Raw workflow with Lightroom

[Stephen]

After reading some discussion in the FZ30 thread and the comments from Patrick on Raw Workflow, which I generally agree fully with, I thought it best to add some more of my own thoughts here rather than highjack that thread.

I'm beginning to think since using Lightroom, that many of my pictures, especially those produced for clients, are achieved without the use of Photoshop. As this is becoming the case, there seems little point saving a folder full of jpegs, as I have become accustomed to doing and Patrick described in his comments.

Once a selection has been made, I use Picks (P) actually Pat. and you are looking only at those in the folder, and after you have processed the one(s) you need, infact if you are printing images there is no need to process to jpeg. There seems little point in keeping a shed load of Jpegs.

The jpeg images are easily reproduced at the click of a button, if you need them. I suppose I'm questioning whether I do need them, especially in the case of ones that have been supplied to a client. I may as well delete them. In the case of personal work, there is less and less need to keep loads of processed images unless Photoshop has been used to alter them.

The fact is though that Lightroom uses images and promotes a workflow that virtually negates the need to process loads of images to jpeg/tiff and store them in separate folders.

Any LR users like to add any thoughts?

[vlarcombe]

Re: Raw workflow with Lightroom

Hi Stephen,

I'm still finding my way around Lightroom but ever since I started shooting raw I've only ever kept jpegs/tiffs for images that I've processed.

The first thing I always do though, is to take a backup copy of my raw files so that I'm only ever working on copies (if I have the time I copy the "masters" straight to DVD).

Vernon.

[Patrick]

Re: Raw workflow with Lightroom

Hi Stephen,

I'm still finding my way around Lightroom but ever since I started shooting raw I've only ever kept jpegs/tiffs for images that I've processed.

The first thing I always do though, is to take a backup copy of my raw files so that I'm only ever working on copies (if I have the time I copy the "masters" straight to DVD).

Vernon.

Making backup copies is always a good idea, but ensuring you work in copies in Lightroom is not strictly necessary. In Lightroom nothing is done to the original image file, all changes are record in a separate file (not however a extra image taking up large amounts of space), the original is totally untouched.
Hence the claim of Lightroom to be a none destructive application.
If the image is then opened from Lightroom into Photoshop and saved an extra copy is then produced in the file format selected, and will appear in Lightroom as another image renamed.


Patrick

[vlarcombe]

Re: Raw workflow with Lightroom

Hi Patrick,

You're right, of course. When using RawShooter I used the delete option to get rid of the no hopers and weaker duplicates to help keep disk demands down, this was a permanent delete. I'm assuming that Lightroom works in the same way so I need my backups (to avoid accidental deletion).

Have you had to adjust your workflow when moving from RawShooter to Lightroom?

Vernon.

[Patrick]

Re: Raw workflow with Lightroom

Have you had to adjust your workflow when moving from RawShooter to Lightroom?

Vernon.[/QUOTE]


Not a great deal, I simply use Lightroom instead of Rawshooter. The biggest change is that some images don't now go into Photoshop, they are often the finished product without the extra manipulation.

Patrick

[Stephen]

Re: Raw workflow with Lightroom

Making backup copies is always a good idea, but ensuring you work in copies in Lightroom is not strictly necessary. In Lightroom nothing is done to the original image file, all changes are record in a separate file (not however a extra image taking up large amounts of space), the original is totally untouched.
Hence the claim of Lightroom to be a none destructive application.
If the image is then opened from Lightroom into Photoshop and saved an extra copy is then produced in the file format selected, and will appear in Lightroom as another image renamed.


Patrick

Patrick, perhaps you can clarify one small point. You say LR is non destructive, though Bridge & ACR was surely the same, as it produces a sidecar or XMP file which stores all the changes made. Now what about jpegs? Is there a similar file created? I've never seen one, though it may be somewhere I've not looked

Also you say in your last sentence that the resulting jpeg appears in Lightroom as another image. Is this the case though? I thought it had to be Imported for it to appear.

[Patrick]

Re: Raw workflow with Lightroom

Patrick, perhaps you can clarify one small point. You say LR is non destructive, though Bridge & ACR was surely the same, as it produces a sidecar or XMP file which stores all the changes made. Now what about jpegs? Is there a similar file created? I've never seen one, though it may be somewhere I've not looked

Also you say in your last sentence that the resulting jpeg appears in Lightroom as another image. Is this the case though? I thought it had to be Imported for it to appear.

This depends on how you open it in Photoshop, if it is exported to Photoshop then yes you will have to import again, however if you simple chose in Lightroom the open in Photoshop then any changes made and saved in Photoshop will automaticaly show in in Lightroom with its new name, usually the original filename with the word edit added.

I cant comment on JPG's never use them, but I would have thought all files types supported were treated the same.

Yes, Bridge combined with ARC do the same job but are dependant on Photoshop to show the processed RAW image. Lightroom also uses the side-car/XMP file system, but as you well know can work totally independently handling the image through to the finished picture. Photoshop simply becoming an extra option only if required.
Patrick