A mini workflow tutorial, raw in C1 (v5) to final via CS4

[Jack]

I thought some of you might be interested to see what we teach in terms of image processing on the workshops. Here is a series of the same image from basic capture through final output with processing comments along the way. I used C1 for the raw processing and Cs4 for the final localized adjustments. A comparable result can be achieved in LR with its onboard local adjustments, but you would then need CS to do the independent color edits I perform in C1. The image is from the harbor at Port Orford.

First image is pretty much how it looked to everybody shooting that afternoon, and why several folks didn't even bother to take it:

Next is the same image with my basic recipe of adjustments applied in C1 using a style I made for this camera (P45+):

Here I made a WB and saturation change in C1, forcing the clouds to some color other than neutral:

That screwed up the sky and foreground a bit, but gave the clouds some color I could work with. I then went into C1's color editor to tweak individual colors and saturations, further enhancing reds in the clouds, warming (yellow-orange) the rocks while reclaiming (cooling) the blue portions of the sky to achieve this result --- which I think at the same time demonstrates the power of C1's color editor. Note that the only difference between the image above and this one are the three color-selection changes I described above using the C1 color editor!:

Finally, I took the above file into CS4 and applied some localized brightness and contrast edits and added a light sunset gradient layer over everything to "create" the final version presented here -- note I over-cooked these local adjustments a bit to make what I did in CS more obvious. (Note that with a LR>CS workflow, one would probably make the localized adjustments I make here in LR, then probably do the specific color edits I did above and add the sunset gradient in CS as layered workflow.):

Not that I'd say the final has taken a dog image and made it into a stellar print image, but I do think it took a plain image and made it at least calendar-worthy. I think it shows how much can be done with some forethought applied to composition and content at capture followed up with some basic processing techniques.

Hope you find it interesting,

 

[dmcnickle]

Wow, Jack, that is very interesting. I appreciate you posting the images as well as a brief bit about what you did to them as your workflow progressed.
Have you thought about doing some video tutorials to put on the web (for sale of course http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif )
I would love to attend one of your workshops. Maybe someday I can work it out.

Denise

 

[glenerrolrd]

Jack

This type of post is very useful regardless of your chosen workflow. I would suggest that you take a look at the Local Area Adjustments process in ACR/LR . The advantage is that you have two tools ..the gradient map and the brush that can be used to create very precise masks. For example you could mask distant island in a few seconds..then if you wanted to change,exposure,contrast,brighness ,clarity,sharpness etc ..you could apply the change to the masked area. You can selectively change the color without affecting anything else in the image. I know for wedding photographs this is a powerful tool as you can use it to clean away a color cast on the dress , open a shadow on face ,brighten and clarify the eyes etc. I only mention it because it doesn t get much discussion .

The other way to integrate the tools would be to use C1 to complete the raw processing and output TIFFs ..then use ACR or LR to complete the process . Just a different way to break up the workflow.

But seeing your process is as I said quite useful.

 

[Jack]

Hi Denise,

Thanks for the kind comment. Guy and I have discussed producing mini videos, but like most things simply haven't had the time to look into it seriously.

Cheers,

 

[Jack]

Hi Roger:

I agree that how you get there is less important than getting there in the first place! I also realize most of the local adjustments I did in CS could probably be similarly executed in LR. However I am not so sure the selective color adjustments I did in C1 could be done as easily or precisely in LR; even in CS they'd be be a lot more difficult to execute than the few simple steps I did in C1's color editor.

Bottom line is I personally do not need the DAM aspect of LR, but respect it is king for others who do. I happen to prefer the way C1 creates its sessions inside existing image folders -- works even with old ones in my historical library -- as well as preferring the overall C1 workflow.

The real issue for me however, is while I think LR is an excellent program, I just don't have the time available to commit to getting facile with it! All that said, if I needed the LR DAM I would be a prime candidate for using a C1 to LR to CS workflow. But for right now I can do everything I need to do to an image from capture through output using just C1 and CS, so that's my typical routine.

Cheers,

 

[glenerrolrd]

[Jack

We have talked before about the workflow differences and I understand the benefits of your process. You really have a level of software independence that I do not believe is appreciated by most users. There will be quite a bit of discussion about this as adobe has changed their data management architecture enough to make the LR2 catalogs inactive in LR3. No mention of how your DAM system built around LR2 is supposed to work going forward.


But my observation was really about the LAA capabilities that are built into both LR and Bridge. The big advantage is that the tools ...brush and gradient mask provide very specific masking capabilities . So my point was that in some cases going from C1 to Bridge would give you the tools.

Using your image as an example . To get the sky color as desired you increased the red/magenta color. I would have masked the rocks in the foreground and slightly desaturated the color to avoid the magenta caste on the rocks. Now thats a personal taste....and I am not a landscape photographer..but if you wanted to do that it its a snap with the LAA. I know you can do the same thing in PS but its easy with the LAA and I don t think you can do it easily in C1.






QUOTE=Jack Flesher;150173]Hi Roger:

I agree that how you get there is less important than getting there in the first place! I also realize most of the local adjustments I did in CS could probably be similarly executed in LR. However I am not so sure the selective color adjustments I did in C1 could be done as easily or precisely in LR; even in CS they'd be be a lot more difficult to execute than the few simple steps I did in C1's color editor.

Bottom line is I personally do not need the DAM aspect of LR, but respect it is king for others who do. I happen to prefer the way C1 creates its sessions inside existing image folders -- works even with old ones in my historical library -- as well as preferring the overall C1 workflow.

The real issue for me however, is while I think LR is an excellent program, I just don't have the time available to commit to getting facile with it! All that said, if I needed the LR DAM I would be a prime candidate for using a C1 to LR to CS workflow. But for right now I can do everything I need to do to an image from capture through output using just C1 and CS, so that's my typical routine.

Cheers,[/QUOTE]

 

[Bob]

Now when Lightroom can apply a mask that cuts out the gradient, that would be something.
LR is fine for many "quick fix" things, but precise control and detail adjustments are just out of its provenance.
Maybe I should post a workflow example of one of people images to demonstrate the difference.

-bob

 

[Jack]

There are a lot of other issues, like the graduated ND filter that only has a straight line -- at least in CS we can make it follow the contour of the mountain or whatever.

As far as LR2 library not porting over to LR3, how stupid is that? The work to get the LR2 libraries built is not trivial for most folks, so that alone would be enough to have me abandon it permanently going forward. Of course, I didn't like there library structure to begin with, so maybe that was the only way to fix that :ROTFL:

 

[Jeremy]

Maybe I should post a workflow example of one of people images to demonstrate the difference.
-bob

Please do, Bob!

Jack, I'm still unsure why your color step couldn't be completed in LR with the H/S/L palette. To test it I took your pre-C1-color-work image into LR and matched your next image pretty well (to my eye). Now I don't really ever work in color so I imagine someone who does a lot of color LR work could do a a better job faster (100% of my exhibited, professional work is b&w so I have little experience here and I'm working with my off-hand due to an injury, but it took me maybe a couple of minutes). I did have some problems with color in the muddier light tones of the clouds, but having an sRGB-8-bit jpeg may have been a deciding factor there. It also helps quite a bit to have a target to match as opposed to doing this "for real" :toocool:

edit: I'm really curious as I am planning on taking a capture 1 test drive now that the new version is out, but am holding off on using my free trial until I have full use of my dominant hand. This isn't a "Can too!" post, but a genuine interest as I may be doing one of my next projects in color.

 

[Jack]

Jack, I'm still unsure why your color step couldn't be completed in LR with the H/S/L palette. To test it I took your pre-C1-color-work image into LR and matched your next image pretty well (to my eye).

Does LR let you mask to adjust only certain color selections or mask to adjust certain areas? Or does it only allow you to adjust HSL across the entire image?

With C1's color editor, I select specific color ranges to edit, and edit them back to color values I wanted. For example, in my string of images above, the ONLY differences between #3 and #4 were the three selected color edits I made using C1's color editor. Note that the sky returned to a more neutral blue, while the clouds went red-magenta and the rocks warmer (more yellow-orange). These were not "global" HSL adjustments, but rather localized color selection edits for HSL. Moreover, it took me all of two minutes to execute all three of these changes in C1... Only that 4th image went to CS where it got the localized brightness and contrast adjustments along with a light sunset gradient over the entire image at the end. (The gradient layer is what warmed the blue sky back up and added even more yellow to the foreground rocks, but it was a pastel sunset gradient filter, not a simple one-color filter or a global HSL change.)

