Lightroom: could come in 4 stages

  • 1
  • Idea
  • Updated 8 years ago
  • (Edited)
Set up Lightroom that shares directly into a smaller editing program like a Photoshop Elements. It could be set up in four flavors. One Basic like mention. Then an upgrade level with CS 5 (or CS 6) that offers all the bells and whistles of Photoshop (Curves, CYMK, LAB, Actions and the like) then an Advanced version which would come with Photoshop Extended with 3D. Then just the Lightroom program as it is now but with better cross over features.
Photo of Bill Guy

Bill Guy

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • optimistic

Posted 8 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 14609 Posts
  • 1944 Reply Likes
Are you suggesting that all the features from Photoshop should be integrated into various versions of Lightroom?

There is already significant interoperability between Lightroom and Photoshop:

Moving Between Lightroom and Photoshop - video tutorial on Adobe TV

Lightroom can work with Photoshop Elements:

Going from Photoshop Elements to Lightroom - video tutorials on Adobe TV

Import photos from Photoshop Elements to Lightroom - Lightroom help topic

I would specifically watch the video:

Using Lightroom and Elements Together - video tutorial on Adobe TV

The video above shows how to set up Photoshop Elements as an external editor from Lightroom.
Photo of Bill Guy

Bill Guy

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
While I understand that Lightroom can work with other editing programs in many of my classes on Lightroom I always get the comments that they would like an editing program built in. Not just the Global processes of Lightroom but a simple editing program that has the same features as Elements.
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
Jeffrey, there is integration between LR and other editing programs (in particular with PS and smart objects), but being forced to use two applications instead of one is suboptimal. Here's why:

1. I don't want to pay for PS. It may be worth it for graphic designers and professionals but to an amateur enthusiast the price tag is way too high for what I need from it.
2. I don't want the destructive editing paradigm. I know I can use (adjustment) layers, etc. but LR's solutions for making later tweaks to editing operations works better for me so why should I adopt the PS way when I don't need it for my editing requirements?
3. I don't want to run LR & PS in parallel on my machine. One of them on their own is sufficiently resource hungry.
4. I don't want the workflow that creates two versions of an image; one pre-edited in LR to be imported by PS and another exported by PS with potential post-edits in LR. There is no seamless editing history in one place anymore.

The last bullet (4.) is the most important one for me. I feel that anything else but integrated editing is a workaround with disadvantages.
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 14552 Posts
  • 1919 Reply Likes
TK, I can understand all your points. While I don't want to poo-poo Bill Guy's suggestion to integrate *all* Elements or Photoshop's features directly into Lightroom - it simply isn't practical. The best way to maybe frame it are to pick the top few *specific* features that would give you the most bang for the buck. (i.e. Ability to merge files into HDR or Panoramas in Lightroom)
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
Jeffrey, thanks for your response. Note that I'm not asking for all of PS to be integrated into LR.

I agree with you that it is about picking a few more specific features. I'd select them according to the principle of whether or not they make LR a true 80/20 (or 90/10) application for a broader circle of photographers.

Lens corrections were great for architecture photographers. Not so much for portrait photographers. The latter dearly need better support for cloning/healing/patching.

My personal opinion on panoramas is that they can be handled well with LR already. They don't require going back and forth between two applications, i.e., there is no edit history that will be broken. One can use the "survey" view to check whether the development of all part images is fine and then compose/align all images externally. That's good enough for me. The HDR case is very similar. Yes, nice to have, but specialist functionality nevertheless. Right?

In contrast, think of all the wedding or portrait photographers having to make trips to PS and back to LR for many images. They (and I) would love you for better retouching support. :)
Photo of AJP Lawrence

AJP Lawrence

  • 21 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Actually lens corrections can make a big difference to all types of photography, not just architecture. In fact if anything I'd like even better distortion correction as people with funny shaped heads is not a good look I find! ;-) DXO ha been able to correct for spherical volume anamorphosis for a while now
http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optic...
The people group shot correction example is typical of something that would save wedding photographers a time consuming challenge to do in PS
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
I am a portrait and wedding photographer, and the number of images I send to PS and back for an average event or portrait shoot is zero. LRs tools are sufficient for this most of the time. However, because of their limitations, they are often difficult and/or slow to use and so some improvements would be welcome for that reason. Improvements I'd suggest would include:

- The ability to use non-circular clone/heal spots. I'd suggest an implementation similar to the spot healing brush in the PS where you can click and drag to make a selection any shape you like.
- The addition of content aware fill to the existing clone and heal selections.
- The ability to adjust feather parameters of the selections both during and after they are applied.
- Improvement of automask, both in performance and sophistication. This would include the ability to control edge parameters as well as something like tolerance.
- Some sort of tool to select/remove line-type structures (power lines, hairs, etc.).
- A couple of additional adjustment brush items (WB and NR would be my first choices).
- The ability to invert the current selection mask on the adjustment brushes.

I think these would go a long way to making the current tools easier to use.
Photo of AJP Lawrence

AJP Lawrence

  • 21 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Just because you personally do not feel the need to optically correct wedding images does not mean, that others do not. Canon's 16-35mm zoom can be handy for group shots, but has terrible distortion and there are a lot of those lenses out there, which distort all images not just those with people in.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
Negative Manual Distortion correction is quite similar to volume anamorphasis correction. I'd invite you to do what I just did and download the "before" image from the DxO page (I used the second one), import it into LR and apply Manual Distortion of -50 or -60 to it and compare the resulting geometry to that of the "after" image from the DxO page.
Photo of AJP Lawrence

AJP Lawrence

  • 21 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Uh, I think you'll find they are actually quite different, hence the different names. ;-) Manual distortion seems to correct barrel/spherical distortion - which may help with objects suffering from volume anamorphosis, but if you have straight lines in the image then they get seriously bent out of shape. Just tried it with some images I'm working on [wedding shots as it happens] shot with Canon 24-70mm, some of which have seriously wonky heads when shooting at wide end of range and although the heads looked better with some barrel distortion, the now fisheye backgrounds didn't!
Obviously one can use smart objects and PS to comp differently corrected images, but as DXO has been able to do this for a while, it'd be nice if ACR could do the same in V7.
Photo of Matt Dawson

Matt Dawson

  • 8 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Bill's suggestion may be a little complicated to implement (or at least market) but I think there is definitely room to make it easier for those who aren't ready to commit to CS5 yet but do need to do some pixel pushing.

In particular I'd like to see Photoshop Elements be given the same level of integration with Lightroom that Photoshop gets. I've written a plugin that emulates much of the Photoshop/Lightroom integration (including avoiding the need to render raw files first) but it would be preferable for it to but built directly into the product instead.

Moving some features from Lightroom's Photoshop cousins (e.g. content aware fill) into Lightroom would be great and the workflow between destructive and non-destructive editors could be improved, but I don't think embedding a destructive editor within Lightroom is the answer. Amongst other things I like the fact that Lightroom is a small download/program and wouldn't want to lumber it with a multi-gigabyte download to provide Photoshop Elements as an embedded destructive editor.

Matt
Photo of TK

TK

  • 531 Posts
  • 110 Reply Likes
Matt, I concur with your statement that embedding a destructive editor into LR doesn't make sense. The non-destructive editing approach is one of LR's main virtues. As a matter of fact, losing a seamless, non-destructive edit history is the main reason stopping me from using external editors.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
The more non-destructive Photoshop-like tools in Lightroom the better. However, given that it will never be practical for all things to be ported over, I'd like to suggest a kind of integration that attempts to smooth over the seam that occurs when stepping outside... - find a way to make that black-box edit look like a change to the source photo, instead of forking an entirely new photo, whose only linkage to the source is stackage. Have the external edit go into the history list of the source photo, so there is the ability to back up to the state before it happened... This could work with any pixel editor, but I'd like to see Adobe define a mechanism whereby destructive editors could be invoked again, starting with the same settings they had last time, thus making destructive editors "non-destructive" too...