Work Flow?

[tkerr]

Bridge used to always get in my way, so I stopped using it altogether. Again, Lightroom replaced its functionality for me. I know, they are not the same, but for my purpose, Lightroom does everything I want it to do.

I don't understand what you mean that Bridge always got in your way. For me it works seamlessly together with Camera RAW and Photoshop.


Now that I have Lightroom that is my primary, however, there are times when I go back to a picture and skip right to Photoshop. There I can directly access and utilize Bridge, or the Mini Bridge. I have the mini Bradged docked on the bottom of the Photoshop window. Browsing through file folders is easier than using the File / Open Command and using the Windows Expolorer window to find files. I can see the thumbnails, and can just slide the file right into Photoshop with the mouse, if it is a RAW file it will automatically open camera RAW.


Personally I have found both Bridge and Camera Raw to be valuable tools, even though I also have Lightroom.

I hear a lot that the DPP gives better results with Canon RAW files than Aperture, Lightroom or ACR. I refuse to believe it. In my view, it does not matter much which application you use for routine adjustments and corrections. It depends more on your way of using any given app. When I have a need for more than routine corrections, I go to Photoshop.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Ditto, I completely agree.


I have used DPP, after-all it is the software included with my Canon EOS DSLR. I compared side by side pictures and could see the differences when making simple adjustments such as Auto White Balance. Personally I prefer the results I get from Lightroom or Camera RAW.





Anyway, The reason I brought this topic up in the first place is because I now people who spent $699.00 on Photoshop and aren't even aware of the tools they have to create a simple organized work flow. Maybe this will help them.
And I wanted to see what other people are doing as well and read their opinions on the different applications..

[tkerr]

4: Edit in PS as needed either as jpeg or TIFF (8 and/or 16 bit)


5. More organizing in LR


5. Export to HD and
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Speaking for myself, Converting to Jpeg, would be the last thing I do, and only if I am going to share them on the Internet. Especially If I am working back and forth between Lightroom and Photoshop.

[Richard Lane]

Card to Folder on Hard Drive, then copy Folder to Backup Hard Drive


Import Images to Aperture Library but leave Images in their original folder.


Flag the good ones.


Rate the flagged ones.


Edit the best ones with some PP in Aperture.


Also have Automatic Time Machine Backup every hour.





SInce, I like having the originals stored in their own folder, Is there any way to delete the originals in the folder simultaneously while deleting them from the Aperture Library?


This will help save space.





Rich

[clemmb]

1. I transfer using memory card reader raw files to folder on HD
2. Get coffee while files are transfering
3. Transfer camera jpg's to folder on HD
4. Back it all up on two external HDs
5. Format mem card for next shoot

I use PS elements 5. I downloaded ver. 6 for a trial. It had a few bugs so I have not upgraded since. I know I need to but not sure when I'll do it.

1. I work with files in PSE. If the file needs color correction or exposure correction I use DPP on the raw file and convert to jpg. I have tried converting raw in PSE but DPP does a better job IMO.
2. I sometimes use Portrait Professional for some facework. I can do it in PSE but PP is faster.

I would love to invest in PS but just can't chock down the price. I feel I'll get more bang for the buck from more glass.


I agree with Sean, I too <span class="field-item-description"]realize I may lose some quality going from RAW to JPEG and then editing but my prints look amazing and my customers keep comming back.


<span class="field-item-description"]Mark

[Mark Elberson]

<span style="font-family: courier new,courier;"]All steps using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3
<p style="FONT-FAMILY: "]<span style="font-family: courier new,courier;"]1) Import RAW files from card in reader with naming convention:
<span style="font-family: courier new,courier;"]Folder = "YYYY-MM-DD"
File = "YYYY-MM-DD-hh-mm-ss"
<span style="font-family: courier new,courier;"]2) Flag "BADS" for deletion
3) Rename files: "ClientName_SequenceNumber"
4) Process "GOODS" to taste
5) Export to .JPG based on job (Web, 4X6 Proof, Full Resolution Print, Watermarked Image for Social Networks, etc)
6) Burn DVD of Full Resolution .JPGs
7) Upload Full Resolution .JPGs to website for Sale / Backup
8) Format Cards

[bob williams]

99% of my workflow is done in LR3


1- Import via onboard card reader


2-Delete bad photos


3-Do global white balance and exposure setting for similar photos


4.-Do detailed exposure adjustments on individual pics if needed


5-Crop if necessary, clone out unwanted artifact


6-sharpen, lens correction and de noise if neccessary


7-get rid of more unacceptable pics


8-add names, comments and keywords


9-output (good shots uploaded to website)


10-erase off of memory card


If I need to do something special like or layer adjustments etc, then off to Photoshop


I also use HDREFX pro for HDR shots.

[HDNitehawk]

I mean, Adobe Bridge, and Camera RAW which were installed when Photoshop was installed.. Instead they will use DPP or something similar to convert their files and save them from the memory card to a folder on the hard drive somewhere, And then open them up in Photoshop with Photoshop. Why?

I import with Adobe Bridge and I sort in Adobe Bridge. I convert and manipulate with DPP. I like to do large prints and with large prints I want the best quality end product I can get. IMO DPP does a better job at conversion than Camera Raw, maybe only slightly but to me slightly matter.

[Firestarter]

Firestarter; why do you "never directly download from the camera"? Maybe it is my imagination, but the pix seem to download faster camera to LR w/my setup.

Well, the reason I always use a card-reader is an old habit from the time I was shooting many more photos than I do now. I just didn't want to tie up my camera doing unproductive transfer and draining the battery at the same time. Back then, reading and writing speeds of memory cards were much slower than they are now. Besides, I believe that the transfer between camera and computer is done via a USB2 cable (am I wrong?). I use FireWire readers, so my way of transferring gigabytes of photos is actually faster.



<div>

I don't understand what you mean that Bridge always got in your way. For me it works seamlessly together with Camera RAW and Photoshop.

<div>I guess it is just a matter of personal preference. Bridge is a separate application that has to be learned and used in addition to Photoshop. I much preferred to use the file browser integrated in earlier versions of Photoshop CS. I hear that in CS5 Adobe revived that idea (mini-Bridge). When Lightroom came along, Bridge became obsolete for me. I like Lightroom's all-inclusive workflow much better.</div>
</div>

[tkerr]

<div>

I don't understand what you mean that Bridge always got in your way. For me it works seamlessly together with Camera RAW and Photoshop.

<div>I guess it is just a matter of personal preference. Bridge is a separate application that has to be learned and used in addition to Photoshop. I much preferred to use the file browser integrated in earlier versions of Photoshop CS. I hear that in CS5 Adobe revived that idea (mini-Bridge). When Lightroom came along, Bridge became obsolete for me. I like Lightroom's all-inclusive workflow much better.</div>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Well, Lightroom is also a separate application that has a steeper learning curve than Bridge, which also needs to be learned in Addition to Photoshop. Especially if you want to work with your files properly and easier between the two applications. Also, Lightroom cost an additional $299.00 where-as Bridge and Camera RAW are included as part of the Photoshop CS* Package that is currently $699.00.


Having said that. I like the work flow that Bridge, Camera Raw and Photoshop offer in an easy to use package deal. But, I too use Lightroom when it comes to downloading, organizing and cataloging my pictures, as well as basic adjustments plus a little more. But, like I mentioned previously there are times when I just open Photoshop, and that is where I get the most use form Bridge, more specifically the Mini-Bridge. For me that makes navigating and loading images into Photoshop a lot easier than using windows explorer.


A Mini Lightroom within Photoshop that works like mini bridge would be nice.


Anyways, I was just wondering what you meant by, Bridge Always got in your way. If you already have Lightroom I can understand that, But for those who don't I doubt it would get in their way.


I'm not sure, but I heard somewhere that Photoshop Elements also works with Both Bridge and Camera RAW now also. Can anyone confirm this? For people who don't want to, or cannot, drop $699.00 for CS5 that might be a good package to work with.