Adjustments look different on Raw vs. Tiff

Todd_Shaner wrote:

“Adobe could add the ability to edit the smart object raw data from inside both PS/ACR and LR. Then you would only need to leave LR to add or change PS specific edits. Something as simple as XMP data sharing is all that's needed along with LR code to apply it to smart object TIF files inside LR. I probably shouldn't use the word "simple," but I'm sure it can be done.”

The technology is in place; I use a workflow like that. I Option-drag (Alt-drag) a raw photo from the Lightroom Classic grid into a Photoshop document so that it places as a Linked Smart Object (shortcut for File > Place Linked).*  The workflow is built on principles including:

• Both Lightroom Classic and Camera Raw can read/write the same XMP file containing the image edits.
• As a Linked Smart Object, a raw file can look back to the source file and update if it changes, so if I edit it in Lightroom Classic and press the Save Metadata shortcut, when I switch over to Photoshop the Linked Smart Object gets updated.
• Similarly, if I edit the Linked Smart Object in Camera Raw in Photoshop, those changes update the XMP file so that Lightroom Classic picks them up if I choose the Read Metadata from File command.

Naturally it isn’t as simple as that. There are some odd quirks with the Lightroom Classic History panel, and sometimes you have to take an extra manual step to kick Lightroom Classic, Camera Raw, or Photoshop into noticing that changes have been made somehwhere else. You have to stay on top of where you are in the process; the complexity makes it an advanced technique for now. These could all be ironed out if, as you suggested, Adobe streamlined this process. But if you can deal with those, everything stays current, and editable from either end, so no file is dead-ended.

However, if you do something in Photoshop that involves pixel layers based on the Linked Smart Object, like clone stamping, those pixel layers are fixed to the appearance of the Linked Smart Object at the time that retouching was done. If I edit the tone or color of the raw file in Lightroom Classic, that updates the LSO in Photoshop so that it no longer matches the pixel layers that were rasterized based on an earlier edit. If that type of retouching will be needed, I still try to get it right as much as possible at the raw stage before basing Photoshop corrections on a specific raw edit.

(In the Adobe video applications, Adobe Dynamic Link technology allows this sort of nondestructive editable embedding of content among applications. So they’ve done it before.)

*This is different than using the Lightroom Classic command Open in Photoshop as Smart Object, which creates an embedded Smart Object — disconnected from Lightroom Classic and copying the raw file into the Photoshop document, using more storage space.

Adobe could add the ability to edit the smart object raw data from inside both PS/ACR and LR. Then you would only need to leave LR to add or change PS specific edits. Something as simple as XMP data sharing is all that's needed along with LR code to apply it to smart object TIF files inside LR. I probably shouldn't use the word "simple," but I'm sure it can be done.

COmpletely agree Todd. It's very rare for me to use the smart object route but it is nice that it can be done. For me 90% of images are completely edited inside Lightroom and never touch Photoshop or others. 5% sees Photoshop but usually only after being fully edited in Lightroom and there is touch up that can't be done in Lightroom such as removing parts of trees sticking into the image borders. 4% goes into Topaz Denoise - typically wildlife at dusk or astro stuff but never enters Photoshop. Only ~1% enters Photoshop as a smart object. Of course this all depends on what style you shoot.

Lightroom Smart Object Workflow

Pros: 100 Non-Destructive

Cons: Much larger file size, Raw file editing must be done in PS

In the below example I used both object and layer ZIP compression.

Once you've converted a raw file to a smart object the only way you can apply additional non-destructive edits is by opening it in PS. IMHO for most PS edits this is overkill and unnecessarily cumbersome. I use the procedure as outlined in my reply earlier for 99% of my Edit in PS work with no issues. For specific images that need it go for it, but keep in mind the above.

I'll add my way of explaining smart objects which is that it is a way to do non-destructive editing in Photoshop, which was originally not designed to do that. A smart object allows you to do certain filters and edits to an original object without 'baking in' the edit. I.e. they remain parametric. If you are dealing with a raw original, the camera raw operation becomes a 'filter' that you can see in the editing chain in the layers panel. You can always double click on it and the camera raw interface will come up allowing you to change the raw rendering paremeters. You can stack this with a number of other filters such as blurs, sharpening, and also with standard adjustment layers which will all dynamically adjust to the changed raw parameters if you change the underlying camera raw settings. You can have multiple smart objects (even multiple raw-based smart objects) in a file and the smart objects can be masked, so you can composite this way too retaining the possibility to go back to the raw rendering parameters. Smart objects are really powerful in Photoshop but they do cause file sizes to balloon quickly which can be a consideration. Also, not all Photoshop operations are possible on smart objects. Note that this is only important if you want to be able to go back on your raw settings in a workflow that involves both camera raw/Lightroom and Photoshop.

I will try to explain it. But be warned, I'm not a real technical expert. Jeff Schewe wrote an excellent book on Camera Raw, and I have a version that was written for Camera Raw 3, so really old. But he explains the Smart object briefly as rather than a rendered raster file it is a raster file with the raw file embedded inside of it so that Photoshop can (in my words) give you access to the raw data. His explanation is only about one paragraph long, and the paragraph isn't very long. But the smart object is different and does give you some extra flexibility if you want to use it.

The title of the book that I referred to is, "Real World Camera Raw With Adobe Photoshop CS3" by Jeff Schewe.  I have it in paperback. He wrote another edition for CS4, but I don't believe there were any other editions beyond that. It's an excellent reference book even for later versions. Full of excellent information on what raw processing is all about. It's an old book, and probably not one you would be able to find anywhere now.

Photoshop, by itself without Camera Raw, cannot edit raw images. When Lightroom sends an image to Photoshop Camera Raw is used to convert it to an RGB image and is no longer raw. If you want to be able to return and edit the raw data from Photoshop then you need to choose the option in the Lightroom to open the image as a smart object. Then, from Photoshop, it is possible to revert to Camera Raw and modify the raw data. But if you simply open the image through the "normal" process then you no longer have any access to the raw image data. The movement of the data from Lightroom to Photoshop converted it "from" raw to pixel-based data, and that cannot be reversed. If you choose the option to open the image as a smart object then you need to complete all of your editing in Photoshop before you save that image because once it is saved from Photoshop you won't be able to jump back into Camera Raw and have access to that raw data anymore because it won't be available.

If you choose to open the image as a smart object then you access Camera Raw by double-clicking the object in the layers panel in Photoshop. Don't try to do it by using the Camera Raw filter because it isn't the same thing and won't give you the same effect.

 I also came across the same issue as carlalomonaco. In this case working with CR2 raw files. Regarding the workflow suggested by JimHess and Jai_vdL >> it sounds nice to do all the edits in Lr before going to Ps, but to me one of the main benefits of Lr is that one can further alter the edits in a non-lossy manner. Sometimes I change my creative mind about some of the Lr edits, to color and contrast for example. But once u take the file into Ps, there would then be no going back, because the Lr adjustments would be baked in. I might want to do some corrections to the underlying pixels of my raw image using Ps tools (such as Clone Stamp @ 50% opacity, for example), without being committed to any Lr adjustments made up to this point. Why can't Ps allow me to save my pixel changes into the same original CR2 raw format, so that I could continue to tweak my creative in Lr without having my hands tied? I mean, these are all digital files, without compression. Hopefully I'm making sense here...

A lens profile should only be applied once, i.e. to the raw file.

Applying it again to the tiff will cause distortion, so turn off Profile correction for tiffs that are derived from raw files.

Also, the camera profiles like Adobe Standard, Adobe Color, etc. are for raw files. They describe how the raw file should be rendered – how it should look like with all sliders set to zero/default – before you start editing.

A raw file is a grayscale image with no colors, and the camera profiles are used when LR renders the file.

As somebody else already mentioned, the image you see on screen when viewing a raw file is not the raw file itself, but a preview of what a rendered file will look like.

So camera profiles aren't used for Tiff files, because they have been rendered, and you just see the generic "Color".

I'm not sure what you are expecting to happen, but I suspect that everything is working as it should.

This probably isn't going to answer your question or come anywhere close to helping solve your dilemma. And others might not agree with my point of view. But when I'm working with raw images I try to complete all of my work using Lightroom only. Lightroom Classic seems to have a relatively powerful set of tools that usually can accomplish what I want. I only turn to Photoshop as a last resort to accomplish tasks that are difficult or impossible to perform. And I don't expect the image returned from Photoshop to "match" anything I have done in Lightroom alone.