Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why would I need Lighroom?  (Read 4305 times)
Zzyzx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« on: May 08, 2011, 07:01:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I use Photoshop for working on images.

I use BreezeBrowser Pro for quick edits and RAW image conversion.

I use AutoPano Pro for image stitching for panoramics, much better than Photoshop.

What would Lightroom do for me that I am not getting now? Would I be able to open the images from Kodak Photo CD's? (Photoshop CS5 won't do it) Would I be able to make the printing on the folders big enough to read? (Photoshop CS5 makes the folders bigger but the printing stays too small to read without a magnifying glass - a real pain)

I don't want to pay for a program that doesn't substantially add to what I have, make it much quicker and easier and even higher quality.
Logged
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 837



« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2011, 07:33:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't pay until you download it and try for 30 days.

If it doesn't work, dump it.

Rich
Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5727



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2011, 12:46:50 AM »
ReplyReply

This might help you decide: http://bit.ly/LR-PS

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2011, 05:38:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I used to use BreezeBrowser Pro before lightroom came out as I found it easier to use than Adobe Bridge. However, I've been shooting 100% digital since 1999 and now that my digital image collection has grown to over 100,000 images, Lightroom has more paid for itself in the time savings alone to keep my collection organized.

Essentially BBP is an image browser much like Adobe Bridge. LR is a DAM (digital asset management) program which at its heart is a robust database.

I've been a LR fan since the first public beta. It only gets better and better with each release. With the nondestructive image editing capabilities, your original RAW remain untouched. The editing brushes are so excellent that my need to roundtrip to Photoshop has been greatly reduced, a hugh time and storage space saver.

As a previous poster recommended, I suggest that you download the free trial and give it a try. Also, highly recommended, is purchasing Michael Reichmann's and Jeff Schewe's excellent LR3 Tutorial. Watching the tutorial will accelerate your LR learning curve while you learn about how these guys harness the program's awesome power.

Cheers.
Bud
Logged

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

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2011, 06:12:21 AM »
ReplyReply

make it much quicker and easier and even higher quality.
Quicker and easier : check.
You really gain a huge amount of time with lightroom as you only have one interface to do all, and the interface is really built for photographers (not like PS).

Higher quality : it depends... but the sharpening and interpolation routines may also make the check.

Opening PhotoCD : no.
I didn't try, but you may get this plugin and save them as TIFF from PS.

Printing folders : if it's about printing something like contact sheets, then yes LR is the way to go.
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
RogerW
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2011, 07:33:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Because it's a lot more fun!  Roll Eyes

Seriously, LR is a huge timesaver for me and I couldn't bear the thought of having to rely on multiple packages to sort my work out.
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1859



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2011, 10:17:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't suppose you could download the free trial and see for yourself? You're assuming there are people here who are familiar with the programs you already use and with LR. But, FWIW, I find LR to be a very well designed and implemented program.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2011, 11:24:50 AM »
ReplyReply

FYI, re Kodak Photo CD

PS used to include a file format plugin that allowed it to open PCD files. It hasn't been included in the last several releases but if you have an old copy of PS you can copy the plugin into the file format folder in the current release and it will work just fine to open and convert PCD files in PS, Bridge, and ACR
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 11:41:39 AM by Steve House » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8768



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2011, 11:33:34 AM »
ReplyReply

And the PCD acquire module will not run 64-bit...
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Zzyzx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2011, 08:32:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I am guilty of not downloading and playing with the program for a month. I shoot every day, edit every day and do this full time. Wasting a couple weeks testing out a program will put me behind on the work I do now so was trying to keep from doing it.

Still have many Kodak Photo CD's with a lot of images on them. I find the fact Photoshop will no longer open them to be frustrating. How hard was it to include a way to open them? I now have to re-load CS2 to do it which sure seems to defeat the reasons for buying the new program - bought when I found CS2 would not work with Windows 7. Seems they get you coming and going.

All the while my 8x10 view camera made in 1950 still works fine as do the lenses and mixing chemistry still gives me good quality.

I see digital with a good upside but the constant computer upgrading and short life of so much of the gear a real downer.

Yes, I was looking for some with experience on the programs I use. Just like I would look for someone with a SA 47 to check out how much of the image circle I would get sharp on a sheet of 8x10 film. Why not take advantage of the experience of others when it can save a lot of time and money both?
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2011, 09:33:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I forgot to mention in my previous reply, that another huge reason to use LR is for the printing capabilities. The quality of sharpening and output formatting is excellent. It does the same thing that I used to use ColorPrint RIP for at  1/10th the cost.

Printing is better from LR than PS or any other imaging program that I've used (Mac or PC).

Cheers.
Bud
Logged

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

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2011, 10:01:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I am guilty of not downloading and playing with the program for a month. I shoot every day, edit every day and do this full time. Wasting a couple weeks testing out a program will put me behind on the work I do now so was trying to keep from doing it.

Then hire somebody to consult with you if you don't have the time to learn for yourself...what do you really hope to learn here? That other people have invested the time to learn the application and it's worthwhile? DOH...it is...

As far as PCD disks, the place to direct your displeasure would be Kodak which quite updating and supporting the PCD imagepac format. So yes, you'll have to keep old software around to access the PCD images...life's a bitch and then ya die. Move on...(and try doing your own homework for a change, you'll learn more).
Logged
wtlloyd
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2011, 11:41:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Breezebrowser was great in it's day, but it's RAW conversions were always rudimentary. Downloader Pro was great, too...now, Lightroom DAM features don't compare to any simple file browser.

Eliminate the detour in your workflow, use card>Lightroom>Photoshop>Lightroom...
Logged
Zzyzx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2011, 02:34:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for the replies, other than ms ewe.

Logged
Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2011, 04:39:09 PM »
ReplyReply

The solution I settled on for my PCD disks was to use the batch processing ability of Photoshop to convert all the files from PCD into standard TIFF files and archive them.  Easy to do a full CD at a time.  Sure the TIFF files are bigger than the original PCDs but storage is cheap these days.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3550


« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2011, 06:29:22 PM »
ReplyReply

As far as PCD disks, the place to direct your displeasure would be Kodak which quite updating and supporting the PCD imagepac format.

Hi Jeff,

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. Has something changed in the PCD specs that needs support from Kodak? If not, isn't it just a choice by Adobe to no longer include the already existing import routines? Or has Adobe changed something requiring other parties to also adjust the import routine, and Kodak refused? Or ...?

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8768



WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2011, 07:03:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Has something changed in the PCD specs that needs support from Kodak? If not, isn't it just a choice by Adobe to no longer include the already existing import routines? Or has Adobe changed something requiring other parties to also adjust the import routine, and Kodak refused? Or ...?

Well for one, the PCD acquire module from Kodak isn’t 64-bit and never will be.
Logged

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

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2011, 09:21:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. Has something changed in the PCD specs that needs support from Kodak?

Kodak ceased support for the PCD plug-in. That was never done by Adobe, but Kodak. There have been a numbers of changes in the PS SDK that required updates to plug-in development. Kodak has ceased doing those updates. In essence, PCD is end-of-lifed.
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2011, 03:13:03 AM »
ReplyReply

In my opinon, if ya doing it full time then LR is a no brainer!

Then once you have purchased the software get the video!  Big Guy and MR are good value!
Logged

Bill Carr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2011, 05:07:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I will try to be as concise as possible.

To start off with, if you find that your present workflow, image processing, and image finding/retrieval results are satisfactory and satisfying, then I would stick with it.  I know many people that use the same products you do and feel it is the best suited for their workflow.

If on the other hand, you get discouraged, frustrated, or are otherwise unhappy with what you have to go through to accomplish your workflow, image processing, and image finding/retrieval results, then I would highly recommend looking at Lightroom.  Also, if you find that you end up with multiple large (45 to 100 MBs each) files of the same image, and/or waste time figuring out which is which and what the difference is, Lightroom will be a very satisfying experience....once you learn how to properly use it and go through the ramping up process.  It is a fairly complex product, as is PS, and you will need some time to become competent enough to realize the substantial time and space saving gains that are available.

Having said that, though, there are a few things to consider:

If you truly have very little time to devote to things other than your current workflow, and you still want to investigate the possibilities available in LR, I would highly recommend getting and watching the Lightroom 3 tutorial available on this site as the FIRST thing you do.

I DO NOT recommend getting the trial version and start playing with it to see if you like it.  That would be a big time-waster and would most likely result in failure.  I say this because the database management aspects are not the same as using PS and BB, and the first thing you will need to do is "import" your images into LR, which is not really importing at all.  It's creating a catalog of references to where your photos live on you computer system.  I will say that if you are a smart person that thinks in certain conceptual ways, you MIGHT get away with playing with it and come out the other side thinking you might like it, but it's a high risk, since once understood, LR is a fabulous tool for pro photogs.  Spend the money on the tutorial, watch it, and you will KNOW whether you want to spent the time and money to convert your workflow to LR.

Also, round-tripping from LR to PS and back to LR is very nice, especially since you are familiar with PS.  This process, though, is a case where creating a new image file may be required, since individual changes made in PS cannot be saved into the LR catalog, but will be saved a a new file, which is then also available in LR.

Many people use LR for almost everything and only use PS for a few things such as pixel-level changes, masking processes, content-aware deleting of objects in the image, and soft-proofing, among others.

From what I understand from some top pros, BB is excellent for QUICKLY doing initial culling edits, and they say that lightroom is much slower for this, but if you find this to be true, you could keep BB and do your initial edits there, then "import" your images into LR to start the cataloging, processing, and database managing of your images. 

One more thing I want to say.  One of the biggest advantages I get from using LR is the ability to "store"/keep/access/find as many versions of an image as I want with different processing, cropping, and aspect ratios, all from a single image.  I hate having 10 or 20 different TIFFs in a folder that are all different versions of the same original image.  It drives me mad!  (used to)  On the other side of the coin, if you take many images of the same thing, but would like to store them in a stack, where you only see one of them until you are ready to process the individual images, you can stack them, then after processing them you can put them back in the stack.  This allows you to breeze through and browse your images using considerably less screen real estate.

So, there you have it.  I reiterate, though, that it could take more time than you are willing to spend to convert your workflow, only to possibly find little benefit.  It HIGHLY depends on what you do with your images once you take them, process them, and go in to the next day's shoot.  I think watching the video will give you the insights you need to make the decision.

Take care, and good look with your decision.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad