Processing Raw

[Doug]

Different rendering platforms have different advantages and disadvantages. LR is the same as all the others in this regard.

However, LR does tell you exactly where your photos are located.

I reverse this ... I tell LR exactly where to look for the photos upon "import". File management is my task, along with the Finder, not for LR to mess with. When the time comes, I point LR to the location of the files I want it to import, and keep my files organized the way I want. 🙂

But I treat batches of DNGs as if they were rolls of film (which is how it all started decades ago), with appropriate numbering, each batch in a separate folder, and numbered to correspond with a FileMaker database containing subject and tech data for each batch.

Anyway, there may be a couple of operations on a new batch before LR is allowed to see them... First I name the folder with the batch number. Then I use A Better Finder Rename to rename and sequence the DNGs in the folder according to the folder name. Additionally I may also correct the EXIF lens info with ExifChanger.

This is just how I've been doing it, and I'm open to new ideas from discussions like this. I share for the possible interest of others... 🙂

 

[Dwig]

I reverse this ... I tell LR exactly where to look for the photos upon "import". File management is my task, along with the Finder, not for LR to mess with. When the time comes, I point LR to the location of the files I want it to import, and keep my files organized the way I want. ...

+1, always take control of your stuff.

I do pretty much the same, though for some film I let Lr do the heavy lifting. I import new camera images directly from the card and steer Lr to place them in the folders of my choice, often importing in batches according to subject. At work, we leave all new digital images in their own folder trees sorted by camera. I point Lr to the appropriate camera folder and instruct it to sort the images into subfolders by date. It then does the dirty work of reading the image creation dates and copying the files appropriately in a batch operation.

When dealing with JPEGs (usually from gallery clients) or TIFFs (scans, ...) I manually place the files in the appropriate folders and then have Lr import them by simply Adding them to the Catalog without moving them.

Lr is flexible enough to allow both methods as the needs dictate.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Lightroom for me. Here's my file management recipe. I insist on knowing where my files are. I prepare for the scenario that at some point, Lightroom will disappear.

- I manually copy raw and jpeg files from the card to my computer, into a new folder for each "shoot"
- A new catalog for each "shoot", import photos, leave files in place.
- Edit, select
- Delete everything but the selects and a second reserve image for selected shot, just in case I later discover some flaw in the chosen image.
- Export 1200x1800 jpegs in sRGB for the selects to a new folder named for the event; These are for distribution to others, posting on the web, or print at 4x6. Export other sizes as needed for the event.
- Export full size jpegs in sRGB to the "raw" folder for the shoot; thes replace the in-camera jpegs
- Then, Lightroom... Catalog Settings... Automatically write changes into XMP, so if Lightroom disappears, I have a better change of opening the image files with my edits.

 

[willie_901]

Why is the Library an "inherent fault"? For me, that's one of the main advantages over Bridge and other apps that have a similar workflow.

The Lightroom catalog file records all your adjustments without directly manipulating the original files and can keep records on files that are on off-line volumes. File browsers like Bridge can only operate on files that are on accessible volumes and must change/manipulate the files directly rather than recording the changes you make.

G

Ronald M had several complaints about LR. Only one of them can not be remediated by learning how to use LR. That is the LR Library.

Personally I think the Library is the best way to organize original images. It makes perfect sense. One can organize the Library anyway one wishes. And, that organizational structure is mirrored exactly on the hard drive. With a single mouse click one can locate the original Library image (and, or their OS folder) on the HD.

What's not to like?

 

[willie_901]

I reverse this ... I tell LR exactly where to look for the photos upon "import". File management is my task, along with the Finder, not for LR to mess with. When the time comes, I point LR to the location of the files I want it to import, and keep my files organized the way I want. 🙂

But I treat batches of DNGs as if they were rolls of film (which is how it all started decades ago), with appropriate numbering, each batch in a separate folder, and numbered to correspond with a FileMaker database containing subject and tech data for each batch.

Anyway, there may be a couple of operations on a new batch before LR is allowed to see them... First I name the folder with the batch number. Then I use A Better Finder Rename to rename and sequence the DNGs in the folder according to the folder name. Additionally I may also correct the EXIF lens info with ExifChanger.

This is just how I've been doing it, and I'm open to new ideas from discussions like this. I share for the possible interest of others... 🙂

Nothing you describe is difficult to achieve using the Library the way LR's architects designed it to be used.

 

[Godfrey]

Nothing you describe is difficult to achieve using the Library the way LR's architects designed it to be used.

Yes. I use LR's import facility and tell it where to put my photos. And name the folders the way I want. And rename the files to my specification. Easy.

G

 

[Addy101]

However, LR does tell you exactly where your photos are located.

I just checked, you're right. My memory failed me. Changes nothing to the fact that I hated Lightroom.....

 

[raid]

I start out with LR to get jpg files and some adjustments, followed by Creative Stage to fine-tune files, if needed. This works for me. I do minimal adjusting.

 

[charjohncarter]

I have RAW Therapee and was overwhelmed at first. As you said it has everything and more. But when you realize this you can go to just what you need. It also processes TIFF and Jpeg the same way as RAW.