Cheers,

 

[woodyspedden]

There are a lot of other issues, like the graduated ND filter that only has a straight line -- at least in CS we can make it follow the contour of the mountain or whatever.

As far as LR2 library not porting over to LR3, how stupid is that? The work to get the LR2 libraries built is not trivial for most folks, so that alone would be enough to have me abandon it permanently going forward. Of course, I didn't like there library structure to begin with, so maybe that was the only way to fix that :ROTFL:

Jack

My understanding is that the final version of LR 3 will have the capability to import catalogs from other versions of LR e.g. 2.5. If that turns out to not be true then Adobe have simply shot themselves in the foot. I have over 22K images in LR 2.5 and I damned well am not reimporting them into version 3

Woody

 

[Jack]

Jack

My understanding is that the final version of LR 3 will have the capability to import catalogs from other versions of LR e.g. 2.5. If that turns out to not be true then Adobe have simply shot themselves in the foot. I have over 22K images in LR 2.5 and I damned well am not reimporting them into version 3

Woody

Woody,

To be clear, I was just responding to Roger's comment and do not have any specific data from Adobe. However I do know Roger and feel he is probably very well informed on this, so I take what he says seriously. I suspect Roger has more files and HUGE amounts of time invested in his LR2 libraries than most folks, so clearly a very concerning and difficult issue for him as well...

I have to believe Adobe will at some point release some kind of automated importer/re-writer for LR2 libraries so as not to abandon their existing users. If not, it will get very ugly for them...

 

[bradhusick]

Jack, I like what you did to this image. It reminds me of something another photographer said to me once:

"This is how I remember the scene looking."

 

[glenerrolrd]

Ok a few challenges in this post? Lets take the easy one . LR2 catalogs are not recognized by Lr3 and Lr3 catalogs are not recognized by Lr2. http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/2009/lightroom-3-beta-qa/

I suspect that Adobe will create a migration process once the final version of Lr3 is complete. From a practical matter ..I am not sure it matters much . My file structure is 100% outside of LR .....I might have a folder containing all of 2009 and subfolders breaking things down all the way to the original card. This allows me to use the card as a backup in the field. The originals are never touched and yet the are nicely organized for reference and backup. Through testing I have found that moving a Lr2 file to Lr3 preserves the original raw conversion and all the develop settings . Yes I would have to reimport all the files and create a new Lr3 catalog but I could do this and I believe preserve what I need in Lr3. Lots of loose details here ...like collections etc but the files do not have to be reworked and the folder structure dictates the organization. (This works easily with the Leica DNG files but I have not tried the Canon or Nikon files which have .xmp sidecars upon export from Lr2). I think they will solve this but there are workflows out there that will have trouble. Like if you establish a separate catalog for a specific shoot ( a good approach for say a wedding or event photographer).


Jack I haven t seen anything in C1 that allows you to mask an area off for adjustments. If so how are you identifying the area to C1 .


Bob
I don t use the gradient tool much at all in LR but I do use the brush. If you can do smaller more precise adjustments in PS more power too you. I can mask teeth,eyes and hair using 4:1 and balance 7 individual tools faster than I can make a cup of coffee. My daughter trained with Kevin Ames(he wrote the books on using PS for beauty) for 14 weeks on beauty retouching as he lives in Atlanta. I have an excellent critic here at home. There is always something I don t know for sure but I would hardly say that the LR tools are crude or rough.

I am not in anyway trying to diminish the workflow that Jack presented . For the type of work he does and considering the skills that he has with both C1 and PS ...I wouldn t consider anything else.


However .......PS also includes in the Bridge module the LAA tools that I mentioned. I don t think these get the time of day when discussing workflow because they are associated with LR(and they are in CS4 as well). Dodging and burning seems like a basic image refinement tool and yes you can use color adjustments to do this in C1 but its weak compared to the adobe tools.

 

[Bob]

Roger,
LR is good as far as it goes and for what it does:
It tries to be a "complete" solution for a broad swath of users and it seems to work for them.
1. An "OK" raw converter that somehow can't deal real well with phase files.
2. A library system that somehow falls short of industrial-strength (well thay almost do).
3. A collection of simple retouch tools.

It serves the needs of a whole lot of people, and I have no quarrel with that.

When I used to shoot a bunch of street with the M8, often LR would be enough for the casual photo.

Once I got over the initial learning hump with PS, it seems like second nature to me. It reminds me of learning to cut hand-cut dovetails. It seems intimidating, and a lot of folks use router jigs, but once you master the skill, hand-cut dovetails are prettier and more flexible, sometimes faster too unless you have a production set-up.

LR (or LR-PS) when compared to C1-PS (or C1-PS-LR) or C1-PS-Bridge) provide different choices in feature sets addressed at different audiences.

C1s addition of a dust-spot tool is sort of interesting only because sensor dust tends to stay put, and once I have spotted an image I can apply that to a while bunch of images in one operation. Dodging and burning is not a batch-able operation, so I firmly believe that it just doesn't belong in a raw converter. Same goes for gradients. I really hope that C1 remains simply a great raw converter and does not become an all-weather-night-fighter-swiss-army-tool.

Where would I be without layers and blending modes with adjustable opacity?
Where would I be without lens blur with distance map?
or Liquefy (used lots and lots especially on the ladies)
or select-copy-paste move and free-transform?
or any of the other things I use every day?

Yup, you can do lots of less extreme stuff with LR, but I just needed more.

But, to each his own and his own style of working.
Myself, I use C1 for raw conversion, bridge for browsing, filesystem and C1 Session structure for organization, and PS for the heavy listing.
-bob

 

[glenerrolrd]

Bob

We are coming at this from different requirements and different experiences..so its unlikely that either of us will spend the time to understand the others position.

To focus the discussion...I am not trying to support LR over Jack s workflow. Its not reasonable to compare LR s capabilities to PS in the hands of a skilled user as you or Jack.

My point was simpler than that and really a plug for the Local Area Adjustment capabilities you can find in either LR or Bridge. IMHO these are very powerful and can produce exceptional results. I don t see how you can label them as having limited capabilities. But maybe its differences in the types of images we take.

I would contrast this to the comparison of raw conversions....where C1 is just better and by enough to make it worth the effort. I am sure you feel the same about PS over LR.

 

[Jack]

Jack I haven t seen anything in C1 that allows you to mask an area off for adjustments. If so how are you identifying the area to C1 .

Roger:

It doesn't, and that's why I did the local Contrast and Brightness adjustments in CS. HOWEVER, the color editor allows you to very accurately select a specific range of H, S and L values. Once selected, I can then adjust the H, S OR L, OR any combination of H, S and L, to another unique range of HSL values. So it is a localized adjustment as it relates to COLOR selected, as opposed to AREA selected.

Cheers,

 

[Jack]

Jack, I like what you did to this image. It reminds me of something another photographer said to me once:

"This is how I remember the scene looking."

That's a great quote -- I should modify it to read, "This is how I wanted the scene to look!" and put as my signature quote

 

[Bob]

Bob

We are coming at this from different requirements and different experiences..so its unlikely that either of us will spend the time to understand the others position.

--snip--

I would contrast this to the comparison of raw conversions....where C1 is just better and by enough to make it worth the effort. I am sure you feel the same about PS over LR.

Roger, I am not trying to pick a fight at all. Sure the LR LAA stuff is useful for some, it just doesn't do it for me. Different needs, different tools.
Shooting models is one of the biggest challenges for me. I haven't met one yet that didn't need or want some sort of touch-up.
Everything from bad skin, blotchy skin, a nip and a tuck here or there, fixing the wardrobe, eye veins, messy hair, stray hair, changing its color, modifying makeup, whatever. It kind of forced me into getting more proficient with PS. Once I was there, it gave me new tools to use in landscape too.

C1 vs LR is a moot point when I shoot phase simply because the profiles or something is soooo bad it is not even usable. Canon it is sort of a tossup except that the C1 files are cleaner, and at the moment with the GF1 LR or ACR is the way to go since it is not yet supported in C1.
Frankly I have a limited and specific demand on a raw converter, and that it to give me the best starting point possible.
-bob

 

[Robert Campbell]

That's a great quote -- I should modify it to read, "This is how I wanted the scene to look!" and put as my signature quote

"This is how I thought I remembered the scene."