Lightroom 2 - Opinions?

agallia

I have been using Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 and its predecessors for many years. Since my primary use is to post process my photos, I am now considering Adobe Lightroom 2.

What are your opinions on Lightroom 2 and its capabilities. I haven't been able to justify, in my mind, the need for Photoshop yet. So is Lightroom 2 a valuable standalone tool?

Thanks for any response.

Nikolai

agallia wrote:

I have been using Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 and its predecessors for many years. Since my primary use is to post process my photos, I am now considering Adobe Lightroom 2.

What are your opinions on Lightroom 2 and its capabilities. I haven't been able to justify, in my mind, the need for Photoshop yet. So is Lightroom 2 a valuable standalone tool?

Thanks for any response.

It's a very nice tool, but it doesn't have layers, hence your editing capabilities are extremely limited to some basic linear options, IMHO. However, if that's all you need you may be happy. My suggestion is to get a trial and really, realy use it for all its 30 days. You'll get a much better feeling than reading all the responses in the world.

Pittspilot

agallia wrote:

I have been using Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 and its predecessors for many years. Since my primary use is to post process my photos, I am now considering Adobe Lightroom 2.

What are your opinions on Lightroom 2 and its capabilities. I haven't been able to justify, in my mind, the need for Photoshop yet. So is Lightroom 2 a valuable standalone tool?

Thanks for any response.

LR2 is ALMOST a standalone tool! I have been a use since first release and the more I use it, the less I use PS. It DOES require a different thinking model (it doesn't edit pixels in 'real time', but rather stores your changes as a list of edit instructions that are applied when you view or export the image). It does the whole workflow, from ingesting images, to cataloging, tagging, editing and output - but as finished images or as a web page.

There is little (with local changes in V2) that it doesn't do well.

Try the 30 day trial, read the blogs out there and take a few tutorials and stick with it for 3 weeks.

I think you will wonder how you managed without it.

Cheers

colourbox

Nikolai wrote:

It's a very nice tool, but it doesn't have layers, hence your editing capabilities are extremely limited to some basic linear options, IMHO.

The lack of layers doesn't equal "extremely limited." Lightroom 2's Adjustment Brush and Gradient Mask sort of lets you do masked layer work without needing masked layers. Sure, you can't do layer blending and compositing, but for those times you only use layers to adjust part of an image, Lightroom is able to do that without layers.

Lightroom should be a great companion to Paint Shop Pro. Lightroom could be the rapid organizing and developing tool, and Paint Shop Pro for pixel cleanup and manual effects. Lightroom and Photoshop have the same complementary relationship, since Lightroom cannot completely replace pixel editors like PSP and Photoshop.

Nikolai

colourbox wrote:

The lack of layers doesn't equal "extremely limited." Lightroom 2's Adjustment Brush and Gradient Mask sort of lets you do masked layer work without needing masked layers. Sure, you can't do layer blending and compositing, but for those times you only use layers to adjust part of an image, Lightroom is able to do that without layers.

I'm well aware of the LR2.x/ACR5.x editing capabilities. Yes, you can do a lot with them, but at some point you hit the concrete wall and will not be able to move an inch further. Of course, the primary question is whether a person is going to use those advanced capabilities of CS(4) is a separate one...

Ric Grupe

Assuming you shoot raw files...you want LR.

If you don't then what you have is fine.

I chose PS CS4 over LR because I get a full featured editor plus all the functionality of LR via Camera Raw and Bridge which are part of PS.

agallia

Thanks for all the comments. I will download trial and check it out.
Merry Christmas to all...

Pittspilot

Nikolai wrote:

I'm well aware of the LR2.x/ACR5.x editing capabilities. Yes, you can do a lot with them, but at some point you hit the concrete wall and will not be able to move an inch further. Of course, the primary question is whether a person is going to use those advanced capabilities of CS(4) is a separate one...

The problem is with your 'extremely limited' comment. Personally, I find that a very unwarranted comment. I use LR2 almost exclusively - only going outside for things it doesn't do (such as HDR, Panos, and - as you say - where layering is needed).

Can you say WHY you think it is extremely limited?

Cheers

Nikolai

Pittspilot wrote:

Can you say WHY you think it is extremely limited?
Cheers

Sure :-)

• no layers/styles
• no blending
• no masks
• no filters
• no selection/feathering
• no tools (patch, clone, etc.)
• no channels and/or per-channel tools
• no lab/cmyk modes
• no VP
• no animation editing
• no 3D editing
• ...

The list goes on and on.
Bottomline: LR is *not* PS and never was intended be one to begin with.

Ric Grupe

Pittspilot wrote:

The problem is with your 'extremely limited' comment. Personally, I find that a very unwarranted comment. I use LR2 almost exclusively - only going outside for things it doesn't do (such as HDR, Panos, and - as you say - where layering is needed).

Can you say WHY you think it is extremely limited?

Cheers

Nik can speak for himself.

IMO when compared to Photoshop, LR is extremely limited. Now...that is not insinuating that lightroom is not good...it is very good. If you have not used the advanced, seemingly endless possibilities that PS offers then you wouldn't know.:D

Pittspilot

Nikolai wrote:

Sure :-)

• no layers/styles
• no blending
• no masks
• no filters
• no selection/feathering
• no tools (patch, clone, etc.)
• no channels and/or per-channel tools
• no lab/cmyk modes
• no VP
• no animation editing
• no 3D editing
• ...

The list goes on and on.
Bottomline: LR is *not* PS and never was intended be one to begin with.

Couldn't agree more that it wasn't intended to be PS. PS is overkill for much photo work :-) and if those features you list are needed, maybe LR isn't the right tool.

However, many photographers manage workflow fine and DO NOT find LR2 'extremely limited' for photo workflow. And in the context of the OP it seems unnecessarily negative. Or at least, that's how it reads to me.

BTW LR does some of the things you think it can't :-))

Cheers

Ric Grupe

Nikolai wrote:

The list goes on and on.

You beat me to the punch...while I was composing my post.:D

aj986s

But LR does interface nicely with PS. If you want to do more than what's in LR, you simply right-click, and then "Edit In" PS. When you're done, and save/close from PS, the finished result is automatically added to the LR catalog. Never tried with another app, like Corel, but it may work as well.

dogwood

Ric Grupe wrote:

Assuming you shoot raw files...you want LR.

I shoot raw files and don't want LR And yes, I've given the trial software a good spin.

Instead, I use Photo Mechanic to injest, rename, sort, and keep track of my images. It's cheaper and faster than LR, though it won't "process" files (though it displays raw files just fine-- I rarely shoot jpeg + raw these days, just raw).

If I need to process batches of raw files, bridge in CS4 does a fine job.

Just tossing this out there as another option.

Richard

agallia wrote:

Thanks for all the comments. I will download trial and check it out.
Merry Christmas to all...

You might also take a look at Photoshop Elements. It has much of the same functionality of CS but costs a lot less. It doesn't have LR's catalog management functions, but I believe it does have ACR for RAW file processing.

Ric Grupe

dogwood wrote:

I shoot raw files and don't want LR

Just tossing this out there as another option.

The original poster was inquiring about LR.:D

agallia

Thanks to all for the input. Lots to consider now since I have your many opinions. Great forum!

Tee Why

I have the LR2 and have had it since the release of LR 1 beta. I also have PS elements.

If it was me, I'd go for the Photo Shop Elements. Not only is it cheaper, I think it's more versatile program.

You can use the ACR to convert RAW images in PS and while some may say that LR has a better workflow than Photoshop, I can't really think of too many things that LR can do that PS cannot. I think the overall image quality will be about the same.

Photoshop however will in the long run let you do more as it's a much more versatile and diverse too.

agallia

Tee Why wrote:

I have the LR2 and have had it since the release of LR 1 beta. I also have PS elements.

If it was me, I'd go for the Photo Shop Elements. Not only is it cheaper, I think it's more versatile program.

You can use the ACR to convert RAW images in PS and while some may say that LR has a better workflow than Photoshop, I can't really think of too many things that LR can do that PS cannot. I think the overall image quality will be about the same.

Photoshop however will in the long run let you do more as it's a much more versatile and diverse too.

Thanks. I am already considering Photoshop Elements as well as LR2 and comparing against Corel PSP Photo X2 which I have been using for several years now, ever since it was a Jasc product. It has received excellent reviews and has many of the features and capabilities of PS and Elements including enhanced camera RAW support.

PixNW

In my normal workflow I use LR and CS3, and follow a workflow order as suggested by Scott Kelby. For me, I find LR helps speed up workflow, and with some images, PS isn't needed.

Cameron

Nikolai wrote:

Sure :-)

• no tools (patch, clone, etc.)

Not to nitpick, but LR2 does have clone/healing brush capabilities which works quite nicely (with adjustable brush options including feathering). I agree though - CS and LR are two different tools I use both depending on my needs for a particular photo.

arodney

I agree with the positive comments concerning Lightroom. Its NOT Photoshop, it never will be. Its not a pixel editor. Its a metadata (parametric) editor. Totally different beast. Its not designed to "replace" Photoshop, but it greatly eliminates the need for much of the Photoshop toolset. At least in terms of global editing. Yes, there are new and quite useful selective tools, but its not going to be a replacement for precise pixel editing. Yet I suspect most users processing Raw's can do 80-90% of what they need to do using parametric editing (non destructive, fast and flexible). Once I get to the limit of the LR Tool, for maybe 15% of my work (always soft proofing), I render the image into pixels and move into Photoshop.

And lastly, the print module is worth the price of the product alone. When you consider what the print module can accomplish with multiple images, work with it awhile, printing in Photoshop is absolutely frustrating and time consuming.

If the choose were, LR+Elements or just Photoshop, I'd go the LR Elements combo (Elements is a surprisingly nice product). Maybe not as macho as Photoshop....