Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Moving on from Adobe, need some final Lightroom advice.  (Read 15627 times)
rgg195
Guest
« on: May 09, 2013, 08:22:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all

I have been reading here for a long time and buying videos and courses - which are great.

I am moving on from Adobe and am figuring out the best way to move Lightroom photos to Aperture and DxO Optics. Importing the raw files into the new system is no problem of course, but keeping the work I have done to those photos in Lighroom is the tricky part.

I think the best way to do this is to "burn" all the photos with adjustments into a 16 bit tiff file and import those to the new system. The tricky part is going through my catalog and finding all the photos with adjustments and exporting them as TIFF's.

My question is there a way to search Lightroom to find only photos with adjustments and then to batch export them all as TIFF, preferably to the same folder as the original raw file?

Any suggestions or help would be appreciated. Maybe there is already a thread about this and a pointer to that thread would be helpful

Cheers and thanks,
Guy
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 08:30:32 PM by rgg195 » Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2227



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2013, 10:58:35 PM »
ReplyReply

You have to create a smart collection, set it to Has Adjustments is True.  Export it however you like with the given options.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5479


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2013, 11:26:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I am moving on from Adobe and am figuring out the best way to move Lightroom photos to Aperture and DxO Optics. Importing the raw files into the new system is no problem of course, but keeping the work I have done to those photos in Lighroom is the tricky part.

You can't...when it comes to raw image processing, all the processors have completely different image processing controls. So what you apply in LR won't translate to Aperture of Capture One in the raw files...

And yes, you can go ahead and render the raw files to TIFFs, but they are no longer raw...they are gamma and color space encoded. I think this is a suboptimal approach...

While you may be pissed at the whole CC thing, I suggest that it would behoove you to think about the full ramifications of your actions. If you take your raw files to Aperture (or any other raw processor) in essence, you must start over from scratch...is this really what you want to do? Is this why you shot raw? Is this really in your best interests?
Logged
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 289


« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2013, 11:39:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Would converting to DNG be a viable option?

Yes I know it's an Adobe format, but they've been pushing it as a universal "RAW" file.

Glenn
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5479


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2013, 12:03:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Would converting to DNG be a viable option?

No, not if you want the time you've spent arriving at optimal image adjustments because hose adjustments can not be duplicated in non-Adobe software. So, DNG won't keep you from starting from scratch regarding setting...
Logged
rasterdogs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2013, 12:15:09 AM »
ReplyReply

You can't...when it comes to raw image processing, all the processors have completely different image processing controls. So what you apply in LR won't translate to Aperture of Capture One in the raw files...

And yes, you can go ahead and render the raw files to TIFFs, but they are no longer raw...they are gamma and color space encoded. I think this is a suboptimal approach...

While you may be pissed at the whole CC thing, I suggest that it would behoove you to think about the full ramifications of your actions. If you take your raw files to Aperture (or any other raw processor) in essence, you must start over from scratch...is this really what you want to do? Is this why you shot raw? Is this really in your best interests?

Suboptimal is a good characterization of the entire situation.
 
I understand Mr. Schewe's point from a technical point of view.

For me there are additional ramifications.
I'll continue to use LR skeptically. I'm abandoning the use of PS.

I'll go back to my older, less abstract file naming and tree structure. I'll export my keeper images as TIFFs.
I'm unlikely to upgrade to LR5. I'll reduce my purchases of LR training videos. I'll miss the great LULA LR videos but know enough to get by.
In short I'll pack my chute while continuing to us LR. I'll give the LR alternatives a good, hard look. I've always been curious about Aperture and Capture One
but was persuaded that the Adobe products were the bees knees.

For the ~15 years that I've used Adobe products I was a real proponent for the company and it's products. No longer.
I now understand that Adobe has little, if any regard, for me as a 'hobbyist photographer.
In one swell foop Adobe has taught me not to trust them.

Maybe they will continue to develop/support and price LR for the 'little people', maybe not.

Next time one of my friends asks about photo software the first thing I'll do is warn them about Adobe. Caveat Emptor.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5479


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2013, 12:25:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm unlikely to upgrade to LR5.

Hum, you sure? LR5 has some interesting and potentially useful new features that will help you arrive at better image quality more efficently...you sure you want to walk away from that considering LR5 is likely to be a $79 upgrade? Are you sure your anger at Adobe is worth it to yourself to short change your own work?

Look, Lightroom is the only Adobe application that was designed for photographers. Photoshop started life as a graphic file format conversion utility. Photoshop was not designed to be used by photographers, even though a lot of photographers found it useful.

You are free to vote with your wallet...it's an economic vote that only you can cast. But, if you are a LR user, are you really sure Adobe's CC announcement is enough of an insult that you want to cut your nose off simply to to spite your face?
Logged
rasterdogs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2013, 12:32:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Hum, you sure? LR5 has some interesting and potentially useful new features that will help you arrive at better image quality more efficently...you sure you want to walk away from that considering LR5 is likely to be a $79 upgrade? Are you sure your anger at Adobe is worth it to yourself to short change your own work?

Look, Lightroom is the only Adobe application that was designed for photographers. Photoshop started life as a graphic file format conversion utility. Photoshop was not designed to be used by photographers, even though a lot of photographers found it useful.

You are free to vote with your wallet...it's an economic vote that only you can cast. But, if you are a LR user, are you really sure Adobe's CC announcement is enough of an insult that you want to cut your nose off simply to to spite your face?

I guess I have some pondering to do. Prior to this cloudy stuff I'd have jumped at this in a New York minute. The tool is great but for me I now know that the company sucks.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5479


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2013, 12:44:49 AM »
ReplyReply

The tool is great but for me I now know that the company sucks.

Is that really your perception or are you being swayed that the hype and rhetoric and doom & gloom that a few really strident users are screaming about?

Stop for a moment and contemplate what you think you know and compare it to the other side is claiming...

Look, Thomas Knoll who essentially single handedly bootstrapped this entire industry into existence is still working for Adobe...Eric Chan (MadmanChan here on LuLa) are still in control of the Camera Raw processing pipeline and added some cool new stuff in LR5.

Can you think for yourself? Are you making a decision based on logic and knowledge or are you reacting based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. Which the anti-Adobe group seems really good at doing (and jumping all over anybody who dares to take issue with the FUD).

Think for yourself...LR5 is a good, not great update–and the only product designed from the ground up for photographers. LR5 adds additional features and functionality that makes Photoshop even less required and needed on a 90/10 basis.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2811


« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2013, 01:49:08 AM »
ReplyReply

The tool is great but for me I now know that the company sucks.

Is it Lightroom you spend hours with or is it Adobe Systems Incorporated you spend hours with? ;-)
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 01:56:29 AM by Isaac » Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2013, 01:53:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I've got around 3000 6MP Pentax Raw PEFs with ACR 4.6 generated .xmp side car edits. Which version of Lightroom (4 or 5) will read them if by chance I switch to Lightroom (which I'm now seriously considering)?

I just hope one of those LR versions runs on my mid 2010 Mac Mini without slowing things down. I've really become used to ACR 4.6's immediate preview response to slider and curve adjusts. Other Raw converters have as much as a 6-10 second delay to the preview update with every slider adjust.

Probably going to have fork over another $600-$800 for a newer Mac Mini.
Logged
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 10, 2013, 06:56:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems a little premature to jump ship from Lightroom at this point, at least in my opinion.  I can definitely understand the concern however, and I really hope people like Thomas and Eric are noting the apparent discontent with a subscription based service and getting that information to the people forwarding the concept.
Logged

sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 583


« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2013, 07:35:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I have to say I'm supprised by the numbers of people now looking for lightroom alternatives< i expected it with the photoshop CC thing (And I'm one who won't be going cloud) but the shift from LR caught me by supprise.  Just doing a straw poll with companies and friends we work with showed a supprising number looking to move away from adobe. 
I'm glad I don't have shares from what I'm seeing anyway.
Logged
jedbest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 350


« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2013, 07:45:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff's advise makes perfect sense to me. Since most use Lightroom and not necessarily Photoshop, why cease using an excellent product just because of Adobe's decision regarding Photoshop. At the present time, it is my understanding that Lightroom is not going to be restricted by the same policies affecting Photoshop.

Well that is my 2 cents, anyway.
Logged
s4e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2013, 07:59:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I've got around 3000 6MP Pentax Raw PEFs with ACR 4.6 generated .xmp side car edits. Which version of Lightroom (4 or 5) will read them if by chance I switch to Lightroom (which I'm now seriously considering)?

I just hope one of those LR versions runs on my mid 2010 Mac Mini without slowing things down. I've really become used to ACR 4.6's immediate preview response to slider and curve adjusts. Other Raw converters have as much as a 6-10 second delay to the preview update with every slider adjust.

