Is lightroom necessary with photoshop?

starky987

As the title indicates, do lightroom worth getting if I have photoshop cs3? Are there added features or benefits to having lightroom? thanks

Pittspilot

starky987 wrote:

As the title indicates, do lightroom worth getting if I have photoshop cs3? Are there added features or benefits to having lightroom? thanks

Absolutely! LR manages the WHOLE workflow form import through to printing. I use it more and more and only go 'out' to CS3 when I need to do local edits or e.g. panoramas, HDRs.

Try it and see, i suspect you will do what many of end up doing - more and more in LR.

Cheers

DonRicklin

The thirty day trial well let you judge for yourself. I rarely use PSCS anymore.

Don

BradfordBenn

In my limited workflow, Lightroom is content management, keywording, and touch ups. PhotoShop is for editing. I agree though try the 30 day trial. I am an amateur (to put it nicely) and for me I am using LR about once a day and PS about once every two weeks.

arodney

The question should really be, is Photoshop necessary with Lightroom. I think you'll find it is (or Elements or some pixel editor) but getting all the heavily lifting done FROM LR first will reduce to a huge degree the need for a lot of Photoshop work.

dogwood

I have some questions about this too. I'm using the 30-day trial of LR and so far, it's been frustrating. I'm finding Photo Mechanic faster and more intuitive to download, label, and sort photos than LR. Then I open up Bridge, and let it batch process my selected raw files (after quick tweaks if necessary). For me, print res files need the CS3 layers adjustment layers (I do lots of touching up plus layer masks on skin).

So my question is: "If I don't need (or like) LR's download and tagging and sorting, what other benefits does LR provide?"

Honestly-- so far I've been able to use Photo Mechanic and Bridge and get my work done quicker than using LR, but that may just be me being unfamiliar with LR.

arodney

dogwood wrote:

I have some questions about this too. I'm using the 30-day trial of LR and so far, it's been frustrating. I'm finding Photo Mechanic faster and more intuitive to download, label, and sort photos than LR. Then I open up Bridge, and let it batch process my selected raw files (after quick tweaks if necessary). For me, print res files need the CS3 layers adjustment layers (I do lots of touching up plus layer masks on skin).

So my question is: "If I don't need (or like) LR's download and tagging and sorting, what other benefits does LR provide?"

Honestly-- so far I've been able to use Photo Mechanic and Bridge and get my work done quicker than using LR, but that may just be me being unfamiliar with LR.

Well for one, its a Raw processor which PM isn't.

dogwood

arodney wrote:

Well for one, its a Raw processor which PM isn't.

Yes, but the CS3 raw processor is the same as the one in LR. So if I use PM to sort out what I want to process, copy or move those files into a new folder, then open Bridge to process them, what am I missing out on with LR?

EDIT: actually, I should edit that question-- what am I missing out on that is worth the $300 licensing fee for LR?

LiquidAir

arodney wrote:

Well for one, its a Raw processor which PM isn't.

Thats pretty much it for why Lighroom works for me. I can catalog RAWs and only generate JPEGs as needed. In fact, I no longer keep JPEGs on my local machine; rather I delete them as soon as the upload completes.

Even when I take a file into Photoshop, I crop and generate JPEGs in Lightroom (albeit right now I sometimes go back through a second pass through an export droplet to PS for output sharpening and watermarking). Often I end up with several crops in my LR database for a single PSD file.

dogwood

LiquidAir wrote:

Thats pretty much it for why Lighroom works for me. I can catalog RAWs and only generate JPEGs as needed. In fact, I no longer keep JPEGs on my local machine; rather I delete them as soon as the upload completes.

Even when I take a file into Photoshop, I crop and generate JPEGs in Lightroom (albeit right now I sometimes go back through a second pass through an export droplet to PS for output sharpening and watermarking). Often I end up with several crops in my LR database for a single PSD file.

Thanks. That's helpful info. Right now, I'm still unconvinced LR is worth it for me. I can see why it's useful for others of course.

One tangent-- it is awfully annoying that LR changed my registry when installing and now opens automatically when I insert a CF card for download. It's especially annoying considering it's so-called "trial" software.

jfriend

dogwood wrote:

Thanks. That's helpful info. Right now, I'm still unconvinced LR is worth it for me. I can see why it's useful for others of course.

One tangent-- it is awfully annoying that LR changed my registry when installing and now opens automatically when I insert a CF card for download. It's especially annoying considering it's so-called "trial" software.

It's a preference in LR. You can turn it off without editing your registry. Just go to the import tab in the preferences dialog.

Nikolai

I started to try LR since its first Windows beta. Had great expectations about it. Quickly learned to hate it due to its absolutely unbearable sluggishness. Tried *every* major release and sometimes in between - hated it even more.
Bridge + ACR 4.x + PS CS3 does it for me.
Prolly it's just me.

DonRicklin

dogwood wrote:

Thanks. That's helpful info. Right now, I'm still unconvinced LR is worth it for me. I can see why it's useful for others of course.

One tangent-- it is awfully annoying that LR changed my registry when installing and now opens automatically when I insert a CF card for download. It's especially annoying considering it's so-called "trial" software.

It is only a "trial" in that you have a only a 30 day license. It is not cripple ware. The trial is full operational and only lacks the license to use longer than 30 days.

FYI, that full license is cross platform, two machine and not in need of online Activation on installation like PSCS and other Adobe ware.

Don

Richard

Nikolai wrote:

Bridge + ACR 4.x + PS CS3 does it for me.
Prolly it's just me.

Not just you, my friend. I use exactly the same combination. I tried LR hoping that it might replace my home-grown catalog application, but I was not at all impressed. For general file handling, Bridge is all I need. ACR is a pleasure to use, but you don't need to buy LR to get it.

Cheers,

Scott_Quier

Nikolai wrote:

I started to try LR since its first Windows beta. Had great expectations about it. Quickly learned to hate it due to its absolutely unbearable sluggishness. Tried *every* major release and sometimes in between - hated it even more.
Bridge + ACR 4.x + PS CS3 does it for me.
Prolly it's just me.

+1 - Maybe it's because I'm old-school and like to know exactly where my files are and manage them directly rather than hope that some application is doing it correctly for me. Or, maybe it because I more than an little OCD?

arodney

dogwood wrote:

Yes, but the CS3 raw processor is the same as the one in LR. So if I use PM to sort out what I want to process, copy or move those files into a new folder, then open Bridge to process them, what am I missing out on with LR?

EDIT: actually, I should edit that question-- what am I missing out on that is worth the $300 licensing fee for LR?

Well one app not three (ACR+Bridge+PM), along with a web and print module (& slide show) for one. Handling multiple files in LR is far more effective then trying to do this inside of ACR. For me, the print module is almost totally worth the price of admission. None of the products you mention provide a means to gang up and output images with the ease and speed of LR.

jww

Scott_Quier wrote:

+1 - Maybe it's because I'm old-school and like to know exactly where my files are and manage them directly rather than hope that some application is doing it correctly for me. Or, maybe it because I more than an little OCD?

I can fully understand that as I really struggled with LR at first. I was horribly upset at times and almost dumped it several other. I finally got over my personal OCD by not using it to manage my files and directories. I choose Import at location rather than pulling from the card as by that time I already have them on the drive and in the folder structure I want.

..that may seem a bit of extra work, but prolly like most folks I shoot making new folders to break down an event, then when the card is full, pull a backup and on to the next card. I can later pull the entire event over from my backup and with a bit of manual fun in win explorer, rename and group the folders accordingly... so it really isn't bad.

By the time I pull up Lightroom.. I can import the whole event in one shot..

This part may seem extra work as well, but I like making catalogs that mimic the file structure as I like the catalog navigator better than the folder one. However what is cool is since Lightroom catalogs are basically virtual galleries (which many of us would like on SM), I can group pics any number of ways. ..example certain drivers, cars, or personal favs

The rest is pretty much the normal workflow of Lightroom.. Perhaps I am wasting quite a bit of time using it this way, but I currently look at Lightroom as a means to process and tweak pics.. not manage my files.

..but a comment on the original question. I have photoshop and do use it here and there, but mostly use Lightroom. I think they are still running a 10% - %15 off Adobe products if a member of NAPP...

dogwood

arodney wrote:

Well one app not three (ACR+Bridge+PM), along with a web and print module (& slide show) for one. Handling multiple files in LR is far more effective then trying to do this inside of ACR. For me, the print module is almost totally worth the price of admission. None of the products you mention provide a means to gang up and output images with the ease and speed of LR.

Cool-- I appreciate your input on this, Andrew.

I'm not too concerned about multiple apps (they all run fast on my work machine and honestly, even with PM & CS3/Bridge, my sorting/tagging is faster than LR). And I'm outsourcing all my printing these days (have a GREAT Canon wide format printer that I haven't used in over a year because the inkjets were always getting clogged).

So it comes down to the handling multiple files, I guess. Bridge seems to do this just fine (again, for me) as long as I use PM to sort out the selected files to batch or image process.

dmmattix

arodney wrote:

Well one app not three (ACR+Bridge+PM), along with a web and print module (& slide show) for one. Handling multiple files in LR is far more effective then trying to do this inside of ACR. For me, the print module is almost totally worth the price of admission. None of the products you mention provide a means to gang up and output images with the ease and speed of LR.

And I would like to thank Andrew for bringing this up (multiple times:D). Due to his persistance I finally tried the Printing function and now make a trip to CS3 to sharpen and sometimes mask then back to Lightroom to print. It truly makes it a breeze to properly size the print. Now for that soft proofing issue... (Actually I soft proof in CS3 then print in LR).

Thanks for the persistance Andrew.

LiquidAir

dmmattix wrote:

And I would like to thank Andrew for bringing this up (multiple times:D). Due to his persistance I finally tried the Printing function and now make a trip to CS3 to sharpen and sometimes mask then back to Lightroom to print. It truly makes it a breeze to properly size the print. Now for that soft proofing issue... (Actually I soft proof in CS3 then print in LR).

Thanks for the persistance Andrew.

I'm definitely curious about this. I have an Epson 3800 on the way (thank you, LPS) and I plan to do a lot of multiple print layouts on 17x22 paper. If I can easily sharpen all the images for output (probably with PhotoKit Sharpener) and then to the layout in Lightroom in an efficient manner I am very interested.

While I like the slideshow feature of Lightroom, I find the Web module is to crippled to be useful.

colourbox

There are a few Lightroom advantages that have not been mentioned. While you are editing Raw, you have an edit history that is saved with the catalog across sessions. You can also save history snapshots. ACR does not have either, and even Photoshop cannot save history or snapshots across sessions. Lightroom also has virtual copies, so you can branch out versions further (different crops, color and B&W treatments of the same photo, etc) without taking up any more disk space with image copies. ACR can't do that, except by saving presets in a popup menu, which is not really suited for versioning of individual images. Lightroom can also undo a change pasted across hundreds of images, while Bridge cannot, so you are stuck with whatever you did and have to change them all back manually. If you can remember the exact settings you changed, and the exact images that were selected...

Also I do like having every image on every volume pre-cataloged for instant access. Bridge can't show you images on volumes that aren't mounted. Also Lightroom has an easy way to sync work between computers (i.e. field laptop and office desktop) via the Export Catalog feature.

Whether all that's worth another $299 is up to you.

DonRicklin

Well said, colourbox. And as new versions of LR roll out the differences and advances over Bridge will increase, I am sure. Remember, LR is still only in version 1. (1.3.1).

Don

dogwood

One tool I wanted on LR (and was hoping to find) was the ability to clean up a dust spot on my sensor filter that shows up on every photo from a particular shoot. Can you clean that spot on one photo in LR and apply it to the whole session? That would be useful.

DonRicklin

Yup. In Develop with the Toolbar (press 't') showing there are heal/cloan tools. The spots you do can be synced across selected images and LR detects rotation even.

I'm sure there is a tutorial out there on this. Will post if I find it.

Don

DonRicklin

Spot Removal Tool
Here we go: Spot Removal Tool
A Video Tutorial by Sean McCormak from Lightroom-Blog.Com.

Don

Nikolai

dogwood wrote:

One tool I wanted on LR (and was hoping to find) was the ability to clean up a dust spot on my sensor filter that shows up on every photo from a particular shoot. Can you clean that spot on one photo in LR and apply it to the whole session? That would be useful.

Just for the record, since the latest LR and ACR use the same RAW engine, same funcitonality is applicalble to ACR - heal/clone one image, apply to all/selected.

colourbox

LRmvcDonR wrote:

Well said, colourbox. And as new versions of LR roll out the differences and advances over Bridge will increase, I am sure. Remember, LR is still only in version 1. (1.3.1).

Just to be fair, I don't always recommend Lightroom even though I prefer it. One friend was thinking about Lightroom due to features she named, and my answer was "You're comparing Bridge CS2 to Lightroom. You need to know that Bridge CS3 reduced a lot of the pain of Bridge CS2 and can now do many of the things you wanted from Lightroom. Here's how you can compare images with the multiple loupes. Here are the improved keywords and the awesome new Filter panel that brings you a lot of the way toward Lightroom. etc." For her needs and budget constraints, making the best use of the Bridge and ACR CS3 she has was better than dropping another $300 for Lightroom.

Point being that while Lightroom is only version 1 and improving, Bridge and ACR will also keep improving, and so, there will always be the decision as to whether you personally will get $300 worth of additional value out of Lightroom. Adobe should match Apple's price reduction of Aperture to $199 to make the decision easier, because now the decision is between Bridge CS3 with Photoshop, or (on the Mac side) add Aperture for $199, or add Lightroom for $299. Not a slam dunk for Lightroom at all, especially in a failing economy.

dogwood

Nikolai wrote:

Just for the record, since the latest LR and ACR use the same RAW engine, same funcitonality is applicalble to ACR - heal/clone one image, apply to all/selected.

Aaaahh, thanks Nik and Don. I've been trying to figure this function out for a bit... it always seems so simple AFTER someone shows me!

claudermilk

To be honest, Pete, if you don't like it don't use it. I am also among the now-minority that does not like nor use LR. I tried it and found it lacking in every respect. I have a selection of best-in-breed apps I use instead, each of which IMHO does a superior job at it's task. It's a bit more time-consuming to get set up and a bit more expensive, but works better in the end. There's just too many good options out there to force yourself to use an app that doesn't fit.

dogwood

claudermilk wrote:

To be honest, Pete, if you don't like it don't use it. I am also among the now-minority that does not like nor use LR. I tried it and found it lacking in every respect. I have a selection of best-in-breed apps I use instead, each of which IMHO does a superior job at it's task. It's a bit more time-consuming to get set up and a bit more expensive, but works better in the end. There's just too many good options out there to force yourself to use an app that doesn't fit.

Yeah, well luckily Adobe offers a 30-day trial

The more I try it out, them more I'm learning. I don't think LR will ever replace Photo Mechanic for me, but on the other hand, I did finally figure out a speeding raw processing technique using LR yesterday. I know Bridge can do just about all the same raw processing that LR can, so it's just a matter of testing it with some real-world photo shoots to see if LR is worth the extra cash.

Like I said-- I'm sure glad there's a 30-day trial!