Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Using Lightroom 4 with Layered Photoshop Files  (Read 5956 times)
hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 730


WWW
« on: March 13, 2012, 10:03:02 PM »
ReplyReply

If you make adjustments in Lightroom 4 to a photoshop file(tiff or psd) that has multiple adjustment layers, what happens to those adjustments if you reopen the file in photoshop? Are they embedded in the background layer? Is there any way to preserve them as a separate adjustment layer?
Thanks.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2012, 10:07:53 PM »
ReplyReply

You have three choices when opening an image from LR to Photoshop, Open a copy with LR adjustments (flattens layers), open a copy (flattens layers) or open original. If you open the original all PS layers are intact...when you save, the image is returned and whatever adjustments you may have made in LR remain. So, I think you REALLY want to open the original and keep your layers and LR adjustments.
Logged
hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 730


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2012, 12:21:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, but I am still having trouble gatting my head around where the Lightroom adjustments go when you reopen a layered Photoshop file in Photoshop after making adjustments in Lightroom. Is there anyway to puth the Lightroom adjustments on a separate editable layer(e.g., as a smart object layer)?  Is that possible if the LR catalogue contains the original raw file
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9189



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2012, 01:19:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Basically, Lightroom can’t handle (edit) layered files. It has to take the totality (flattened) data to apply edits on that data. So if you have a raw, you can process to your hearts content. Then you render that data, go into Photoshop and build layers. LR will happily catalog that layered document. But if you wish to edit again in LR, it has to make a flattered iteration and apply it’s edits. Layers are gone. As Jeff said, of the three options, one (Open a copy with LR adjustments) flattens a new iteration with the new LR edits. You can open a copy (again, flattened) or you can open the original with layers but no LR edits have or can be applied to that version (cause LR can’t deal with layers).

You could ask LR to open with LR edits (create a new iteration that is flattened with edits applied) and then put that on a layer with the original layered document sure.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
kevk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2012, 06:09:41 AM »
ReplyReply

hcubell,

Is there anyway to puth the Lightroom adjustments on a separate editable layer(e.g., as a smart object layer)? 

Not so you can carry the LR changes into Photoshop, but you CAN keep changing the layers in Photoshop AND changing the "same" image in Lightroom - as Mr Schewe says...

So, I think you REALLY want to open the original and keep your layers and LR adjustments.

You do this by keeping the Photoshop edits in your PSD and only ever doing "edit original" on that PSD, and keep your Lightroom changes in a Virtual Copy of the PSD. Changing the "original" PSD in Photoshop makes Lightroom auto-update the view in the VC, and changing the VC in Lightroom changes the image as you would print or export or slideshow etc from Lightroom.

So, for example: (1) you import a RAW into LR and do some initial adjustments; (2) "Edit in Photoshop" which creates a PSD which contains these original LR adjustments, and you add Photoshop layers etc. then save the PSD; (3) back in LR create a Virtual Copy of the PSD; (4) you can then do more Lightroom edits on the VC (which does not change or flatten the PSD as it is only a VC); (5) you can then open the PSD (or the VC for that matter) with the "Edit Original" option and you are back into Photoshop editing the PSD with your layers, so you can make more layer changes in PS and save the file and (6) hey presto the VC automatically updates to show the changes you made in Photoshop AND keeps the Lightroom changes you had made in the VC. Life goes on without losing your Photoshop layer work.

Does this help?

By the way, Mr Schewe, I assume this means it is correct operating procedure to finesse a layered PSD/TIF in PS, then softproof in LR - creating a separate softproof VC for each printer/paper you want - THEN you can go back to the layered PSD/TIF in PS to perform more finessments, and all the softproof VC's update with the PS changes and are still (depending on the PS edits you did!) A-OK and ready to print.
 
Kevin
Logged
hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 730


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2012, 10:12:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for these helpful responses. I wonder about this approach. I believe I can take a raw file, open it in LR and work on it, and then open the file in PS as a smart object that is the background layer. If I add a bunch of adjustment layers in PS, can't I go back and open up  and edit the smart object layer in LR(or at least Camera Raw)?
More generally, I am very curious how Jeff Schewe integrates his IQ 180 files into a LR/PS workflow as that is what I am trying to figure out. Perhaps the LuLa advanced LR 4 video tutorials he has worked on with MR will discuss that in detail. I have not used LR in the past, but I bought LR4 and I have become quite taken with it for sorting files and global adjustments. It does a beautiful job with my old Hasselblad H3D-39 files. Still evaluating it for editing IQ180 files.
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4055



« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2012, 03:47:01 AM »
ReplyReply

You do this by keeping the Photoshop edits in your PSD and only ever doing "edit original" on that PSD, and keep your Lightroom changes in a Virtual Copy of the PSD. Changing the "original" PSD in Photoshop makes Lightroom auto-update the view in the VC, and changing the VC in Lightroom changes the image as you would print or export or slideshow etc from Lightroom.

So, for example: (1) you import a RAW into LR and do some initial adjustments; (2) "Edit in Photoshop" which creates a PSD which contains these original LR adjustments, and you add Photoshop layers etc. then save the PSD; (3) back in LR create a Virtual Copy of the PSD; (4) you can then do more Lightroom edits on the VC (which does not change or flatten the PSD as it is only a VC); (5) you can then open the PSD (or the VC for that matter) with the "Edit Original" option and you are back into Photoshop editing the PSD with your layers, so you can make more layer changes in PS and save the file and (6) hey presto the VC automatically updates to show the changes you made in Photoshop AND keeps the Lightroom changes you had made in the VC. Life goes on without losing your Photoshop layer work.

What's the point of the virtual copy?

Jeremy
Logged
kevk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2012, 03:58:08 AM »
ReplyReply

What's the point of the virtual copy?
To keep the LR adjustments intact AND the PS layers intact and editable. I thought that's what the OP was wanting to achieve. An example use of the VC would be for softproofing.

If I am being a ninny, please feel free to point it out.   Smiley

Kevin
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791


« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2012, 04:08:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Personally I am wondering as to the benefits of processing an image in LR and then launching it into PS, do some processing and then taking it back into LR? I don't ask this from a newbie point of view. I have been using PS for nearly ten years and ACR for about half that time and recently moved into the realms of LR. Where are the advantages?
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9189



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2012, 09:03:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Personally I am wondering as to the benefits of processing an image in LR and then launching it into PS, do some processing and then taking it back into LR?

Other than using LR to catalog the image and print it (or use it for a web gallery or slide show)? Beats me. I don’t take images into Photoshop after LR until I’m sure I’m done with the Develop module process.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2012, 12:11:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally I am wondering as to the benefits of processing an image in LR and then launching it into PS, do some processing and then taking it back into LR?

Well, LR4's soft proofing is better...I much prefer to print out of LR4 than Photoshop...you have the ability to keep track of all your files; the raw images and the retouched masters. It's really just an extension of what LR was designed for.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4055



« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2012, 01:17:42 PM »
ReplyReply

To keep the LR adjustments intact AND the PS layers intact and editable. I thought that's what the OP was wanting to achieve. An example use of the VC would be for softproofing.

If I am being a ninny, please feel free to point it out.   Smiley
I wouldn't be so direct!

As I understand it, you (and the OP) achieve what you want to achieve by always choosing "edit original". When you save in PS, that orginal, with changes, replaces the old version as the "root" of the image in LR. LR will then apply all the "within LR" changes to that new original, as if it were a raw file. Using a VC achieves nothing relevant.

I think of it this way: LR takes a base image and applies adjustments to it. That base image may be a raw file, a tiff, a jpeg or a psd. When you "edit in ps" anything other than a raw file, you are given the option of "edit original". If you select that option, the file, with any layers, is sent to PS. When you save, the saved version (with layers) slides under the previously-applied LR editing changes, which are then immediately applied to the file to produce the result you see on screen.

I think that's right, and I think it explains why a VC isn't necessary.

Jeff?

Jeremy
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5499


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2012, 02:10:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that's right, and I think it explains why a VC isn't necessary.

Jeff?

Well, yes and no. The majority of what you wrote is spot on. But even then there may be valid reasons for VCs. If you want to soft proof to two different printers with different papers, it would be useful to do those with VCs. If you wanted to have two different crops or one color and one B&W it would be useful to have VCs. That's what VCs are designed for.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4055



« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2012, 04:09:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, yes and no. The majority of what you wrote is spot on. But even then there may be valid reasons for VCs. If you want to soft proof to two different printers with different papers, it would be useful to do those with VCs. If you wanted to have two different crops or one color and one B&W it would be useful to have VCs. That's what VCs are designed for.
Jeff, i use VCs a lot; I wasn't for one moment suggesting that they had no value. I was suggesting that they're not necessary in order to achieve what hcubell wanted to achieve, and I think you agree.

Jeremy
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad