickly by the editor. As we don't have to develop efficient mathematical means of storing information, we can get amazing edits at a pixel level that cannot be touched by a parametric editor. The downside is that speed comes at a price; storage space. Every time we add a layer to the edit, data on every pixel and how that is applied to the other layers has to be stored. Even with compression algorithms, file size can grow quickly. Some of my psd files are many hundred megapixel.

So like everything else in life, there are tradeoffs. By their very nature of having to describe and store data; parametric editors are limited as to what one can do. The reason that they are easy to use is a bit of an outcome really; because they can't do anything too complex.

So, if you need to do some fairly basic work; yes a parametric editor like Lightroom is all one needs. If you want to do some heavy duty editing, there is simply no way to do so,

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for ruining my day, Manfred. My ignorance was also my bliss until you came along to write that post.

Seriously, the reason I looked up that article is because I had never heard of the term, "parametric editing," until several very recent discussions including this one that took place here at CiC. Unlike you, I don't have enough experience using both parametric and pixel editors to have an informed opinion about their more nuanced advantages and disadvantages.

I only know that I mostly use Nikon Capture NX2, which is a parametric editor that meets enough of my needs that it's not worth me taking the time to learn how to use competing software. If I ever do switch to Lightroom, it will probably be in combination with some of the Nik Collection apps primarily for use of their control-point masking technology. (I got used to that technology years ago using Capture NX1.)

Without that combination, Lightroom isn't nearly as powerful as Capture NX2 despite that CNX2 was released in June 2008 and Lightroom's most recent upgrade was very recently released. (Lightroom is quicker and probably doesn't have nearly as many quirks including intermittent bugs at least according to its reputation, but it's not as powerful.) As an example, all of CNX2's capabilities, except obvious things such as lens corrections can be done selectively, whereas only some of Lightroom's capabilities can be done selectively. I haven't explored whether the combination of Lightroom and the Google Collection apps will solve that problem.

[Colin Southern]

Sorry; but I cannot agree with much of what Peter has written

Me neither.

[PhotomanJohn]

As an example, all of CNX2's capabilities, except obvious things such as lens corrections can be done selectively, whereas only some of Lightroom's capabilities can be done selectively.

Let me start off by saying that I am primarily a Bridge - Photoshop guy. I just wanted to comment that the Adjustment Brush feature that I think came in at LR4 allows a rather long list of adjustments to be done selectively.

John

[Mike Buckley]

Let me start off by saying that I am primarily a Bridge - Photoshop guy. I just wanted to comment that the Adjustment Brush feature that I think came in at LR4 allows a rather long list of adjustments to be done selectively.

You are correct, John. However, I don't understand even with LR5 why everything can't be done selectively. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that by not making that possible, Adobe is intentionally encouraging people to upgrade to Photoshop.

[Colin Southern]

You are correct, John. However, I don't understand even with LR5 why everything can't be done selectively. The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that by not making that possible, Adobe is intentionally encouraging people to upgrade to Photoshop.

I suspect that the bottom like is that they need to draw the line somewhere - and selections is as good a place as any. The roots of parametric editing have traditionally meant global adjustments -- it's only in more recent times that they've extended that functionality by allowing them to be localised. Personally, that's pretty much the part where I move from ACR into Photoshop (I'll apply digital GNDs in ACR, but that's pretty much the extent of local adjustments).

[Manfred M]

Thanks for ruining my day, Manfred. My ignorance was also my bliss until you came along to write that post.

Seriously, the reason I looked up that article is because I had never heard of the term, "parametric editing," until several very recent discussions including this one that took place here at CiC. Unlike you, I don't have enough experience using both parametric and pixel editors to have an informed opinion about their more nuanced advantages and disadvantages.

I only know that I mostly use Nikon Capture NX2, which is a parametric editor that meets enough of my needs that it's not worth me taking the time to learn how to use competing software. If I ever do switch to Lightroom, it will probably be in combination with some of the Nik Collection apps primarily for use of their control-point masking technology. (I got used to that technology years ago using Capture NX1.)

Without that combination, Lightroom isn't nearly as powerful as Capture NX2 despite that CNX2 was released in June 2008 and Lightroom's most recent upgrade was very recently released. (Lightroom is quicker and probably doesn't have nearly as many quirks including intermittent bugs at least according to its reputation, but it's not as powerful.) As an example, all of CNX2's capabilities, except obvious things such as lens corrections can be done selectively, whereas only some of Lightroom's capabilities can be done selectively. I haven't explored whether the combination of Lightroom and the Google Collection apps will solve that problem.

Sorry for ruining your day Mike; but I understand the math and the advantages and disadvantage of both approaches. I had a very early digital camera; a Logitech Fotoman (from around 1990) and coded some rudimentary image manipulation software for it.

Doing something to a single pixel (or group of pixels) is really very simple. All one needs to do is assign a value for each row / column position. Trying to write an equation to do so takes a lot more resources, hence the key design issue with a parametric editor. One has to translate the mouse movement into an equation (or group of equations) to accurately describe a path is definitely not trivial. The appropriate curve has to be selected and the appropriate constants describing the path and offsets have to be stored in the metafile. This is the real reason as to why there are some real limits with regards to what can be done. I'm sure that all of the smart folks at Adobe Labs are designing ever more sophistication into Lightroon; but there really is a practical limit to what can be done.

Global adjustments, on the other hand are easy to do parametrically. Filters that can be defined linearly with a start and end point, same thing. That is really why we see the limitations of Lightroom.

[Colin Southern]

One has to translate the mouse movement into an equation (or group of equations) to accurately describe a path is definitely not trivial.

I would have thought they'd simply store a table of unique coordinates for each path. Thinking about it, it'll be in the metadata as XMP if anyone wants to pull it up and take a look.

[Mike Buckley]

Manfred,

You explained that global parametric editing is so much easier to effectively program than selective parametric editing. On the one hand, it's really exciting to appreciate that Nikon Capture NX1 made it possible to make all of its adjustments both globally and selectively in 2006 and was apparently cutting-edge software in that regard. On the other hand, it's really sad to realize that Nikon hasn't brought out an upgrade to the program since releasing Capture NX2 in June 2008. I firmly believe that they will never release another one, that they will only release updates that fix some of the bugs, make it possible to convert RAW files created by their newly released cameras, and to perhaps introduce form time to time a new though minor capability.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

You explained that global parametric editing is so much easier to effectively program than selective parametric editing. On the one hand, it's really exciting to appreciate that Nikon Capture NX1 made it possible to make all of its adjustments both globally and selectively in 2006 and was apparently cutting-edge software in that regard. On the other hand, it's really sad to realize that Nikon hasn't brought out an upgrade to the program since releasing Capture NX2 in June 2008. I firmly believe that they will never release another one, that they will only release updates that fix some of the bugs, make it possible to convert RAW files created by their newly released cameras, and to perhaps introduce form time to time a new though minor capability.

Nikon had NIK software develop Capture NX and View NX. When Google bought NIK, that part of the business was not bought by Google, so I suspect that Nikon has decided that they are not going to add new functionality (other than updating the software for new camera releases). In some ways, I can't blame them, after all they are competing with Adobe and the vast resources that that company has.

[Jim35010]

OK, I don't comment much and lurk a lot. With that said I have used Bridge, ACR, and Photoshop for a few years now. I am really comfortable with this set up. I recently upgraded to CC and am becoming familiar with Lightroom. Now I use several learning sources, Youtube, with some helpful specific topics. I think Terry White does a good job of exposing Lightroom and PS CC. I also have used Lynda.com for several years and find it very good if you want to take a full course.
My impression of Lightroom, is that it is a glorified version of ACR, with the ability of having a catalog system. I can do some things in this new version that I couldn't in my ACR, but I can do things in photoshop that is impossible to do in either one. But LR has a way to go for me to be as comfortable with it as I was with bridge and ACR.
Now that said, I am very concerned with the loss of data. I use a 1GB external hard drive for most of my storage, and a 2GB external hard drive for archive. I am not as concerned with edited photos as I am preserving the original (most of mine are NEF) I am now downloading into LR as DNG.
I am not concerned at all about which came first or foremost, as I am concerned with is the ability to use these tools effectively and not lose data.
I think this is a good thread and hope I haven't rambled too much.
Thanks
Jim

[TonyW]

I have been following this thread with great interest because I am in the process of getting organised. It seems that Bridge, ACR and Photoshop is the way to go (in spite of my initial problems with Bridge) except that I am not sure about cataloguing. Bridge allows the definition of collections but Lightroom seems to manage collections in a more sophisticated way.

Should I use Lightroom for cataloguing even if not for editing?