Options
Lightroom 2 vs. Photoshop CS3
JAMoore
Registered Users Posts: 87 Big grins
I currently use CS3 to do my raw processing and I do my own 'organization'. I'm starting to shoot a lot more than I used to so my folder structure is starting to get a bit messy - especially as it has evolved over the years.
I have never used lightroom but after reading about the features, it sounds like it could do me some good for my day-to-day processing and organization. Obviously pixel editing, if needed, would need to be performed in CS3, but my question is, is Lightroom worth getting for day-to-day operations. In addition, it seems like it might be easier for my wife to use than CS3 - could this be true?
What is there to gain (if anything, really) from using Lightroom?
TIA
-Josh
I have never used lightroom but after reading about the features, it sounds like it could do me some good for my day-to-day processing and organization. Obviously pixel editing, if needed, would need to be performed in CS3, but my question is, is Lightroom worth getting for day-to-day operations. In addition, it seems like it might be easier for my wife to use than CS3 - could this be true?
What is there to gain (if anything, really) from using Lightroom?
TIA
-Josh
0
Comments
However, I'm wondering why you don't use Bridge since you already have it? I have it open constantly when I'm doing anything with pictures. It handles importing your pictures and organizing them into folders. And of course it's well integrated with CS3.
Regards,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
Canon 50D, 30D and Digital Rebel (plus some old friends - FTB and AE1)
Long-time amateur.....wishing for more time to play
Autocross and Track junkie
tonyp.smugmug.com
I've been using Photoshop since Ps6. Now I'm running CS3. And I use Bridge all the time. But, after some early resistance, I reckon maybe 90% of my photographic work load has been transferred to Lightroom 2.
Why? Because it's fast and it's easy. Bridge can't keep up when it comes to lots of images. The Library module in Lr2 just seems smoother than Bridge.
The Develop module in Lr2 is the very same raw engine as in Bridge/Photoshop. The results in Lr2 or Bridge/ACR will be identical, given the same settings. The only difference is the interface.
Lr2 has a new local adjustment brush apply local adjustments via a masking brush. With it, you can control exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, sharpness, and clarity. Singly, or in any combination. You may apply any number of different adjustment masks, and readjust them at any time.
You may also apply the same adjustments listed above via the gradient tool. A really handy adjustable digital split density filter (or split sharpness, or saturation, or whatever, and you can apply more than one).
Bridge can do neither. You have to open PS to do that stuff. Which is fine, but doing everything you can in Lr2 first really saves time.
With the new tools in Lr2, I don't need to fire up PS near as often as I used too. Saves tons of time, and all edits are reversible. Original files are never altered (unless you say so).
The batch processing tools for import and export are more or less the same in both. Lr2 has a couple of very useful things Bridge doesn't (or at least I haven't figured them out). Lr2 will add a watermark on export, and will export to any max width & height at pretty much any resolution (resize to fit). Bridge will resize to fit, but only at the original file resolution, near as I can tell. Bridge will run a PS action on export which is a small advantage. But in the long run, for me, its easier to export from Lr2 to a folder, then run the action on the folder. I wouldn't be without Photoshop or Bridge, but these days, Lightroom 2 is my workhorse.
And yes, your wife will be able to sort it out easier than Bridge/Photoshop. And there are some great tutorials available to get you up to speed. If you already know Camera Raw, it will be a cinch.
It's definitely worth full retail, but if you're a student or have a kid who is, you can get it for under $100.
In closing, I give Lightroom 2 my full endorsement.
(I hope that doesn't make Adobe mad.)
Lee
Thunder Rabbit GRFX
www.thunderrabbitgrfx.com
So tell me. Why do you still use Bridge? PS I can see. But why Bridge? Doesn't LR handle that function better? And don't the two tools conflict with each other when working on the same image sets?
Thanks,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
"Why Bridge?" you ask?
Reason 1: Picture frames. Before I upload to Smug Mug, I like to put a little custom frame on my images. It's hardly any trouble, and I think they look better in the galleries. I made a PS action to do it. So, after I use Lr2 to export my images to a folder as jpgs, I open the folder in Bridge, and batch process from there. (I know I could batch process straight from PS, but batching out of Bridge gives me more flexibility.) Anyway, I can't do this in Lr2. (It may be possible. I just haven't delved into it, since it's so easy from Bridge, and I already know how.)
Reason 2: Bridge upload (via PS). Upload to Smug Mug from PS & Elements was developed by Adobe, and is integral to the programs. One click takes me to my Smug Mug galleries. It's worked flawlessly for me so far. Lr2 upload to Smug Mug is a third party developer. I checked out his site and forums. It seems like it's a good utility, but still has some bugs. (I haven't used it. It may be great.)
So, in Bridge, I select my jpgs images exported from Lr2, and batch process them to add custom frames. When that's done, the images are still selected in Bridge, and I can export them to Smug Mug with one more click. From the time the images are selected in Bridge until they are uploading with frames it only takes 5 clicks (no matter how many images).
So, that's why I use Bridge.
If the file handling preferences in Lr2 & Bridge are set properly, Lr2 will write all changes into XMP files automatically and Bridge will read them automatically (The default setting in Bridge is to ignore them!) Bridge will write data into the XMP files, but Lr2 will not read them unless you have set Lr2 to watch the folder you are working on. Or, until you synchronize the folder in Lr2 (one click). This is only a minor inconvenience, since I don't do much in Bridge that Lr2 needs to read.
I've not encountered any conflicts. Bridge reads everything I do in Lr2 automatically, and Lr2 will see everything I do in Bridge, if I kick it once in the right spot. I run them side by side and so far, they're playing nice.
Note: Adobe has made sure Lr2 & PS integrate seamlessly. When in Lr2, to open a selected image in PS, Ctl+E is all it takes. You see a dialog box with a default selected, "Edit a copy with Lightroom Adjustments." It does just that. Opens a copy in PS, so any PS editing still doesn't affect your orignal raw image. And Lr2 automatically sees and renders any changes made in PS to the copy.
Well, my typing finger is getting sore. Better quit before I confuse the issue any more.
Lee
Thunder Rabbit GRFX
www.thunderrabbitgrfx.com
The Smugmug integration you got wired up in Bridge is very compelling. I just recently got a smuggie account I need to set up, and I'll definitely look into that. You've got me sold on LR as well.
Thanks a bunch for the great info. You go grab a cold beer and ice that hand now.
Cheers,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
The RAW converter in LR2 has some nifty advantages over ACR in CS3, mainly the ability to use a brush to make local (as opposed to global) changes, but of course, PS itself has far more powerful tools to accomplish the same thing. I think the biggest advantage you will find in LR is that it gives you a database that will keep track of your pics regardless of the directory structure or file names that you use. You can search by keyword and other meta-data. If you are trying to keep track of thousands of pics, a database is real timesaver. Of course, as with Bridge, you do have to assign the keywords yourself.
Richard brought up something it might worth taking a minute to elaborate on. He mentioned the Lr2 database. Which is the key to it's speed and flexibility. And its fundamental advantage over Bridge.
Lr2 is an indexed system. Bridge is not. Meaning?
Bridge is rather simple minded. It can only look in one folder at a time*, and you have to tell it which folder to look in. You are locked into your file hierarchy.
Lr2 creates an index, and makes an index file for each image (like an index card at your local library). This index file has metadata (keywords, XIFF, star ratings color labels, etc), and the thumbnail for the image, and the standard sized preview, and the 1:1 preview (the 1:1 preview is discarded after 30 days if you haven't used it. This makes the system much faster. If you call up an image after longer than 30 days, it just regenerates the 1:1.).
Lr2 keeps all these index files in one place, and they are quite small compared to the original files. This makes it possible to do very fast searches by various criteria.
Imagine this:
Using Bridge is like going to a Library with no card catalog. You have to tell the librarian what book you want, and where to find it.
Using Lr2 (or any indexed system) is like going to a modern library, where there is a complete index system at your fingertips on a computer. It's easy to find whatever you're looking for.
Google is the quintessential example of the power of an indexed system. Google doesn't really search the internet when you make a query. It searches its own database. Which is an index of the internet at large. That's the only way it could deliver 298,000,000 results in .16 seconds when I type in "photography".
That's all I got. Hope it's helpful.
*Bridge has an option on the filter panel which is supposed to show the contents of subfolders. But whenever I have tried to use it, I get a message that says it's indexing the folders, then it goes comatose. I've never had the patience to just let it run and see if some day it showed me the contents of those subfolders.
Lee
Thunder Rabbit GRFX
www.thunderrabbitgrfx.com
I have made the decision to use brige and create my own file management system. I made this decision because I wanted the freedom to use any existing or future photo editor without the stress of changing my file management system. If a great new RAW converter comes out next year I won't feel tied down to LR2.
It is possible to use Lightroom and not be tied to its organization at all. I turned on the option to make it leave my photos in the folders where they already are. They are navigated the same way whether I am using Bridge or Lightroom (or the desktop, or another browser like iView, etc).
You can also sync changes back to the XMP sidecars or DNG raw files by just pressing Command/Ctrl-S. That means that even if Lightroom was discontinued and the Lightroom database was completely corrupted, I could still pop the images open in Bridge/Camera Raw and continue editing them where I left off, because syncing back keeps the correction data also stored with the images, and Camera Raw reads them.
If you have CS4 and Camera Raw 5.3, it now has the same Targeted Adjustment Tool, Local Adjustments, and Snapshots that are all exchangeable with Lightroom. Lightroom can still do more, and there are a few things that are still private to it like its History states, but using Lightroom does not mean bowing to its organization or worrying about proprietary edits.
I'm nobody here or in the photography world but I've been with PS since version 5.5 and am now up to CS3. I do everything from web to print to video work on various subjects. PS is but one of my tools and until LR was my only image editor. Last November I bought LR2 to go with my new D90 as I've never really liked Bridge or ACR (for various reasons) but wanted to stick to RAW images.
I have to say that I was stunned. Since my adoption of LR I have only had to go into PS, well, I've yet to for anything related to the things that they both do. It was more than worth the money and I am floored that Adobe is not charging more for it. Perhaps we can thank Apple for the healthy competition?
I'll also second Scott Kelby's LR2 book.