needed table for Lightroom equivalents to Photoshop commands

[Bob Michaels]

I am struggling with Lightroom. I have 10+ years experience using Photoshop so a pretty good understand of image editing. I just need to know the Lightroom equivalent to what I do in Photoshop.

Now I understand Lightroom sometimes takes a different approach than Photoshop. I frequently struggle to find out what that approach is. I just want to leverage my Photoshop skills into Lightroom, not restart from scratch.

An example: I know how to set the levels or ends of a histogram in Photoshop. It is image / adjustments / levels / then move the sliders to where you want them on the histogram. But, I still cannot figure out how to do that, or whatever the equivalent is, in Lightroom. Should be simple, right? It is not.

I have LR 3.6 and CS5 running Win7, all most recent versions.

Can anyone recommend a reference chart or table that tells an experienced Photoshop user how to accomplish the same things in Lightroom?

 

[Jim-st]

Hi Bob-

I'm guessing you're not processing RAW files, as if that was your approach you'd be familiar with Adobe Camera Raw in PS, which offers the same controls as the LR Develop module...

In the specific example you mention, the LR equivalent of setting black and white points in PS Levels would be use the Blacks and the Exposure/ Recovery sliders in LR3, For gamma adjustment, you have a few possible equivalents: try Brightness, Contrast and Fill Light.

For Curves, you can set the Tone Curve in LR3 to work much like the PS Curves by clicking the little "curve" icon where it says "Custom" to get rid of the Region sliders (though I got used to using the Region sliders in LR 1 & 2 when there was no custom option, and I've kinda stuck with them in LR3)

For H&S, that's there in the next pane down in the Develop module, and you have the full PS functionality there, plus a few extra channels to play with

The LR workflow is different from PS, but in some ways it's clearer and easier to grasp, as in general you can move from Import to Library to Develop, where the r/h panel presents things in a fairly logical manner (that you don't have to stick with) as you move down the panes.

If you want a book, I'd suggest Martin Evening's, though I have to say that for me learning LR meant many less head-in-a-book hours than did learning PS! If you prefer videos to book-learning, there's hours and hours of Reichmann & Schewe for sale at Luminous Landscape, and I have found some useful stuff in them

Hope this helps

 

[Bob Michaels]

Jim: I am processing RAW files only recently as I am trying to learn how to shoot digital. But 99.8% of my Photoshop experience is with scanned negs. I am trying to figure out how to convert that 10+ years experience into LR, not starting to learn all over again. Maybe it is not possible.

Does the Martin Ewing book assume you have significant PS experience and just need to translate that to LR? What I am looking for is something that specifically says "if you do XXX in Photoshop, then use YYY in Lightroom"

 

[doncraig]

Bob, I'm a long time PS user (designed the first retail package for Adobe) and use and teach Lightroom. Rarely use PS for photography now as LR does nearly everything I need.

I don't think you will find what you're looking for: translation of PS to LR workflow. Jim has some good suggestions. Also have a look at Julianne Kost's evangelical videos for LR (http://jkost.com/index.html).

Bottom line, don't attempt to translate, but rather, look at some of Julianne's videos and decide what workflow will work for you in LR. It's very logical from a photography point of view and is surprisingly simple compared to working in PS. And the fact that you can make as many variations (virtual copies) without ever having to save another version of the file is brilliant. The advantages of using LR will become increasingly apparent as you use the app.

Hope that this helps,
Don

PS: upgrade to LR4 and you will feel like you got a camera upgrade too!

 

[AndysRollei]

If you want see the different commands in LR, you can hit control (win) or command (mac) and forward slash to see a table of different commands. You can do this for each module: library, develop, slideshow, web and in LR4 they added map and book.

Andy

 

[willie_901]

Bob,

The only advice I can share is LR is designed such that the adjustments are made from the top down in the development panel.

So start from the top and see how the histogram and your image responds. I only revert to the tone curve if the other sliders couldn't get the job done.

At the same time I'm sure there are some people who start with the tone curve and end up with wonderful results. But I could never get anywhere that way.

