OK. I know it is a subjective thing but I am curious anyway.
For some time now I have been using Nikon capture to process my RAW images. I then use Photoshop Elements to 'save for web'.
I've been reasonably happy with the results but having to use 2 programs is cumbersome.
Recently I was recommended to try Adobe Lightroom. I bought it and am experimenting with it.
Initially I find it awkward and un-intuitive (I guess because I am so used to Capture) but am prepared to persevere for a while.
So here's my question: which programs are you guys using for post processing? How time consuming is your PP?
Posted by Keith Bauer on April 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Martin: I regularly teach Lightroom and Photoshop processing. That could mean I'm a bit biased, but I'll do my best to be objective. LightRoom has become an incredibly popular solution for digital asset management (the Library module) and provides exactly the same capabilities for RAW processing via the Develop module that Adobe Camera Raw provides with the full version of Photoshop. I much prefer the user interface of the Develop module over ACR.
You will read many opinions that indicate that if you have LightRoom and are proficient with it, that there is no need for Photoshop. I completely disagree with that sentiment. I believe those who espouse that argument don't really know how to use Photoshop for the rest of the editing process that either can't be done at all in LightRoom, or is incredibly cumbersome. LightRoom doesn't have a clue what a layer is, so any layer based processing can not be accomplished.
The interactions between LightRoom and Photoshop are extremely easy. Once you have completed RAW processing in LightRoom via the Develop module, you simply choose Photo / Edit In / Photoshop CS6 or whatever version you have. The RAW processing instructions generated in LightRoom are sent over to Photoshop with the image for further editing. When you are done editing in Photoshop, you simply choose File / Save. That will create a PSD or TIFF file (depending on a preference setting in LightRoom) and store the file in the same directory as the original RAW file. It will also create a Stack of the two image (again another preference in LightRoom that is on by default). That interface could not be simpler. So using both programs is really not an issue.
Keith makes an excellent point regarding using Lightroom and Photoshop (PS) in tandem. The ability to use non-destructive adjustment layers in PS is indispensable, in my opinion. PS will give you the means to fine tune your work in ways you can't imagine until you start to work with it.
Is there a learning curve? No doubt about it! I've used PS for years and I am still learning new things that I can apply to my work. While I do make Web images, my main thrust is for the best print I can make-one that meets my vision, not only from a creative standpoint but also from a technical one.
To use an analogy from film-based photography...Light room is like the light table on your desk. You look at the piece of film to see what you've got and begin the process to figure out what you want to get from the neg. Photoshop is like the darkroom, where you make a series a 'work prints' using masks, dodging, burning, toning, etc. in order to achieve the photograph you initially visualized. Therefore, it's not a case of either/or, but both, working in tandem.
How time consuming is your PP?
Since I shoot 4x5, my workflow is quite different. I have to scan my film, which takes time in order to get the best 'raw' file that I can. I then open the image in PS and go to work. Some images are fairly straightforward, requiring only a few adjustments, while others may have many adjustment layers with layer masks. So, the answer is not readily quantifiable, since there are many variables. Bottom line is: I take the time I need to realize my goal.
As Keith said, you'll gets lots of opinions, and mine is only one of them. If you are only going to change spark plugs, you need only a few simple tools from the box, but if you're going build the entire engine, you'll need many more tools and the skill to use them. Once you have the engine, you tune it to get the best horsepower out of it you can. And oh, it sure can be fun!
--P
Posted by Martin Dunn on April 2, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Thanks Keith, Preston,
I guess I was hoping I could find a 'one program fits all' solution but maybe it doesn't exist.
My problem is that I like taking photographs but I find the post processing a pain. I'm not familiar enough with it for it to be fun.
I also tend to do everything on a 15" laptop screen which doesn't help. A bigger monitor is high on my list.
Posted by Lance Warley on April 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM
Photoshop could be the one program that fits all, as long as you aren't a commercial photographer with huge numbers of files.
