Using Lightroom to edit occasional images?

[DHart]

It seems like Lightroom is setup to work as a workflow organizer/editor rather for all of one's images rather than as a stand alone editing program where one just brings in various images from here and there to edit then, in some cases, take into Photoshop for finishing up.

What's the best way to bring in an occasional image from here or there then return back to the folder it came from?

I've just used "Import from Disk" to bring in a file here and a file there and then after editing, use "Export as Preset" back into the folder where I keep the edited images....

... is this the best way to use Lightroom as a free standing editing program?

 

[Ian Farlow]

Why would you use Lightroom to edit a few images in this manner? It is an editor and organizer. Why not just use Photoshop without using Lightroom, or some other editing program to do single image editing in this manner? Seems a bit like using a flamethrower to cook a hot dog... It'll certainly work, but it's not the best tool for this job.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Yep, I'd agree, it's not an ideal program for editing a one off. That's simply not what it's designed for. Your workaround is probably the best of it, although I'd be more inclined to open the file straight into PS (or ACR from PS).

Or you could set it importing (referenced in existing location) overnight, so that you don't ever have to import if you need to work on a particular file.

 

[rcannonp]

I can see why one might want to work this way. If you only have one image to work on and you want to use your LR develop settings and presets it would make sense.

You can just drag an image into LR and choose to import it at it's current location. You can choose Edit in Photoshop and it will create a psd or tiff right beside the original. Exporting to a particular folder with a preset seems reasonable as well. I prefer to export the original file and open that into Photoshop, so that I can open it as a smart object. I created an export action that saves the original to a folder, opens it up into PS and then trashes the copy of the original. I then save as a PSD from PS.

 

[Peter 13]

Why would you use Lightroom to edit a few images in this manner? It is an editor and organizer. Why not just use Photoshop without using Lightroom, [del]

Because LR is less than 1/2 of the price of PS?

Used only as a RAW converter, LR is overpriced, unless you qualify for the academic discount. I wish Adobe would offer an editor version only - easier to use and without all the hassle that an organizer brings. There are many users that like to try and use different RAW converters and may not be in love with LR's concept of organizing their photos.

 

[frankgindc]

I hear what you're saying: Photoshop is way too expensive. I think if you are not needing to crank out a ton of images, though, Photoshop Elements 6 ($8') is the better bet. It's much more capable at editing than LR (and can use Photoshop plugins for NR and the like) and does just about everything that the more expensive version does (with the major exception being it's lack of ability to run actions and create droplets for batch processing).

 

[Ian Farlow]

Yep... Photoshop Elements is definitely the way to go. You get a very nice organizer and editor all rolled into one that utilizes the same RAW engine as Lightroom and Photoshop. All for less than $1''.''!

 

[DHart]

I've been a PS user since version 2.' and have bought every upgrade along the way. I need PS as I rely heavily on actions and plugins such as Portraiture, Noiseware, NIK, etc. So I continue to use PS heavily and use it for editing every image. But I recently bought LR and really like many of the available "Develop" presets that are shared on the internet for instantly achieving certain "looks". So, I like to bring images into LR for using some of the Develop tools.

I guess I'm struggling with the design of LR that requires creating catalogs and such... I wish there was just an "Open" command and a "Save" command in addition to all the cataloging protocols that are forced on the user.

Perhaps what I really need to do is just learn how to use the catalog protocols properly. For some reason some of the details of the cataloging steps are still a somewhat cumbersome & confusing process for me.... probably just my own inadequacies, I guess...

 

[Peter 13]

Does PE come with the same ways to tweak the RAW conversion - Highlight Recovery, sharpening with detail control, CA correction, etc.?

 

[DHart]

Elements actually offers a few functions/tools that even PS doesn't have. Adobe, by not including actions in PE, pretty much assures sales of PS to pros. If one wanted the most complete set of editing tools and functions, one would have all three... PS, PE, and LR. Clearly overkill for anyone other than a pro, however. My concerns are not for finding the least costly approach to editing tools, but rather finding the easier and quickest working solutions. This means using both actions in PS and Presets in LR. This is because as a portrait studio owner/photographer, during much of the year I create perhaps 7'' images a day. I'm afraid if I try to have all of that accumulating catalogs in LR, it will soon become burdoned down. I really need to learn and completely understand the cataloging functions in LR.. As I said, the "import" and "cataloging" orientation of LR is still cumbersome and somewhat confusing to me still.

 

[Peter 13]

I found an answer to my own question. PE incorporates the same RAW converter in PE but some "advanced" features are missing. This is not what I am looking for. I need the "advanced" features without the organizing. I believe I am not alone.

I am not a big fan of the organizing. The preview is of low quality. The slide show quality is better but I do not like it either.

If Adobe can pack the RAW converter as a simple application priced accordingly, it will compete well with other offerings.

 

[johnbeardy]

This is because as a portrait studio owner/photographer, during much of the year I create perhaps 7'' images a day. I'm afraid if I try to have all of that accumulating catalogs in LR, it will soon become burdened down. I really need to learn and completely understand the cataloging functions in LR.

If it's any comfort to you, I work with someone who averages 6-9'' raw pictures a day, 5-6 days a week, keeping perhaps 3'' a day. We're just letting the single big catalogue grow, and so far I've not seen any signs that worry me (I used to work on corporate SQL Server and Oracle systems) or which indicate the burden is beyond LR.

John

 

[DHart]

Well, if the size of the main catalog ever does seem to bog things down, I can always delete it, I guess. I prefer to have a separate catalog for each client saved in each client's folder. Of course, I do see value in creating additional catalogs created to collect various specific categories of images. So far, I like iView Media Pro better for this function, however, as it's simpler, cleaner, less cluttered, and focused more specifically on cataloging than on developing. I guess over time working with Lightroom I'll find a way to get this workflow all sorted out for myself.

For now, I'm considering staying with iView for initial catalog, then using Lightroom for quick-pass developing processes (presets), then finishing off with Photoshop for the final editing/prep before printing.

 

[johnbeardy]

OK, this time I'll pass on the opportunity to get on my hind legs and rant about the evils of multiple catalogues!

 

[Victoria Bampton]

You could write up a nice rant and put it in Tips & Tricks John......

 

[DonRicklin]

Please do John! Then we just have to point to it as needed!

Don

 

[DHart]

Yes.... let's read the rant on multiple catalogs!

 

[Brad Snyder]

Just do a thread search, there're several here, for sure. :cheesy:

As you're no doubt gathering, John B. has strong opinions on the subject and is rarely reticent expressing them. (I agree with him, 99.44%, YMMV)