Lightroom setup help/Tips

[snberk103]

Conform LR to how I work in Aperture, which is probably mistake no. 1.

In Aperture, everything is contained to a project. Smart searches, albums, folders with sub-items, etc can all be at the project level. ...

Have you looked at Collection Sets? You can tuck Smart Collections, Saved Print jobs, Saved Web Pages, and of course Collections into a Collection Set.

I basically ignore the Folders in LR, with exceptions. I let LR use its default Year/Month-Day folder structure. The only time I 'change' the Folders is when I have to create a new top Year Folder in January. All of my other organizing is based on Collections Sets, Collections, etc.

 

[robgendreau]

I agree; collections are great.

Since you can move around that folder structure at any time without messing anything up, you don't have to pay it much mind. If I need an older folder of photo scans, for example, I might move the whole thing onto the SSD in a folder like "Current Projects." Then move it back off the SSD when I'm done.

Aperture loses the connection with imported photos when you move them in the Finder, and you can't move Finder folders from within Aperture. But you can in LR, so now I just remember to move every photo folder (and actually a bunch of Finder folders that include lots of stuff, like PDFs and doc, in addition to photos) from inside LR.

 

[MCAsan]

You might want to watch the video.

---------------------
"In case you missed it, last night KelbyOne launched a free webcast helping you ease into the switch from Aperture to Lightroom. Lightroom pros, Scott Kelby and Matt Kloskowski (along with a little help from RC Concepcion) gave viewers the skinny on the big change, along with a step-by-step tutorial on how to make your transition fast, easy and fun. You can check out the rebroadcast of the FREE event."

http://kelbyone.com/aperture-to-lightroom/webcast/

 

[The Bad Guy]

Watch this...

http://phlearn.com/ultimate-guide-workflow-lightroom-photoshop

 

[maflynn]

You might want to watch the video.

---------------------
"In case you missed it, last night KelbyOne launched a free webcast helping you ease into the switch from Aperture to Lightroom. Lightroom pros, Scott Kelby and Matt Kloskowski (along with a little help from RC Concepcion) gave viewers the skinny on the big change, along with a step-by-step tutorial on how to make your transition fast, easy and fun. You can check out the rebroadcast of the FREE event."

http://kelbyone.com/aperture-to-lightroom/webcast/

Watch this...

http://phlearn.com/ultimate-guide-workflow-lightroom-photoshop

Thanks for the links, I'll be going through both of them today.

 

[maflynn]

Ok, I've watched both videos.
The KelbyOne webcast was helpful and it will help with my transition.

As for the phlearn video - I'm not sure about the workflow he was espousing.

I mean why create an exported TIFF file, open it in PS, edit the image, save, go back to LR. His use of sub folders is baffling as well, since you can you use keywords and collections (or smart collections) to do what he's he doing manually.

I'm a noob with LR, to be sure, but I definitely don't want to create a captured sub folder, do some light editing, export it to TIFF in another folder, edit it in PS, save it in another folder add it back into LR. Seems counterproductive.

btw, I hate TIFF files, because they're always huge and while storage is cheap, I see no reason to chew up so much space needlessly.

 

[fa8362]

Ok, I've watched both videos.
The KelbyOne webcast was helpful and it will help with my transition.

As for the phlearn video - I'm not sure about the workflow he was espousing.

I mean why create an exported TIFF file, open it in PS, edit the image, save, go back to LR.

I'm a noob with LR, to be sure, but I definitely don't want to create a captured sub folder, do some light editing, export it to TIFF in another folder, edit it in PS, save it in another folder add it back into LR. Seems counterproductive.

btw, I hate TIFF files, because they're always huge and while storage is cheap, I see no reason to chew up so much space needlessly.

Sometimes it's necessary. If lightroom isn't capable of the edits you want, or you create a panorama in Photoshop, etc.

 

[maflynn]

Sometimes it's necessary. If lightroom isn't capable of the edits you want, or you create a panorama in Photoshop, etc.

I'm not saying you can't use photoshop, but rather he's exporting out to a tiff and then loading that into PS. Lightroom allows you to pass the image straight to PS without needing the export step. Plus it looks like he's just using PS as his post production tool, instead of LR.

 

[fa8362]

I'm not saying you can't use photoshop, but rather he's exporting out to a tiff and then loading that into PS. Lightroom allows you to pass the image straight to PS without needing the export step. Plus it looks like he's just using PS as his post production tool, instead of LR.

Perhaps that is dated. In the past, export was required. I haven't exported to photoshop in so long, I'm not currently aware of what is required. If I want to work in Photoshop, I typically open the file directly into Photoshop.

 

[egis]

I've been evaluating LR on the 30 day trail, and one thing that I cannot get past is the that as a DAM it is not as powerful as Aperture. Maybe I am using it wrong.

As we know, in Aperture everything is at a project level (I can accept that in LR the equivalent would be the folder level). However, you can't do anything with these until you create a collection on the images - which to me are more like Aperture albums.

If I could do more with LR at the folder level, it would be great. But I can't figure out how to half-way duplicate what I've done in Aperture without creating a collection and sub collections. I like the editing I can do in LR, but as a DAM I cannot get it to work.

What am I doing wrong?

The best advice I can give is invest 35.00 and purchase Peter Krogh's book and video series at:

http://thedambook.com/organizing-your-photos-with-lightroom-5/

I have been using it for four weeks. Makes moving from AP3 to LR5 a very manageable and understandable process since they are so different in use.

 

[robgendreau]

Interesting. I had been so immersed in LR and Aperture lately I forgot about PS.

What I think you see in the Phlearn video is a more PS oriented workflow. Most of the pro photographers I know live in PS, and for them LR is just used more as this fellow uses it: to cull and maybe process RAW. If you've watched other of his videos you see that he may have gazillions from a studio session; he's more interested in the four or five he may be editing in PS. Also, he's demonstrating mostly for the benefit, it seems, of folks who use PS. You can get there from "edit in..." most of the DAMs. Since everything is gonna go through PS anyway, why spend time talking about LR?

That's how a bunch of the graphic artists I know work as well, and why they don't fuss much with versions, keeping RAW files, etc. They are more focused on the end product of PS (that is their production tool; LR is more like pre-production) than their light table software. He uses TIFF and DNG specifically for their long term archiving I noted.

It's not wrong or right, it's just a bit of a different emphasis.

And these days you can use smart objects from LR in PS; so the RAW actually gets implanted in the PSD, and you see it in a layer, which can be adjusted like any RAW non-destructively.

 

[ocabj]

What I think you see in the Phlearn video is a more PS oriented workflow. Most of the pro photographers I know live in PS, and for them LR is just used more as this fellow uses it: to cull and maybe process RAW. If you've watched other of his videos you see that he may have gazillions from a studio session; he's more interested in the four or five he may be editing in PS. Also, he's demonstrating mostly for the benefit, it seems, of folks who use PS. You can get there from "edit in..." most of the DAMs. Since everything is gonna go through PS anyway, why spend time talking about LR?

I have been using the LR to PS roundtrip workflow for the past few years. This is the strength of the LR and PS environment. Generally speaking, I can do most edits in LR. But when it comes to portrait editing, I need to kick to PS to do things like frequency separation. When that gets saved as a PSD, it gets automatically imported into the LR library. From there, I can virtual copy that PSD in the LR library and do final edits (for things like different crops for different target deliverables). If I need to do an additional edit on that PSD in PS, the changes I make in PS to that PSD are automatically reflected in the virtual copies.

 

[maflynn]

Interesting. I had been so immersed in LR and Aperture lately I forgot about PS.

What I think you see in the Phlearn video is a more PS oriented workflow.

To me, if I can do it in LR, I will. I'm a Lightroom noob, no question, but I'd rather keep everything in LR. If the native editing capability fits my needs, there's no room to out to PS where the editing is destructive (on a copy of the master), it seems to be an extraneous step.

From my research many photographers choose to live in LR over PS, but I will say searching google for Lightroom reviews and what not does not constitute an exhaustive or scientific survey

 

[ocabj]

To me, if I can do it in LR, I will. I'm a Lightroom noob, no question, but I'd rather keep everything in LR. If the native editing capability fits my needs, there's no room to out to PS where the editing is destructive (on a copy of the master), it seems to be an extraneous step.

Round tripping LR to PS to LR isn't destructive. You still have the original RAW and the LR modifications to that RAW are still maintained in the LR library. When you kick that to PS and save a PSD, the PSD is imported back into LR as a new image file.

Example:

 

[fa8362]

If the native editing capability fits my needs, there's no room to out to PS where the editing is destructive (on a copy of the master)

Not sure what you mean by a "master," but no permanent changes can be made to a RAW file by any software that I'm aware of.

 

[maflynn]

Not sure what you mean by a "master," but no permanent changes can be made to a RAW file by any software that I'm aware of.

Aperture terminology - Masters are originals. My point though is the the non destructive edits are performed on the original, no need for a second copy of the same image. Aperture does the same thing, duplicate the image when sending it to an external editor or plugin.

My point is if I can do the work in LR,then I'll be better off imo. When I need something that LR doesn't do so well, yes it makes sense to use a plugin or PS.

 

[Razeus]

With LR, I never worry about folder structure. I dump all my RAW files a folder called "RAW Camera Files" on my external drive.

Any organization I do behind that happens in LR.

For you Aperture to Lighroom changers (I told you to do this long ago, but... ), here's a link that may help you:

http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/20...cies-adapting-to-lightroom-after-life-in.html

http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/20...o-lightroom-addendum-some-archive-diving.html

 

[seadragon]

I just switched from Aperture to Lightroom and really like it so far. I signed up on the $9.99/month photography plan. I've found the UI quite easy to get the hang of after playing with it for a few days.

Basically, I made a backup of my Aperture libraries, then relocated the originals out of the managed library to my Lightroom hard drive (using the Relocate Originals function in Aperture). Then I added them to Lightroom import function. The import into LR goes quickly as the RAW files are already in place as opposed to copying them.

Once in LR, moving the files around is extremely easy.

 

[maflynn]

I just switched from Aperture to Lightroom and really like it so far. I signed up on the $9.99/month photography plan. I've found the UI quite easy to get the hang of after playing with it for a few days.

I'm still debating the subscription vs. buying the boxed set.

I'm pretty pleased with how I have my stuff organized at this point. I still have plenty of time left on my LR 5 trial to decide.

 

[seadragon]

I'm still debating the subscription vs. buying the boxed set.

I'm pretty pleased with how I have my stuff organized at this point. I still have plenty of time left on my LR 5 trial to decide.

To be honest, I really struggled with the subscription idea, mostly because I've never subscribed to anything like it before. However, in the end, I get the full blown Photoshop and LR and all future updates for 10 bucks a month. I feel it's not a lot of cash for what is being offered.

The monthly plan is a one year commitment and if by next June I'm not happy with CC for some reason, I'll just cancel it.

I'm also finding the referenced library nice to work with. Even though it was also an option in Aperture, I never explored it. It may sound strange, but I just like seeing an actual folder structure in the Finder that matches the one visible in LR.

 

[thedeske]

To be honest, I really struggled with the subscription idea, mostly because I've never subscribed to anything like it before. However, in the end, I get the full blown Photoshop and LR and all future updates for 10 bucks a month. I feel it's not a lot of cash for what is being offered.

It works out to about 30% of the cost of keeping both apps legal before the Sub Model. Many get along just fine with LR only. They keep adding many of the repair features from PS. That said, there is no substitute for PS when you do repair on old images or use camera raw for editing.

You might check out Adobe TV. Lots of videos that might alter your decision one way or another.

Good Luck


http://tv.adobe.com/product/photoshop/

http://tv.adobe.com/product/lightroom/

 

[The Bad Guy]

To me, if I can do it in LR, I will. I'm a Lightroom noob, no question, but I'd rather keep everything in LR. If the native editing capability fits my needs, there's no room to out to PS where the editing is destructive (on a copy of the master), it seems to be an extraneous step.

From my research many photographers choose to live in LR over PS, but I will say searching google for Lightroom reviews and what not does not constitute an exhaustive or scientific survey

Oh, I live in Lightroom…just so happens that I work in Photoshop.