If you have a lot of files, like wedding photographers, Lightroom will certainly help. If not, Photoshop by itself does everything else that Lightroom does, plus as mentioned above, layers.
Posted by Martin Dunn on April 2, 2013 at 12:25 PM
You're probably right, I just prefer working in Nikon Capture NX. Although it's beginning to look like I'm the only one who does.
Martin, Capture NX is a fine RAW convertor, I say go with what you know and like. You're not going to get around multiple programs (at least in 2013) to do what you need to deliver the caliber of image quality expected in today's art world. If you use Lightroom you have three major items: non-detructive editing, image cataloging and now, in this latest version, very good printing capability. But what happens when you need to combine images shot with near and far focus or you've shot several exposures for HDR or you have to do some hairy selections to fix an image? Run it into Photoshop and back and forth? Or Photomatix? It's pretty hard to avoid multiple programs. I won't make friends saying this but I can't use Lightroom, it drives me batty. The minute I had to suck images into the catalog thing I was done with it (not to mention no layers or channels). But I'm a longtime Photoshop user and I have everything I could want, including a non-destructive workflow (thanks to sharpening with the Nik plugin on a separate layer). HOWEVER, in order to have a robust cataloging and workflow which took a longtime to design, I rely heavily on Bridge and my experience with the Windows file system. But, separate program. And, ACR is actually a separate program from Photohop, where LR smartly has it built in. And I use Photomatix for HDR work. So no matter how you slice it, it's pretty hard to have one program to do it all.
Now that my big pontification is over, it seems that based on your description of RAW going into a Save For Web situation, Lightroom really would be your best option for a one-stop shopping. If you can get used to the user interface which I'm sure you can (I admit, it's quite a gorgeous layout, it took until CS6 for Photoshop to finally have a dark interface), then you have one app to do editing and then a myriad of output options. I keep hearing about Lightroom presets which are quite popular so check into those. I know, I dogged Lightroom above, but that's just how I work, I can't deny that Lightroom is a photographer's dream if you are OK with catalogs and have no graphics needs. ACR that's built into Lightroom has been the leader in recent years, and the Photoshop team scrambles to include the new features in the version that ships with Photoshop. Seriously look at how good Input Sharpening and Noise Reduction work in the latest ACR, and you may find it to work well enough to make a decision to walk away from Capture NX and start a new LR path.
One error I made earlier when describing my workflow; I use Capture NX to create a TIFF, which I then edit in Photoshop.
I've just done an experiement, not a particularly scientific one (and I've already realised my method is flawed but I'll go ahead anyway.)
There are 2 versions of this photo, both finished in Photoshop Elements but one prepared in Capture NX and the other in Lightroom.
I found the two processes quite different, but what do you think of the way they turned out? Are there noticeable differences between the two end results? (I'm typing this before I've uploaded them so I hope one of them isn't green) I'll post the second image in a seperate post right now.
I do all my post processing with PS CS3, using ACR for raw conversion of my Nikon NEFs. In ACR I concentrate on white balance and tweaks to the histogram with the exposure, brightness, and recovery sliders. Everything else is done in Photoshop using adjustment layers (levels, curves, saturation), plus downsizing, sharpening, and conversion to jpeg for posting. I've never tried Lightroom, but I've played around some with Aperture. I like to manage my own file system so I don't like programs that import files and makes assorted copies of them. I do almost all my image file management with Graphic Converter - an inexpensive programs for Macs that I've been using for 10-15 years now.
The two experimental images you posted differ mostly in color balance and a little in contrast or maybe exposure. They look different but aren't that far apart and each could likely be tweaked easily to look very much like the other. I think any apparent differences in fine detail are actually just differences in contrast.
Thanks again.
To me the top picture has more zip, in particular the eye looks much brighter and the tail colours are brighter.
by comparison the lower image looks a bit flat, although the over exposed whites have been tamed better.
