The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Using C1 with Lightroom

fotografz

Well-known member
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.
Fortunately, with a majority of my paying work the output is a constant in terms of size. Everything is around 7" X 10" .... some cropped and sized to 7X10, some not. So, of 1,000 shots maybe 600 make it to the client in proof form. They will never use that many images, but expect them to be usable. Of all that I may need to print a 17 X 22 display print, or around 5 to 10 larger images for an album ... in that case they are segregated in a collection and processed out at the larger scale.

The assumption is that something like C1 will produce superior images for all 100 possible album images ... when in my experience that isn't true. LR does a very good job with most but not all files. So I may want to select certain images I think will benefit from C1's attributes despite the slower work flow.

Guys like Irakly use LR almost exclusively (rarely ever resorting to other RAW converters or even PS after the fact) ... and his work can hardly be seen as suffering.
 
H

hardloaf

Guest
Guys like Irakly use LR almost exclusively (rarely ever resorting to other RAW converters or even PS after the fact) ... and his work can hardly be seen as suffering.
That brings interesting question - how do we know if some image is "suffering" or not? :)
The only way to know is to compare - our brains are really good at this. Let's say you look at one well processed print today and find it amazing. Next day you look at the same shot processed and printed differently and also find it amazing. So which one is better? To decide you put them together and here it is - instantly you can see that one is warmer, another has slight magenta cast, details are different, shadows clipped and so on. So the point is that without trying and comparing it's hard to tell what you actually missing. Customers love to compare. ;)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
That brings interesting question - how do we know if some image is "suffering" or not? :)
The only way to know is to compare - our brains are really good at this. Let's say you look at one well processed print today and find it amazing. Next day you look at the same shot processed and printed differently and also find it amazing. So which one is better? To decide you put them together and here it is - instantly you can see that one is warmer, another has slight magenta cast, details are different, shadows clipped and so on. So the point is that without trying and comparing it's hard to tell what you actually missing. Customers love to compare. ;)
That kind of comparison could be done with the same processor with different results based on different judgements on any given day.

Most of the time decisions are made based on using something and comparing it against something else aren't they?
 
H

hardloaf

Guest
That kind of comparison could be done with the same processor with different results based on different judgements on any given day.

Most of the time decisions are made based on using something and comparing it against something else aren't they?
You have better options and can compare same shot processed in two different converters. Anyway - my main point is that if you process Raw file with ACR and C1 and don't see much difference on prints this doesn't always mean that the Raw is at it's best and nothing else could be done. It could be just that both converters are using same approach to conversion and incapable of anything better, but some another converter can produce significantly different result with this Raw file. Blind test with all prints on table is a very good way to rank converters for your purpose.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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?
SNIP
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.
My structure is software independent for the very reason we are discussing now --- what to do when something superior comes along that isn't supported by or won't integrate with your "old" software?

Ironically, my structure happens to integrate perfectly with C1's native structure of sessions and the folders created within the sessions. So yes, I will have a main folder for the year, then inside that folders for the job or project, then inside those, the specific sessions related to the job. The session folder contains all the raws made during that session, along with an inner level session output folder, session trash folder and session move-to folder.

Moreover, C1 doesn't care if I shoot half my project onto the card and tethered for the other half. I can also go back to my historical images, never before seen by C1, and browse and process them instantly without setting up a session, or I can set up a session using the existing folder hierarchy --- IOW it's very flexible. Yet if another raw processor comes along next week or next year that is superior, I can migrate over to it seamlessly.

Re storage, yes as soon as I convert a raw file, I've got a full-sized tiff and that takes up added space. But it is also in a sense a duplicate, so even if I destroy it, I can create another, identical version off the archived RAW. And right now, hard drive space is really, really cheap, so I am personally not overly concerned. I even save the various different print output sizes I work up off the working tiff. So in the end, I may have the raw, a converted tiff, a web jpeg, a larger client jpeg, and three different print files of the same image.

