Using C1 with Lightroom

[glenerrolrd]

The latest post on luminous landscape proposes an integration of C1 and Lightroom that I have not seen before. The thread on the issues with the new leica 24/1.4 has morphed into a discussion of an optimum workflow using these two products. Since I am about to begin this process, I posted this thread to open up the discussion further and seek to learn some "best practices" . I hope nobody will mind my setting up a new post ....but the information will be hard to retrieve buried inside a discussion of a new lens.

There seems to be no argument that C1 provides the "best" raw conversions from the M8 DNG s and most other raw files ....and at a minimum its thought to be better than Adobe Raw (Photoshop and Lightroom) in every instance.

The LL suggests using C1 for importing and the basic raw conversion using C1 camera profiles and I assume you favorite default settings. Only setting of your white and black points would be done in C1. A TIFF would be exported into a folder of converted files.

Lightroom would start with this file and all further adjustments ...cropping,white balance,color, sharpening , noise etc would be done in LR. This I believe is quite different from how most forum members have described their use of C1. The tutorial renders an opinion that the results are essentially the same as having completed the processing in C1.

This workflow has the advantage of starting with the best conversion available (C1) and then leveraging LR for its Local Area adjustments and DAM capabilities. But I believe there are still some limitations(which I hope I can live with as this looks to be a nice improvement to LR alone).

1. I now have an extra copy of each image to manage in my DAM system. LR alone has just the Raw file and the catalog which includes your detailed adjustments. Nice that you can always revisit the original Raw file as the software improves . LR does not appear to reference the raw file in any way ( I am sure I can find it but its not as effective as the search capabilities within LR). This might mean I would be going back to the TIFF for most searches and not the Raw file.

2. Since the imports are done in C1 .....the selection and ranking process is done in C1 . This is a real bummer as LR does this as well as any . Spending more time in slection and ranking is the best way to speed the workflow. Only work on images that count toward your goal.


The above approach would seem to work with other raw developers as well say Capture NX for converting your Nikon raw files.

 

[Jack]

Hi Roger:

I think in the end all of us would agree we fall into one of two categories depending on the task at hand; we either want the best final image result and are willing to use a hierarchy of software to get there with maximum efficiency, OR we require maximum efficiency with acceptable results over the best possible result. Unfortunately, the two options currently seem to be at odds...

From a pure efficiency standpoint, LR with its DAM, raw conversion and local edit options, is clearly very efficient, at least assuming the user is willing to embrace the workflow.

Admittedly, I am not one of those users since I fall into category one above, wanting the best possible final result. Hence, I have learned -- adopted -- over the years a workflow that maximizes my efficiency while delivering optimal results. Currently that means I use the best raw converter with my own DAM schema and the best image editor for any required local adjustments; hence, C1 to CS... In my case, I use C1 to import my images per my own storage requirements and convert to an optimal working file much like Michael indicates he now does for LR. I then move that file to CS(4) where several (not all) of my required edits are automated and can be batched, then single images can be locally edited as required and added back to my library. So for now, my system demands two pieces of software.

However, using C1 and LR also requires two pieces of software, and to my thinking, CS can do so much more than LR on edits, that for me LR is an all but useless step and only serves to complicate my workflow and reduce efficiency by introducing a third and for me, totally unnecessary piece of software. However, if one is married to its cataloging mechanism of LR, then I acknowledge its appeal...

 

[woodyspedden]

On todays LL there is an interesting article by Michael Reichmann about his workflow using both C1 (required for his P65+) and Lightroom.

Woody

Whoops.........I should have read Roger's report just before Jack's before posting this. He already references the Luminous landscape article.

Sorry

Woody

 

[ddk]

Converting raw files to tiffs in the camera specific software/converter and then finishing off in PS, LR or Painter is nothing new, many have been doing this since the beginning so why all the hoopla?

 

[robsteve]

What we really need is the option of Lightroom handing off the RAW file to C1 for processing, sort of like an "edit in" menu. The problem with this is C1 is not set up to do this. The shortcoming is really in the C1 workflow. I don't think it has drag a drop functionality, or whatever it is called when you can just drop a file on a program and have that program open that file.

Robert

 

[charlesphoto]

What we really need is the option of Lightroom handing off the RAW file to C1 for processing, sort of like an "edit in" menu. The problem with this is C1 is not set up to do this. The shortcoming is really in the C1 workflow. I don't think it has drag a drop functionality, or whatever it is called when you can just drop a file on a program and have that program open that file.

Robert

I agree. I actually think LL has it backwards in that the DAM needs to come first and then the actual conversion of the ones you want second. How many images from any particular shoot are really keepers anyway? Do you really want to convert all of the files from a shoot (which could be in the thousands) to 16 bit tiffs just so you can properly rank them?

Lightroom is very very good at editing, quickly creating collections, making slide shows, web galleries, etc. C1 is really primitive at these in comparison. Yeah, it would be nice if one could handle all the management from the get go in LR and then quickly convert the files you truly want and then back to LR as say tiffs for the finishing.

I've asked this before, but didn't get an answer. When you export a file as a generic DNG form LR, will C1 read that (obviously not with any corrections made in LR)? Seems like the way to go, except in the case of lens specific corrections.

 

[glenerrolrd]

The two issues I thought might be "new thinking" were:

1. Splitting the conversion process between C1 (limited to conversion and setting white/black points) and LR everything else.

2. Using C1 for the import and selection process ...which seems backwards as Charles points out above.

IMHO LR has a lot more going for it than the DAM with the current 2.3 release including the local area adjustments. Of course , if you have a customized CS solution you can get the same results or better .

 

[Jack]

The real benefit to C1's import is it is capable of importing off the card or directly from the camera when tethered, so if you shoot both ways C1 is clearly the more efficient solution...

 

[hardloaf]

What's interesting is that Michael clearly admitted, that LR (and automatically ACR) are not satisfying him as converters, i.e. the whole concept of all-in-one photo processing tool is not working even for Adobe's best allies, the same way as for other real down-to-earth photographers. Probably Adobe and Apple should try to understand photographers needs better and realize that easy integration with external tools is very important for their well-being.

 

[Jack]

Hardloaf,

Well said! And while we're at it, LOVE that avatar!

Welcome to the forum from a next-door neighbor!

 

[hardloaf]

Hardloaf,

Well said! And while we're at it, LOVE that avatar!

This is the icon for my converter, http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/

Should've probably named it Raw Moonshine four years ago

Welcome to the forum from a next-door neighbor!

Thanks. I'll try to be a good neighbor

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

What's interesting is that Michael clearly admitted, that LR (and automatically ACR) are not satisfying him as converters, i.e. the whole concept of all-in-one photo processing tool is not working even for Adobe's best allies, the same way as for other real down-to-earth photographers. Probably Adobe and Apple should try to understand photographers needs better and realize that easy integration with external tools is very important for their well-being.

What I don't understand is why Canon don't hand over all the 'proprietory' information to Adobe. They don't sell DPP unlike Nikon so there's no financial loss. If they were to furnish Adobe with all the information to make ACR/LR the best converter period for Canon files then it might make a huge difference to pro's choosing which system to use.

To be honest, the Bridge/ACR workflow is fast and efficient enough that I couldn't care less about an extra 5% detail/sharpness. Not when I have my own custom profiles using DNG Profile Editor, when I have the local adjustment tools in ACR that I'd been waiting all these years for.

I do think that MR has it the wrong way round though. Use Bridge for all the culling, sorting, keywording (not LR as you want to move the real files). Then send to a different RAW converter if you need to.

 

[Henry Goh]

Andrey

Welcome and nice to see someone working on a better converter. Is the engine on floating point maths? Reminds me of Iliah.

 

[fotografz]

This whole subject is of great interest to me ... and presents a real "rock and hard place" decision process.


To date, I've been using Lightroom because of its speed in organizing, editing and making 90% of the adjustments needed to get to proof status on wedding files ... all done in a nondestructive manner. In my experience, LR is a Ferret on Crack, CS4 is a 3 legged turtle, and C1 is a blind snail


My workflow consists of 10 to 15 minutes total downloading multiple cards from different cameras into one master file using 4 daisy-chained firewire 800 readers and a couple of SD readers at the same time, then setting those cards aside. At times this can mean files from a Nikon, a H3D (converted to DNGs), Sony, some M8 files, and files from my second shooter's Canons ... then I import that master file to LR using "Date" to organize which mixes up the camera files all over the place ... then applying a set of crop ratios that fit album specs, and some presets. The initial generalized "Library" adjustments allow proof level images for client review level adjustment of up to 1000 shots in no more than an hour or two. As I go through I may make some "collections" to re-address in the LR Developer Module where the brushes and gradient tool are available ... or open a specific file for PSCS4 work.

When complete, I can convert to Tiffs and/or Jpgs very swiftly. Hopefully Nik Define 2 will soon be available as a LR plug-in like it is in Aperture. That will be yet another reason not to go to PS and will save time.


Now the actual amount of images that need higher level RAW QC and in further retouching rarely number more than 100. Of those 100, maybe a maximum of 25 could truly benefit from better RAW processing available in C1.



C1 definitely has its value and place in my workflow as was demonstrated in the recent thread about the M 24 Lux ... so I upgraded to v4.8 (thanks to Doug's simple phone instructions). Since it seems that not only is CA better handled in C1, so is noise from the M8's higher ISO files ... so it may be better to do all initial RAW work with M8 files in C1 and send them for inclusion in the LR Master.

Admittedly, I am just now reacquainting myself with C1 and will read the tutorials available to see if I can speed up the workflow process.

 

[Jack]

Why not do all your raw conversions with C1? It's browser, ranking and editing functions are at least as fast as LR's, and you have optional "move to" folders within each session.

Bottom line is all that is required to use C1 efficiently is get your arms around its "session" concept. Once you grasp that and begin to use them, its workflow all starts to make sense.

,

 

[glenerrolrd]

I do think that MR has it the wrong way round though. Use Bridge for all the culling, sorting, keywording (not LR as you want to move the real files). Then send to a different RAW converter if you need to.

Ben

Doesn t LR offer the alternative to output the original raw file ...I can t tell from my M8 files ..but it looks like the original .DNG and that no processing has taken place. I built a folder of a dozen selects after doing all the selection process in LR.

If I process those in C1 and reimport the TIFFs .....I am pretty close to having a selective conversion process.

Roger

 

[hardloaf]

What I don't understand is why Canon don't hand over all the 'proprietory' information to Adobe. They don't sell DPP unlike Nikon so there's no financial loss. If they were to furnish Adobe with all the information to make ACR/LR the best converter period for Canon files then it might make a huge difference to pro's choosing which system to use.

Mostly likely they disagree on price. In any case I don't think that this information would help much to improve quality of ACR conversions.

I do think that MR has it the wrong way round though. Use Bridge for all the culling, sorting, keywording (not LR as you want to move the real files). Then send to a different RAW converter if you need to.

I couldn't master Bridge, too slow and cumbersome even for me. LR is better in my opinion, but I still need to decide if I'm moving there permanently. My current workflow is intentionally low tech, very flexible and involves only 3 products with sharply defined roles - converter, viewer and editor. I really want keywords though - this is the only reason I even bothered to try LR and Aperture.

 

[hardloaf]

Andrey

Welcome and nice to see someone working on a better converter. Is the engine on floating point maths? Reminds me of Iliah.

Yes, it's floating point math and we are teaming with Iliah in this project.

 

[hardloaf]

Now the actual amount of images that need higher level RAW QC and in further retouching rarely number more than 100. Of those 100, maybe a maximum of 25 could truly benefit from better RAW processing available in C1.

I strongly believe that images should be processed at full strength only when final media and size are established. There is no point in developing all redundant shots the same way as key shots and indeed for small prints noise and details are not as important as with big prints. Colors and shadows though are always important to me.
F.e. I don't understand why all vendors ignore half-conversions, i.e. Raw conversion without any interpolation and with loss of resolution. It gives 4 times less megapixels in output, but very fast and color accurate. My converter is not the fastest one and it takes about 10 sec. to produce 6MP image out of 24MP Raw file on my rather slow MacBook Pro. On a Mac Pro it would be like 2 sec. or something. That's 6MP! I used to blow such pictures to A3 size and it's definitely enough for very high quality 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 prints. Imagine how quick it would be in LR with their fast and sloppy methods - I'd guess about 3 sec. or better per 24MP raw on a laptop and less than 1 sec on a good workstation. I use this approach for years and it's actually more than enough to judge picture colors, sharpness and filter out keepers from goners.

Regarding benefits of better processing - in my opinion C1 is not that much different from ACR or any other. They all are limiting factors, not cameras. You cameras and lenses actually capture a lot more and in better quality than you get out of those converters. So it may actually be that all 100 of those shots will benefit from quality processing.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Why not do all your raw conversions with C1? It's browser, ranking and editing functions are at least as fast as LR's, and you have optional "move to" folders within each session.

Bottom line is all that is required to use C1 efficiently is get your arms around its "session" concept. Once you grasp that and begin to use them, its workflow all starts to make sense.

,

Jack I believe if I remember correctly that your data management strategy is somewhat software independent. Don t you use the folder structure within OS X to keep everything together....raw,converted Tiffs ,print and maybe web? If I want to use LR for DAM ..I have to get the raw files into the catalog. It has always seemed to me that the big advantaged of an integrated solution was the ease of getting stuff done. But I must have the C1 conversion for my M8 DNG s . and probably the NX2 for the .NEF s.

As the tools improve...like adding local area adjustments , new camera profiles etc ... LR is a snap to rework images. This goes for c1 as well ..if I decide that say I want images from 2006 to be reprocessed because C1 has improved .......I would like to use the search functions within LR to find the specific raw files. So LR has to get the raw file as well as the TIFF.

The one critical factor I am unsure of is if I can pass through a raw file and output an unaltered raw export. LR has the option of outputing "the original" but I am not sure its the original raw file.

The other thing that is a problem is doubling or tripling the storage requirements for LR ..this can be handled by setting up your data bases correctly.

Right now I have 45K images in my LR library and I can easily carry all 45K on two small 500GB portable LaCie drives . An even more effective strategy is to store the 1:1 profiles in the catalog which is small enough to keep on your main drive. You can show full quality on anything in the database.

This is not an easy workflow to design.....but it is getting closer.