What editing program should I be using?

[smoke665]

From that point on your option to make changes in LR and have them update through the pipe or have changes in PS back update through the pipe are cut. That is a destructive gap.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but I routinely go back and forth between Lr and Ps when editing, making edits in both. Granted the "initial edits" made in Lr are no longer available, but when I make new edits on a Ps file those edits will transfer to Ps when I reopen the file in Ps.

But it won't update a raster layer where you pushed pixels.

The smudge tool works by moving pixels, as such Ps has to rasterize the layer in order to allow you to move those pixels. However, the pixel movement is limited to that layer and not the layers below, unless you flatten the image. Once I'm in Ps I find it easier and more productive to make color changes via RGB channels in the tone curve. On occasion I will use ACR for editing a layer, but since so much of the color temperature work is done in Lr, before it's brought into Ps, I very rarely use ACR. Maybe if I was doing all my editing in Ps.

 

[Ysarex]

From that point on your option to make changes in LR and have them update through the pipe or have changes in PS back update through the pipe are cut. That is a destructive gap.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but I routinely go back and forth between Lr and Ps when editing, making edits in both. Granted the "initial edits" made in Lr are no longer available,

That's what I meant. Now if you had moved a smart object to PS then those initial LR edits would be available for the smart object but accessed via ACR.

but when I make new edits on a Ps file those edits will transfer to Ps when I reopen the file in Ps.

But it won't update a raster layer where you pushed pixels.

The smudge tool works by moving pixels, as such Ps has to rasterize the layer in order to allow you to move those pixels.

pothole!

However, the pixel movement is limited to that layer and not the layers below,

pothole layer in the middle of the stack!

unless you flatten the image. Once I'm in Ps I find it easier and more productive to make color changes via RGB channels in the tone curve.

That's a different process than a WB change and it produces different results. The real point however is that a raster layer and moved around pixels is a break that you can't smoothly get past. You can't go back to where you started and decide to tweak a change and have that tweak update through.

Here's an example:

Over the New Year holiday I re-visited some old photos and found this one -- we-re talking 9 years old, but the processing is entirely parametric in C1.

I processed it to have a gloomy dark forest feel and above is just for reference -- look left center and see the bird house.

Now actually I decided I didn't want the bird house there -- no sign of human touch -- and so it's removed with a parametric clone/heal:

In fact there's three other clone/heal object removals in the image.

Now let's say I want to revisit the image and create a variant with a different color feel:

Some winter cold instead of the warmth of the first version. If those clone/heal jobs had been accomplished on a raster layer pushing pixels then the simple WB change I made to effect that color change would have no effect on them and they'd stick out in the image as off color spots. What could I do? I'd have to instead create a flattened version of the photo and apply the color change differently after the fact making the alteration to the RGB image instead of to the raw original.

What I did above cost me no additional disk space and was simpler and more effective. I'm 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable. The pixel pothole breaks that.

Joe

On occasion I will use ACR for editing a layer, but since so much of the color temperature work is done in Lr, before it's brought into Ps, I very rarely use ACR. Maybe if I was doing all my editing in Ps.

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex Wait you missed my earlier post. Clone stamp, blemish, spot heal, etc. I do on an empty layer, sampling layers below. I don't do those edits on an image layer. My image can still be edited with ACR to change WB. And I don't flatten my layers, I merge down when I need to.

 

[Ysarex]

@Ysarex Wait you missed my earlier post. Clone stamp, blemish, spot heal, etc. I do on an empty layer, sampling layers below. I don't do those edits on an image layer. My image can still be edited with ACR to change WB. And I don't flatten my layers, I merge down when I need to.

I got that, but that empty clone layer is still a raster layer and if you do a clone operation to remove something from the sky and then later change the color of the sky in the layer below the clone work on the empty layer will show as a different color. The empty raster layer is still a pothole in that you'll either have to re-do it or separately apply a change to it directly. If you merge it down into the layer below you're committing pixels and they don't uncommit. You're close to 100% non-destructive but not really 100% and not non-linearly re-editable. I want to be always able to go back as far as step one and if I want to re-assign the camera input profile as the first step in processing the raw file then I want to be able to do that and have every edit made after that instantly update to that change. To do that we have to avoid raster pixel layers.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

empty clone layer is still a raster layer and if you do a clone operation to remove something from the sky and then later change the color of the sky in the layer below the clone work on the empty layer will show as a different color

I've already shut down the computer and a Drs appointment tomorrow but when I get back I'll do a little experimenting but I'm not sure I agree with you. The layer I'm using for cloning is empty, it's pulling it's data from the layer/layers below. Like I said I don't normally do WB corrections in Ps via ACR. I know that doing a curves layer above and using RGB channels works, or at least I've yet to notice an issue. Ps also has the option of creating a virtual layer that represents the image with all the edits in the stack below, which I believe will let you edit in ACR. I'll try it also.

Even if it doesn't it's a moot point because I still have my original in Lr. In a matter of mins I can create a new virtual copy change the color temperature, open it in Ps, select and copy the layers from the old edit, and paste them on the new copy. I guess I'm not understanding your concern.

 

[Ysarex]

empty clone layer is still a raster layer and if you do a clone operation to remove something from the sky and then later change the color of the sky in the layer below the clone work on the empty layer will show as a different color

I've already shut down the computer and a Drs appointment tomorrow but when I get back I'll do a little experimenting but I'm not sure I agree with you. The layer I'm using for cloning is empty, it's pulling it's data from the layer/layers below.

Yes it pulls the data from the layer below but it's a raster layer and so it freezes the data it pulls. Changing the layer below won't update the data on that raster layer with the same change -> pothole.

Like I said I don't normally do WB corrections in Ps via ACR.

It doesn't have to just be WB; there are lots of possibilities. Sometimes I like to apply a grain simulation at the raw converter level. What if I decide latter to change that. We all start with a camera input profile. What if you go back and change that. At whatever point you introduce that raster layer you freeze all prior work done before then and you can't go back. You can go forward but not back.

I know that doing a curves layer above and using RGB channels works, or at least I've yet to notice an issue. Ps also has the option of creating a virtual layer that represents the image with all the edits in the stack below, which I believe will let you edit in ACR. I'll try it also.

Even if it doesn't it's a moot point because I still have my original in Lr. In a matter of mins I can create a new virtual copy change the color temperature, open it in Ps, select and copy the layers from the old edit, and paste them on the new copy. I guess I'm not understanding your concern.

Let's do exactly what you describe in this second paragraph. Here's the test photo processed in LR:

I don't like the electrical service on the left side so I'll send a smart object over to PS. Once there I'll create an empty layer above the smart object and use that to clone from the layer below and remove the wires and pole. Got it:

So I'm looking at this photo and when I first processed it I adjusted the color to reflect that it was sunrise and the light on the building was orange. Now I'm thinking it was originally a white painted building and I kind of like that. So back in LR I re-adjusted the color. Then I again sent a smart object to PS and once there I copied the empty clone layer to this new smart object:

Ouch! Pothole! So my concern is that I ideally want my workflow to be 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable. A raster clone layer breaks that. If I had been able to manage that clone job parametrically then it would have updated along with the color change. Now that was a big clone job and it may not be possible parametrically and so we still occasionally need PS et al. to push pixels. But pushing pixels is digging potholes. Once that raster layer is in place you can't go back before it and make a change.

The parametric clone/heal tools in C1, LR and DarkTabke have improved substantially in recent years. I get almost all that I need done adequately in C1. So then if I decide later I'd like to see a photo with a different camera input profile (maybe a classic chrome film sim for example) I just create a virtual copy and make the change -- no potholes in the road and all editing simply updates the change. And not to forget my disk storage space remains basically the size of my raw file. To save those PS images where I did the clone work my hard drive got clobbered by 200mb PSD files.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

So I decided to go ahead and try the above clone job in C1. Where the wires attach to the building can be tricky but it was possible. Here's a screen shot of me working on it in C1.

It's no more time consuming than doing the clone work in PS or another pixel editor. But because it's done parametrically it's magic.

Here's my first version of the photo with an orange glow for sunrise and the clone work in place:

I next created a virtual copy (variant in C1) and went back to the very beginning and changed the camera input profile to Classic Chrome (C1's simulation of Fuji's film simulation). CC is well-known for shifting the sky to a sick green (hold your breath). The input profile change altered a few other things and I tweaked the contrast and shadow tone a little but I didn't have to do anything about the clone work. Because the clone work is done parametrically it simply updated with the profile change.

This is a 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable workflow (and my hard drive usage remains only the size of my raw file.)

Joe

 

[Braineack]

I've heard great things about C1. I had an early version, but was too lazy to get over the learning curve.

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex I opened a new thread and tagged you, so as to not monopolize this one with an off post discussion. Working Edits In Both Lr & Ps

 

[Dikkie]

That's the whole point! Where have you been?

I lived in a big cave for years.
Ok, a lot of things can now be done in a raw converter, you convinced me here.

But you're only listing paid software that doesn't even provide a version working on Linux. Why would I pay for it if it doesn't work on my system?
I'm not using much proprietary software anymore since I've done the transition from Windows to Linux.
However, I still want to pay for software, that's not the problem. There's lots of good software I paid for, and these companies deliver for all operating systems. The difference is that these companies sell it at reasonable rates, and certainly not with subscriptions.
There's some reasons why I switched to open source software, where I have more freedom.
BLVDi _______________ [^^]

There are still things that only a pixel editor can do and so pixel editors like PS, Affinity, and GIMP will remain necessary tools. LR, C1, DarkTable can't copy the open eyes of someone from group shot B and paste them into group shot A because in group shot A the bride was smiling. We're going to still need PS, Affinity, GIMP to do that. But how often do we do that?

How often, that depends on what you use the editor for.
Photographers use a camera as a tool, and need a raw converter. And mostly, it ends there. Photographers for journals deliver from there to an editor or a publisher who decides what to do next, and they'll start messing around with your end product.

Graphical designers use other tools on top too, paper and pencil, drawing tablet, an already developed photo, ... and they use software too: inkscape/illustrator to draw and use photo editors to create collages...
And that's what I have explained earlier in this thread: for photographers, the photo is the final product, but for lots of other people, it starts where it ends for a photographer. Some people start creating something from a photo as a base. And yes, they sometimes use an editor for it, that's exactly what the OP asked for: which editing program?
Artists, designers, editors and creative jobs who work with mixed media,... they don't limit themselves with a raw converter.

 

[Ysarex]

That's the whole point! Where have you been?

I lived in a big cave for years.
Ok, a lot of things can now be done in a raw converter, you convinced me here.

But you're only listing paid software that doesn't even provide a version working on Linux.

In the quote you post directly below note that I mention DarkTable. In the graphic I supplied back in post #31: What editing program should I be using? note that the three feature rich raw converters I listed are Lightroom, Capture One and DarkTable.

Download darktable Linux 2.6.0

I've been listing it all along.

Joe

 

[Dikkie]

In the quote you post directly below note that I mention DarkTable.

I used DarkTable before, it's a few years ago now... but it didn't convince me at that time.
Corrections on perspectives didn't suit me that well. RawTherapee was much easier and better to work with.
Maybe it changed much over time....
But it doesn't seem you can do all the stuff with layers/blend modes/cloning/... like you did in your example with C1.

 

[Robert Cudlipp]

I am a newbie in the sense that I have never used post software before.
TBH, I have found this thread Very, very confusing. Am aware of attachments of various users to Abode & competitors, but much of the thread has been " I prefer A or B" only leading to confusion rather than clarity.
Matters may have been aggravated by the fact that I am a Fuji XT 2 user and have read that some? post software is not all that effective on Fuji raw files ( no need to respond to Fuji X issue as am not attempting to high jack thread).

 

[Ysarex]

In the quote you post directly below note that I mention DarkTable.

I used DarkTable before, it's a few years ago now... but it didn't convince me at that time.
Corrections on perspectives didn't suit me that well. RawTherapee was much easier and better to work with.
Maybe it changed much over time....
But it doesn't seem you can do all the stuff with layers/blend modes/cloning/... like you did in your example with C1.

You can. DarkTable's masking capabilities and so local adjustment capacity are on par with LR and C1. The user interface isn't as slick but the functionality is there.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

I am a newbie in the sense that I have never used post software before.
TBH, I have found this thread Very, very confusing. Am aware of attachments of various users to Abode & competitors, but much of the thread has been " I prefer A or B" only leading to confusion rather than clarity.
Matters may have been aggravated by the fact that I am a Fuji XT 2 user and have read that some? post software is not all that effective on Fuji raw files ( no need to respond to Fuji X issue as am not attempting to high jack thread).

I likewise use Fuji X cameras. The Fuji X-Trans CFA is trickier to demosaic than the standard Bayer array and as a result there is a wider range of variation in output from the different raw converters some either exhibiting difficulty controlling artifacts and/or extracting adequate fine details. So Fuji users need to pay closer attention to raw converter choice and run tests to make sure they're happy with the output.

Fuji's free raw converter that ships with the camera has long been a version of SilkyPix. Recently Capture One has begun supplying a Fuji X specific version of their Express product and most recently LR's latest update now includes a new fine detail option that can be used to improve output from Fuji X-Trans raw files. Iridient has long been a favorite of Fuji X users for the above reason. If you have specific questions I may be able to help.

Joe