Re the pass through... I am not sure, but do not think LR can process through a truly unedited file? FTR, I understand the appeal of LR's cataloging, raw conversion and limited local adjustments as an all-in-one solution. But I knew going in it was going to lock its users into its proprietary format and workflow and I was not going to play that game. In a way, Adobe now has all of its power LR users kind of over a barrel...
 
H

hardloaf

Guest
Re the pass through... I am not sure, but do not think LR can process through a truly unedited file? FTR, I understand the appeal of LR's cataloging, raw conversion and limited local adjustments as an all-in-one solution. But I knew going in it was going to lock its users into its proprietary format and workflow and I was not going to play that game. In a way, Adobe now has all of its power LR users kind of over a barrel...
They all keep users over a barrel as long as you keywords concerned. Date based directory structure can be restored with a single exiftool command on Mac or Windows. Previews and thumbnails are also easy to regenerate - only matter of time. Keywords though is a big trouble for me - I don't want them stored in Raws because I ain't trust anyone to dig inside of my precious Raws with their dirty hands, especially big and faceless corporations :) All other ways mean that if you move or archive a Raw file your keywords are going to be lost and you need to follow very strict procedure which essentially locks you to one application.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Jack

I was with you right up until the end. I have always recommended an external independent folder/image structure.... similar to yours and that recommended in the DAM book . I use year,location or event but then I go down to the original card. So for example last week in NYC ....I had 2009, NewYork,MayTrip and then card which might be 2009-05-17BrooklynBridge. When traveling these maybe on the MacBook Pro but then they are transferred to an individual drive by year. The small drives are up to 500GB and that enough to hold a years worth shooting say 15-20K images. LR doesn t have to control any of that.

Combine that with flags,ratings and color codes (maintained by LR ) and I can find almost anything fast enough to do it on the spot. Right now I am not having too much of a problem in remembering the year.

I haven t done much with the metadata although I do put in a few identifiers.

So I don t think I am captive to LR any more than your workflow. If I want a copy of the developed image I can output a TIFF anytime I need one .

What I need to find out for sure is whether LR will just pass a file of any type .... if not then you have only MR alternative to integrate the two products.

Small aside....I spent most of my career as a large scale system integrator of manufacturing and financial systems.....so I get numbering schemes and integration issues . Your system is "best of breed" ....like using blade irons for golf ..in the hands of a expert ..ultimately flexible and capable of great stuff. LR is like a Callaway cavity back....get close and you have a good shot ...part timers or rookies stay out of trouble. This could be a separate topic but what I am saying is that you have to be good to make your workflow "hum".

It seems like the MR solution is an attainable improvement for many on this forum....using C1 or any other Raw Convertor on the front end to get a good conversion and then working with LR for most everything else. The only disadvantages seems to be the need to manage both the raw and the tiff versions of the file and the cost and time required to master more than one convertor.
 
H

hardloaf

Guest
What I need to find out for sure is whether LR will just pass a file of any type .... if not then you have only MR alternative to integrate the two products.
I can share my experience here - LR doesn't pass any Raw or DNG files to external applications. That's why I had to develop special plugin for LR so my users could call RPP on selected Raw/DNG files. It works through context or main export menu and on Mac it's possible to assign an application specific keyboard shortcut to it.

Andrey
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I can share my experience here - LR doesn't pass any Raw or DNG files to external applications. That's why I had to develop special plugin for LR so my users could call RPP on selected Raw/DNG files. It works through context or main export menu and on Mac it's possible to assign an application specific keyboard shortcut to it.

Andrey
Andrey I am pretty sure you are incorrect. I am not suggesting that you pass something to an external application ..as in going form Lr to PS. I asked this on two Lightroom forums ...over at Napp and the adobe forum...same answer. Raw files are never modified or changed in LR ... exporting the original is possible . I just exported a dozen .NEF raw files and got them in a folder I specified all as .NEF files. The HELP menu says when you specify "original" no LR modifications have been applied. Take a look and set me straight if I am wrong. Thanks Roger
 
H

hardloaf

Guest
Andrey I am pretty sure you are incorrect. I am not suggesting that you pass something to an external application ..as in going form Lr to PS. I asked this on two Lightroom forums ...over at Napp and the adobe forum...same answer. Raw files are never modified or changed in LR ... exporting the original is possible . I just exported a dozen .NEF raw files and got them in a folder I specified all as .NEF files. The HELP menu says when you specify "original" no LR modifications have been applied. Take a look and set me straight if I am wrong. Thanks Roger
Roger, maybe I misunderstood you, but if you are simply interested in export of Raw files this is easy to do - you may use built-in LR tools for that or just copy files directly in OS.
If you want to integrate two apps, this usually means that you need to ask LR to pass full path of a Raw file to another application without copying or moving it. That application will process the file and pass new full path for a converted file to LR back for import. That's how my plugin works.
Without plugin LR doesn't do this for Raw/DNG files the same nice way as it does for tiff/jpeg files, i.e. you can ask LR to open a tiff file in any external app like C1, but you cannot do the same for any Raw/DNG.
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack

I was with you right up until the end.
SNIP
So I don t think I am captive to LR any more than your workflow.
Roger,

Totally agree here -- I was not referring to you specifically, but rather users that come to depend on LR's key wording.

You raise a good point about the flagging and numbering, and I would lose those if I move out of C1 just like you would lose those if you moved out of LR. That would be an inconvenience, but not a total deal-breaker for me due to the way I use the session trash and move-to folders (I won't bother explaining my entire workflow, but basically the junk is already in the session trash.)
 

Diane B

New member
Roger, I'm just following this conversation, but I just exported a RAW from my 5D (as you noted). I've been able to open this in my older version C1, DPP, old RSP, Bibble and ACR/Bridge. I noted that it exported with a sidecar file--which I don't use.

I've been using a folder organization pretty much like Jack's and others for a long time. I have one year per external HD since 2000--and backed up off site. I've been using LR since it came out (LR with keywording--but I rely as much on the metadata browser as the keywords--or collections) ---but have used just about every other RC for Canon files since the D30/G1--and used Imatch. I don't shoot any commercial any more--only personal, but I'm still following this.

Just thought I'd stick my nose in here to say that the RAWs do export without any modification.

Diane
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Roger, maybe I misunderstood you, but if you are simply interested in export of Raw files this is easy to do - you may use built-in LR tools for that or just copy files directly in OS.
If you want to integrate two apps, this usually means that you need to ask LR to pass full path of a Raw file to another application without copying or moving it. That application will process the file and pass new full path for a converted file to LR back for import. That's how my plugin works.
Without plugin LR doesn't do this for Raw/DNG files the same nice way as it does for tiff/jpeg files, i.e. you can ask LR to open a tiff file in any external app like C1, but you cannot do the same for any Raw/DNG.
Thats what I thought you were talking about.. In my example ..I am required to reference the processed TIFFs from the appropriate folder . I am sure there is a way to do this . Conceptually I would like the raw and Tiffs next to each other..maybe even stacked the way you can use virtual copies. I am just trying to mimic Jacks folder structure in the LR catalog and take it a step farther by keeping all versions of a file together.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Roger, I'm just following this conversation, but I just exported a RAW from my 5D (as you noted). I've been able to open this in my older version C1, DPP, old RSP, Bibble and ACR/Bridge. I noted that it exported with a sidecar file--which I don't use.

I've been using a folder organization pretty much like Jack's and others for a long time. I have one year per external HD since 2000--and backed up off site. I've been using LR since it came out (LR with keywording--but I rely as much on the metadata browser as the keywords--or collections) ---but have used just about every other RC for Canon files since the D30/G1--and used Imatch. I don't shoot any commercial any more--only personal, but I'm still following this.

Just thought I'd stick my nose in here to say that the RAWs do export without any modification.

Diane
This is important thank you. Even if you decide for the M8 you are buying into C1 conversions for 100%. I think I am leaning that way ..I find the LR camera specific profiles for the M8 ..lets say lacking. For images in your LR catalog ..I have 45K ...I may want to process only my selects. Its easy in LR to get to them but will take effort if I want to put them into the correct folder structure on the return trip .

Roger
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Roger,

Totally agree here -- I was not referring to you specifically, but rather users that come to depend on LR's key wording.

You raise a good point about the flagging and numbering, and I would lose those if I move out of C1 just like you would lose those if you moved out of LR. That would be an inconvenience, but not a total deal-breaker for me due to the way I use the session trash and move-to folders (I won't bother explaining my entire workflow, but basically the junk is already in the session trash.)
Jack I see your point. Really anything that is maintained by the LR catalog can be lost to you . Because I have maintained a significant(meaningful folder structure)....I haven t depended on the collection or even the meta data capabilities. If I was shooting for stock I would be in trouble. But I can pull a collection together in a few minutes on almost anything I have taken but that doesn t mean those features shouldn t be considered.

Whatever we decide in our individual workflows..... incorporating independent raw convertors will make the DAM more difficult.

Roger
 

Diane B

New member
Its easy in LR to get to them but will take effort if I want to put them into the correct folder structure on the return trip .

Roger
Won't you have to import the tiffs (assuming you are going to save)? When I create a pano, I save into the folder I want--then import (since its not a 'round trip'). It would be great if you could do a round trip to any graphics app--but AFAIK, that isn't possible--at least not to other RCs. Admittedly, I haven't explored any of the newly appearing plugins since I really haven't had a need--so far.

I just noted you replied to Jack about incorporating any other RC into your workflow--creating problem with the DAM. So far, that's why I don't.

Diane
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Forgive me if I'm wrong - I'm not a power LR user - however select the files, hit Ctrl-S (or use the 'export metadata' setting in the menu) and LR will export out all the metadata to either a sidecar XMP file or if you use DNG, embedded within the file. That includes keywords. That metadata will then be passed along to any file produced from the RAW files such as tiffs or jpgs for all to see.

I do this the whole time as I sometimes use LR but mainly use Bridge/ACR and this way I'm not tied to the *%£%$* LR database system.

Seriously though, if you want a decent DAM, use Bridge CS4. It's fast, efficient, not tied to a database system, hugely useable and a perfect portal into photoshop. People dissing Bridge either haven't used the CS4 version (CS3 version was almost unuseably buggy) or just don't know how to use it.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Ben

Isn t knowing how to use CS4 one of the primary issues ...like a lot of things in photography ...you have to decide where to invest your time and money. Wouldn t you agree that its has a high skill requirement to be truly effective.

Roger
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Fair enuf but statements about bridge being slow or clunky are way way off the mark. CS3 was, CS4 is incredible in it's versatility.

As you say Roger, I have to work out where to invest the time and effort and if I have an extremely efficient Bridge/ACR or LR workload then it's going to take a serious amount of pursuading for me to switch to C1, especially since I roll my own colour profiles these days using DNG Profile Editor.
 

charlesphoto

New member
Okay, here's what I like about LR. Say I want to put together a web gallery of family pictures (I'm a pro but family is on my mind a lot these days with a new son, my first) and/or have some 4X6 prints made for the in laws, etc etc.

I can first pull together all the appropriate images into one big base using keywords. I can then rank by say one star. I can then color code and further star if need be. I can then add some to the quick collection, save the quick collection and start a new one. I can sort the order to be more narrative. And I can do all of this seamlessly and at anytime go backwards and forwards (ie see the whole group so I can rank some more).

I use the filtering system a lot when putting together essays, portfolios, etc. I'm sorry, but until C1 hides the unranked images and finds a way to seamlessly pull together images from a lot of separate folders quickly and easily it doesn't work for me. But once I whittle things down to my final selection in LR, I will then export those DNGs (esp M8) to a folder that I will then do the raw conversion and adjustments in C1 (for say fine art prints - 4X6's for Mom LR is plenty good enough). It's the only way I see it working for me.

The thing I like about LR is being tied to one database system! Makes my life simpler. But I do use Bridge often, and the CS4 version is much improved, but mostly as a search engine for my really sloppy folders upon folders of scans (I'm not a very organized person :p).
 
Top