The HSL panel can be very useful to do minor selective color temperature adjustments. They also can compensate for color twisting if you have to use a lot of Fill slider. I typically reduce the red saturation.

In LR 4 they changed everything. It was a good change too. The development process is quit different. You may want to download the trial version and see if the new Development module is easier to use for an experienced PS user like you.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Don, Andy, Willie thanks to each of you.

I am concluding, based on so much input, that what I want does not exist. I have a 12? step Photoshop workflow that I use for every image. I do just about everything in layers so everything is non-destructive. I always save the file with layers intact. Plus, I like to vary the opacity of some adjustments. My workflow always entails printing an 8x10 proof and saving an 800 pixel wide JPG. Things go quick as I seldom pause to have to think of what a file needs. It takes about 2 minutes per image.

The "curves" function is critical to me as I do a lot of black & white. That function in Lightroom seems very constrained and inflexible. I almost always use an S shaped curve in Photoshop derived from two very critically placed points. I just cannot do what in need to do with the LR "tonal curve" function.

I shoot about 100 frames a week and edit out about 95% of them as a first step. So I am only working on a handful of images every time. I am concluding that Photoshop, not Lightroom is the best tool for me.

LR 3 is the only version I have ever used. If I try LR 4, am I then stuck with buying it to be able to reuse any of the image files I adjusted with LR 4? I really did not want to buy LR 3 after the trial, but it seemed to be the only way I could ever get back to the files I adjusted with it. I never could load them later into Photoshop without having LR installed.

 

[rxmd]

LR 3 is the only version I have ever used. If I try LR 4, am I then stuck with buying it to be able to reuse any of the image files I adjusted with LR 4? I really did not want to buy LR 3 after the trial, but it seemed to be the only way I could ever get back to the files I adjusted with it. I never could load them later into Photoshop without having LR installed.

Lightroom doesn't really work with "files" and "changes to files". It works with images. takes your original source data (OK, a "file" technically) and then just saves the Lightroom adjustments you are making to it, separately. So you can't open this without Lightroom obviously.

However what you can do is take all the images you modified in Lightroom, save them as 16-bit full-resolution TIFFs or whatever (basically a 1-click operation using export presets) and then continue editing them in whatever other program you use.

LR4 is the only one I have ever used. I am concluding, based on so much input, that what I want does not exist. I have a 12? step Photoshop workflow that I use for every image. I do just about everything in layers so everything is non-destructive. I always save the file with layers intact. Plus, I like to vary the opacity of some adjustments. My workflow always entails printing an 8x10 proof and saving an 800 pixel wide JPG. Things go quick as I seldom pause to have to think of what a file needs. It takes about 2 minutes per image.

A lot of that workflow seems to be based around complex functions that you need in Photoshop to work around the inherently-destructive imaging workflow. You have to use layers because otherwise Photoshop will change your source JPEG. You don't need to do that in Lightroom, because the entire Lightroom workflow is inherently nondestructive. It literally makes no sense to attempt to do the same workflow into Lightroom 1:1. A workflow based on opacity of layers is not transferable to Lightroom.

The "curves" function is critical to me as I do a lot of black & white. That function in Lightroom seems very constrained and inflexible. I almost always use an S shaped curve in Photoshop derived from two very critically placed points. I just cannot do what in need to do with the LR "tonal curve" function.

An S-shaped curve is essentially just a finely-adapted brightness and contrast adjustment, as long as you don't do any reversals. The tonal curve in Lightroom will allow you to do just that. The only quirk vis-a-vis the Photoshop equivalent is that you don't modify the curve by "placing points", but by dragging the curve itself. This tool works only up and down, not horizontally, but this is not a problem because if you want to move the curve "right", you just grab it in a point to the right and drag that part up or down.

You can adjust the rate by which these control point adjustments affect the curve based on the image content - if you have an image that need fine adjustments in the darker areas, you just drag the "dark" part of the adjustment slider to the right, and then when you drag a control point on the curve you'll see that the curve becomes more responsive in the dark parts.

Exporting can be done using export presets. These work differently from Photoshop, but are very straightforward in themselves. Make a preset for each of your export formats and then that's it.

Honestly, I think it's just a matter of getting to know a few critical tools in Lightroom - the histogram adjustment sliders for the initial placement of the histogram, then the tonal curve tool which does the same as Photoshop's curves (except that you need to click in different ways to move the curve), and then the export tools. This is basically it. Your 10+ years experience in what buttons to click in Photoshop is not worth very much in a different program with a different logic. However, the underlying 10+ years experience what adjustments an image needs to look good is very transferable. It's just a matter of learning a new tool to make these adjustments, and the new tool (I find) is actually very straightforward in itself if you don't attempt to cram Photoshop button-clicking logic into it.

 

[shiro_kuro]

Hold down the option key (mac) while sliding the : Exposure ,Shadows ,Whites, Blacks . Rather than explain what this does try it .It really makes a world of difference when working with these sliders .

Also you can adjust each of these sliders in the histogram by hovering the mouse cursor in the different parts off the histogram . Just click on different places within the histogram and you will see the slider for shadows , highlights ect. activate ,just click and drag....

There is also a small bull eyes next in the upper corner of the tone curves panel .... looks like a bull eyes . Click on this and the place your cursor any blade you want to selectively adjust your levels or tone curve .....

hit L and the screen will dim ,darken and back to regular with each click ... great way to see your image adjustments ....

Space bar changes the size of your image with in the screen

E is the loupe view .....

Command E sends the image to PS or whatever external editor you set in you preferences ....

These are some of my most used keyboard short cuts ...

Enjoy LightRoom ; )

 

[doncraig]

Bob, essentially, everyone seems to be giving you the same advise: don't try to work in LR like you do in PS. If you are happy with PS and your workflow, you should stick with it.

When I made the switch to LR, I had to learn a new way to work. I'm happy I made the switch; LR is designed to work with photographs, from managing your library of images to developing them in a very logical way, to exporting, be that printing or sending an image via email or uploading to Flickr.

As I mentioned earlier, I teach a LR workshop, so I am accustomed to helping people learn a new way of working with LR over other applications. However, the only way anybody can learn how to use it is to start from scratch and not relying upon knowledge about another application. There are some similarities between PS and LR, however the differences are what make LR such a good way to work with photographs. You may be working in PS in a non-destructive way by using layers, but you might find that the way LR works non-destructively is so much better.

Anyway, use what you think works for you. If you are ever in Victoria, BC, let me know and I'll sit down with you over a cup of coffee and my laptop and show you how I use LR.

Cheers.

 

[shadowfox]

LR 3 is the only version I have ever used. If I try LR 4, am I then stuck with buying it to be able to reuse any of the image files I adjusted with LR 4? I really did not want to buy LR 3 after the trial, but it seemed to be the only way I could ever get back to the files I adjusted with it. I never could load them later into Photoshop without having LR installed.

Bob,

I can't imagine that the price of Lightroom is a hindrance for anyone who works with photograph in a continual basis. Especially a full-time photographer like yourself.

I too used to have a set of PS actions that I apply as the basis for processing my images. But since I am familiar with the mindset of using Lightroom, I no longer needed PS.

The amount of tweaking that you can do in Lightroom may never achieve the flexibility of PS, but I can use it for 95% of the images that came across my computers (I work on other people's images too once in a while). The other 5% will get PS treatment.

So my point is, it's worth my time to invest some learning to use Lightroom, and in the end I feel that it makes my life easier. Just an opinion that may help you (or not) in your considerations.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I can't imagine that the price of Lightroom is a hindrance for anyone who works with photograph in a continual basis. Especially a full-time photographer like yourself. .............................
So my point is, it's worth my time to invest some learning to use Lightroom, and in the end I feel that it makes my life easier. Just an opinion that may help you (or not) in your considerations.

Will: Thanks for the info. Actually, I work on post processing only 3-5 images a week as I edit harshly as a first step. And, I don't shoot that many more images when using digital than when using film.

It is all the Lightroom recommendations such as yours that keep my futzing around with it.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Thanks. I tried this and just cannot control the tonal curve in LR the way I can control a contrast curve in PS. I tried much but not being able to select a point on the curve then slide that point horizontally and vertically is not something I can duplicate in LR. I think I could eventually learn to approximate the effect but it sure is a PITA in LR compared to PS. And this is the one critical adjustment affecting the contrast in the shadows, midtones and highlights of a B&W print.

Am I missing something not being able to open a (one) file in LR? I can only figure out how to open one entire subdirectory of files. Tonight I am wanting to work on 2 files from a roll I shot today. These are part of a project I have been working on since 2005 and everything in organized into subdirectories layered 4 deep so I must ignore all of LR's image storage methodology. I have 11 years of files stored my way and can never change. Doesn't make sense, but I cannot open just one file in LR to work on it.

................................ An S-shaped curve is essentially just a finely-adapted brightness and contrast adjustment, as long as you don't do any reversals. The tonal curve in Lightroom will allow you to do just that. The only quirk vis-a-vis the Photoshop equivalent is that you don't modify the curve by "placing points", but by dragging the curve itself. This tool works only up and down, not horizontally, but this is not a problem because if you want to move the curve "right", you just grab it in a point to the right and drag that part up or down.

You can adjust the rate by which these control point adjustments affect the curve based on the image content - if you have an image that need fine adjustments in the darker areas, you just drag the "dark" part of the adjustment slider to the right, and then when you drag a control point on the curve you'll see that the curve becomes more responsive in the dark parts. ..............................

 

[rxmd]

Thanks. I tried this and just cannot control the tonal curve in LR the way I can control a contrast curve in PS. I tried much but not being able to select a point on the curve then slide that point horizontally and vertically is not something I can duplicate in LR. I think I could eventually learn to approximate the effect but it sure is a PITA in LR compared to PS. And this is the one critical adjustment affecting the contrast in the shadows, midtones and highlights of a B&W print.

You can drag the curve up and down all you like, and give the curve pretty much any shape. It's just that you drag the curve itself, while in Photoshop you set control points and drag those points. It works differently than in Photoshop, but the curve is there and supports all that. What you cannot do is have the curve start anywhere else than zero, but that's not what the curve is for - you use the histogram for that, before starting work on curves at all. Also you cannot have reversals ("hills and valleys") on your curve, but those are of next to no utility for photographers. Also Lightroom makes some assumptions on what you want to achieve when you drag a part of the curve (that is, whether you want to influence the dark areas, the midtones or the bright areas - the "limits" you see around the curve when dragging it), but you can control this behaviour by dragging the sliders below the curve and give yourself more breathing room.

The key to using the editing functions is working top to bottom in the editing panel. First you set the overall tonal range of the picture by dragging the histogram, then you can adjust brightness and contrast if you wish, and only then you start making fine adjustments using the curve. It's really straightforward.

Am I missing something not being able to open a (one) file in LR? I can only figure out how to open one entire subdirectory of files. Tonight I am wanting to work on 2 files from a roll I shot today. These are part of a project I have been working on since 2005 and everything in organized into subdirectories layered 4 deep so I must ignore all of LR's image storage methodology. I have 11 years of files stored my way and can never change. Doesn't make sense, but I cannot open just one file in LR to work on it.

Lightroom is not really made for a workflow that involves opening, editing and saving individual files. It is an image database, which refers to the files stored on your disk, but which is separate from those files and leaves them largely untouched (except for metadata). Understanding this is key to understanding Lightroom.

It works best when you allow it to work on your entire library. Rather than working on single files, you can import your existing 11-year directory hierarchy into Lightroom's database while leaving the structure of the file hierarchy as it is. It doesn't force upon you any methodology of organizing your files, you can use whatever structure you're used to. It's what I do; I had a structure organized by year and then roll of film, and I just imported this structure 1:1 and continue to use it as it was. The only thing I have to keep in mind is that Lightroom leaves the RAW and JPEG files in that hierarchy untouched, so if I want to have a picture with all its modifications as a file, I need to export it and save it somewhere.

 

[jarski]

Q to LR experts. does it have sophistication when it comes to backing up the original files? am meaning new files on camera import, not old archive.

e.g. auto generate directory structure based on dates, name files in defined ways? would be easier to live with new workflow, if one knows that no matter what happens, library of originals stays, and grows as it used to.

 

[rxmd]

Q to LR experts. does it have sophistication when it comes to backing up the original files? am meaning new files on camera import, not old archive.

e.g. auto generate directory structure based on dates, name files in defined ways? would be easier to live with new workflow, if one knows that no matter what happens, library of originals stays, and grows as it used to.

Well, there is a renaming facility on import that also allows to create subdirectories for dates. When I import a file, I automatically have Lightroom rename it so that the filename includes the date, a user-defined name of the photosession, a shorthand for the name of the photographer and the running number of the camera's image counter, and have this sorted into folders organized by date.

The folder creation facility is not very sophisticated, though, or at least I haven't discovered the sophistication yet. For example you can create subfolders by date, but not by month; and you can give an extra descriptive name to the file, but not to the folders you create. It's not a problem in practice, however, because you can then just rename the folder from within Lightroom after importing, it's basically a 1-click operation.

 

[Bob Michaels]

.................................... Lightroom is not really made for a workflow that involves opening, editing and saving individual files. It is an image database, which refers to the files stored on your disk, but which is separate from those files and leaves them largely untouched (except for metadata). Understanding this is key to understanding Lightroom. .............................

You have probably identified the root cause of my struggles with Lightroom. It appears to be designed to work efficiently with a workflow that differs from my own. I do work on individual files as already have an idea what message the photos should convey and edit out about 90-95% before I ever start post processing. For example, I have a project I have worked on for 2 1/2 years, photographed for just over 100 full days over 9 international trips, and I have 265 photos that I ever post processed. I suspect LR is great for someone who deals with that many photos in a manner of weeks, not 2 1/2 years.

 

[rxmd]

You have probably identified the root cause of my struggles with Lightroom. It appears to be designed to work efficiently with a workflow that differs from my own. I do work on individual files as already have an idea what message the photos should convey and edit out about 90-95% before I ever start post processing. For example, I have a project I have worked on for 2 1/2 years, photographed for just over 100 full days over 9 international trips, and I have 265 photos that I ever post processed. I suspect LR is great for someone who deals with that many photos in a manner of weeks, not 2 1/2 years.

Actually I do pretty much the same. I import images into Lightroom and then immediately throw a lot of them out again. Out of a typical photo session I keep maybe 20-30% and edit half of those at the most,

The nice thing is that you can decide whether you want to throw them out, to keep them but leave them unprocessed (maybe you need them later?) or to process them. After all importing them into the database does not force you to edit them later.

 

[willie_901]

Q to LR experts. does it have sophistication when it comes to backing up the original files? am meaning new files on camera import, not old archive.

e.g. auto generate directory structure based on dates, name files in defined ways? would be easier to live with new workflow, if one knows that no matter what happens, library of originals stays, and grows as it used to.

LR can do a back up to an external drive upon import. When I import new work I copy and covert the raws to DNG. I rename the files and apply ACR lens corrections. However the same files are copied to the external drive exactly as they were stored on the card.

LR simply mirrors the file hierarchy that already exists on your computer. LR just adds new directories to the structure you already have in place. You create new sub directories (or top level directories if you wish) for new work. You name those directories anything you want.

Finally if you want to reorganize you photo folders, you can do that inside of LR. All you do is drag and drop existing folders, sub folders or phoos around. You can rename the folders too. When you quit LR and look at you directory structure with the OS, you will find LR's changes are in place. Of course this is optional, but it is useful. This men's if you organize photos outside of LR, LR can't find the photos. It is easy but tedious to teach LR where the moved folders are, so only move folders and files inside of LR.