I hang out with a lot of wedding photographers and have heard them raving about RadLab, the Photoshop-based editing platform from the guys at Totally Rad!, for the last three-or-so years. The thing they love most about RadLab is the ability to visualize the change a setting will make before applying it — no more Command Z. Over the last couple months I've been using RadLab in tandem with my normal Lr and Ps workflow and have, overall, been very pleased with the results.
The Radlab system is pretty unique in the way that it operates. Rather than being a stand-alone application or set of Lightroom presets, RadLab is a Photoshop-based platform that allows you to edit with their presets inside of a little applet that then are applied in Photoshop as a non-destructive smart object, as a new layer, or on the current layer. This allows you to edit quickly and efficiently, coping the series of stylets (presets), or recipes (collections of mixed stylets) and applying them to a batch of images.
Unlike Lightroom presets or Photoshop actions, which are used by many photographers as a key part of their workflow, RadLab lets you preview what the effect of the stylet you choose in a little tile to the right of the image before you apply it. Also unlike most preset / action systems you can easily control and mix the strength of various stylets to come up with a preset recipe that's all your own. This has been a big selling point to me and my wedding photographer friends because it gives them the ability to come up with a signature recipe or group of recipes that's unique, quick to add to their images, and scalable in terms of strength.
Left: Lr file with adjustments for w/b, color, and exposure | Right: Radlab edited image
My Workflow:
Like all things Photoshop, there are a million ways to get from point A to point B. I've been using a workflow suggested by the dudes at Totally Rad! as well as a couple pointers from friends who also use the RadLab system.
- Import raw files into Lightroom (v. 5.5, through CC).
- Make corrections for crop, rotation, lens corrections, color fringing, white balance, exposure, contrast, sharpening, split-toning (as needed).
- Command E into Photoshop (selecting "Edit a Copy with Lightroom Adjustments")
- Continue with my normal Photoshop workflow, correcting for skin, stray hairs, etc.
- Run RadLab (File, Automate, Radlab Panel). Select Smart Object.
- Select various "stylets" or "recipes", make adjustments to strength.
- Select "finish".
- Command S back into Lightroom.
- Export.
- Repeat as needed.
After fine-tuning WB and exposure and not taking into account time to fix blemishes, stray hairs, etc. in Photoshop the RadLab workflow takes around a minute per image. It's very similar in terms of efficiency to working with a normal Lr preset or Ps action.
Left: Lr file with adjustments for w/b, color, and exposure | Right: Radlab edited image
Usability:
As shown below, using the RadLab system is a breeze (aside from the funny but-at-times-obtuse names of the stylets) you can easily find the right one or combination for the look you're going for. From my experience I've noticed that I rarely go for using the stylet at 100% strength, typically I'm pulling it way down to 50% and below and using several layers of looks. I've found this prevents it from making the image too strongly edited / Instagram-y. Below is a screenshot of the RadLab control panel, note the previews on the right that show you the effect of the stylet if applied.
Left: Lr file with adjustments for w/b, color, and exposure | Right: Radlab edited image
What I liked:
- Usable: In terms of ease-of-use this app is pretty high up there. They've bent-over-backwards to make sure that anyone can jump right in to using their system and within an hour be a master. It's really pretty easy to hone your own look from a combination of the stock stylets or if you'd rather you can simply download recipes made by Totally Rad! and other users.
- Non-Destructive: If you choose to run RadLab as a smart object you have the ability to tone-it-down or remove it completely at any time. If you edit a wedding today then want to come back next year to update the post for your portfolio you can do so quickly and easily without having to find the NEF or CR2 on your backup disk.
- Different: It's a little difficult to explain but the looks you get out of RadLab are just unique. Could they be achieved in Ps or Lr on their own? Sure, just not as quickly or easily as you can on this platform.
- Experimental: Experimentation is what labs are for, right? With RadLab I've found myself trying new and different editing strategies and looks that I likely wouldn't have otherwise. Of course, it's all a function of how quickly you're able to bounce around from look to look.
- Price: Given the cost of various preset and action systems, the $149 that Totally Rad! charges for RadLab is pretty darn reasonable. It'll give you more options and likely have far more longevity in terms of updates and added features.
Left: Lr file with adjustments for w/b, color, and exposure | Right: Radlab edited image
What I didn't like:
- Limited: While the stock stylets are cool, you really need to have your act together as far as color, exposure, and contrast goes before importing into Ps and opening RadLab. The controls inside the app for w/b, exposure, contrast, etc. are limited at best.
- Navigation: The gird layout of the stets is cool, I'm definitely a visual guy and this is a visual medium, however it feels like there might be a neater way to organize the looks. It can sometimes be difficult to find the exact stylet you're looking for if you're not sure how far down the column it is.
Left: Lr file with adjustments for w/b, color, and exposure | Right: Radlab edited image
Overall:
If you're looking for an alternative to a Lr preset pack or set of Ps actions then RadLab might be something you should consider. It offers the ability to quickly get a really unique look for your images that is completely modular, scalable, and non-destructive. This system is ideal for wedding or event shooters who crank out images and want the ability to edit in large batches while not offering run-of-the-mill preset edits. Overall I'd highly recommend you try out the platform, Totally Rad! offers a 14-day trial that should let you get a feel for the system (link below). It's found a place in my workflow, maybe it will in yours.
Left: Lr file with adjustments for w/b, color, and exposure | Right: Radlab edited image
Check it out:
If you'd like to take RadLab for a test drive you can borrow a copy commitment-free for two weeks here. If you're ready to pull the trigger and buy a copy they're available for $149 here.
So it's a glorified plugin, I don't see how you can't get these results right in Lightrooom...
Woah! The second post I read here today, and it also has some grievous errors?! What's going on here?
1) you absolute can... and most people do... preview presets in Lightroom. Hold your mouse over a preset and look at the navigator window above top left. See... it changes. Granted... PS doesn't have this, but many other well reviewed plug-ins for PS do... many of which are for both LR and PS, meaning you can go straight to plugin rather than through PS if you want.
2) other than the last sample picture, you stated you corrected for exposure, but I'm not seeing it, since none of those pictures could stand on their own without further LR adjustments, to highlights and shadows for example. If all along you wanted a drastically lighter, less contrast and lemony look, it's very doable in LR without even heading into the fun of cross-processing and HSL color adjustments. Plus you can save those too. No need to use other peoples "recipes". Create your own look.
3) not sure how your workflow is, but when I save back to LR, my PSDs or TIFs are saved along side and backed up with my NEFs and CR2s. I don't recommend separated master files... which a PS edit is for all intents and purposes. And yes synced and backed up that way to multiple drives. Usually, assorted exports are not more than a folder away either.
4) last but not least... i didn't see any "uniqueness" in your samples that many people couldn't do to an edited PSD file in LR, let alone a couple of curve and HSL adjustment layers. Without even an action, you can save those as presets yourself with your own naming conventions, rather than guessing at quirky names... regardless of a preview or not.
Sorry, but you haven't convinced me that this Rad system is worth while to even try let alone buy. You might want to consider showing us again something "unique"... or were you just trying to sell us something and you're not such a good salesman yet?
Edited to add: sorry FStoppers, but with all that talent and awesomeness being displayed by some of your members here, I expect more from the articles than a sales pitch, or a slapped together "me to" report about current events that may or may not effect photographers. My honest and in good faith critique AKA "2 cents".
Wow, get off his stone bag doctor.
1) If you are going to degrade someones writings, then maybe it best to not start off with a spelling error. The writer is clearly working from PS(which is implied by the title) where there is no preview. This renders your whole first point erroneous. Sooooo....yeah +1 for the writer.
2) In each photo, the exposure has indeed been changed. A corrected exposure can be specific to the artist. But if you like, feel free to DL and check the histogram and report back to us.
3) He literally has his workflow in the article. Sooo.....yeah
4) He edited the images to his preference, as it's his art. There are differences in the before and after images, which is enough to show functionality. We are all super-duper impressed with your lightroom skills, but clearly the article is about Radlab.
This article has met the burden represented by the title. So why don't you take a step back and go easy on a new writer. I'm sure no one was that harsh on you when you were pursuing your doctorate in pixels.
1) Chief of Grammar Police? Really? That's your argument and title here?
2) "Make corrections for crop, rotation, lens corrections, color fringing, ***white balance, exposure, contrast, sharpening, split-toning (as needed)***.... and then use a plug-in to "re-correct it" again to reach his "vision"? Maybe he... or you... should explain why he "changed his vision" drastically. As others have also said: if that was his vision, he could have went straight to it in LR.
Or: do all of what he said his workflow is, then either create a Snapshot or a Virtual Copy (or many) to play with. Then use the Compare view to tweak and cull. All from LR.
3) The workflow includes separating IMHO "master files". Edited PSDs/TIFs are master files for all intents and purposes... because it is those that you will most likely include with any RAW files (that haven't seen a trip to PS) for final export.
4) "He edited the images to his preference, as it's his art" - absolutely and 100% agree that he should! However, writing a blog post review pushing a plug-in that costs extra in money, time and clicks... and not SHOWING why it is better than achieving his vision sooner... and possibly better within his main processor Lightroom is questionable. You could very well ask the question: how well does he know Lightroom, for me or anyone else to trust his judgement for moving to RadLab?
At the end... pardon my sarcasm and laying into a new writer. However, whether reporting or in photography, it's not about rules... it's about attention to detail in explaining why you've decided to break or bend them.... or go another route entirely than planned. Accept the critique if you weren't convincing enough and try harder next time.
There's enough mediocrity out there, and I don't come to FStoppers or would even bother to post if I thought that's what it was all about here. Quite the opposite, because if you got past my scathing remarks, you would see that I was complimenting and placing FStoppers on a pedestal, specifically based on the quality displayed by it's members and previous blog posts and reviews. This particular article, and the one I previously ranted on earlier here... caused me concern whether I should continue assuming that the quality of FStopper's membership was being mirrored any longer in their reporting... and they weren't just "going through the motions".
I'm obviously not perfect (see spelling and grammar errors), and pardon my impatience with mediocrity and those that accept and coddle it. The writer, FStoppers... and you... can do better. Me? I guess I'm just an A-hole for pointing that out.
You were trolling - plain and simple.
FYI, If you are putting anyone(or anything) on a pedestal, it's yourself. Luckily, F-Stoppers was created just for you. So, continue smelling your own farts and proclaiming it to be pure gold. This is my last comment...
Just because a critic goes against your opinion, does not make it "trolling". The only response I was expecting that even matters is the silent one from FStoppers... by being a little bit more thorough in what gets published around here.
No. FStoppers was not created for me, nor you. But for a community of pros and enthusiasts looking for a serious blog with well researched and reported articles about the business, services, software and hardware of photography. This particular article (and a separate one on the same day!)... In. My. Honest. Opinion... was not up to their normal high standards.
Signed: your sincere and "very friendly fart-smelling-turned-to-gold, NOT-on-a-pedestal neighborhood a**hole. Coming from intellectually challenged folks like yourself, I wear that title as a compliment.... so Thank You.
It seems like a "manual, real time actions applet" for want of a better term. It appears they have distilled various PS editing parameters into an applet used to create their own presets that only includes editable options specific to that preset. That would not in and of itself be such a bad thing.
If it is a "manual, real time actions applet" then it would be convenient for those who don't know what PS parameter to edit in order to achieve the same effect. However, if that is the case it would also be a bit misleading to rename the PS parameters used in the applet to such things as "Blueberry Cobbler". Other than insuring a certain level of dependance for those who can' extrapolate (or won't bother to try) what PS parameters are actually being used I don't see the point if such renaming has been employed.
Rant Follows:
(you've been warned)
(stop before it's too late)
P.S. A bit late to the party but Doc's position points to a larger issue permeating "The Web". The pre-Mosaic internet (pre WWW) started out as a place for, "the educated", a bastion of academia that required a certain level of intellect in order to even log on. Navigating the various hardware and software components necessary to fully participate involved a learning curve that worked as an effective weeding out process. It also helped that it was a predominantly text based community.
Mosaic and the WWW came along to change everything, there was still a bit of a learning curve but, comparatively speaking, things were vastly simplified. That seemed like a good thing at the time; the internet would become more democratized. Who doesn't like a democracy? More people got online and so-called "everyday people" became familiar with terms like, Information Superhighway, Cyberspace, and global as in, "global revolution". Soon enough, everyone would know what a fractal was.
It was the non-internet AOL, however, that started to change things drastically. It wasn't the internet but it set the tone for everything that was to become the WWW on the internet. I remember actually having to convince an acquaintance that she was, in fact, not actually "on the internet", she was on AOL. It was with Netscape, however, that things really started to go south.
Netscape took Mosaic, injected it with 'roids and supercharged it with nitro. Things were starting to come together in a truly integrated package. Suddenly, no one needed (or wanted) to know anything about Archie, Gopher, Veronica or Jughead. The WWW was taking over the internet and everyone was invited to join the party. Everyone was talking about "The Internet". The internet for most people had begun to mean, "The Web". In short order "The Web" meant "The Net". The WWW had taken over and the internet was being overrun with "everyday people" who were more interested in pictures of kittens and "selfies" than scholarly matters.
The days of the internet being a place for scholarly endeavor populated with educated intellectuals have passed; the dream of the internet evolving into a worldwide scholastic apparatus where people come to be enlightened and educated isn't coming true. Instead, the internet, the WWW, is devolving into a dilapidated, sometimes dangerous, trailer park populated with elementary school drop-outs and criminals.
Idiots rule.