Posted by Richard Ditch on April 3, 2013 at 12:06 PM
To me the top picture has more zip, in particular the eye looks much brighter and the tail colours are brighter.
by comparison the lower image looks a bit flat, although the over exposed whites have been tamed better.
To me "more zip" is simply increased contrast and a touch more saturation. Both are easy to adjust in ACR conversion or better in Photoshop post processing.
An important difference between Nikon Capture and the Adobe products is that any parameters you have set in the Nikon camera (contrast, saturation, sharpening) will be applied to the raw image in Nikon Capture but ignored by Lightroom, ACR, and Photoshop. So if you've adjusted those parameters to produce a pleasing look on the camera LCD then Nikon Capture will get you closer to that look more directly than Photoshop. But, by ignoring in-camera settings you will have more control over how those factors are applied during post processing when you are seeing the image on the larger computer monitor than on the camera LCD.
Discussion
13 repliesFor some time now I have been using Nikon capture to process my RAW images. I then use Photoshop Elements to 'save for web'.
I've been reasonably happy with the results but having to use 2 programs is cumbersome.
Recently I was recommended to try Adobe Lightroom. I bought it and am experimenting with it.
Initially I find it awkward and un-intuitive (I guess because I am so used to Capture) but am prepared to persevere for a while.
So here's my question: which programs are you guys using for post processing? How time consuming is your PP?
You will read many opinions that indicate that if you have LightRoom and are proficient with it, that there is no need for Photoshop. I completely disagree with that sentiment. I believe those who espouse that argument don't really know how to use Photoshop for the rest of the editing process that either can't be done at all in LightRoom, or is incredibly cumbersome. LightRoom doesn't have a clue what a layer is, so any layer based processing can not be accomplished.
The interactions between LightRoom and Photoshop are extremely easy. Once you have completed RAW processing in LightRoom via the Develop module, you simply choose Photo / Edit In / Photoshop CS6 or whatever version you have. The RAW processing instructions generated in LightRoom are sent over to Photoshop with the image for further editing. When you are done editing in Photoshop, you simply choose File / Save. That will create a PSD or TIFF file (depending on a preference setting in LightRoom) and store the file in the same directory as the original RAW file. It will also create a Stack of the two image (again another preference in LightRoom that is on by default). That interface could not be simpler. So using both programs is really not an issue.
I would not want to be without either.
Keith makes an excellent point regarding using Lightroom and Photoshop (PS) in tandem. The ability to use non-destructive adjustment layers in PS is indispensable, in my opinion. PS will give you the means to fine tune your work in ways you can't imagine until you start to work with it.
Is there a learning curve? No doubt about it! I've used PS for years and I am still learning new things that I can apply to my work. While I do make Web images, my main thrust is for the best print I can make-one that meets my vision, not only from a creative standpoint but also from a technical one.
To use an analogy from film-based photography...Light room is like the light table on your desk. You look at the piece of film to see what you've got and begin the process to figure out what you want to get from the neg. Photoshop is like the darkroom, where you make a series a 'work prints' using masks, dodging, burning, toning, etc. in order to achieve the photograph you initially visualized. Therefore, it's not a case of either/or, but both, working in tandem.
Since I shoot 4x5, my workflow is quite different. I have to scan my film, which takes time in order to get the best 'raw' file that I can. I then open the image in PS and go to work. Some images are fairly straightforward, requiring only a few adjustments, while others may have many adjustment layers with layer masks. So, the answer is not readily quantifiable, since there are many variables. Bottom line is: I take the time I need to realize my goal.
As Keith said, you'll gets lots of opinions, and mine is only one of them. If you are only going to change spark plugs, you need only a few simple tools from the box, but if you're going build the entire engine, you'll need many more tools and the skill to use them. Once you have the engine, you tune it to get the best horsepower out of it you can. And oh, it sure can be fun!
--P
I guess I was hoping I could find a 'one program fits all' solution but maybe it doesn't exist.
My problem is that I like taking photographs but I find the post processing a pain. I'm not familiar enough with it for it to be fun.
I also tend to do everything on a 15" laptop screen which doesn't help. A bigger monitor is high on my list.
If you have a lot of files, like wedding photographers, Lightroom will certainly help. If not, Photoshop by itself does everything else that Lightroom does, plus as mentioned above, layers.
Martin, Capture NX is a fine RAW convertor, I say go with what you know and like. You're not going to get around multiple programs (at least in 2013) to do what you need to deliver the caliber of image quality expected in today's art world. If you use Lightroom you have three major items: non-detructive editing, image cataloging and now, in this latest version, very good printing capability. But what happens when you need to combine images shot with near and far focus or you've shot several exposures for HDR or you have to do some hairy selections to fix an image? Run it into Photoshop and back and forth? Or Photomatix? It's pretty hard to avoid multiple programs. I won't make friends saying this but I can't use Lightroom, it drives me batty. The minute I had to suck images into the catalog thing I was done with it (not to mention no layers or channels). But I'm a longtime Photoshop user and I have everything I could want, including a non-destructive workflow (thanks to sharpening with the Nik plugin on a separate layer). HOWEVER, in order to have a robust cataloging and workflow which took a longtime to design, I rely heavily on Bridge and my experience with the Windows file system. But, separate program. And, ACR is actually a separate program from Photohop, where LR smartly has it built in. And I use Photomatix for HDR work. So no matter how you slice it, it's pretty hard to have one program to do it all.
Now that my big pontification is over, it seems that based on your description of RAW going into a Save For Web situation, Lightroom really would be your best option for a one-stop shopping. If you can get used to the user interface which I'm sure you can (I admit, it's quite a gorgeous layout, it took until CS6 for Photoshop to finally have a dark interface), then you have one app to do editing and then a myriad of output options. I keep hearing about Lightroom presets which are quite popular so check into those. I know, I dogged Lightroom above, but that's just how I work, I can't deny that Lightroom is a photographer's dream if you are OK with catalogs and have no graphics needs. ACR that's built into Lightroom has been the leader in recent years, and the Photoshop team scrambles to include the new features in the version that ships with Photoshop. Seriously look at how good Input Sharpening and Noise Reduction work in the latest ACR, and you may find it to work well enough to make a decision to walk away from Capture NX and start a new LR path.
One error I made earlier when describing my workflow; I use Capture NX to create a TIFF, which I then edit in Photoshop.
I've just done an experiement, not a particularly scientific one (and I've already realised my method is flawed but I'll go ahead anyway.)
There are 2 versions of this photo, both finished in Photoshop Elements but one prepared in Capture NX and the other in Lightroom.
I found the two processes quite different, but what do you think of the way they turned out? Are there noticeable differences between the two end results? (I'm typing this before I've uploaded them so I hope one of them isn't green) I'll post the second image in a seperate post right now.
The two experimental images you posted differ mostly in color balance and a little in contrast or maybe exposure. They look different but aren't that far apart and each could likely be tweaked easily to look very much like the other. I think any apparent differences in fine detail are actually just differences in contrast.
To me the top picture has more zip, in particular the eye looks much brighter and the tail colours are brighter.
by comparison the lower image looks a bit flat, although the over exposed whites have been tamed better.
To me "more zip" is simply increased contrast and a touch more saturation. Both are easy to adjust in ACR conversion or better in Photoshop post processing.
An important difference between Nikon Capture and the Adobe products is that any parameters you have set in the Nikon camera (contrast, saturation, sharpening) will be applied to the raw image in Nikon Capture but ignored by Lightroom, ACR, and Photoshop. So if you've adjusted those parameters to produce a pleasing look on the camera LCD then Nikon Capture will get you closer to that look more directly than Photoshop. But, by ignoring in-camera settings you will have more control over how those factors are applied during post processing when you are seeing the image on the larger computer monitor than on the camera LCD.