Question for Lightroom users: Do you crop originals or make virtual copies to crop?

Oh, wise one...

Does it just kill you (me) when ya get beaten over the head with something so ... bloody.. simple, but yet so complex.. and yet so simple

joayne wrote in post #3162586
Oh, wise one...

Does it just kill you (me) when ya get beaten over the head with something so ... bloody.. simple, but yet so complex.. and yet so simple

The first 6 times it didn't bother me. The next 3 times started to irritate me. On the tenth time, I learned my lesson.


If I actually learned from my mistakes I'd be pretty darned smart. Yup.

joayne wrote in post #3162586
Oh, wise one...

Does it just kill you (me) when ya get beaten over the head with something so ... bloody.. simple, but yet so complex.. and yet so simple

It's amazing. It really is so simple and I felt I had thought it through. It didn't sink in that I had made a mistake until I did more and more processing and then occasionally wanted to open up the image and go back, but I had now been working on a cropped copy and all the processing could not simply be applied to the original. UGH!

TMR Design wrote in post #3162562
Hi Paul,

Well, if we're smart we learn from our mistakes. I just did that myself. I had posted this originally while in the process of doing my rough crops to begin the editing process thinking I was approaching it logically. NOT SO!

Like you, I am kicking myself but learned a valuable lesson. I should have done all my processing first and then done the crops.

When creating the crops, do you use virtual copies for each crop size? How do you handle the different sizes?

My "mistakes" (I NEVER make mistakes...at least that's what I tell the customers) have taught me that:

1. I should always work on a duplicate image whenever I do anything that is pixel destructive. And you don't get much more pixel destructive than cropping although sharpening follows closely.

2. Always keep the original RAW file in tact. (I keep my final processed image as a TIFF file.)

3. Crop then sharpen last...in that order....keep repeating that over and over and over.

My camera (20D) produces an image already in the 2:3 ratio so I leave it at that. If the image contains absolute CR*P on the edges that needs cropping out, I do so, but constrain it to the original proportions and mostly keep a duplicate of the original anyway.


Now why can't I still follow my own advice because I still forget every so often.

Now the question that vexes a lot of peoples here, me included, is, do you enter a resolution in the "Resolution Box" when you use the crop tool? or do you change the resolution in Image Size later on?

Meaty0 wrote in post #3162860
Now the question that vexes a lot of peoples here, me included, is, do you enter a resolution in the "Resolution Box" when you use the crop tool? or do you change the resolution in Image Size later on?

I expect that I am wrong but I always add a resolution when using the crop tool normaly 260

Martin

I enter an aspect ratio when cropping, but not a resolution. I want my images cropped, not resized.

I always make all other adjustments except sharpening....crop then export...its just more logical that way...for me at least. I crop the original and save to a different file, so that I can always go back and remove the crop in LR..

René Damkot wrote in post #3164409
I enter an aspect ratio when cropping, but not a resolution. I want my images cropped, not resized.

Concur. As with cropping to specific aspect ratios, one never knows what size you may want in the future. So process fully, but don't touch the size, aspect ratio, or PPI, and do no sharpen. When you know what you wish to print, crop to aspect ratio, resize to appropriate pixel count, set PPI, sharpen, then print.

If you do it this way, I guess that you could crop & resize & set PPI in one step - but I just like to finely control every step.

Scottes wrote in post #3164652
When you know what you wish to print, crop to aspect ratio, resize to appropriate pixel count, set PPI, sharpen, then print.

Right...I'm just off to the Tatoo Parlor (Errr...Body Art Shop?) to have this tatooed somewhere obvious

But it does lead to the question, what if you want to crop the picture to correct the composition? Still leave that 'til the very end too? I tend to get rid of the unwanted bits early on, because I find the remaining processing easier (and more accurate sometimes). But I still duplicate the image first.

Scottes wrote in post #3164652
If you do it this way, I guess that you could crop & resize & set PPI in one step - but I just like to finely control every step.

Hmmm...I'm with you on this one too. I like to set the Image Resampling settings myself. (Bicubic Smoother etc.)

René Damkot wrote in post #3164409
I enter an aspect ratio when cropping, but not a resolution. I want my images cropped, not resized.

Yes I agree with you there but I always work on a copy not the original cropping is one of the last aspects to be worked on and I want the finished resolution when I have cropped I dont believe anyone is so foolish as to only work the original, mind you I always shoot raw cos of all the mistakes I make so I dont touch the original file.

Martin

I ALWAYS work on a copy but now I've changed my workflow. It's a learning process to get from RAW to finshed product.

Meaty0 wrote in post #3164794
I tend to get rid of the unwanted bits early on, because I find the remaining processing easier (and more accurate sometimes).

I guess that I would worry about this only if the undesired parts would screw up and color processing. The most obvious would be an "incorrect" histogram because some intensely bright/dark/blue/yello​w/whatever spot was in the background.

But there is no such thing as an incorrect histogram, and one shouldn't *rely* on the histogram during any part of processing. The only time I find the histogram to be actually useful (that is, more than just informational) is when I'm running Curves. Then I'll check it to see if I'm blowing out, or underexposing, a color or shade. And even then it's not accurate because it's not true to the current Curve being set, only approximate. The histogram is approximate until you apply the Curve and the histogram gets updated.

I'll have to pay some more attention to it, but I think I get through most post-processing without ever consulting the histogram. There are other ways to check if the histogram is out of whack - holding down the Alt key when using Levels, or Soft proofing to check for Out Of Gamut issues. Using Adjustments layers and soft-proofing is far more informative than the histogram.

So I'll go so far as to say that I think that only the very ends of the histogram provides real, valuable information. The rest is just informational, but in reality not very useful. And even viewing the ends of the histogram won't tell you if you're out of gamut, so I'd add that the histogram often gives a false sense of security.

Calibrate your monitor, use your eyes, and use soft-proofing. And since soft-proofing is only good at the end of the process, use adjustment layers. But don't necessarily ignore your histogram completely - it's not useless, but I think it is over-rated.

(Note that I say "histogram" to equally mean the standard B&W histogram and the separated RGB histograms. Both should be referenced if anything is going to be referenced.)


Wow - long diatribe that doesn't really address the issue... Let me try again:

I don't crop - ever - until I'm ready to print. If there's an unwanted bit I work around it. Who knows what could happen? I may even need some funky aspect ratio that requires me to "cheat" and cover up the unwanted bits. You can not put back the pixels. Don't Crop.

Meaty0 wrote in post #3164794
I like to set the Image Resampling settings myself. (Bicubic Smoother etc.)

Bingo!

Honestly i think that many of you havent really understood why you should use Lightroom to start with. The whole idea of LR is to have a fast, effecient and simplyfied workflow. It seems that many of you just complicate a simple task like cropping far too much.

The most logical way must be to do the processing on the cropped image
which will be you final image anyway. You then work with the correct and updated histogram as a guidance. For most of us the crop will represent the final image and if you for some reason want to see how the original image looked its just a click away.

Of course if you need different crops for whatever reson then make virtual copies.

A few say "What if i want a different crop in the future?" Well just revert and recrop....its that easy. But hey, how many of us go back and recrop our images anyway? I think that is an isolated occurance.

What ever processing you do its always applied to the whole image not just the cropped part. The processing should of course be done on the cropped image.....but thats pure logic right .

Meaty0 wrote in post #3162835
1. I should always work on a duplicate image whenever I do anything that is pixel destructive. And you don't get much more pixel destructive than cropping although sharpening follows closely.

I dont agree that cropping is pixeldestructive in LR. The whole idea of LR is its flexibilty and security to revert back to the original file. I assume were
talking about RAW files of course.

Meaty0 wrote in post #3162835
2. Always keep the original RAW file in tact. (I keep my final processed image as a TIFF file.)

Why??? The whole idea of shooting in RAW is that you can ALWAYS revert to your original unprocessed file and start all over again. You NEVER destruct the raw file.

wilky95 wrote in post #3164953
Yes I agree with you there but I always work on a copy not the original cropping is one of the last aspects to be worked on and I want the finished resolution when I have cropped I dont believe anyone is so foolish as to only work the original, mind you I always shoot raw cos of all the mistakes I make so I dont touch the original file.

Martin

Again LR is non destructive so your RAW files can ALWAYS be reverted back to the original state. Cropping do NOT destruct your RAW files. You are just telling LR what part of the image which will be included on the export.

TMR Design wrote in post #3165001
I ALWAYS work on a copy but now I've changed my workflow. It's a learning process to get from RAW to finshed product.

So you mean that you duplicate your RAW file everytime just to work a RAW copy? That sounds totally insane and for no use at all.

In2Photos wrote in post #3150951
I agree for Photoshop, but with Lightroom having the ability to go back to the original state it is certainly hard to say.

Also, when you crop in Lightroom the histogram now only shows the current pixels (not all pixels of the original) so you can edit levels and curves more accuartely (if something you cropped out would affect your outcome).

So true!!!

Scottes wrote in post #3165064
So I'll go so far as to say that I think that only the very ends of the histogram provides real, valuable information. The rest is just informational, but in reality not very useful. And even viewing the ends of the histogram won't tell you if you're out of gamut, so I'd add that the histogram often gives a false sense of security.

WOOOW!! I find hard to belive why you dont find the histogram not very useful. Most photographers couldnt live without it nowadays.

Scottes wrote in post #3165064
I don't crop - ever - until I'm ready to print. If there's an unwanted bit I work around it. Who knows what could happen? I may even need some funky aspect ratio that requires me to "cheat" and cover up the unwanted bits. You can not put back the pixels. Don't Crop.

At least if you do some sports/action photography there is no way you could live with out doing some cropping before you actually want to process the final image. The printing size come second to many of us.

Though if your business (ie. wedding/model/studio) requiere actual prints of most of the images or yourself actually print most of the pictures then that must of course be applied into your initial stage of your workflow.

You NEVER loose the pixels when you crop, you just hide them.

If Lightroom "crops" without removing pixels, and will apply any edits to the "original" when the crop is removed, then crop away all you want. You will lose nothing, except an understanding of the word "crop." It's beginning to sound like LR does masking, not cropping.

But once you get into a destructive cropping program, like Photoshop, it's a whole different story.

Learning and understanding is not the same as complicating. Developing an understanding of the process and reasons is what makes for "a fast, effecient and simplyfied workflow."

In other words, get off your high horse. Just because you may understand doesn't mean that everyone else does. You make a number of assumptions in your discourse of disagreeing with people.

Read it again, slowly, and don't mix up my words nor take them out of context. And then explain to me why you find it useful, rather than just disagreeing with my opinion. And then read again the part about soft-proofing. I will be happy to explain it, if you don't understand why soft-proofing is absolutely and completely extremely superior to viewing a histogram.

You seem to imply that your shooting of sports or action is so very different that what the rest of shoot.

It's not.

And if you really think what you said, then you should go back and re-read this thread.