Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: which one do I buy now?  (Read 3362 times)
monik
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« on: July 18, 2007, 12:01:53 PM »
ReplyReply

At the moment I can't afford to buy both, I have CS2 which I love and use frequently; I also have a trial version of Lightroom, I understand they do not do the same thing; which to buy first and then possibly the other one when I have saved enough again.  I am an amateur doing mostly nature photography, shooting raw and printing my own photos for competitions and others.  Thanks for helping me,
Monik
Logged
Recked
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2007, 12:05:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey,

That would depend I guess on whether you need the DAM functionality of Lightroom. If not, then safe your cash and just keep using CS2 or pay for the upgrade to CS3. If you need DAM however and Lightroom is the app you want for this purpose then go for Lightroom and continue to use CS2 for the time being.

Best of luck
Logged
davepatt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2007, 12:40:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I was in the same situation a month ago and decided to go with the Lightroom route.  I have never been happier!!!  I love the program.  It has improved my workflow immensely and if I have to so some PS work, I can easily go back to CS2 and do the edit and then back to LR.

I highly recommend the Luminous Landscapes video tutorials on LR.  They helped out a lot!!!!

Dave

Quote
Hey,

That would depend I guess on whether you need the DAM functionality of Lightroom. If not, then safe your cash and just keep using CS2 or pay for the upgrade to CS3. If you need DAM however and Lightroom is the app you want for this purpose then go for Lightroom and continue to use CS2 for the time being.

Best of luck
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128862\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Dave Pattinson
Pattinson Photography
www.pattinsonphotography.com

John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2007, 12:58:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I also have CS2 and sprung for LR.  1.1 has made me even happier with my decision - I mainly use CS2 for perspective control, soft proofing and printing at this point.
Logged

johnwolf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2007, 03:31:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I faced the same dilemma and opted for LR as a lower cost solution. It's wonderful.

I now do everything I can in LR and then open in CS2 for dodging/burning and other local edits. I also print from CS2 for it's better profiling and soft-proofing.  

Basically Photoshop functions more and more like a plug-in for me. I plan to add CS3, but for now LR and CS2 make a great combo.

John
Logged

Web site | New PDF book:  What the Light Does
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2007, 06:39:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I bought Lightroom as a lower cost option and now sorely regret it.  I'm about to buy CS3 and Photomechanic.  Lightroom is just too slow and I'm finding that (in the long run) I dont care for the database thing.

If all you want it for is DAM then download the demo of Photo Mechanic and compare the speed; you will be impressed.
Logged
bobtowery
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2007, 04:42:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Count me in the group that wishes I could use LR exclusively.

Some of it depends on how much you shoot. If you shoot 100 pictures per month, it doesn't matter what you do, it's manageable.

If you are shooting thousands of images per month, the DAM and other workflow benefits will help you tremendously.

I have been using PS since 5.0.  LR takes digital photography to a new level. I'm hopeful that in time the few remaining things I do in photoshop will become available in LR.
Logged

budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2007, 06:50:51 AM »
ReplyReply

If you can afford both, get both. If you can afford only one, get LR. Since installing LR, I rarely use PS CS3 except for when images need a lot of work or distortion/perspective corrections.

For most normal photo selection, cropping, adjusting and editing tasks, LR is the best product ever made. It even works great for nondestructive editing of JPEGs.

Bud James
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
MarcRochkind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2007, 12:48:36 PM »
ReplyReply

For me, the most important thing is the new raw processing in Lightroom 1.1 or Camera Raw 4.1 (available only for PS CS3; won't work with CS2).

LR isn't a good choice for fine-art prints because (1) it has no soft proofing, and (2) its sharpening (especially output sharpening) is inadequate (it has no plug-in infrastructure). So, following the advice in the new LL tutorial on printing, I do nearly all of my image adjusting in LR and go to PS to sharpen (with PhotoKit Sharpener) and print. For that much, I think CS2 is entirely suitable, and I haven't yet upgraded to CS3, nor do I see a need to.

So, my advice is that if you don't want the cataloging features of LR and are going to sharpen and print in PS, you should just upgrade to CS3 so you can use ACR4.1 and then use a Bridge/PS workflow instead of a LR/PS workflow.

If the cataloging features in LR are OK (they are for me) and you're going to sharpen and print in LR (which is outstanding for printing--it just doesn't have soft proofing), then LR is a great choice. Generally, LR is the tool when you want to treat lots of images in assembly-line fashion (e.g., weddings); PS is better when you want to, and can afford to, spend time on each image.

It's a good bet that LR will have soft-proofing before output sharpening. Jeff Schewe hinted at that in the tutorial, and they just vastly improved the sharpening in 1.1 already. Eventually, LR might have both, at which point there will be no need to ever go to PS unless you need non-parametric (pixel-by-pixel) editing.

--Marc
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad