Hey there!
Curious to get some input here: Are there any advantages to fully editing images via NLP within Lightroom as opposed to just converting via NLP (and maybe some minor adjustments) and then working with the positive copy in Photoshop?
I just really don’t like editing critical work in Lightroom. I use Photoshop for pretty much everything!
I honestly wish there was a NLP plugin for Photoshop, similar to Color Perfect.
I guess that the Standalone version will at least free you from needing Lightroom. Due by Black Friday I think.
If Photoshop is your favourite editor and does its job for you, why bother?
Staying within Lightroom means that you can stick to the RAW workflow from beginning to end, but you’ll have to manage with quirky behaviour of the tools in Lightroom…and that some AI presets might not be able to recognise the respective item(s). So, while you benefit from the end-to-end RAW workflow, you’ll have to carry a backpack full of bricks with you.
Convert using NLP then export to tiff from lightroom. Now you have something to edit in photoshop while keeping the non destructive copy,
Just as when working with a scanner driver, the earlier in the imaging path you can do most of the processing, the better the end result will be.
I’m going to assume you’re using a camera/macro lens and making raw files for conversion in NLP. Do most of your basic parametric editing in NLP, and don’t export as TIFF or JPEG from NLP. Keep the raw file, so you can use the tools NOT in NLP that are part of Lightroom Classic. Once done with LrC, then open the file in Photoshop (as a 16-bit TIFF in ProPhoto RGB) and finish it with those tools, if needed. Save the file back to LrC in the same format. Let LrC be your imaging “hub,” and use everything else as a “spoke.”
Once used to LrC, most people find Photoshop to be a “black hole time sucker.” the Adobe Camera Raw conversion engine is exactly the same in Bridge, Lightroom, Lightroom Classic, and Photoshop. Only the user interface is different. Photoshop is the bitmap editor of choice, of course, and offers advanced tools for critical work. But not everything requires that sort of finesse.
The short answer to your question is NO. But like every short answer there is at least one qualification. Having worked with all these applications on a very large number of conversions over a period years, using all practical workflow options, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only advantage of remaining fully within a raw workflow is to save on storage, because the moment you render the photo into a TIFF fie size expands a lot. Otherwise, these days, the qualities of edited output that one derives from editing either the raw file or a full resolution TIFF file are for most intents and purposes indistinguishable.
If you remain within the converted raw version, some Lightroom tools work as expected, but others don’t. For those, either you need to think in reverse or they just fail relative to their true intent. I covered all this extensively in my workshop at PhotoSCHWEIZ last February.
Now, if you render a converted raw file into TIFF format, you can then edit it in Lr or Ps, and all tools will work normally; the choice depends on which application is best suited for the required task, or personal preference. My preference is to push Lr for everything it can deliver (which is a lot these days), simply because it is a much easier application for photographers to use, but it remains true that quite a number of things cannot be done in LR, making Ps necessary.