Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom ? CS3 ? Where does each fit ?  (Read 19601 times)
tbonanno
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


WWW
« on: December 17, 2006, 06:57:09 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, maybe I'm just not getting it.  I've been using CS3 beta the past couple of days just to get familiar with what it offers over CS2.  I'm finding that all the tools that I've been excited about in Lightroom (the curves controls, vibrance slider, grayscale tools, exposure sliders, etc.) are ALL in CS3 too!  Admittedly, the library, slideshow module, etc. are not as handy, etc.  But the meat of Lightroom appears to be well addressed in CS3.

SOoo, why would I need or want Lightroom ?  I'm sort of confused as to how the two programs "compliment" each other or what the plan is for marketing ?  I can certainly see why someone would purchase Lightroom if they were not already using the full Photoshop.  However, if they are using CS2 and migrate to CS3, not sure I understand where Lightroom would fit now ?  

Anyone else have any thoughts about this or maybe someone can point a good reason where a photographer would want/need both ?

Happy holidays everyone..

Tony Bonanno
Logged

Tony Bonanno Photography
ASMP General Member
Santa Fe, New Mexico
http://www.bonannophoto.com
Henrik Paul
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2006, 07:30:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom is an organizer/raw-converter
Photoshop is an editor/raw-converter

So, they kind of intertwine. As the developers from Adobe have said from day 1, Lightroom will be in symbiosis with Photoshop, and they complement eachother. I think you could think of Lightroom as an advanced Bridge, although Bridge looks and feels a lot like Lightroom.

There's some features in Lightroom that I found missing in CS3 beta, like printing several photos on one go and such. I'm sure there are many others like this.
Logged

You are welcome to look at my thoughts of and about photography at http://www.henrik.paul.fi/
David White
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2006, 08:51:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Since taking a look at the new Bridge, I'm also wondering how all this will fit together.  The RAW controls in Bridge appear to parallel Lightroom and will probably meet my RAW processing needs fairly well.  Both have file managment and browsing capabilities and neither is a DAM solution.

Lightroom offers printing, slide shows and web galleries, most of which I don't care about having in a RAW converter.

It seems that Lightroom is the solution for people who need to process and output, in some form. large quantities of pictures whereas the Bridge/Photoshop solution is more for low quantity, perhaps higher quality processing of images.

I was pretty excited about Lightroom, but after seeing the new Bridge, I'm not sure that I have reason to purchase it for the type of work I do.  We'll have to see whether the final feature set has some additions that would sway me.
Logged

David White
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2006, 09:38:49 PM »
ReplyReply

My understanding from Adobe's marketing material is that Lightroom is supposed to be used as a RAW converter, image organizer and to do basic/global adjustments. For those photos which require more extensive retouching one can go to CS to make the adjustments. According to the same marketing material "professionals" find that 90% of their work can be done in Lightroom with the rest done in CS.

Whether this is the case for an individual or whether this is how people us them is another matter. But that's pretty much how I use them: I work with each shoot in Lightroom until I have the keepers. They will get their global adjustments and then I'll move to CS to finish off the work.
Logged

Roy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2006, 10:22:10 PM »
ReplyReply

If you go to this thread in the Lightroom discussion forum on the Adobe web site:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/for...2&enterthread=y

and scroll down to the response from Tom Hogarty (Lightroom product manager), you can get some insight into how Adobe sees the two products fitting in.
Logged

Roy
tbonanno
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2006, 11:46:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and comments.  Roy, I just checked out Tom Hogarty's response on the topic.  Thanks for the link.    I guess we'll all figure out how the two best fit into our workflow with time and experience.  I agree that Lightroom's print module, slideshow, etc. may have certain capabilities that are unique.  I was surprised though to see how much the two programs overlap.  

I guess what I'd like to see someday is ONE program for photographers that combines the best of both programs.  For example, when working in Lightroom's Develop module, I'd like to be able to apply the clone tool or perspective controls in the crop tool, etc. without having to migrate into another program (CS3).   Regardless, Lightroom (and now CS3) have definitely strengthened my image processing workflow.

Quote
If you go to this thread in the Lightroom discussion forum on the Adobe web site:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/for...2&enterthread=y

and scroll down to the response from Tom Hogarty (Lightroom product manager), you can get some insight into how Adobe sees the two products fitting in.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: December 18, 2006, 10:44:28 AM by tbonanno » Logged

Tony Bonanno Photography
ASMP General Member
Santa Fe, New Mexico
http://www.bonannophoto.com
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2006, 09:15:37 AM »
ReplyReply

In the current issue of Lens Work, the editorial by Brooks Jensen makes the point that the strength of Lightroom is in managing very large volumes of shots.  If you typically come back from a shoot with a couple of thousand images Lightroom will likely add value over and above PS.  

Now that editorial was pre CS3, so it will be interesting to see how the products evolve.  I don't think it's a stretch to think that PS could offer the database management model as an option, as opposed to the cached thumbnails of the current PS, and give the user the best of both worlds.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2006, 09:16:11 AM by Tim Gray » Logged
Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2006, 12:16:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In the current issue of Lens Work, the editorial by Brooks Jensen makes the point that the strength of Lightroom is in managing very large volumes of shots.  If you typically come back from a shoot with a couple of thousand images Lightroom will likely add value over and above PS.   

Now that editorial was pre CS3, so it will be interesting to see how the products evolve.  I don't think it's a stretch to think that PS could offer the database management model as an option, as opposed to the cached thumbnails of the current PS, and give the user the best of both worlds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lightroom came after Aperture. If Aperture came before Bridge, it would not be a stretch to think that Bridge and Lightroom would have rolled into one. As it is now, Adobe cannot abandon Bridge in CS3, nor can they incorporate all the Lightroom features. For those who need both, they have to pay for both.

If Adobe is *really* interested in a product just for the photographers, they could strip all the graphic design features and incorporate only what photographers need.
But that would make the product speedier, less bulky, and less expensive. Definitely a pipe dream and not in Adobe's interest.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2006, 02:11:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lightroom came after Aperture. If Aperture came before Bridge, it would not be a stretch to think that Bridge and Lightroom would have rolled into one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91217\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, what would eventually become Lightroom was started in Dec 2002. And what would become Aperture in mid-2003. The fact that Aperture came to market first was a combination of heel dragging by Adobe and premature release by Apple. If you know the people involved (and I do) there is no WAY Lightroom and Bridge would/will ever be merged. One is a browser and one is a database-two entirely different apps and markets.

Yes, at version 2.0 Bridge is now actually more advanced regarding some things than Lightroom which is still a beta version (it hasn't shipped yet). But Bridge will -NEVER- be for just photographers and Lightroom will -NEVER- be for graphic design or prepress.

As both apps age and progress, the differences will become more clear. As for Aperture? I really don't know it's future...be a single OS app is really not in its long term best interest but I seriously doubt it would ever go cross platform. And, even if Apple HAS switched to Intel, the market for pro photographers is about 52% Windows (MSFT's own research) when you throw in passionate amateurs, the %'s go ever further into MSFT's favor.

Not sure how an app can compete while going after only a subset of the total market.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2006, 03:27:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not sure how an app can compete while going after only a subset of the total market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree. The biggest single challenge that Aperture faces comes down to software politics and marketing. As long as Adobe keeps pushing out cross-platform versions of PS and Lightroom, it seems that it would behoove professionals to stay with Adobe -- that way, if you change jobs to a company that uses the other operating system, you can move seamlessly, and you don't have to learn an entirely new app. Eventually, I suspect, Aperture will become one of the series of Apple apps that aren't quite as good as the Windows options...(I'm a total Mac user here, so this isn't system chauvanism on my part.)

I also think that if Adobe doesn't differentiate Lightroom from Bridge even more, and as Bridge continues to evolve (and it must, if Adobe wants to continue selling upgrades), then Lightroom could fall by the wayside. So my belief is that Adobe WILL continue to differentiate the two: I suspect there'll be some pleasant surprises in the first Lightroom commercial version, that will make it even more the "single" management/RAW/darkroom-stye adjustments app for straight photographers, while PS continues to evolve toward an ever-more-intricate photo/art model.

JC
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7041


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2006, 03:45:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not sure how an app can compete while going after only a subset of the total market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

I sense you are "right on the money" - once again - but for the last sentence. One of the things about Apple is that by hook or by crook or cross-subsidizing one venture with another, they've managed to survive as a comparatively closed-loop computing environment, because so many people, regardless of the percentages, appreciate the quality of what they offer - and I say that as an MSFT Windows user (which happened for "legacy" reasons, not because I think it better than Mac). So without knowing the economics of producing and supporting a venture like Aperture, I can still imagine it being possible that they will sell enough of these licenses to keep it in the black. Not impossible?

What I find really interesting in your post is the data on how the market has evolved. As we all know, there was a time (recent) when Mac had a real commercial predominance in the digital imaging and graphic arts community. This seems to have eroded considerably - and at a couple of PhotoshopWorld conventions I attended I've heard similar statistics to what you quote above from other people in the industry who are not related to Microsoft. So it is real. I think what's happening is that Windows has improved very considerably since the bad old days of Windows 95, such that all those people who for one reason or another think they need the predominant O/S for non-graphics related business (valid supposition or not, it's there), they are doing their digital stuff with it too and finding it workable.

Getting back On T, also interesting now that CS3 Beta is released, is to see how many features of Lightroom have turned up in Camera Raw CS3 Beta. So if we're talking about applications tripping over eachother - this two-some is even more curious than any supposed redundancy between Lightroom and Bridge, which as you say, are not even similarly purposed!

My profound regret, and I am sure I have much company, is that we will not have a "Real World Camera Raw CS3" from Bruce Fraser. This program up-grade is so substantial that his intellect and skill at explaining how to make such applications most useful to our needs will be all the more sorely missed. His passing was a great, tragic loss - quite apart from anything technical he was such a fine, personable gentleman. I hope PixelGenius will survive this and continue to do the good things you have been doing.

I know this post is a bit scattered, but in some way it is all very simultaneous in reality and at least in my mind related, so I said it as such.

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
michaelclark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2006, 12:29:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Tony et all -

The main difference I find after using Lightroom extensively and CS3 the last few days is speed. Lightroom, if used correctly, can blow the doors off a CS3 workflow especially with large numbers of images. Once Lightroom becomes version 1.0 the speed will increase and the difference will become much more apparent.

From my understanding CS3 has to have all the same adjustments otherwise if you open up RAW images with Lightroom generated xmp sidecar files in Bridge they will not be shown as they have been adjusted - this is the case with CS2 currently. The programs overlap quite a bit to be sure but that just gives us more options.

A few of you here have bought my Lightroom workflow -- if you read it carefully you'll understand that while Lightroom seems simple and intuitive some of the small details will make it run much faster. For editing I would rather use Lightroom any day over CS3 and ACR. For my workflow one of the big show-stoppers is checking image sharpness and comparing similar images - basically image editing and this is where Lightroom really kicks CS3's behind. I for one am not all that impressed with Bridge 2.0 and it's lack of speed.

If anyone is interested in the Lightroom workflow email me off list or check it out on my website at:

http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/workflow.html

I hope this helps a little - as others have said what Lightroom will become remains to be seen but I am willing to bet it will become a great image management and cataloging/digital asset management tool by version 2.0. That will set it apart a bit more.

Cheers, Michael Clark
« Last Edit: December 19, 2006, 01:23:04 AM by michaelclark » Logged

[span style='color:green']Michael Clark Photography
Santa Fe, New Mexico
ASMP, EP, TOPA[/span]
mjcphoto@comcast.net[/a]
[a href='http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com]http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5529


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2006, 12:35:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My profound regret, and I am sure I have much company, is that we will not have a "Real World Camera Raw CS3" from Bruce Fraser. This program up-grade is so substantial that his intellect and skill at explaining how to make such applications most useful to our needs will be all the more sorely missed. His passing was a great, tragic loss - quite apart from anything technical he was such a fine, personable gentleman. I hope PixelGenius will survive this and continue to do the good things you have been doing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
]

Thanks for your kind words...yes, PG will continue although without another of its brothers...we'll all miss Bruce but for various reasons. Rather than think of the industry's loss though, let's remember what the industry gained from Bruce. While the public side of Bruce is pretty obvious-his writings and teachings, there's the private, behinds the scenes side of Bruce that will probably now come out. Bruce was not one to toot his own horn...so we'll all do it for him.

Many people did know he was a Buddhist (although many people could probably guess based upon his manner and demeanor). He was at peace with himself and the world and would not want an untoward amount of grief over his passing. Cherish what he did do...and who he was.
Logged
tbonanno
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 19, 2006, 12:48:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
He was at peace with himself and the world and would not want an untoward amount of grief over his passing. Cherish what he did do...and who he was.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91425\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for that perspective Jeff....
Logged

Tony Bonanno Photography
ASMP General Member
Santa Fe, New Mexico
http://www.bonannophoto.com
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7041


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2006, 09:09:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the improvements of the new ACR are both very remarkable and most welcome. It has already started to revolutionize my workflow and I have no doubt will do so for many others too. One can always hope for everything under the sun and find what we have has "shortcomings" relative to "hopes" that may or may not be realistic. What other raw converter out there has all those features you find lacking as well as the new features in ACR4?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad