Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What do like/dislike about Lightroom?  (Read 8354 times)
oceanrhythms
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« on: May 24, 2010, 10:35:24 PM »
ReplyReply

What do like/dislike about Lightroom?  I am doing research and trying to decide on purchasing Lightroom (when the new version comes out) or Apeture 3.  Thanks for your insight!

John
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 10:36:27 PM by oceanrhythms » Logged
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 846



« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2010, 11:44:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom has a 30 day trial period to find out if it will work for you. The current version is 2.7 and 3.0 will have a trial period as well.

 As for my opinion, it works very well for me and gets better with each iteration. Like anything man made, it has its niggles but I look at it as a work in progress.

Rich
Logged

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2010, 02:26:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: oceanrhythms
What do like/dislike about Lightroom?  I am doing research and trying to decide on purchasing Lightroom (when the new version comes out) or Apeture 3.  Thanks for your insight!

John


Lightroom V3 beta has matured into an excellent product, but not a one stop shop for some basics.

When time is on my side, working in and outputting in ProPhoto RGB (RGB values - Melissa RGB - gamma 2.2 sRGB tone curve) is the best choice for my archive. However if I need to send an image to a client under time constraints, in Adobe RGB or sRGB, without clipping, it is quicker to use ACR's colour space options and histogram feedback in order to adjust and export a file without clipping. Lightroom provides various colour space options on export but this is useless if no, or targeted black clipping, is required.

If I was shooting the odd landscape, portrait or beer cans I personally would stick with ACR.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 05:41:48 AM by Nick Walker » Logged

geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2010, 03:00:55 AM »
ReplyReply

love it, hardly ever touch photoshop these days...

features missing:

softproofing
batch renaming of files
lack of personal keyboard shortcuts
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2851



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2010, 05:13:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: geesbert
batch renaming of files
Huh? It's been there since day 1.

The original poster should just download both programs and make his own mind up. If he's on PC, note though that Aperture is limited to the Mac.

John
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2851



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2010, 05:50:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll point to 10 important distinguishing features:

1. You can see exactly where your files are in LR (even with "referenced" files in Aperture, that's impossible/impractical)
2. LR works on PC or Mac, so you're not forced to buy one brand of computer, can easily change, and have access to a far bigger pool of knowledge and support
3. You can process large numbers of images much more quickly using LR's Auto Sync mode to adjust multiple images with a single mouse stroke (much more efficient than copy and paste or lift and stamp)
4. The Before / After view splits the screen and is excellent for fine tuning your adjustments.
5. The "targeted adjustment tool" allows you to make adjustments by dragging over the image, so you keep your eye on its appearance as you're working
6. Even months later, you can use History steps to restore images' previous appearance
7. You can apply split tones to black and white pictures
8. Camera profiles enable you to mimic cameras' built-in picture styles and apply alternative rendition of the raw data, as well as creating your own
9. Moving work between computers is simple
10. In LR3, the noise reduction is astonishing

John
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 05:50:28 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

Hywel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2010, 06:53:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: johnbeardy
I'll point to 10 important distinguishing features:

1. You can see exactly where your files are in LR (even with "referenced" files in Aperture, that's impossible/impractical)

Agreed, that's a primary philosophical difference between the way the two programs are organised. Lightroom's internal organisation mirrors the organisation on your disk. Aperture's internal organisation is completely independent of your disk. It can be set up to mirror it if that's your preferred way of working, but that's never as transparent as it is with Lightroom. On the other hand, Aperture's independence of the organisation of files on disk permits organisations based on logical structures rather than physical ones, and so is more flexible.

Quote from: johnbeardy
2. LR works on PC or Mac, so you're not forced to buy one brand of computer, can easily change, and have access to a far bigger pool of knowledge and support
3. You can process large numbers of images much more quickly using LR's Auto Sync mode to adjust multiple images with a single mouse stroke (much more efficient than copy and paste or lift and stamp)

Lift and stamp is slower, but not as much slower as you might suggest: select all images, one mouse click to bring up the lift-stamp box, one more to apply it to all selected images. I've just moved from LR3b2 to Ap3 and I find the two operations basically the same. So I wouldn't agree that it is MUCH quicker. Marginally quicker, perhaps.

Quote from: johnbeardy
4. The Before / After view splits the screen and is excellent for fine tuning your adjustments.

Yes, this is certainly easier in Lightroom. Aperture can quickly swap between the master image without adjustments and the version with adjustments (just hit M) but it is not as nice as split screen for detailed comparisons.

Quote from: johnbeardy
5. The "targeted adjustment tool" allows you to make adjustments by dragging over the image, so you keep your eye on its appearance as you're working
6. Even months later, you can use History steps to restore images' previous appearance
7. You can apply split tones to black and white pictures
8. Camera profiles enable you to mimic cameras' built-in picture styles and apply alternative rendition of the raw data, as well as creating your own

These are nice features of Lightroom which are better implemented there than Aperture.

Quote from: johnbeardy
9. Moving work between computers is simple

My experience is that Aperture 3's new library handling actually puts it ahead of Lightroom here.

Quote from: johnbeardy
10. In LR3, the noise reduction is astonishing

Yup, so if you shoot lots of high ISO noise-ridden images, that may well be the killer feature to decide in favour of LR regardless of other shortcomings.

I do mostly base ISO work lit with studio flash so Aperture's much better retouch, skin smoothing and other local adjustment tools plus the generally greater coherence of its user interface for my way of working, swung it the other way for me.

  Cheers, Hywel.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 06:54:20 AM by Hywel » Logged
Steven Draper
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2010, 07:00:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Likes:

I like the way it works with the 'referenced file' ie the file structure in LR is the same as ones folder system on the Hard Drive and changing the file name in the tab makes the same change in the file system.
It is possible to sync with the files in the relevant folders easily - I find this important as I work with a lot of external software.
Batch adjustment selections.
Choice of 2 external software editing suites.
Choice of opening in external software with or without LR edits.

Dislike:

I've never been happy with the conversion of Nikon RAW files in version 2.x. (not tried 3.0) A comparison of Nikon Capture NX2 nearly always creates better results.
Having to swap back and forth between screens to access various information.
Logged

image examples are at my website  stevendraperphotography.com   and Polepics is      "Here"
geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2010, 07:04:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: johnbeardy
Huh? It's been there since day 1.

The original poster should just download both programs and make his own mind up. If he's on PC, note though that Aperture is limited to the Mac.

John

So how do you rename your files, once you imported them and culled the bad ones to give them consecutive numbers without exporting?
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2010, 07:39:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: geesbert
So how do you rename your files, once you imported them and culled the bad ones to give them consecutive numbers without exporting?

Library> Rename (Or F2), gives you basically the filenaming options you have when importing or exporting.
Logged

Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2010, 07:40:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Steven Draper
Likes:

I like the way it works with the 'referenced file' ie the file structure in LR is the same as ones folder system on the Hard Drive and changing the file name in the tab makes the same change in the file system.
It is possible to sync with the files in the relevant folders easily - I find this important as I work with a lot of external software.
Batch adjustment selections.
Choice of 2 external software editing suites.
Choice of opening in external software with or without LR edits.

Dislike:

I've never been happy with the conversion of Nikon RAW files in version 2.x. (not tried 3.0) A comparison of Nikon Capture NX2 nearly always creates better results.
Having to swap back and forth between screens to access various information.

Steven,

What particular is the difference you observe in the result between LR and NX2?
Logged

Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
David Hufford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2010, 11:48:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I like LR because it was the best answer to my work flow since the old RSE. I have tried Nikon Capture NX, Capture One, Lightzone, and trail versions of others including one of the early versions of Aperture. The data management ability has been a life saver. Don't know how it stacks up against Aperture's though. I had tried a few trial version before I finally purchased one, because I intially found the interface rather clumsy. I am used to it now.

LR3 Beta makes me think that the next version will be even better---it certainly is as far as image quality and noise reduction.

However, what I don't like is the current lack of softproofing, and the horrid clone toll. In fact, the clone tool is so bad that it is not worth using as far as I am concerned. As of yet, neither of these has been addressed in LR3. The lack of both means I have to use other software quite often. It is irritating enough to me that I would reconsider Aperture if I were purchasing today.
Logged

*Never fall in love with anything that can't love you back*
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9192



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2010, 09:03:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: drichi
However, what I don't like is the current lack of softproofing, and the horrid clone toll. In fact, the clone tool is so bad that it is not worth using as far as I am concerned.

The clone tool is great for removing sensor dust and such from multiple images, its smart enough to alter the source based on the image. I agree, if you need to do sophisticated retouching and cloning, wrong tool, move to a pixel editor (Photoshop).

And yes, soft proofing would be so lovely to have.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2851



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2010, 09:15:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hywel
On the other hand, Aperture's independence of the organisation of files on disk permits organisations based on logical structures rather than physical ones, and so is more flexible.
That's not really true. Lightroom has both disc and virtual organisation - Aperture still only has "independence" or virtual organisation. So with LR you can have a logical structure, but you aren't forced into doing so.

Quote from: Hywel
Lift and stamp is slower, but not as much slower as you might suggest: select all images, one mouse click to bring up the lift-stamp box, one more to apply it to all selected images. I've just moved from LR3b2 to Ap3 and I find the two operations basically the same. So I wouldn't agree that it is MUCH quicker. Marginally quicker, perhaps.
Aperture's lift and stamp is no different to Lightroom's Sync. However, I specifically referred to Auto Sync. A single keystroke versus 5, each time.

John
« Last Edit: May 26, 2010, 09:29:49 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2010, 09:36:15 AM »
ReplyReply

A few niggles for me

Auto WB is pretty poor in most cases
Same for auto adjustments for exposure etc. so far off at times it's a bit of a mystery!
Cannot drag and drop images for a quick tweak
CA removal tools are inadequate for complex multi coloured CA
Dislike the new import photos layout in LR 3 beta, old way was simpler and better

Logged
oceanrhythms
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2010, 09:30:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow!  Thanks to all for your replies!  Very informative!

John
Logged
terence_patrick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2010, 01:51:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm primarily an ACR user these days and not a LR user because of these reasons:

LR can't be used in a multi-user environment on the same set of shared/networked files. There can only be one LR station with the images stored locally, making it tough if there are several people in the office that need to work on a set of images. I suppose copying images to each local station is one solution, but not what I'm looking for.

LR is locked into the the palette module motif. The Library/Develop/Web/Print modules are fine, but I would much prefer being able to have floating palettes to be able to customize the workspace, like I can do in PS.

The Curves in LR are only parametric. I have to create different curves in ACR, apply it to an image, then bring that image into LR for me to grab that unique curve and save it as a preset. Too much work.

I feel like LR starts to slow down when a library gets large. Trying to browse 50,000+ images just isn't fun. Even browsing 3000 from a shoot seems to be a bit slow.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2851



WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2010, 02:16:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: terence_patrick
The Curves in LR are only parametric. I have to create different curves in ACR, apply it to an image, then bring that image into LR for me to grab that unique curve and save it as a preset. Too much work.
Point curves are in the public beta of 3. But for the vast majority of users, parametric curves are all they want.

Quote from: terence_patrick
I feel like LR starts to slow down when a library gets large. Trying to browse 50,000+ images just isn't fun. Even browsing 3000 from a shoot seems to be a bit slow.
You should optimise your catalogue or review what else may be slowing things down. My test catalogue is 75k but runs fine, and I'm pretty impatient. A client has 250000.

John
Logged

MBehrens
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2010, 08:04:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: barryfitzgerald
Cannot drag and drop images for a quick tweak

Barry,

Here is what I've done to satisfy my Drag and Drop needs. Set up an Auto Import folder on your desktop or other convenient place. Setup Auto Import to it import to an Auto Import folder in your image library. Now drag and drop any images to the desktop Auto Import folder and LR will suck them right in. Do your quick edits and Export. Then you can either delete them from your catalog/disk or move them to a permanent folder in your library from within LR.

I use a default Import folder (_download) for all imports, I got tired of trying sort through images in the import dialog. My import settings never change as far as destination goes, in fact all I ever have to add is keywords which I seldom do on import. Breaking up the images into folders from inside LR is very easy. LR3 import is better in this regard, but this works so well for me I doubt I'll change.

 - Morey
Logged
gotspeed
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2010, 05:24:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Are any of you getting random crashes? It's been getting worse for me, the more I work with raw files and local adjustments. It klunks out pretty often.
I optimized the db recently and I think that helped remove some slugishness. But out of memory and crashes are freqent on xp box 4gb ram. I haven't been using beta 3 much yet. I have little hope, as my suspicious is the interpreted Lua language is probably at the core of this instability poor response times while editing. I think a native c++ app will always outrun this app.  But throwing more hardware at crappy software is always the easiest solution...I like what it does, but hate how it does it. Thinking of throwing in the towel and going with something else, message to adobe... rewrite it as a native app please.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2010, 05:50:58 PM by gotspeed » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad