Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 66

Thread: Using C1 with Lightroom

  1. #1
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Using C1 with Lightroom

    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.

  2. #2
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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

  4. #4
    ddk
    Guest

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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?

  5. #5
    Subscriber robsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    496

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    534
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by robsteve View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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 .

  8. #8
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  9. #9
    hardloaf
    Guest

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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.

  10. #10
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Hardloaf,

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

    Welcome to the forum from a next-door neighbor!
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  11. #11
    hardloaf
    Guest

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    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

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by hardloaf View Post
    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.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Andrey

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

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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.

  15. #15
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  16. #16
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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

  17. #17
    hardloaf
    Guest

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    hardloaf
    Guest

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Goh View Post
    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.

  19. #19
    hardloaf
    Guest

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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.

  20. #20
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    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.

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by hardloaf View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    hardloaf
    Guest

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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.

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by hardloaf View Post
    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?

  24. #24
    hardloaf
    Guest

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    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.

  25. #25
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  26. #26
    hardloaf
    Guest

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    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.

  27. #27
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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.

  28. #28
    hardloaf
    Guest

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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

  29. #29
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by hardloaf View Post
    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

  30. #30
    hardloaf
    Guest

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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 by hardloaf; 19th May 2009 at 15:11.

  31. #31
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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.)
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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

  33. #33
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by hardloaf View Post
    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.

  34. #34
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane B View Post
    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

  35. #35
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    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

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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

  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  38. #38
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    534
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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 ).

  41. #41
    Senior Member eleanorbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston and Keystone, Colorado
    Posts
    706
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    40

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    I began using C1 with my P25 however eventually switched to Lightroom after viewing Michael's very excellent tutorials, for subsequent use with my P45, then 45+ along with canon RAW files. About 6 months ago i decided to get reacquainted with C1 and to my pleasant surprise I found it superior to Lightroom so I'm back using C1 for all RAW processing. Want to make one additional point and that's i find the sharpening in C1 far superior to the Lightroom sharpening in it's ability to define fine detail in my RAW files. C1 works some magic here! Eleanor

  42. #42
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    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.

    ,
    HI There Jack
    I think there are two points here -

    First Point
    If you are actually doing 'sessions' - ie, a wedding, a concert, a PR shoot a holiday, which some pros are doing most of the time, then it works really well.
    However, if you're shooting landscape / family or simply revisiting the same school frequently to do student portraits, there is a continuum which really demands efficient keywording and cataloguing. For instance, I've been taking photos of a particular beach in Cornwall for 30 years - sometimes with family members, sometimes with friends, sometimes in winter, sometimes in summer. There is no way of cataloguing this with any kind of folder structure - key words in LR or Aperture make this easy.

    Second Point
    Converting is old stuff! Seriously, given that you might want to pull together a lot of images for a book / website / brochure / catalogue or whatever, if you've used conversion software and then filed away the original RAW files, but you need to have consistent processing for the 'whatever it is'. Then you're stuck with trawling through your backups finding the old RAW files to reprocess.

    Use Aperture or Lightroom, and you don't do the conversion except for outputting to your victim for specific projects. This means that doing the book / website / brochure simply means a keyword search, a new project which holds the virtual 'versions' you want.

    Like most people here, I've used C1 on and off for a long time, and I keep considering using it full time . . .but it always comes back to these two points which keeps me with Aperture.

    Just this guy you know

  43. #43
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    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?
    HI Jack
    So is my structure - Year / Month / session.
    I keep it like that and simply reference the files in Aperture (you can do the same in Lightroom). Hiding them away in the library seems like complete madness.

    As you say - it matches very well with the C1 structure - but as I pointed out above, the problem arises when you want to pull together images from many different folders for a particular project . . . one that you weren't aware of when you started shooting.

    Just this guy you know

  44. #44
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    I know this thread is primarily about using C1 with Lightroom.
    I also know that the motivation for LR users is that the C1 conversions are better (I think we all agree).

    What I don't quite understand is why there is almost no mention of Aperture - despite the fact that it's conversions are (for many cameras) a great deal better than LR, and often close to C1, and it does have all the DAM advantages of LR?

    Just this guy you know

  45. #45
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Mac only mate, does kind of cut the talk down to mac only users...

    As regards Charles post, you can do exactly the same stuff in Bridge, with the advantage of multiple workspaces based on your particular needs at the time, oh and you're working with the real files not a database.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    Mac only mate, does kind of cut the talk down to mac only users...

    As regards Charles post, you can do exactly the same stuff in Bridge, with the advantage of multiple workspaces based on your particular needs at the time, oh and you're working with the real files not a database.
    Hmm - does bridge do versions? Collections? But whatever, you are still stuck with ACR for the conversion.

    Just this guy you know

  47. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    534
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    Mac only mate, does kind of cut the talk down to mac only users...

    As regards Charles post, you can do exactly the same stuff in Bridge, with the advantage of multiple workspaces based on your particular needs at the time, oh and you're working with the real files not a database.
    Hmmm, not really. Yes, Bridge is good for within individual folders, but LR really comes into it's own when one, as Jono points out, you need to bring together many images from different places into one cohesive body. All depends on the type of work one does I guess.

  48. #48
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    oh and you're working with the real files not a database.
    Isn't it working with a database which is the REAL advantage - you can have one RAW file, and as many interpretations as you like - black and white / cropped with a template for a book / over-saturated for the cheap thrills brigade etc. etc. . . . but you still only have the one disc file.

    I think you just wrote off the BIG advantage of DAM's in a single line! But I don't think you were right.

    Just this guy you know

  49. #49
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    However, if you're shooting landscape / family or simply revisiting the same school frequently to do student portraits, there is a continuum which really demands efficient keywording and cataloguing.
    Hi Jono,

    I shoot a lot of landscape and family stuff and don't keyword, and have no issues finding my stuff even from several years back.

    Converting is old stuff! Seriously, given that you might want to pull together a lot of images for a book / website / brochure / catalogue or whatever, if you've used conversion software and then filed away the original RAW files, but you need to have consistent processing for the 'whatever it is'. Then you're stuck with trawling through your backups finding the old RAW files to reprocess.
    Here I disagree too. If you output a LR image to CS, as a tiff, or as a jpeg for web, your raw has been converted . That out of the way, I can pretty easily pull images from any session or non-sessioned folder together and if I need to reprocess, I just output them to a new output location. I can even create a new variant and save it with say a unique name for the project before outputting it, and thus always get to back to any specific conversion for that project.

    So in the end, I still don't need LR's specific DAM capabilities. And moreover, don't have to put up with what I view as a lesser conversion tool for my raw files.

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  50. #50
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Isn't it working with a database which is the REAL advantage - you can have one RAW file, and as many interpretations as you like - black and white / cropped with a template for a book / over-saturated for the cheap thrills brigade etc. etc. . . . but you still only have the one disc file.

    I think you just wrote off the BIG advantage of DAM's in a single line! But I don't think you were right.
    It's called 'snapshots' in ACR. You can save as many versions of your processing as you choose and they are saved into the DNG file (or sidecar file) not into a database. I use it the whole time.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •