Help me get started with LR4

So I just got Lightroom 4. I used to go with a combo of DPP and Photoshop, but that's not really going to work anymore considering I'm switching to Fuji gear.

First impressions of Lightroom, to be honest, are sort of mixed. The library is awesome, no question; that was basically the part DPP handled for me before, and it's got it beaten hands down. Now, I used to use DPP only for review and triage, and edited everything with ACR and then touch-ups in PS. Obviously, I was hoping to do the ACR part in LR now.

Unfortunately, I seem to be running into some snags. Where it took fractions of a second to open a CR2 file in PS (ACR), do the raw adjustments, and then open in PS, it now takes ages to edit a file from LR into PS, probably due to the fact it needs to generate a full-res 16-bit TIFF to open it.

This is, in fact, a concern because I like to apply two passes of USM to all my images. Once is just output sharpening and can be easily replicated in the Export window of LR, so no big deal; the other one though is a wide-radius, low-intensity USM that just sort of makes everything pop, somewhat like the clarity slider but not exactly the same either. This one I don't know how to do in LR. I know about droplets, but they just automatically open the file in PS so it still takes forever (I mean, you know, like 10 seconds, but that feels like forever). So even if all I do is raw adjustments, this USM pass requires me to have every pic go through PS.

In general, LR feels a bit sluggish. I'm a bit surprised at this since my rig is brand new - though not top-of-the-line, admittedly - and CS6 runs at blazing speed. Occasionally LR freezes completely for a few seconds then picks up where it left. Exporting images to jpeg is MUCH, MUCH longer than merely opening a raw in PS and saving to jpeg. Playing with the sliders in the Develop module (like clarity, whites, exposure, curves, etc) is noticeably sluggier than in PS, where every change happens instantly.

Am I doing something wrong or is LR that 'bloated', for lack of a better word? I honestly expected it to be lighter software than PS and while I'm impressed by the functionality, I'm very surprised at how slow it all feels.

I have to admit that I am always a bit puzzled by people who run the parallel versions of PSCS and LR. I can understand having the latest LR as a budget friendly way of acquiring the latest and greatest Raw processing, but if you already posses PSCS6 what does LR4/Develop give you that ACR7 lacks? LR/Library might be a better organizer, but Bridge is no slouch either. Batch printing from LR is more convenient and the soft-proofing is better, but you don't mention that. All the little extras - publish to Facebook, slide show or web site construction, GPS, etc. - are nice but not essential.

Most LR users find that their copy of PSCS is gathering dust. They rethink their workflow in the light of their discovering that almost all their needs can be met in LR. Most find Clarity, for instance, in LR4 (stronger than in LR3 but with less likelihood of causing halos) preferable to USM based local contrast enhancement, which can easily produce halos if overdone [although I recently saw a post in another forum in which the poster amazed me by complaining that Clarity isn't strong enough]. But if you want to stick with a workflow that requires a trip to PSCS6, that combined with your LR speed problems might mean that you should reassess if you really need LR.

I like to use LR for my file managing (library), and also for global editing (edits that affect the entire image, esp for WB, exposure, color treatments, contrast, clarity, etc etc). When I have a lot of photos from the same shoot, it's quick and easy to sync all edits to all photos. Also, the spot removal feature is quick and easy for simple blemishes. I open the file into PS to do skin smoothing, cloning out objects, very localized effects. There are things that PS does better than LR, and some other things that LR does faster and easier than PS (of course PS can do everything LR can, but may take additional steps and time).

Elie I do at times see the need for having concurrent versions of LR/PSCS, or at least a version of ACR that uses the same process version. At times I have issues with artifacting on high contrast edges, and some problems with CA/Fringing issues when exporting Process 2012 to PSCS5 with the supposedly Process 2012 friendly ACR6.7. On those images I have to have LR render the image to a saved .PSD file, then open it in PSCS, rather than use the edit in command which uses ACR to render the image.

I could try using Process 2010, but the images that are affected are generally those where I am needing to use the Process 2012 highlight/shadow recovery, and P2010 just won't give satisfactory results.

Alan

tzalman wrote in post #15760629
Most find Clarity, for instance, in LR4 (stronger than in LR3 but with less likelihood of causing halos) preferable to USM based local contrast enhancement,

Can you replicate, say, a 10 or 15% / 150 pixel radius USM with Clarity? (serious question; there may be some settings I haven't found yet)

tzalman wrote in post #15760629
I have to admit that I am always a bit puzzled by people who run the parallel versions of PSCS and LR. I can understand having the latest LR as a budget friendly way of acquiring the latest and greatest Raw processing, but if you already posses PSCS6 what does LR4/Develop give you that ACR7 lacks? LR/Library might be a better organizer, but Bridge is no slouch either. Batch printing from LR is more convenient and the soft-proofing is better, but you don't mention that. All the little extras - publish to Facebook, slide show or web site construction, GPS, etc. - are nice but not essential.

Turns out you were right. I honestly had never tried Bridge since that part of the process was handled by DPP previously, and I just rushed into LR when the ideal solution for me was Bridge. I gave it a try and it's perfect for my purposes.

"A fool and his money..."

tzalman wrote in post #15760629
I have to admit that I am always a bit puzzled by people who run the parallel versions of PSCS and LR. I can understand having the latest LR as a budget friendly way of acquiring the latest and greatest Raw processing, but if you already posses PSCS6 what does LR4/Develop give you that ACR7 lacks? LR/Library might be a better organizer, but Bridge is no slouch either. Batch printing from LR is more convenient and the soft-proofing is better, but you don't mention that. All the little extras - publish to Facebook, slide show or web site construction, GPS, etc. - are nice but not essential.

Most LR users find that their copy of PSCS is gathering dust. They rethink their workflow in the light of their discovering that almost all their needs can be met in LR. Most find Clarity, for instance, in LR4 (stronger than in LR3 but with less likelihood of causing halos) preferable to USM based local contrast enhancement, which can easily produce halos if overdone [although I recently saw a post in another forum in which the poster amazed me by complaining that Clarity isn't strong enough]. But if you want to stick with a workflow that requires a trip to PSCS6, that combined with your LR speed problems might mean that you should reassess if you really need LR.

I have LR4 and PSCS6. 99+% of processing of images from my digital cameras is done using LR only. 99+% of processing of my film scans is done using PS only.

LR has been a huge improvement in workflow for me versus using Bridge, ACR and PS. I used to create 16 bit ProPhoto TIFs where I did export sharpening in PS, and had to convert to sRGB and create jpegs to upload to my Smugmug site. My system data drive and backup drives were rapidly being filled up. Now I only have RAWs and my disk space use is a quarter of what it was.

The LR database is also blazing fast at performing metadata searches. I only wish there were a few more metadata picks to choose from.