Another overwhelming program is ColorPerfect (Perfect RAW) and its RAW to TIFF program called MakeTiff. This really is a great program for RAW files (but probably not technically a RAW Converter) when you finally get comfortable with it.

 

[willie_901]

I just checked, you're right. My memory failed me. Changes nothing to the fact that I hated Lightroom.....

I enjoy LR. It has made me $$ and save me a great deal of time and effort.

I have no reason to minimize the hatred of LR. I just think people should hate it for inherent issues.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I use Aperture within Apple's Yosemite operating system. Cameras: Fuji X-T1, X100T, and Nikon 1 V3. Aperture processes the RAW files from all three beautifully, to my eye at least. And so long as I don't move on to some more advanced camera, I'll stick with this process.

I found Photoshop and Lightroom to be too 'geeky' for my taste. Aperture feels more like the relative simplicity of working in a film-based darkroom.

And regarding Apple's so-called abandonment of Aperture users, I've taken a bit closer look at the new Apple "Photos" software. It appears that all the Aperture functions I use are in Photos, though many are hidden 'under the hood' in pull-down menus.

 

[dasuess]

I found Photoshop and Lightroom to be too 'geeky' for my taste. Aperture feels more like the relative simplicity of working in a film-based darkroom.

I think it all depends on what you are used to using. When I switched to LR from Aperture earlier this year I too felt the LR IU "difficult"; however, I just decided to use LR (and only LR) on a trip I took in February-March. I shoot raw, so if it didn't work out, I could always go back to Aperture or find something else. After the trip (which coincided with the 90 day LR trial), I was sold on LR. I am still in the process of re-processing old images in LR, but I think LR is doing a better job on my TIFF film scans and the NEF files from my Df.

I still have Aperture installed, but I have not looked at it for months. When OSX El Capitan is available, I will not hesitate to go to it. And at that point any association with Aperture will be done - for good.

I do use the Photos app for sharing since my family and friends all have Apple devices.

 

[tbhv55]

I have RAW Therapee and was overwhelmed at first. As you said it has everything and more. But when you realize this you can go to just what you need. It also processes TIFF and Jpeg the same way as RAW.

I agree - Rawtherapee is a little overwhelming at first. However, perseverance is well-rewarded, and as you say, you can simply access the features that you need.

Once mastered, the output is (to my eye) superior to any other converter that I have tried.

 

[charjohncarter]

Once mastered, the output is (to my eye) superior to any other converter that I have tried.

I should have mentioned this too. I feel the same way: superior quality. I use the Skin Curve and even though it is tricky; when you get used to it you can make very small (and continuous) changes to skin tones that I have not seen on any other Converters or Editors.

 

[Lss]

regarding Apple's so-called abandonment of Aperture users, I've taken a bit closer look at the new Apple "Photos" software. It appears that all the Aperture functions I use are in Photos, though many are hidden 'under the hood' in pull-down menus.

Interesting to hear. Is there already an interoperable import for migrating the old libraries, or do you still need to start from scratch?

 

[Godfrey]

Interesting to hear. Is there already an interoperable import for migrating the old libraries, or do you still need to start from scratch?

I haven't spent any time with it yet, but my understanding is that Photos reads and converts both iPhoto and Aperture libraries to its format.

G

 

[krötenblender]

I use Lightroom on OSX for years now, but every now and then look into other Raw-developers.

Since Adobe changed to the subscription model, I continued to buy the standalone LR versions. Now, since it is obvious, that feature updates are not coming to the standalone versions anymore (dehaze, for example, although I don't have any use for it - there is a free set of plugins, that enables the feature, so I could try it), I'm looking even more.

Currently I'm testing Capture One with the 30 day trial version. I have the feeling, that C1 is an extremely powerful software, but with a steep learning curve, if one is used to LR. However, I think, it can replace LR for me. The from my point of view more fair "traditional" software licensing model also motivates me to learn the usage and workflow.

I also tried several other raw developers:
Darktable - looks like a promising clone of LR, but is way too unstable to use it on OSX. In fact, it just didn't do anything.
DxO Optics Pro 8: Nice and easy to use, but not really "complete" in the sense, that I could use it for everything.
Affinity Photo: Very nice as editing pictures, but not as a raw developer and not catalog features. If I were a PS user, this would be my replacement, I even bought a copy after the beta testing.
Olympus Viewer: Only Olympus cameras, and really awkward user interface.
...and some others I don't remember.

After all, C1 will probably replace LR in the long run. It is very powerful and it seems, that the workflow is very configurable. Maybe some weakness compared to LRs catalog features, but I can probably live with that.
What I really would love would be some API or scripting interface. I'm a computer scientist and love hacking programs and extend them to my needs. Often one has just one simple idea for an automated workflow, and adding that to a powerful program would made me switch immediately.

 

[Godfrey]

Interesting to hear. Is there already an interoperable import for migrating the old libraries, or do you still need to start from scratch?

I haven't spent any time with it yet, but my understanding is that Photos reads and converts both iPhoto and Aperture libraries to its format.

I verified by testing:

Photos reads all Aperture and iPhoto libraries and applies the adjustments that were applied in Aperture or iPhoto. Furthermore, in my tests I was able to read a Photos library with Aperture and still have all my adjustments come across.

These are rather trivial tests I've done, but the basic compatibility is obviously there.

G