[UnknownVT]

I think that is application-specific. I'm pretty sure that both Lightroom and Bibble at least can do *some* of that kind of thing parametrically/non-destructively on the RAW data. But it's certainly true that at some point, there may be things you need to do that have to be done post-conversion. Photoshop layers allow most of this to still be done non-destructively in a fashion, but it's not really the same thing in practice. Luckily, I almost never do any of that kind of thing - I'm pretty much strictly messing with global changes like color and exposure.

OK I just installed the latest LightRoom 3 Beta 2.

I'd be the first to admit I am a novice on LR -
BUT I cannot find the select/lasso tool so I can do selective area adjustments (equivalent to the old dodge/burn) - which as explained (when I have to) is the most time consuming part of my editing and where I would like to backtrack "non-destructively".

Note: I have used the adjustment brush in LR which will allow me to apply adjustments to brush stroke areas - it will do, but it is just not quite as good as being able to select a specific area and apply those adjustments (or I would imagine quite as clear-cut for any undo).

Is adjustment brush parametric/non-destructive?

Perhaps any LR experienced members could please help me find the selection/lasso tool to do this so I can apply adjustments to selective areas "non-destructively" or do I have to use PhotoShop Elements to do that kind of thing - or advise me on how to use the adjustment brush more effectively to achieve what I want to do?

Something I never asked before do all you RAW shooters developers just use your RAW editor program and NOT have to use another editor for any other adjustments.
Eg: are LightRoom, ACDsee etc. the only editor program one needs for all and any eventual adjustments? -
or does one still really need a regular editor for the viewable/converted version for some of the adjustments?

---

Last edited by UnknownVT; 03-29-2010 at 10:35 AM.

[Mark Castleman]

I think that is application-specific. I'm pretty sure that both Lightroom and Bibble at least can do *some* of that kind of thing parametrically/non-destructively on the RAW data. But it's certainly true that at some point, there may be things you need to do that have to be done post-conversion. Photoshop layers allow most of this to still be done non-destructively in a fashion, but it's not really the same thing in practice. Luckily, I almost never do any of that kind of thing - I'm pretty much strictly messing with global changes like color and exposure.

I know that in Aperture anything you do within the Application is nondestructive. Now, if you send it out to Photoshop or use many of the available plugins you are now working on a TIFF copy of your image. So while the RAW file is not changes you have made permanent changes to the TIFF.

[Marc Sabatella]

BUT I cannot find the select/lasso tool so I can do selective area adjustments (equivalent to the old dodge/burn) - which as explained (when I have to) is the most time consuming part of my editing and where I would like to backtrack "non-destructively".

Note: I have used the adjustment brush in LR which will allow me to apply adjustments to brush stroke areas - it will do, but it is just not quite as good as being able to select a specific area and apply those adjustments.

That's pretty much what I meant when I said you can do some but not all of it. But I'm not a LR users either, so it's hard for me to be more specific - I'm going off what I have read and experienced on the few occasions when I give the trial a spin. Bibble, I believe, does allow more operations on selections.

Is adjustment brush parametric/non-destructive?

As far as I know, if LR can do it, it's parametric non-destructive - it has no facility whatsoever to do anything any other way (I guess a save as that overwrites the original file would do it, maybe).

Something I never asked before do all you RAW shooters developers just use your RAW editor program and NOT have to use another editor for any other adjustments.
Eg: are LightRoom, ACDsee etc. the only editor program one needs for all and any eventual adjustments? -

With LR, since it lacks anything beyond the non-destructive stuff, I could see needing to leave it more often. But ACDSee provide both modes of operations. i do everything I can in the parametric mode ("Develop"), then if some things remain, I'll move to the traditional "Edit" mode to finish the job. On the other hand, the thing most likely to cause me to go to Edit mode is for dust cloning, which I gather can be done parametrically in LR. And ACDSee's Edit mode can't do *nearly* what a program like Photoshop can. But should I ever wish to do operations on selections, it does allow that. This might not be necessary as often as it would be in some programs because ACDSee has some unusually clever global operations that can often accomplish things that one might otherwise think you need selections for. Darkening a sky, for instance, can be done with the Lighting tool, and while that will affect other sky-colored objects in the scene as well, that's not always a bad thing, as a darker sky *would* have the effect of darkening any reflections or white objects in shade that are lit primarily by the sky).

But in *extremely* rare cases, there will be something I want to do that I can't do within ACDSee, and I'll struggle with the GIMP. I haven't had to do that in a couple of years. But I think my PP style is rather different from yours - I sure you'd run into limitations of ACDSee more than I do.

[robgo2]

RAW exclusively.

Rob

[robgo2]

FWIW, I'd recommend you think of it the other way around. That if you shoot JPEG now and do very little PP, there's no reason to even think about RAW until you start doing more PP. If/when you start doing more PP on your JPEG and start running into limitations of JPEG, *then* you should consider shooting RAW. By then you'll already be familiar with what you want to do in PP.

I have a different take on this. Since virtually all RAW converters have Auto-adjust capabilities, it is usually possible to edit a RAW image with a single click of the mouse. It's not much harder than shooting in JPEG. The advantage to shooting in RAW, however, is that one still has the original RAW file, which he/she may someday decide to work on in a more serious way. OTOH, if one shoots in JPEG, much of the original image data is irretrievably lost.

I am a RAW shooter, and I love going back to re-edit old images, sometimes with new and different programs. The resulting differences can be quite striking.

Rob

[egordon99]

LR 2.6 user here. I never have to leave LR for my edits, but I tend to not do anything too drastic with my photos. So everything is non-destructive, my raw files are untouched, and I don't need to keep ANY extra files. I have the raw file, and xmp file, and the changes in the LR database. Makes my image file management fairly easy. I just need to backup the raws, the xmps (which are in the same directory as the raw files), and my LR catalog.

Any time I do an export (for web, print, email), I don't need to keep the JPGs since I can always re-create them at any time.

[UnknownVT]

LR 2.6 user here. I never have to leave LR for my edits, but I tend to not do anything too drastic with my photos. So everything is non-destructive, my raw files are untouched, and I don't need to keep ANY extra files. I have the raw file, and xmp file, and the changes in the LR database. Makes my image file management fairly easy. I just need to backup the raws, the xmps (which are in the same directory as the raw files), and my LR catalog.

Any time I do an export (for web, print, email), I don't need to keep the JPGs since I can always re-create them at any time.

That's good to hear.

However I have to do the old dodge and burn - for example when the subjects face is in silhouette or shadow (like wearing a baseball cap). I normally do this by selecting the area and doing adjustments on it - I think the adjustment brush in LR can do it - but the undo/re-do may be more difficult since I often brush with several strokes especially over more critical parts like edges, so to backtrack to the precise point would I imagine to be difficult - one can always start again - but this is no better than starting afresh with the original image.....

I never ever modify/overwrite the original JPGs (in fact I back them up twice off-line) - so in that way I always have the originals - but it is the non-destructive editing in RAW that really attracts me, if only I can preserve where I actually spend time and use most effort on.

[Marc Sabatella]

BTW, I'd be curious to see a before & after case of a face in shadow type of situation where you handled it using dodge/burn. JPEG is fine for this. This is exactly the sort of thing I handle routinely using the Lighting tool in ACDSee (no selections involved, and usually just a couple of clicks required). While I'm sure it's true I won't be to *exactly* reproduce what you do using dodge&burn, I'm curious to do the comparison so you can see wnhat the alternatives can be. LR doesn't have anything *exactly* like this, but I suspect others could do something similar with the tools that are there.

[UnknownVT]

BTW, I'd be curious to see a before & after case of a face in shadow type of situation where you handled it using dodge/burn. JPEG is fine for this. This is exactly the sort of thing I handle routinely using the Lighting tool in ACDSee (no selections involved, and usually just a couple of clicks required). While I'm sure it's true I won't be to *exactly* reproduce what you do using dodge&burn, I'm curious to do the comparison so you can see wnhat the alternatives can be. LR doesn't have anything *exactly* like this, but I suspect others could do something similar with the tools that are there.

OK I have already said I can achieve similar effect using LightRoom's Adjustment Brush - perhaps I am not that skilled at it - but it takes me many strokes to paint an area and I have to use care at the edges - which means any backtrack re-do/undo will require me to find that particular stroke in the sequence - I am not organized enough to know exactly which stroke I am likely to want to backtrack to - so the non-destructive editing here is useful but much more awkward if I actually want to backtrack on it - does that make sense?

Here's an image that had to have dodging:

EXIF reattached (caveat: PhotoBucket can drop metadata)

Here's small sized image as-is pre processing:


No, it is absolutely not rocket science, but to paint the face with the adjustment brush would take multiple strokes, and if at a later date I find I would like to change the adjustment in one spot - I am not sure how easy it would be to find the exact brush stroke to undo/re-do -
whereas if I could undo select area/adjust - then I could easily find the fault in selection or adjustment and redo that.

Notice also I cloned out the face in the bottom left corner - again I would like to be able to re-do undo any cloning/healing - which I do not know how with the RAW processors I have tried.........

Perhaps ACDsee could be better at these - but as you remember I tried ACDsee Pro 3.0 386 the latest version (at the time) and it was unacceptable for my use with the K-x (reminder: post #182 in Do people really shoot in JPEG???)

So I find it hard to see much advantage of shooting processing RAW - for me for the type of photography and PP that I do -
especially when it seems I have to learn a different way of doing what I already know how to do, use more storage, and have to have extra steps in processing with the tools that I have or are acceptable to work with -
I very much acknowledge YMMV -
and I have not tried to convince anyone else to do what I do.......

[Marc Sabatella]

OK I have already said I can achieve similar effect using LightRoom's Adjustment Brush - perhaps I am not that skilled at it - but it takes me many strokes to paint an area and I have to use care at the edges

Right, that's no better. But it's not what I meant. I was hoping for something more similar to ACDSee's Lighting tool - something in the line of highlight/shadow, local contrast enhancement, and/or curves. Something that requires no selection, brushes, or any other identification of a local area to operate on.

Notice also I cloned out the face in the bottom left corner

Actually, I didn't until you pointed it out. Yeah. cloning pretty much always involves more work. I cheated and just cropped to perhaps lessen the impact.

Perhaps ACDsee could be better at these

It's not a question of doing it better; my point as just that even though ACDSee can't do burn & dodge within the non-destructive Develop mode, it provides tools that often make burn & dodge operations unnecessary.

I've attached my version of your image, accomplished in two clicks of the Lighting tool (plus the crop). This is basically how I handle all images like this; I haven't used burn&dodge or selected an area or used a brush for lightening/darkening in years.

as you remember I tried ACDsee Pro 3.0 386 the latest version (at the time) and it was unacceptable for my use with the K-x

Yes, I remember. But my assumption is that other applications like LR might also provides ways of doing what you want (lightening faces) without necessary using dodge & burn as the method to achieve that goal. So don't assume that lack of dodge & burn means you have to leave the world of non-destructive editing.

So I find it hard to see much advantage of shooting processing RAW - for me for the type of photography and PP that I do -
especially when it seems I have to learn a different way of doing what I already know how to do, use more storage, and have to have extra steps in processing with the tools that I have or are acceptable to work with

No way around learning to do things differently. But consider - you said you make extra copies of your JPEG's to avoid clobbering them. No need to do that with non-destructive processing, so storage requirements don't go up much when shooting RAW. And processing can often involve *fewer* steps than you currently employ (no need to make copies of files or do explicit "save" or "save as" operations, plus the Lighting tool I mentioned is less work than dodge & burn, if it does the job)

and I have not tried to convince anyone else to do what I do.......

Don't think of what I am doing here as trying to convince you or anyone to do things differently. Just trying to suggest that the perceived disadvantages of the change might not be nearly as big as you think you they will, for all the reaosns I've mentioned over the course of this post. On the other hand, I'm claiming there are any great advantages either. I would say that the face lightening I did probably would have gone better had the original been RAW, as there would have been an extra 4 bits = 16 times as data to work with. Hard to tell at this size, but I'd assume working full size from JPEG you'd see posterization as a direct result of that degree of lightening by *any* method, whereas with RAW, you definitely would not.

[UnknownVT]

I've attached my version of your image, accomplished in two clicks of the Lighting tool (plus the crop). This is basically how I handle all images like this; I haven't used burn&dodge or selected an area or used a brush for lightening/darkening in years.

That was pretty good - and thanks to this conversation - I found I can actually use the fill-light slider/tool in ACR on a JPG!

Use Open As and select the JPG file - then change the file type to Camera RAW (yes it is still a JPG) but ACR opens with the JPG file showing, and I can use "fill-light" slider to more or less get what you did.

Cool! thanks.

[Marc Sabatella]

You're welcome. Read recently that "clarity" controls might also play a role here; something else to try.

[UnknownVT]

You're welcome. Read recently that "clarity" controls might also play a role here; something else to try.

Yep, see if newer way of doing things may improve my throughput.

Although to be honest I try to do minimal PP - just resize, brightness/contrast and add sharpening generally - that's why I mostly work with JPG.

Even though it may seem as though I am reticent to do things differently -
as with all things it's the trade-off -
if I gain an obvious advantage (to me) - then it'd be worth my while doing differently or re-learning things or even obtaining a different piece of software.
But discovering tools that are in the editors I already have, seems kind of different - it's learning to use the tool I already have, as opposed to having to buy a new piece of software learning that and getting at least to the point of being able to produce results I am already getting .......

[Jon in SC]

I am very new to Pentax (K7) but have been using a DSLR for several years now (Olympus). I almost always shoot in RAW. I have found that while RAW takes up more room on my harddrive and takes more time to use, the investment is way worth it. Shooting in RAW gives me so much control over so much of the shooting process and it saves all of the data my camera cought in the field.

Shooting in RAW almost literally give you a chance to fix almost any camera setting you may have miscalculated in the field. It won't fix focus and shutter speed but even errors in those areas can be moderated to some extent.

RAW isn't a free pass to be sloppy in the field and nothing replaces doing it right the first time, but there have been countless times when shooting RAW allowed me to save a shot that would have otherwise been useless.

The only exception to my rule of shooting in RAW is then I am literally shooting snap shots only at say a party or a family get together. In those cases I do rarely shoot in JPEG so that I don't have to do post production work to share the photos or post them on Facebook.

One cool thing that I am looking forward to with the K7 is that it will allow me to "develop" a RAW file into a JPEG right in the camera. With that feature on board I can share a photo in a pinch on the fly.

[kingkong]

i always use JPEG