Is 'lightroom' really necessary?

redhalton

Hi

This question is like: how long is a piece of string? ;-))

Right now I use Adobe Web Design CS3 and all my images are managed through 'Bridge'. Recently I've gotten into printing my images with an 'Epson R2880' and everywhere I turn people talk about making adjustments and printing from 'Lightroom' is just better--I dunno. I'm all for better image management and a smoother printing workflow, but I'm undecided if I want to spend the $$ if the results are not much better than I already have.

Your opinions and experience are welcome.

Thanks
Bob

arodney

First off, Bridge is a browser, LR is a database so there's a huge difference in functionality here in terms of "looking" at images.

LR.'s print module is superb and for me, worth the price of admission.

LR is really a Raw processing engine with modules that support all kinds of metadata editing functionality for rendering Raw (or optionally and not as robust, rendered images like JPEG, TIFF etc). Its nothing like Photoshop which is a pixel editor.

The same data will print the same way in Photoshop or LR so LR isn't "better" in terms of quality but it sure is faster and more flexible.

du8die

Download the trial and find out for yourself??? Zero investment...



For me, it saves HOURS. I shoot mostly sports and it literally saves hours per shoot.

ranro

In some cases, Lightroom is better than Photoshop....
I started out using Lightroom when it was a version 1 product and have since upgraded to Lightroom 2.2. It definitely is worth the investment from a digital workflow perspective.

I also got a copy of Photoshop CS4 for Christmas along with Scott Kelby's Photoshop CS4 book for digital photographers. From reading that book I've discovered that most of what is described in there is possible with Lightroom and is actually easier to manage in Lightroom since it is more of a workflow-based tool.

Photoshop is still the only way to go for pixel-based edits or more granular adjustments of specific regions of a photo. However, Lightroom 2 has added the ability to do basic localized adjustments (dodging, burning, graduated filters) which saves a trip into Photoshop.

If I was starting over again and could only buy one tool (Lightroom or Photoshop), I would probably pick Lightroom. As was said by someone else earlier, it is definitely a time saver in your workflow process.

jfriend

In addition to what Andrew said, Lightroom was built from the beginning to support the printing of photos and supports many things that you typically want to do with photos. It always irked me that Photoshop Elements was better at printing contact sheets or multiple images on a page than Photoshop CS3 was, yet CS3 cost 4x-5x as much. Lightroom fixes all that. It has things like:

• print multiple images on the same page
• giving you direct and interactive control over the cell size and number of cells on a page
• options for borders
• built-in output sharpening without changing your original
• multiple copies of the same photo on the page
• non-destructive cropping for a particular print size
• virtual copies so you can have different renderings/crops/etc... for different prints without modoifying the original or making an entire rendered copy
• packages of different sizes images mixed on the same page.

Bridge/Photoshop have some of this hacked together as scripts or actions, but they are pretty clutzy in their operation and clearly not first class features in Photoshop, but they are very slick and full featured in Lightroom.

colourbox

jfriend wrote:

Lightroom fixes all that. It has things like:

• print multiple images on the same page
• giving you direct and interactive control over the cell size and number of cells on a page
• options for borders
• built-in output sharpening without changing your original
• multiple copies of the same photo on the page
• non-destructive cropping for a particular print size
• virtual copies so you can have different renderings/crops/etc... for different prints without modoifying the original or making an entire rendered copy

Camera Raw has had non-destructive cropping for a long time, and in 5.2 it now has Snapshots, which can be used for similar purposes as Lightroom's virtual copies. In Camera Raw 5.2 you now have the same output sharpening as Lightroom, so no Lightroom advantage there. If you open a Raw file into Photoshop as a Smart Object you can get the best of both worlds because you have all the power of Photoshop and yet all the power of Camera Raw is a double-click away.

The decision is whether you can make back the $300 cost of Lightroom in labor savings. I love Lightroom, If you already have Bridge/Camera Raw, that choice is more difficult now, given the capabilities in Bridge CS4 and Camera Raw 5.2. If you want to do a lot of keywording and organizing across disks, or printing multiple photos on a page, Bridge is much more of a headache than Lightroom in those areas. If you don't plan to get Photoshop CS4, Lightroom is a no-brainer buy, just do it.

redhalton

Forgive me if the answer to this is obvious.

Lightroom 2 is fully compatible with PS CS3?

Thanks..

aj986s

redhalton wrote:

Forgive me if the answer to this is obvious.

Lightroom 2 is fully compatible with PS CS3?

Thanks..

Yes, they are compatible. However, Lightroom 2 supports the latest RAW format from Canon, whereas CS3 does not. Adobe is indicating they will not be upgrading CS3, instead want you to get CS4. However, you could export JPG from Lightroom to use in CS3.

FWIW, though I'm not a pro (yet ) I am appreciating more and more how Lightroom lets you quickly organize, review, delete, edit, flag for various reasons, and export large batches of pictures.

jfriend

aj986s wrote:

Yes, they are compatible. However, Lightroom 2 supports the latest RAW format from Canon, whereas CS3 does not. Adobe is indicating they will not be upgrading CS3, instead want you to get CS4. However, you could export JPG from Lightroom to use in CS3.

FWIW, though I'm not a pro (yet ) I am appreciating more and more how Lightroom lets you quickly organize, review, delete, edit, flag for various reasons, and export large batches of pictures.

You can certainly use LR2 and CS3 together (I do), but some of the newer features in LR2 (things that use a mask, for example) aren't directly supported by CS3/ACR so you can't open those RAW images in CS3/ACR and get the same rendering. Instead, you have to render the image to a TIFF or JPEG and then open that in CS3.

SCP

I too used Bridge for most of my work and I found myself deep in 30 gigs of Photos and what I quoted a week of turn around time ended up being a month.. OMG!!!

Now couple that with Bridges delicate temperament, slow to render, load and create the images. it's slow slideshow and it's disposition to often crashing like a Diva whose worked hard for 5 minutes and refusing to start up again without uninstalling and reinstalling the entire program AND refusing to allow me to change the preference I know is causing the crash, the hours and days and weeks I fought with it....I have no hair left!! (Ok so I cut most of it all, but it was frustrating none the less)

Let's not even talk about having to Convert all the raw images to JPGS and the slow uploads to Smugmug...

I took the dive and took a look at Lightroom. What took me months to do. took me literally 20 minutes to process 30 gigs of photos, batch them, process them and get the rest up and into galleries. I am now sitting pretty andhave time to work on my OWN photos.. Imagine that.. AND I just sold a ton of photos!

Oh lightroom.. how I do love thee!

Lupus Rex

If your question is wich is better, LR or PS, I would have to say yes.

Each serves a different function. Yes its expensive to use both, but i think its worth every penny to have both available.

CynthiaM

There isn't very much that you can do in LR that you can't do in the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw. I just think that with Lightroom, you can do it with much greater ease.

I've been using Lightroom since the beta version for Windows, and this is why I think it is an improvement over ACR:

• You can make virtual copies. For example, you could render a color and a B&W version and have them side by side for comparison. The virtual copy takes up no room on your hard drive
• Lightroom has a history state that stays with the file; you don't lose it when you close the program. How many times have you been in ACR, working on an image and after 5 minutes of clicks you say to yourself, Hmm, I liked where I was a few minutes ago. Yeah, right, go remember your settings. In LR, you can find it in the history.
• You can make a snapshot in lightroom and it, too, stays with the file. So if you like what you have done but want to play a little more, take a snapshot. You can play more and then if you decide that you like the snapshot better, just click on it.
• It's cataloging capabilities are more powerful than the bridge. If you have images keyworded and spread out on a drive in multiple directories (for example, I have infrared keworded images, flower keyworded images, etc., in multiple folders) you can retrieve ALL of them with one click and it's there. In Bridge, you have to do a find and on a slow system you could go out and take a walk and it's still searching when you return.
• You can view thumbnails of images no longer connected to your computer. In the Bridge, once the drive is disconnected or the DVD removed, you see nada.
• Cropping and straightening are easier.
• The brush size for cloning and healing can be independently set. In ACR, if on the umpteenth heal/clone you change the size, it changes for all of the preceding ones.
• Printing is easier than in Photoshop and once you have a template set up correctly it's like failsafe. Much less room for user error because you forgot to set something up correctly in a dialog box.
• While the sharpening algorithm is the same in LR and ACR, in Lighroom when you print, it has incorporated the Photokit Sharpener algorithms for output to printing. And also, if you export images and resize for web, you can use screen output sharpening, also courtesy of Photokit Sharpener.
• I never use the web module, so I can't comment on that except to say that it is absent from ACR.
• While viewing a slideshow, you can at the same time do rating and picking; very expedient.

I still like to use the Bridge for certain thing. I think the import dialog is a little more user friendly so I choose to import through the Bridge and do initial deletions and viewing in there. I also like the batch renaming better in the bridge.

Hope that help.

inTempus

I agree with others, LR greatly improves the speed at which you can process images. If you're used to processing 10-20 images and a Saturday afternoon... CSx is probably fine for you.

If you process hundreds of pictures in one sitting, I can only imagine the nightmare it would be in CSx.