Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why I won't be using Lightroom  (Read 10676 times)
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« on: February 19, 2007, 11:35:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Lightroom looks to be great, but have no intention of using it now.
I just don't see why I need it. What can it do that I can't do in Photoshop CS3?

The ideal user seems to be commercial/wedding photographers who cranks out lots of images and who have never mastered Photoshop.
Someone who knows photography well, but is not a computer geek and does not want to waste hours reading thick books.

Lightroom has a beautiful and logical interface.
However, it only does global corrections to images.
I like to also do "local" corrections such as: removing spots, altering color of one area only, changing contrast in one are only.

If I were starting new today (and hadn't been using Photoshop for 17-years) then undoubtedly I would primarily use Lightroom and finish up my images in Photoshop. The learning curve would be less steep.

The thing is, I already know Photoshop well. I have already climbed that steep learning curve.  I am a fine-art Nature photographer and handling my volume of images is no big deal.

Does anyone disagree with my logic?
Logged

Henry

Henry Domke Fine Art
www.henrydomke.com
Carl Harsch
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2007, 11:45:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Isn't it all about doing what works best for you?  If you're content with what you're using, keep doing so.

I am eligible for a free copy of LR 1.0 (RSP registered owner) and thus will download and use it.  However, like you, I enjoy the workflow and power of Photoshop and will likely continue to do the majority of my work with Photoshop...from ACR to finished product.

There will be some photo shoots that lend themselves well to the workflow of LR and for those I will likely utilize the simplicity LR affords.

What IS nice is that we have so many options available to us for our work ... we are not stuck with just one option.
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2007, 03:30:47 PM »
ReplyReply

So... (to paraphrase) commercial/wedding photographers who crank out lots of images and who have mastered Photoshop won't see any value in LR?

I've followed the development cycle and reviews of LR for the past year.  I agree that without significant volume LR doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to relegate LR to users who don't understand Photoshop.  BTW, LR v1.0 does do spot removal.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 03:31:19 PM by Tim Gray » Logged
paulbk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2007, 03:56:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I’ve been using Lightroom v1.0 demo version for a few days on a 300+ file shoot. I just now ordered the download version... Adobe’s system is very busy now, but I was able to use the serial number from my order to register my demo version.

After playing with beta 4.1, I was initially skeptical.. “do I really need a database” oriented photo organizing/editing program?

Answer: Yes, I do. Lightroom v1.0 is fantastic! Worth it for RAW conversion alone. More, I can do 95% of crop, tone and color editing without ever using Photoshop. Lightroom is not a replacement for Photoshop. But for 100+ file shoots, it sure do save time. I predict Lightroom will be a HUGE success.
Congrats Adobe Lightroom team!

paul

ps: I also use BreezeBrowse Pro and Downloader Pro. Still an *essential* set of photo software as far as I’m concerned.
Logged

paul b. kramarchyk
Barkhamsted, Connecticut, USA
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2007, 04:21:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So... (to paraphrase) commercial/wedding photographers who crank out lots of images and who have mastered Photoshop won't see any value in LR?
Tim,
No, that is not exactly what I was trying to say.
Lets just consider two variables: Volume of shooting & Photoshop Skills.

High Volume Shooter and  Low Photoshop Skills = Ideal Lightroom User
High Volume Shooter and High Photoshop Skills = Might find Lightroom Useful (that is who you described). They might see speeded up production and could enjoy the DAM features.
Low Volume Shooter and High Photoshop Skills = No need for Lightroom (that is me)
Low Volume Shooter and Low Photoshop Skills = Should try Lightroom (easier to learn  than Photoshop).

Does that makes sense? Am I on track here?

Thanks,
Henry
Henry Domke Fine Art
Logged

Henry

Henry Domke Fine Art
www.henrydomke.com
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2670



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2007, 05:00:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Henry

You're on track as far as your own needs are concerned. Fine art one-off deep Photoshop pixel editing is still Photoshop's domain. When volume comes into the equation, regardless of your Photoshop skills, then Lightroom starts to make more sense. Even if you know scripting, actions, droplets etc backwards, Photoshop's batch processing is nowhere near as flexible or straightforward.

John
Logged

Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2007, 05:48:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think PS skills are relevant.   FWIW I just loaded 300 CR2 files into Lightroom and was able to start working them a lot faster than in ACR/Bridge.
Logged
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2007, 06:10:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't think PS skills are relevant.   FWIW I just loaded 300 CR2 files into Lightroom and was able to start working them a lot faster than in ACR/Bridge.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Would you then argue that everyone who does digital imaging should get Lightroom?

It is not clear to me What I cando in Lightroom do that I can't do in Photoshop CS3. And because I know PS so well; all the keystrokes, all the commands, it is very fast in PS for me.

By the way, loading my CR2 files on my intel-based Mac is VERY fast using CS3 ACR/Bridge.

Why should I go to the trouble to learn (and pay for) yet another program? I would argue that for users like me (Low Volume, High Photoshop Skills) that Lightroom offers nothing that I really need. Maybe some eye candy.

Henry
[a href=\"http://www.henrydomke.com]Henry Domke Fine Art[/url]
Logged

Henry

Henry Domke Fine Art
www.henrydomke.com
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2007, 07:28:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Need is relative.  There are those who don't need more than Gimp, or Elements, or PS 5 or whatever.

Everyone who shoots somewhere in excess of 10k or 15k frames per year should at least download the 30 day demo and give it a try.  Learning curve for 80% productivity is a couple of hours.  

I should note that it's free for me as an Pixmantec RSP user.
Logged
Richard Marcellus
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2007, 08:37:06 PM »
ReplyReply

My volume is in the 5-10K range / year and I even found the Bridge/CR/PS path too slow and I am pretty experienced with PS. I ended up switching to P1C1 for downloading, making selects and doing raw conversions then went to PS and LightZone for further tweaking.

Since LRbeta4 I have been transitioning over to LR and I just bought V1. I find that mixing browsing/pick selection, metadata input, and developing works well for me. I like the interface and I can switch between tasks easily depending on my mood. I still will go into PS and/or LZ for selective editing and sharpening, but I prefer LR as the front end.

LR also works well as a back end. I like printing from LR and for web galleries it is a pleasure to use. Fine Art printing will still be via ImagePrint for me, but anything else is from LR now.

The DAM features of LR also work well for me and my volume of shooting. It isn't really elaborate, but it is good enough. I tested Portfolio and IVMP and I just found them to be too much trouble. What are you using for a DAM?

Richard
Logged
hdomke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2007, 08:50:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What are you using for a DAM?

Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have tried everything and liked nothing. I do use iView MediaPro and it is okay.
For the kind of work I do (only about 4 to 8,000 new images a year) I actually find Bridge handles a lot of what I need. And Bridge CS3 is so much better!

Henry
Logged

Henry

Henry Domke Fine Art
www.henrydomke.com
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2007, 10:00:15 PM »
ReplyReply

This is in good part an artificial discussion. If you have used both Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw 4 bundled with Beta CS3 you will have observed that they are VERY similar. So if you shoot RAW, whether you "Develop" them in Lightroom or develop them in ACR4 and then proceed into Photoshop for the stuff those programs don't do but you need, six of one and half a dozen of the other. The appeal of a program like Lightroom is that it can do much of what many images will need self-contained but with its modular structure I predict it will grow like topsy into a very versatile, convenient high-quality image editing toolset. The key things Lightroom really needs urgently will be sharpening, and the ability to do soft-proofing before printing.
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
nicolaasdb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2007, 11:44:25 PM »
ReplyReply

just got the LR1.0 version.....and it looks pretty much the same as the beta 4.1...but it has a couple of features which are super....and the ease of import color correct and making a website gallery are worth the 200 bucks!
Logged
oldcsar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2007, 01:37:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom may seem especially attractive to wedding photographers, but I think it's more true to say that it's attractive to anyone who takes lots of photos in a moment, whether it's routine or sporradic, hobby or professional. I don't take thousands of photos a month, but I do take several dozen of a certain subject to guarantee one with good focus, composition, and exposure. LR has the ability to apply very specific global adjustments to any of those photos prior to having to perform any conversion through Camera Raw or Bridge. It allows quick browsing with a sleek interface... the process of preparing photos for presentation is more enjoyable than PS.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I find Lightroom a most welcome addition to the Adobe workflow. The fact that Lightroom is designed to work with CS3 suggests that CS3 can't do everything Lightroom can, and vice versa. It remains to be seen what these differences will actually be until CS3 is finally released. Until then, only you and your experience with Lightroom will determine its value.

I'm not sure about Lightroom appealing especially to those who haven't "mastered" photoshop. I find that Lightroom accomplishes most of the work I do in photoshop, with exception to noise reduction and sharpening (and these are PS Plugins, not proprietary)... but for the things it does, it does it more intuitively than CS2... I won't speak for CS3, because we have yet to see a final version.

 If Michael R. now uses lightroom in his workflow, does this also mean that he  hasn't mastered photoshop? Clearly, there are examples of professional and experienced photographers who see the value in Lightroom. On the other hand, if beginners find Lightroom easier to use, and they produce beautiful photographs with its help, then what exactly is the problem?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2007, 02:31:01 AM by oldcsar » Logged

Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2007, 02:40:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I like LR 1.0, much better than the Betas, faster, more responsive etc. It's a nice bit of software and I will probably use it for the web galleries.

However, it is still not a good enough browser, IMHO. It has to generate high q thumbs from RAW data and this takes too long. Banging through a shoot checking for sharpness in 100% zooms is still tedious. I know why it works this way, and that is fine, but it still does not meet the needs of someone who has to do a fast edit.

I still use Photomechanic and I know of no other software that can open DNG or RAW files at 100% as fast as PM can. It pulls out the embedded preview, it does not convert the RAW data (it can't). Thus it's faster.

'Horses for courses' for me. I have yet to change my opinion that LR is trying to be too many things for too many people.

Did I mention that I do like the web galleries...  :-)
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
LGeb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2007, 09:23:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I won't be using it because it doesn't support files larger than 10,000 pixels in one dimension. This makes it a poor choice for DAM. Even if you don't scan film, many here stitch panoramas that have long dimensions greater than this. How Adobe lets this limit exist in the final is beyond me. I guess I will stick to iViewMediaPro and Photoshop.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2007, 11:31:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I like the fact that LR and CS2 work well together; I'm like Oldcsar. I may go out and shoot 400 shots in a couple of hours, especially when I'm screwing around in my boat, maybe shooting a regattta, but with the idea of really focusing on one or two shots. Lightroom allows for a fast import and scan, fast discard, intuitive selection and the ability to quickly enlarge something for a better look and then move on...and when you get your two or three shots, it's easy to take them into CS2 for more work. Haven't tried CS3, but probably will.

JC
« Last Edit: February 20, 2007, 11:31:21 AM by John Camp » Logged
jschone
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2007, 11:37:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
By the way, loading my CR2 files on my intel-based Mac is VERY fast using CS3 ACR/Bridge.

Henry
Henry Domke Fine Art
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101776\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Henry,

Little bit off topic, but doesn't it bother you that the cursor is not behaving properly with CS3 and Intel based macs? Like you I do a lot of local corrections, but CS3 with the "defective" cursor makes it impossible to use, so I am back to CS2, with all performance issues involved.

How do you cope with that?


Jochem
« Last Edit: February 20, 2007, 11:39:13 AM by jschone » Logged
orangekay
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2007, 08:23:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is not clear to me What I cando in Lightroom do that I can't do in Photoshop CS3.

I haven't bothered with CS3 yet, but Lightroom's primary appeal to me is the fact that it provides the user with the full compliment of ACR image adjusting tools regardless of whether or not you're actually working with camera raw files. This is quite a boon to retouching, and while Lightroom's interface is frustratingly slow and unresponsive, I still find that I am able to accomplish more in less time when using it. The "Fill Light" and HSL adjustment sliders alone make 90% of the stuff I'd normally do to correct exposures in Photoshop fly by in just a few clicks, and they do it frighteningly well.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2007, 08:24:10 PM by orangekay » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2007, 08:44:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The "Fill Light" and HSL adjustment sliders alone make 90% of the stuff I'd normally do to correct exposures in Photoshop fly by in just a few clicks, and they do it frighteningly well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Both of these tools are in ACR4 which is bundled with CS3.
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] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad