LR2 pros and cons

Trevlan

My fellow dgrinners.

I'm far from a pro photographer, but that's what I aspire to be. So, with that said, I need to get acquainted with the tools pros use.

I'm curious about Lightroom. Is it worth the money? What are the benefits? I have PS CS4 and that was a hard hit to the wallet. I want to know what's so good about Lightroom before I shell out the 300 dollars.

I'm in full swing with getting little jobs here and there, I want to shoot RAW so that I have more control over the Jpg conversion. I hear stories about how sweet LR2 is for workflow. I'm just looking for justification.

Can a few people with this software chime in? Thanks champs!

arodney

You shoot Raw? You need a DAM to keep track of your images? You need to print more than one image at a time? These are but a few capabilities that shine in LR. Download a demo and check it out. Its NOT a pixel editor like Photoshop. Its not a Siamese twin of Bridge+Camera Raw.

Trevlan

I have a Kodak Dye sub printer, but don't have the need to print just yet. Most of my prints come from smugmug... So, if that's what I'm doing now, should I even bother with lightroom? I don't have a problem with using bridge and Camera Raw 5.

Art Scott

My only complaint is that when trying to learn LR2 and the differnt ways of cataloging my work I could not just re-import back into LR to change the name/numbering structure.....I had to physically move (copy) the files to a different hard drive and delete the ones I had run thru LR so it destroyed the path and thought I was running a totally new batch thru........

Other than that 1 minor inconvience ai do around 99.9% of my work is in LR.....where when all I had was PS7 & PSCS, I did all my work in ACR and I find LR to oh soooo much faster and easier to use......but then I work extremely hard to get my shot correct in the cameraso I do not have to do as much wok in post.....saved time = more profit.......

I believe in the work smarter not harder caoncept..........:D:D:D

Elaine

Hi Frank!

I have LR 1.4 and I'm finally getting around to using it! (I've been using Elements 5.0 and CS3.) When I got CS3 last fall, I received the option for a month of free Lynda.com training, so I finally have made use of that this week and I've been working through LR tutorials.

Oh. Wow. I really wish I hadn't waited so long. The organizational tools alone are just awesome. The non-destructive raw editing tools are fantastic. The way it can work with CS3 is extremely helpful.

All this stuff sure costs money, doesn't it? But I have a hard time believing you'd regret getting LR to fit into your workflow. If you can take the time to really see how it works and use it fully, you will benefit from it, IMO.

arodney

Trevlan wrote:

I have a Kodak Dye sub printer, but don't have the need to print just yet. Most of my prints come from smugmug... So, if that's what I'm doing now, should I even bother with lightroom? I don't have a problem with using bridge and Camera Raw 5.

Again, if you need a Digital Assist Manager (DAM) to keep a database of images, LR is the only Adobe game in town. Or if you want to make web galleries. Or, using the Print module to export ganged images to JPEG for your outside lab.

Richard

Trevlan wrote:

I have a Kodak Dye sub printer, but don't have the need to print just yet. Most of my prints come from smugmug... So, if that's what I'm doing now, should I even bother with lightroom? I don't have a problem with using bridge and Camera Raw 5.

It sounds like the main thing that LR would do for you today is give you a more powerful way of organizing your pics, as you have printing and RAW processing covered. Whether that's worth 300 bucks to you depends on how much of a problem you have searching for old stuff. There are cheaper (non-Adobe) products available to address cataloging, if you don't mind adding another product to the mix.

Tee Why

If you are comfy with CS4 and ACR, I'd probably not go with a LR, seeing as budget is a factor.

As far as I know, the converting engines/programs are the same between ACR and LR so I suspect the ultimate image quality will be about the same. What some seem to like about LR is that it's workflow is faster, more like a one stop shop. So if workflow is an issue with CS4/ACR, then it may be a good thing to get the LR, if not it may not be worth your money.

As mentioned, they have a free trial period, perhaps you can check it out. As for me, I have LR but prefer Canon's DPP and PSE instead.

BradfordBenn

I am a photo shooter for fun, not for work. However I use both PS3 and LR2 as they achieve two different things. I like using LR for the true management of the images. I use the Keyword tools in there all the time. I also like the Quick Collections and it is a nice fast way to review and look at lots of the photos I take. Then from there I decide what needs to be tweaked in PS3.