Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Abandoning Lightroom  (Read 10788 times)
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« on: August 13, 2007, 04:58:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Just wondering if anyone else has or, is thinking of, abandoning Lightroom for other means.  If so; why and has it been a good experiance?

Thanks folks.

-mac
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2007, 05:14:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just wondering if anyone else has or, is thinking of, abandoning Lightroom for other means.  If so; why and has it been a good experiance?

Thanks folks.

-mac
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No.

edit: since this appears not to be a troll, I'll give a real reply.

Lightroom - and I'm sure Aperture which I haven't tried - does what it advertises: it enables digital photographers who shoot a lot to make some sense of the shots. I moved to digital just under a year ago, and I now shoot 100-1000 frames per session, which is an order of a magnitude more than I used to in film days. Going through them in any other program would be a nightmare. Although I shoot a minute fraction of the pros, I still benefit greatly from the workflow, selections, flagging, rating and other features.

As others have pointed out, LR brings together 90+% of the workflow from RAW to print. And from the LL LR Tutorial it's apparent that LR will become even more complete as softproofing, proper printing and sharpening are added. When that happens I'll only need PS for the occasional heavy-duty tweaking and Noise Ninja for noise reduction.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2007, 10:07:07 AM by feppe » Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5421


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2007, 05:23:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks folks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ok. . .see ya, bye...

(don't let the door hit ya on the way out)

:~)
Logged
rainiershooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2007, 05:26:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just wondering if anyone else has or, is thinking of, abandoning Lightroom for other means.  If so; why and has it been a good experiance?

Thanks folks.

-mac
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If it's been a good experience why would you "abandon" it??  The way you phrased your question implies you weren't happy with it.  Why not?

Personally, I couldn't be happier with Lightroom.
Logged
englishm
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2007, 05:40:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Abandon Lightroom?

You'll have to wrestle it from my cold dead hands.
Logged

sidfrisby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2007, 05:46:51 PM »
ReplyReply

As far as I am concerned, it's the best thing that has happened to my workflow in many years. Looking forward to version 2.0.

All the best
Logged

[span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-size:10pt;line-height:100%']Sid Frisby
Norwich (UK)
Sid Frisby Photography
Member: National Union of Journalists[/span][/span]
oldcsar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2007, 05:57:41 PM »
ReplyReply

With all due respect Macgyver, this is a pretty weak post. If you want to engage people in a discussion, you should be providing more information about your displeasure with Lightroom's results. Your tone makes it sound like you intended this post to be very open ended, but it really helps if people know where you're coming from.

I personally prefer Lightroom for image processing (followed by export to Photoshop) than the other competition. I do not print from Lightroom, make slideshows, or do any cataloging or organization within its Library (I use Photomechanic for that). I get the absolute best results from Lightroom's raw engine, and I achieve the desired look much quicker than Photoshop's Camera Raw. I have created my own develop presets, and have carefully created Neatimage profiles to match those presets. I also have DXO 4.5, and although an excellent program, I tend to use Lightroom over it. In addition, DXO has now been integrated with Lightroom as part of an optional workflow... I do like DXO's correction of optical flaws, chromatic aberration, and distortion.

So my current answer is No. I find the PS CS3 Camera Raw conversions tedious compared to Lightroom's. Targeted adjustment tool, the ability to create very flexible presets, and its intuitive GUI, all meet my current needs.
Logged

GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2007, 08:03:09 PM »
ReplyReply

No.  

Now it's live I have to say that I use PSx less and less.   After the 1.1 update I'm only really using PSx for HDR and Soft Proofing.  I started using it with the release of the first public beta and found it and Adobe to pretty responsive to my needs.  

My previous workflow was based around CaptureNX, Bridge and PSx.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2007, 08:03:35 PM by GregW » Logged
larryg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2007, 08:17:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I think Lightroom has improved my workflow and has eliminated many other programs that I used to do the same job that Lightroom can do.

I still have some issues on printing large prints and other things relating to image management, all of which is mostly a learning curve on my part.


I will hang in there and eventually most everything should be done in lightroom.
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2007, 08:18:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, sorry, didn't mean to rile anyone.  Let me explain some...

I've been using LR since Beta one. I've come to enjoy its develope module greatly, as I love having (mostly) everything in one place at one time.  I also find the GUI easy to use, and love the targeted adjustment tool - such a great resouce.

I was never a big fan of the database way of working though (and I know I'm not alone on this).  It works fine when I have a shoot of several hundred pictures, but not as well when I have only a few; then it's just a hoop to jump through.  As time as went on I've become more and more frustrated by that way of working.

My computer is an aging 1.67 G4 with a gig of ram.  I know it's not exactly an ideal machine for what I do, but I am a student and can not justify the money for a new one at this time.  On this machine Lightroom works OK, but is pretty slow when trying to run through and tag/cull photos; especially compared with something like PhotoMechanic (yes, I know I'm comparing Apples and Oranges here).

I suppose I could rephrase my question as this, :

Has anyone used Lightroom for a good period of time and then eventually decided to switch back to something like Photoshop/Bridge or the like? Why?

And Jeff, if I go anywhere it's back to photoshop/bridge (well, and maybe photomechanic) so I'm still in adobe's monolithic grasp.

Anyway, does that illuminate things better?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2007, 08:22:47 PM by macgyver » Logged
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2007, 08:46:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Yep, that explains a lot.  While I liked Lightroom on my old computer it was frankly unusable.  It was much faster for me to use BreezeBrowser and CS2.  Bridge with CS2 felt ungainly huge and slow.

A new dual-core with 4GB RAM and Lightroom is pretty nimble.  CS3 and Bridge are snappy as well.  

Now, I'm anxiously awaiting a number of Lightroom enhancements that I know Jeff is lobbying for, especially softproof and a better final sharpening.

I'm using Lightroom for all the front end work (instead of ACR) and popping to CS3 when needed.  

Sorry, I'm not someone abandoning LR.
Logged

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-family:Geneva'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Regards,
Ron[/span][/span][/span][/span]
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2007, 10:39:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was never a big fan of the database way of working though (and I know I'm not alone on this).  It works fine when I have a shoot of several hundred pictures, but not as well when I have only a few; then it's just a hoop to jump through.  As time as went on I've become more and more frustrated by that way of working.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133080\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you building standard sized previews when importing images?

I've not used Photomechanic but I'd find it hard to believe - based my own experience - that PS and Bridge/ACR would be any quicker.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2225



WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2007, 11:03:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Why do so many people expect an old, slow, outdated machine to perform well with the latest software?
Logged

oldcsar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2007, 11:32:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why do so many people expect an old, slow, outdated machine to perform well with the latest software?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sometimes I wonder the same thing about those who expect such things.

Also, the reason why Photo Mechanic is so fast at displaying them is because you aren't viewing RAW data at all, Photo Mechanic is extracting the embedded JPEGs. One easy way to prove this is converting your RAWs to DNG, and remove the JPEG previews while converting. If I do this, I can no longer view any DNG (former CR2) in Photo Mechanic. Photo Mechanic is so fast at displaying them because you ARE NOT actually looking at conversions, whereas programs like Bridge and Lightroom are ACTUALLY dealing with RAW conversion, and the previews reflect the individual changes you've made.
Logged

pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2007, 11:55:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I have to say I'm generally very impressed with Lightroom. I particularly like the far greater control over RAW development, and the B&W conversion has at least matched if not bettered my previous conversion plugin of choice (Convert to BW Pro, which to be honest I always thought was a little clumsy).  I don't use Lightroom for creation of web pages, I don't use it for slideshows, nor for printing.

As far as I'm concerned, the one great gaping hole in the functionality is the inability to handle large files.  I have a great number of 6x7 slide scans and a number of stitched panoramas, and I can't include these in my database.  I also found its performance to degrade quite quickly as I added a significant number of files (38,000 images so far) to the database.  I have two dual core 2.67GHz processors in my PC with 4Gb of fast RAM, and I still get frustrated waiting for the thumbnails and full-size images to snap into focus.

Overall though, I like Lightroom and it will be the core of my workflow from now on.
Logged
merg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2007, 01:24:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been using Lightroom since the first beta (on a old 'first gen' flat white iMac G5/1.5GB RAM) and now use it on a simple MacBook (latest model) with 2GB RAM with a separate Cinema Display and still loving it.

I read all this stuff about how slow it is. Well, ok, the import can take a while (rendering the 1:1 previews, which you all do right ;-)), but once that's done it goes very smooth. There are some thing you need to check, like making sure you aren't browsing through the images in develop mode, since then  it loads the raw in stead of the preview, and keep the catalog size 'manageable'. I split up my initial 54k database in 3 parts since the 1.1 introduced catalogs. One of 30K, 1 of 18K, and the 'current' one which is used for the new images of now about 6k, but still growing. This setup goes smooth.

Anyway, I also love DxO for it's optical corrections and since that's now integrated with LR (a bit rough still, like it doesn't copy all the metadata of the original) along with Photoshop I have pretty much all I need. An image for the printer goes to photoshop if additional non-parametric, pixel fine tuning is needed. Then a second copy is made for specific printer x/paper y treatment (output sharpening and since reviewing the fantastic video, some soft proofing tuning as well :-)

Some 'speciality' things need to be done 'outside' the LR/CS/DxO workflow. For example, creating a HDR (which I don't do often), the resulting image needs to be imported again and has no 'connection' with the original images, but this is done quickly manualy.

Anyway, although I also have Aperture, Lightroom is my tool of choice, because it's much faster (!) then Aperture and I love the develop module.
Logged

Regards,
Peter Mergaerts
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2007, 04:25:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, I couldn't get LR to run on my Mac Plus 512 either.

But seriously, I've been using LR since beta 1 and somehow I got on the list of beta testers that are featured on the Adobe LR website. I was even video interviewed by Adobe about my LR experiences at the Photo Plus Expo this past November. I had the dubious honor of walking into the interview room in the middle of Jeff Schewe's interview causing them to stop the filming. (Sorry about that Jeff, but the guy outside said walk right in.

I'm an amateur photographer with a passion for nature, fine art and travel subjects. I used to use CaptureOne and Photoshop, now I only use LR 1.1 and PS3. Fine art prints (flattened tiffs) are still output to my Epson R2400 with ImagePrint's excellent RIP (version 7.0 currently).

To me, the best thing about LR was the whole experience of the beta program. It encouraged great discussions (or debates) in these forums and others on workflow, the future of image processing software, and a host of other related topics that allowed a lot of people to communicate in forums that would otherwise not have existed. Personally, it fired up my passion for photography and allowed me to focus on making images and quickly and reliably refining them with post processing that used to be a tedious, one-at-a-time process.

As part of the beta experience, I actually ditched my Dell PC's and Windows XP (yeah!!!) and replaced them with a MacBook Pro 15" and a Mac Pro 8-core desktop. The last time that I used a Mac before switching was over 13 years ago. Thank you very much LR for bring me back to the Mac.

All of the cool stuff like the Adobe LR Adventure to Iceland, George Jardine's podcasts, tutorials by Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe became available to all of us because of LR. If you didn't advance your knowledge of photography and image processing by being exposed to some or all of this great stuff, then you must have been living under a rock for the past year.

One more thing. I support Michael and Jeff by buying the tutorials and most recently, their excellent "Camera to Print" series of tutorials and, of course, being a charter subscriber to Michael's Luminous Landscape Video Journal. So if you want the good stuff to continue, spend a few bucks.

Thanks to all for a great first year with LR. The future of this product and photography is very exciting.

Now, I'm off to Quebec city and Bar Harbor, Maine for an overdue family vacation. Of course, I'm taking my Canon 1Ds MkII, a couple of lenses and my MacBook Pro loaded with LR 1.1!

Cheers.

Bud James
North Wales, PA
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785


« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2007, 07:01:20 AM »
ReplyReply

No, I'm definitely not abandoning LR. For me it's the real deal. Rather, I'm waiting for the next version which I trust will sort out some frustrating bugs and address the issues raised in forums like this.  It's the way forward - current warts and all. From here on, it can only get better, given Adobe's commitment to the product and the talent at work behind the scenes. Most important of all for me is the basic fact that it's specifically for photographers. Not designers, graphic artists et all. PHOTOGRAPHERS.  

Is is hard to learn? Remember the learning curve needed for Photoshop?  Remember the nights and nights spent cross-eyed in front of a computer trying to come to grips with layers and all the rest? Remember the traditiional darkroom?  Remember developing negatives and wondering how you got it so wrong? Remember the sheer, back-breaking labour of making a decent print in developer and fixer? Remember the health risks? Remember the gut-wrenching disappointment on discovering the print you thought was brilliant in the darkroom was in fact rubbish when viewed in daylight? I could go on for pages and ages but I don't want to bore a whole generation of photographes who haven't the faintest clue what I'm talking about. Believe me, it was the dark ages compared to now.
 
In comparison, LR is intuitive and logical. It's a gigantic leap forward - a photographer's dream. It gives us the freedom to do what we do best - take pictures - without having to become too immersed in a technology for which many photographers (me included) have absolutely no talent.  Photoshop is a miracle, but it become too cumbersome trying to be all things to all men. Lightroom is for photographers only.  Roll on a better LR, but not before everything is in place.  I believe even at this early stage that LR is a significant step in the history of digital photographry. I expect the next stage will be an historic landmark against which everything else in the photo processing industry will be judged. It has the potential to be that good. Admittedly, in its current manifestation, LR has its problems. Many people don't like the data-base system because it is not familiar. In the long run, it's just a matter of adapting to it. Granted, the programme can be slow on some machines, including my own. In time, this will get better too.  There are many other niggles also, some infuriating. But none of these in itself is a problem that cannot be fixed. Look at CS3 (which I still use) compared to the first edition of Photoshop. If LR were to progress at the same rate, think what it could become. I believe it's on that road right now
Logged

picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2007, 08:29:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I personally prefer Lightroom for image processing (followed by export to Photoshop) than the other competition. I do not print from Lightroom, make slideshows, or do any cataloging or organization within its Library
<snip>
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, I"m not abandoning LR---in truth, I sort of just found my way back to LR after watching the Camera to Print videos.  I started with the beta, excitedly used the Develop module--(esp. since I hadn't really cared for PS's RC [ACR] since the PS7 plugin and was using 3rd party RCs) but moved away from it (even though I have 1.0 and now 1.1 on my HD) back to PS when PSCS3 came out--and esp. with 4.1.  

I've used Imatch for a DAM (but pretty basically since its sometimes more trouble than its worth to use all its features), used PS and Qimage to print, use actions in PS for web--so didn't feel a need for LR anymore---and--I always end up in PS for almost every image.

After watching the videos and the enthusiasm for LR, I wondered if I was really missing something LOL.  I bought the REALLY inexpensively priced LR tute with the 1.1 addition to bring me up to speed--and, in short order had 5 years of files imported (referenced from disk).  I had thought I could not use LR to catalog archived files--but found from the videos I could--and more easily searched than with Imatch (IMO).  I'm still keywording, but even what I have done (working on second year), has helped me on just 2 searches when needed.  I archive on external HDs plus DVDs and now know that I can continue to keyword on work on files without having the HDs hooked up--YAY!!!  I also found I could easily do a turnaround into PS and back pretty easily--not sure if I will or not--but export to PS is fast--and easy.  Still have to work that out for my workflow though.

So--like the above poster---I'm not using the print module (no softproof and sharpening is minimal), not using the web or slideshow module, but I'm using the library extensively--and I'm transitioning to using the develop module.  I'm still not sure if I prefer this or using ACR from Bridge.  

I also had a new computer built recently after PSCS3--and that, I'm sure, makes a difference in usage.

Diane
« Last Edit: August 14, 2007, 08:30:36 AM by picnic » Logged
X-Re
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2007, 09:45:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Since 1.1 arrived, I've been dealing with a lot of ... annoyances. My perception is that the performance has gotten a tad worse on the PC platform, and its prone to crashing fairly frequently (which, for me, means once a day). There are some features missing, obviously, and some that I'd like to work a bit differently.

Most of the slowness seems to be around building previews and the like - even when I generate 1:1 previews, things seem to take a while to load, and to change when I adjust the settings. And... sometimes clicking on handles for the sliders results in no change. I've reported this stuff to Adobe - they can't reproduce it, but others can. Hmmm...

Still.... I love the workflow, even with having to fly out to PS3 for some things. I love the Develop tab in 1.1. The B&W conversions are easier for me, too.

I will not be abandoning Lightroom, even with the current shortcomings. Future versions will fix some or all of these things (and undoubtedly cause other issues - that's the nature of software, folks), and the experience will get better.

Hopefully by the end of the year, I can upgrade hardware and at least address some of the slowness (currently on an Athlon64 3200+ w/ 2GB - not a slouch, but a solid generation behind). And, hopefully the software itself gets better, as well....
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad