Raw files from Photoshop into Lightroom

keeweeman

keeweeman

Messages
920
Name
Col
Edit My Images
Yes
Is there a way to take edited raw files hat have been edited in camera raw into lightroom without losing the edits? I tried to do so last night and it seems that lightroom was ignoring the additional save file created by camera raw and leaving me with the unedited versions. Ideally i would like it to detect a couple of psd files i have created too but appreciate this might be going too far! I want to use lightroom to do the final export to jpeg and to rename the files (renaming is the bit i am more bothered about tbh) in time taken order hence trying this in the first place!

:ty:

Col
 
hmm i did that last night and it didn't seem to pick up the fact that the xmp files were in place. I will try again tonight i think.
In terms of processing in lightroom, no ta lol, i am happy with photoshop and know my way around that for the things i want to use! Lightroom just seems too basic to me for editing although i appreciate it could just be that i don't know where all the toys are in the menus with it etc
 
keeweeman said:
Lightroom just seems too basic
Click to expand...
Lightroom shares the same Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) processing engine as Photoshop.
keeweeman said:
although i appreciate it could just be that i don't know where all the toys are in the menus with it etc
Click to expand...
You might save yourself a lot of time if you did.
PS started out as a programme for editing single images in real time and has expanded to dominate the pixel image editing market. It has grown into quite a complex monster whereas Lightroom was built from scratch to provide an ideal workflow for processing and managing large numbers of digital images.
Whenever you apply consecutive image adjustments in PS, you are progressively degrading the image. On the other hand, Lightroom allows any number of adjustments, but only applies them as a single adjustment when you choose to move into PS or export the photo as a fixed pixel image. Also LR will always preserve the raw files, PSDs, TIFFs and JPEGS in their original state (like digital negatives) throughout the workflow, which is not the case with ACR once it has rendered the raw file as a pixel image to be edited in PS.
But please stay with PS if that is what you are used to, but be aware that Lightroom is far from basic and will do practically everything you need, short of playing with the pixels! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The vast majority of the processing i do is in the camera raw pop up software, it is only on shots that need additional cloning/none slider based tweaks that i tend to take them into full photoshop.
In terms of the lightroom side of things once you go into develop do you get tools such as the multipoint lens correction tool or just the vertical/horizontal sliders? That is a tool i fell in love with this week as it saved a couple of my shots from the bin!
 
I'm not familiar with Photoshop lens correction tools, but from what I remember, I'd guess almost certainly PS will have far superior capabilities in this regard, seeing as it probably involves a lot of interpolative pixel estimation.
However I find the LR sliders are sufficient for my purposes. I try and take into account the type of lens I'm using when I'm composing the shot, to allow for the transform adjustments on the final corrected image.
 
keeweeman said:
The edits are already done sorry, i am looking to take the already edited files from photoshop into lightroom.
Click to expand...
Why? as ACR is what Lightroom is based on, apart from the database it makes and uses in place of the RAW file.
 
Chaz Photos said:
Why? as ACR is what Lightroom is based on, apart from the database it makes and uses in place of the RAW file.
Click to expand...
I suggest, as per @itsdavedotnet, that first into LR is the more logical first step. ACR does not retain the original raw file once it has rendered the file as a pixel image to be edited in PS.
Unless of course if you don't need or want to retain your original files.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When you say about the pixel image what do you mean sorry? Currently the processed files are all (bar 3) raw files with xmp files. The 3 psd files are because I have had to create composite images and do some cloning on them.

In terms of using lightroom for editing can you still do things like applying an nd grad like in acr?
 
keeweeman said:
In terms of using lightroom for editing can you still do things like applying an nd grad like in acr?
Click to expand...
You can do everything in LR that you can in ACR. It's the same engine. The main difference is that the user interface is much easier to use. Or so I think!
 
mickledore said:
You can do everything in LR that you can in ACR. It's the same engine. The main difference is that the user interface is much easier to use. Or so I think!
Click to expand...

Like he said, ACR is just a small part of LR, and as well as the output that you want to use, there is cataloging, the ability to alter metadata, geolocation of images and a whole bunch more. It's hard to imagine why you would use ACR if you have lightroom available (I know - familiarity - but LR is a better tool).
 
When you are talking about transferring from PS into Lightroom, you are NOT working with a raw file, you are working with a tiff, psd or jpeg, dependent on your program settings..
When I edit in Photoshop, I save my edited tiff back into the same folder as the original raw file.
That way, the edited image appears next to the raw original in the Lightroom catalog.
I then export from lightroom in the normal way, resizing (if necessary), converting to sRGB colorspace and saving as a jpeg.
 
Hi Brian

not sure if you read the other posts but it is all sorted now anyways. My issue was that lightroom was seeing the xmp files but the previews in the library hadn't updated until i went into the developer mode. In my case the files were still raw files as by taking them from photoshop i essentially meant camera raw opened FROM photoshop sorry. All sorted now anyways, cheers for the replies folks
 
BrynBoru said:
I suggest, as per @itsdavedotnet, that first into LR is the more logical first step. ACR does not retain the original raw file once it has rendered the file as a pixel image to be edited in PS.
Unless of course if you don't need or want to retain your original files.
Click to expand...
You alway have the RAW file it can not be altered.....
 
Chaz Photos said:
You alway have the RAW file it can not be altered.....
Click to expand...
Not once ACR has rendered an image as a pixel file to be edited in PS. I am referring to the "normal" procedure after using ACR. Read my earlier #8 post which makes this quite clear. The OP has been somewhat confusing on occasions as to whether he was talking about exporting from PS or ACR.
 
BrynBoru said:
Not once ACR has rendered an image as a pixel file to be edited in PS. I am referring to the "normal" procedure after using ACR. Read my earlier #8 post which makes this quite clear. The OP has been somewhat confusing on occasions as to whether he was talking about exporting from PS or ACR.
Click to expand...
What are you on about the RAW FILE NEVER changes so you ALWAYS have it....
 
Chaz Photos said:
What are you on about the RAW FILE NEVER changes so you ALWAYS have it....
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm not sure what it is you don't understand. Unless something has changed recently, ACR does not retain a raw file once it has been exported to PS as a pixel image, i.e. JPEG, TIFF etc.
LR always retains the original raw file, but exports a new pixel image file as you require for PS or for printing, leaving the raw file preserved.
The OP is of course copying files from ACR folder to LR by importing them to LR, which is not the situation I am referring to. I am referring to the use of ACR with Photoshop.
Now I do not use ACR, so maybe it has some setting by which you can duplicate the raw file before you export the edited image to PS. I'd be grateful if you could clarify that if you are an expert on ACR. I have always understood that ACR does not retain the original raw file.
 
BrynBoru said:
Now I do not use ACR, so maybe it has some setting by which you can duplicate the raw file before you export the edited image to PS. I'd be grateful if you could clarify that if you are an expert on ACR. I have always understood that ACR does not retain the original raw file
Click to expand...

When you edit a raw file in ACR and then open it in Photoshop, the original raw file remains intact and untouched. When you save the edited version in Photoshop, you will need to save it as a different file type (tiff, psd, jpeg etc).


Edit: or do you mean that the raw file with the edits is not retained?
 
Last edited:
fabs said:
When you edit a raw file in ACR and then open it in Photoshop, the original raw file remains intact and untouched. When you save the edited version in Photoshop, you will need to save it as a different file type (tiff, psd, jpeg etc).
Edit: or do you mean that the raw file with the edits is not retained?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification and I now understand that, (having now checked my sources again!), I can see that I am mistaken about ACR's ability to retain the original raw file. Hopefully I have not confused the OP in this respect. Having now taken the trouble to read up on it, (which I should have done in the first place!), I am very happy that I have always stuck with Lightroom.
Does ACR have any advantages over Lightroom?
 
BrynBoru said:
Sorry, I'm not sure what it is you don't understand. Unless something has changed recently, ACR does not retain a raw file once it has been exported to PS as a pixel image, i.e. JPEG, TIFF etc.
LR always retains the original raw file, but exports a new pixel image file as you require for PS or for printing, leaving the raw file preserved.
The OP is of course copying files from ACR folder to LR by importing them to LR, which is not the situation I am referring to. I am referring to the use of ACR with Photoshop.

Now I do not use ACR, so maybe it has some setting by which you can duplicate the raw file before you export the edited image to PS. I'd be grateful if you could clarify that if you are an expert on ACR. I have always understood that ACR does not retain the original raw file.
Click to expand...
I am talking about just ACR no lightroom Open a RAW from Bridge into ACR and you still have BOTH
You can not alter a RAW file it is always the same as for lightroom your RAW is still on your computer wherever it was uploaded to, Lightroom does NOT use the RAW file, lightroom makes a database [taking up more space] and works on this ONLY...Your RAW is intact in the original folder.
 
Chaz Photos said:
I am talking about just ACR no lightroom Open a RAW from Bridge into ACR and you still have BOTH
You can not alter a RAW file it is always the same as for lightroom your RAW is still on your computer wherever it was uploaded to, Lightroom does NOT use the RAW file, lightroom makes a database [taking up more space] and works on this ONLY...Your RAW is intact in the original folder.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I have already explained above where I was incorrect about ACR.
I believe I have a fair idea of how Lightroom works with its raw files. A raw file on its own is not an image, but just the data taken from the camera sensor. You cannot "see" an image of a raw file, so LR will use this information from the raw file to create an image using Adobe RGB colour space in the Library mode and edited in Pro-Foto (equivalent) colour space in the Develop module. The image sensor data (raw) file remains unchanged during this process. My apologies if I am giving you information you already know, but many people don't understand ( and are probably not interested) in these aspects.
I'm not sure what "taking up more space" means. Lightroom's virtue is that it is an excellent image processor and data management system rolled into one, which makes it for those of us who use Photoshop rarely, far more practical than ACR.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BrynBoru said:
I'm not sure what "taking up more space" means. Lightroom's virtue is that it is an excellent image processor and data management system rolled into one, which makes it for those of us who use Photoshop rarely, far more practical than ACR.
Click to expand...

LR you have to import your images, what happens here is LR will make new folders on your computer and build a database of the images you import. Lightroom is a database (other databases you might know are iPhoto, the new Photos, the Photoshop Elements Organizer, and FileMaker Pro). Lightroom doesn’t store your images, it stores information about your images in a catalogue that contains a record for each image you tell it about (technically speaking, the catalogue is the database).Each record includes a smorgasbord of image info, including where it lives on your drive, camera settings at capture, any descriptions, keywords, star ratings, flags, or labels you’ve applied in Lightroom’s Library module, and every edit you’ve ever made in the Develop module.You can also control where your Lightroom catalogue lives, though you can’t put it on a server; catalogues must reside on local drives Once you’ve told Lightroom about your images using its Import command, don’t move, rename, or delete them If you do, Lightroom won’t be able to find them
 
Chaz Photos said:
LR you have to import your images, what happens here is LR will make new folders on your computer and build a database of the images you import. Lightroom is a database (other databases you might know are iPhoto, the new Photos, the Photoshop Elements Organizer, and FileMaker Pro). Lightroom doesn’t store your images, it stores information about your images in a catalogue that contains a record for each image you tell it about (technically speaking, the catalogue is the database).Each record includes a smorgasbord of image info, including where it lives on your drive, camera settings at capture, any descriptions, keywords, star ratings, flags, or labels you’ve applied in Lightroom’s Library module, and every edit you’ve ever made in the Develop module.You can also control where your Lightroom catalogue lives, though you can’t put it on a server; catalogues must reside on local drives Once you’ve told Lightroom about your images using its Import command, don’t move, rename, or delete them If you do, Lightroom won’t be able to find them
Click to expand...
That's not quite true.
You CAN move, rename or delete files provided you do it within Lightroom.
If you change files outside of Lightroom you then have to either "Synchronize", "Update Folder Location" or re-import them into LR, dependent on what you did with them.
The safest (and recommended) method is to always modify your files within Lightroom.
That way Lightroom is always aware of any changes.
 
Brian G said:
That's not quite true.
You CAN move, rename or delete files provided you do it within Lightroom.
If you change files outside of Lightroom you then have to either "Synchronize", "Update Folder Location" or re-import them into LR, dependent on what you did with them.
The safest (and recommended) method is to always modify your files within Lightroom.
That way Lightroom is always aware of any changes.
Click to expand...

If you read ALL of what was said and the fact it was a reply, not just an info comment you understand I KNOW that.....
 
Chaz Photos said:
LR you have to import your images, what happens here is LR will make new folders on your computer and build a database of the images you import. Lightroom is a database (other databases you might know are iPhoto, the new Photos, the Photoshop Elements Organizer, and FileMaker Pro). Lightroom doesn’t store your images, it stores information about your images in a catalogue that contains a record for each image you tell it about (technically speaking, the catalogue is the database).Each record includes a smorgasbord of image info, including where it lives on your drive, camera settings at capture, any descriptions, keywords, star ratings, flags, or labels you’ve applied in Lightroom’s Library module, and every edit you’ve ever made in the Develop module.You can also control where your Lightroom catalogue lives, though you can’t put it on a server; catalogues must reside on local drives Once you’ve told Lightroom about your images using its Import command, don’t move, rename, or delete them If you do, Lightroom won’t be able to find them
Click to expand...

Please, don't verge on being patronising; it is not necessary to list information which is well known to longtime users of Lightroom like myself. Lightroom is more than a database, it is a data management system and I'm sure you understand the difference. It is far superior to the examples you mention of Photoshop Elements Organiser and Photos.
It is also well renowned as an image editor but it seems you are determined to describe it as just a "database".
So if Lightroom doesn't meet up with your standards as an image editor and data management system, perhaps you would be kind enough to advise us what are the merits of whatever system you are using and how it is superior to Lightroom. That way others can benefit from your experience. Do you actually use Lightroom?
 
Thanks for the replies folks, really useful information here and made me realise i have been a little ignorant of lightrooms capabilities having previously only seen it as being a workflow/cataloguing tool. I have to be honest i still prefer using ACR as i just find it easier to use, however i will be using lightroom going forwards in the hope that as i learn where everything is that i come to find it as easy to use as ACR. I like the export functions i have used so far, much easier than i was doing before
 
BrynBoru said:
Please, don't verge on being patronising; it is not necessary to list information which is well known to longtime users of Lightroom like myself. Lightroom is more than a database, it is a data management system and I'm sure you understand the difference. It is far superior to the examples you mention of Photoshop Elements Organiser and Photos.
It is also well renowned as an image editor but it seems you are determined to describe it as just a "database".
So if Lightroom doesn't meet up with your standards as an image editor and data management system, perhaps you would be kind enough to advise us what are the merits of whatever system you are using and how it is superior to Lightroom. That way others can benefit from your experience. Do you actually use Lightroom?
Click to expand...
It a simple answer to what I use, I use Bridge for my file management and Photoshop, meaning for my RAW file they going to ACR, the same engine in LR. I see no reason to double up on software and making life more complicated. With Bridge you are in charge and can control all your files as you wish also you can have them on a NAS. You also have all the ability to use the EXIF and set all the info you need from Tags to Copyright information, most of this can be down when downloading from your memory card, no need to do any more such as importing.
 
I do love the irony of Chaz being dictatorial about methods of editing. It's hilarious!
 
Chaz Photos said:
It a simple answer to what I use, I use Bridge for my file management and Photoshop, meaning for my RAW file they going to ACR, the same engine in LR. I see no reason to double up on software and making life more complicated.
Click to expand...
Thanks for describing your method of working. It doesn't really answer my question regarding how you consider it superior to Lightroom, but that is understandable if you rely on Bridge and you have never (I'm assuming) used Lightroom. On the other hand I can't comment in reverse, since I have never used Bridge.
Chaz Photos said:
With Bridge you are in charge and can control all your files as you wish
Click to expand...
I would like to think with any data base system, the operator is in charge, rather than the software!. :)
So we will stick with the systems we are used to and I wish you all the best with Bridge and Photoshop. However I hope the toil inflicted on you by using them won't cause you to age prematurely!;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top