Probably going to have fork over another $600-$800 for a newer Mac Mini.

I would have waited for LR5 and test if everything is working with a trial. Perhaps LR5 will have some new functions that will demand more processing power but I'm quite sure the core functionality will run even faster then LR4.
Logged
rasterdogs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2013, 08:02:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Is that really your perception or are you being swayed that the hype and rhetoric and doom & gloom that a few really strident users are screaming about?

Stop for a moment and contemplate what you think you know and compare it to the other side is claiming...

Look, Thomas Knoll who essentially single handedly bootstrapped this entire industry into existence is still working for Adobe...Eric Chan (MadmanChan here on LuLa) are still in control of the Camera Raw processing pipeline and added some cool new stuff in LR5.

Can you think for yourself? Are you making a decision based on logic and knowledge or are you reacting based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. Which the anti-Adobe group seems really good at doing (and jumping all over anybody who dares to take issue with the FUD).

Think for yourself...LR5 is a good, not great update–and the only product designed from the ground up for photographers. LR5 adds additional features and functionality that makes Photoshop even less required and needed on a 90/10 basis.


Jeff, I am thinking for myself. I've seen no real convincing presentation from Adobe clearly declaring that they value us 'hobbyists' and fully intend to keep LR a non-subscription tool.
This statement from Adobe VP  Winston Hendrickson does little to bolster my optimism about Adobe and their 'commitment' to the "hobbyist photographic community".

DPR questioner>Were you expecting such a negative response from the photographic community?
"We expected a higher degree of this type of reaction from the hobbyist photographic community because currently there's not a lot of photography-specific value in our subscription products."

We can debate Adobe's 'intentions' but they've fooled me once on PS. I may not abandon LR but I'll certainly modify my workflow to be ready to completely abandon Adobe products.  
 
Logged
HSakols
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 381


« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2013, 08:18:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I also feel a bit unsettled using adobe's evil plan, especially considering how much time and effort I've put into lightroom. If they decide to put photoshop in the cloud lightroom will follow - unless this just backfires on adobe like the whole Netflix fiasco.  Then again if this all goes into a cloud, the competition might come up with a better alternative. 

Now if Adobe would help my public school with making technology more accessible for my students, I'd gladly pay $100.00 a year.  I wrote them years ago but never even got a reply. 
Logged
rgg195
Guest
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2013, 08:49:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the help. I know there is no optimal solution but then again not much in life is optimal. In the future I am going to generate high res TIFF files for all the images that I have "finished" or "nearly finished" and keep them next to the original raw file, so if things change and I need to move it won't be as hard. I think this actually should be a best practice that everyone should consider. In the meantime I have some work to do.

As for the future of Lightroom, Adobe as far as I can tell, has been non-committal about whether Lightroom will always be available as a non-cloud, non rent only, solution. I think they have said Lightroom 5 will be, but who knows about the future, and to be honest I am not convinced that Adobe is really interested in the hobbyist or amateur markets, they seem to be focused on the "professional" market that treats software as a monthly line item expense that can be easily managed. This fine for Adobe, but not so good for us - the amateur, hobbyist, or individual photographers. And, as was mentioned, the only vote that really counts is the "economic vote", and thats the only one that Adobe and most other large corporations listen to.

Thanks again everyone, take care, consider future proofing your work in some manner, and reward good behaviour - carrots work better than sticks.

Cheers
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 09:28:36 AM by rgg195 » Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2013, 09:12:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I've got around 3000 6MP Pentax Raw PEFs with ACR 4.6 generated .xmp side car edits. Which version of Lightroom (4 or 5) will read them if by chance I switch to Lightroom (which I'm now seriously considering)?

I just hope one of those LR versions runs on my mid 2010 Mac Mini without slowing things down. I've really become used to ACR 4.6's immediate preview response to slider and curve adjusts. Other Raw converters have as much as a 6-10 second delay to the preview update with every slider adjust.

Probably going to have fork over another $600-$800 for a newer Mac Mini.

Any version of LR will 'read' the RAW files.  LR will pick up the edits in the xmp files and render the image using the appropriate Process Version.  Despite PV2012 being the most current, LR still has previous Process Versions (2010 & 2003) available and is backward compatible with files processed in previous versions.
Logged
rgg195
Guest
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2013, 09:27:19 AM »
ReplyReply

You have to create a smart collection, set it to Has Adjustments is True.  Export it however you like with the given options.

Thanks - that will work!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad