Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Upgrade to CS6 vs Buying Lightroom  (Read 3461 times)
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« on: September 07, 2012, 02:28:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I currently use Photoshop CS4 and Camera Raw (Windows Vista 64 bit Ė 8gb of RAM).  Iíd appreciate recommendations whether it would be best to upgrade to PS CS6 ($199) or just buy Lightroom 4 ($140) instead. 

Iím a very low volume user.  I process very few photos and almost never print.  So, the workflow advantages of Lightroom are likely of little benefit to me.  My main reason for considering CS6/Lightroom is for the Camera Raw/Lightroom processing improvements. 

I have until the end of this year to upgrade to CS6 for $199.  Iím leaning toward spending the extra $60 to get CS6 (and keeping my options open for future upgrades), but I donít know if there is anything new in CS6 (other than Camera Raw) that would be of use to me. 
Logged

Dean Erger
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2012, 03:26:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Dean:

FWIW, I have CS6 and camera raw alone was worth the upgrade.  I tried Lightroom and really much prefer PS since I am more accustomed to using layers.

Tom
Logged
mouse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150


« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2012, 04:17:50 PM »
ReplyReply

If you (almost) never print a photo and restrict your viewing to your computer monitor, I very much doubt that any upgrade of your software will allow you to produce a perceptible improvement in image quality.  Glad to hear other opinions.
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2012, 04:29:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Normally I would unhesitatingly recommend buying Lr.
However in your case it is possible that just the Ps upgrade would suffice.

Consider however that the workflow advantages of Lr go far beyond just the brilliant print module.
The databasing and organizational aspects found in the library module need real consideration.
In fact for me this is far and away the major reason why I recommend Lr for RAW conversion over many, many other RAW converters.
ACR and Lr do the same job as RAW converters but Lr has the library module - no contest.

If you do a lot of heavy lifting that requires Ps specific ability - sure get Ps.
But also consider Jeff Schewe's recent comment dealing with a similar question to yours where he states that although he still uses Ps when required, every single image he shoots is placed and initially processed in Lr.
If one considers Jeff's matchless ability with Ps then his preference for Lr whenever possible should speak volumes.

If your finances allow it get both the Ps upgrade as well as Lr4 - you will not regret it.

Regards

Tony Jay
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2012, 04:53:46 PM »
ReplyReply

But also consider Jeff Schewe's recent comment dealing with a similar question to yours where he states that although he still uses Ps when required, every single image he shoots is placed and initially processed in Lr.
If one considers Jeff's matchless ability with Ps then his preference for Lr whenever possible should speak volumes.

But I shoot a lot (when I shoot) and need the LR organizational capabilities and yes, I'm also a heavy LR Print user. But somebody who is a low volume shooter and doesn't print really might not get a lot of benefit from LR. For sure, do one or the other (or in my case, both) simply for the substantially improved raw rendering in LR4 and ACR7 but from an IQ standpoint, either would be fine. I happen to prefer the LR workflow and usability better than ACR.
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2012, 06:27:10 PM »
ReplyReply

If you (almost) never print a photo and restrict your viewing to your computer monitor, I very much doubt that any upgrade of your software will allow you to produce a perceptible improvement in image quality.  Glad to hear other opinions.

so you are saying that Schewe can't see a difference on his screen between ACR7.x and ACR5.x (or whatever was the version for CS4)  Grin ?
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131



« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2012, 06:45:53 PM »
ReplyReply

If you (almost) never print a photo and restrict your viewing to your computer monitor, I very much doubt that any upgrade of your software will allow you to produce a perceptible improvement in image quality.  Glad to hear other opinions.

I must disagree, you will see a definite improvement in the ability to open shadows, without affecting lighter tones, to give just one example, even if all you do is look at stuff on a montior, as anyone who has done any PP using the new and old versions of ACR/LR has seen.  The new ACR/LR engine is totally superior to the old.
Logged

PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1793



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2012, 08:07:25 PM »
ReplyReply

PS and LR are not an "either/or" proposition. They do not do the same things, although there is some overlap. As a photographer, I could live without PS, but I could not live without LR.
Logged

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

Posts: 686


« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2012, 12:15:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I plan to get either ACR7 (CS6) or LR4.  Iíll end up with either ACR7/CS6 or LR4/CS4.  Based on the above comments and what I know about ACR and LR, it appears that for my situation there isnít a significant advantage for one versus the other. 

CS6 is $60 more, but that amount is pretty insignificant. Since Iím accustomed to using ACR, Iíll probably just upgrade to CS6.

Thanks for the helpful comments.

If you (almost) never print a photo and restrict your viewing to your computer monitor, I very much doubt that any upgrade of your software will allow you to produce a perceptible improvement in image quality.  Glad to hear other opinions.
I must disagree, you will see a definite improvement in the ability to open shadows, without affecting lighter tones, to give just one example, even if all you do is look at stuff on a montior, as anyone who has done any PP using the new and old versions of ACR/LR has seen.  The new ACR/LR engine is totally superior to the old.

I should have been clearer.  While I rarely do my own printing, I occasionally have prints made by photo labs, but I do all the image prep work.  Also, Iím still in the Stone Age.  My photos are from film scans. I do most of my image processing with ACR, but still use PS, too.

AFairley, the improvement in the ability to open shadows, without affecting lighter tones, is one of the main reasons I'm considering an upgrade.
Logged

Dean Erger
smthopr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2012, 02:45:07 PM »
ReplyReply

PS and LR are not an "either/or" proposition. They do not do the same things, although there is some overlap. As a photographer, I could live without PS, but I could not live without LR.

I agree.  But for me, I need PS and can do without LR.  Just to make it more confusing!

LR is akin to developing film and filing images. Photoshop is for printing or adjusting images for presentation.  Both are useful.
Logged

Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 641



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2012, 10:30:11 PM »
ReplyReply

What makes the Print Module so good in LR?
Logged
ripgriffith
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 157


« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2012, 11:12:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Consider however that the workflow advantages of Lr go far beyond just the brilliant print module.
The databasing and organizational aspects found in the library module need real consideration.
The OP clearly states that he does "very few photos".  Of what possible use would the databasing and organizational aspects of LR be to him?  I would think that keeping the possibility of future low(er) cost upgrades would be worth upgrading to CS6.
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2012, 04:01:54 AM »
ReplyReply

The OP clearly states that he does "very few photos".  Of what possible use would the databasing and organizational aspects of LR be to him?

Few photographs become a lot after a while!
Maybe if he does one image a month he may be OK - more than that...

Regards

Tony Jay
Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2012, 06:25:00 AM »
ReplyReply

PS and LR are not an "either/or" proposition. They do not do the same things, although there is some overlap. As a photographer, I could live without PS, but I could not live without LR.

I agree.  But for me, I need PS and can do without LR.  Just to make it more confusing!

LR is akin to developing film and filing images. Photoshop is for printing or adjusting images for presentation.  Both are useful.

I'm the same, I could live without lightroom, but I need the layers, the better cloning/healing and selections etc etc that photoshop bring to the table.
Logged
kenoli
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2012, 04:36:51 AM »
ReplyReply

What about Aperture compared to LR?  I checked out lightroom and Aperture decided on Aperture and have like it very much for organizing images.  I mostly use PS to edit images which I do from Aperture having set it up as an external editor.  Aperture saves the original and as many edited versions as I want to save.  My  only complaint is that for editing that involves significant layout modifications, like placing several images on one canvas, which I often do for printing purposes, I have to export the images from Aperture.  Anything beyond touching up images doesn't seem possible within Aperture.  I also print from PS as Aperture seems to provide less options regarding profile selection and other printing options.

--Kenoli
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2811



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2012, 01:26:17 PM »
ReplyReply

The OP clearly states that he does "very few photos".  Of what possible use would the databasing and organizational aspects of LR be to him?  I would think that keeping the possibility of future low(er) cost upgrades would be worth upgrading to CS6.
I prefer the raw workflow of LR, with the full history.  I like interface of LR better than the interface of ACR.

But as far as the OP, I'm not sure LR4/CS4 is a great option, and would probably opt for CS6 first if I could only afford one. 

Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2012, 03:32:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

It's easy to use with a pragmatic interface.

Best regards
Erik


What makes the Print Module so good in LR?
Logged

dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2012, 10:56:14 AM »
ReplyReply

... I'm not sure LR4/CS4 is a great option, and would probably opt for CS6 first if I could only afford one. 

I'd prefer not to buy LR4 and upgrade from CS4 to CS6.  So my decision is between having (a) LR4 and CS4 or (b) CS6 with ACR7. I was nearly convinced to go with LR4/CS4, and then Wayne got me to reconsider.  So, I hope youíll bear with a couple more questions.

1. Wayne (or anyone else), why would you advise against LR4/CS4?  I assume in that case Iíd no longer use ACR, so the different process engines wouldnít matter?  Am I mistaken or are there other reasons?

2. Other than ACR7, what is improved from CS4 to CS6 that would likely be useful for photo processing?  I read the Adobe version comparison chart and there doesnít appear to be any improvements to CS6 that would be useful for me. Am I missing something?
Logged

Dean Erger
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad