Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM
I have PS CS3 and am one happy clam with it. For photography, I spend only a few minutes on most photos doing Crop/Levels/Saturation/USM (truly used as a darkroom), and if needed some extra time blending multiple or RAW conversions. The Bridge in CS3 is way better than CS2 and I've gotten to like it a lot. My wife and I also do some graphic work with PS aside from my photography.
So I keep hearing about Light Room, which I don't know anything about. The Adobe site says it speeds up your time at the PC. They also offer a discount if you buy BOTH PS and LR together. That implies Light Room has features not found in PS CS3, and that it would be beneficial to a photographer to own both.
Given all that, can someone quickly explain what Light Room is, and is it necessary to have BOTH? What does Light Room offer that PS CS3 doesn't have? (not a sarcastic question, truly would like to know). Is LightRoom really needed if I already use Photoshop?
Thanks in advance!
Posted by Keith Bauer on September 3, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Paul. I'll take a crack at your question. I'm sure there will be more opinions. First question.. "Is LightRoom really needed if I already use Photoshop". No, it is not needed. Your current workflow sounds like it is working for you. Lightroom is a very nice tool for managing your digital library. It makes finding things very easy, with many options for creating collections of images, keywording, etc.
Lightroom also provides a very nice interface to Adobe Camera Raw. Some of the current features in Lightroom's Develop module are not available in Adobe Camera Raw (such as the adjustment brush). You can live without it and do the work in Photoshop. I'm new to Lightroom and have already become very comfortable with the workflow and tools it provides. I'm glad I have it and will make full use of it.
Posted by Robert Fisher on September 3, 2008 at 6:43 PM
There are many photographers who have LR and PS. I'm one of them (not that that matters).
LR is a good program but it's different from PS. It's not a full featured editing suite like PS. It doesn't have layers or Layer Masks or similar functions as PS does but it's still a very, very good program.
The basis of LR is Adobe Camera RAW. It is a RAW converter. It has the same functionality with ACR as your ACR version in CS3 does. In fact, because the user interface for ACR was so much better in LR than what it had been in the past in PS, Adobe made the functionality of the PS version of ACR identical to LR. You can do a lot of things in LR. And LR 2.0 particularly because of its new localised adjustment tools. You can adjust saturation, brightness, contrast. You can sharpen. The black and white conversion feature in ACR is terrific. You can work on both RAW files and TIFFs or JPEGs with the same functionality without having to go through any hoops like you to to work on TIFF or JPEG files in the PS version if ACR.
LR is completely non-destructive until you export the file (i.e., save it). Any adjustments you make are recorded but are not written to the file until it's exported. Then all the changes are written at the same time which, in theory, is better than incremental movement of pixels that you do in PS (if you're not using layers). Rather than physical layers like you use in PS, think of each adjustment in LR as being on its own virtual layer.
You can print out of LR and it has the same kind of colour management capabilities for printing that PS has. Some people find that the results they get when printing out of LR aren't as "good" as PS. I think the reason for that is because the native working space for LR is ProPhotoRGB (sort of) whereas many people will have AdobeRGB set as their working space in PS so there may be more out of gamut colours that get adjusted when printing out of LR.
The other big function that LR performs is Digital Asset Management. If you like Bridge, you should like LR a whole lot better. You can keyword photos like you can in Bridge but you can do a lot more. You can create collections of photos based on keywords. With the new version, LR 2.0 you can create what are called Smart Collections. Let's say you keyword a bunch of photos with the word 'mountains' and create a Smart Collection of those photos. In the future, any new photos you use the keyword 'mountain' on will automatically be added to that Smart Collection. Pretty slick. One other thing that's a significant enhancement in LR 2.0 is the ability to manage offline photos. That is, photos you have stored on optical disks or external hard drives. Previously LR 1.x couldn't manage offline photos which meant that a lot of photographers had to use a third party application like ACDSee or Microsoft's Expression software to manage their photo collections. With LR 2.0, that shouldn't be necessary any longer.
LR has other functionality too that is beneficial depending on your needs. You can create a slideshow right in LR to show to clients. I believe you can burn that slideshow to a disk to send to clients. You can create web galleries for use on a website.
If you use a lot of the advanced features of PS then LR won't do everything you need. But with the localised adjustment capabilities now available in LR 2.0, it may mean a lot less work in PS.
Because I bought LR 1.x I have ACDSee to manage my catalogue but I also recently upgraded to LR 2.0. I use LR on my laptop for when I'm traveling and use PS when I'm at home base. My laptop has 2GB of RAM but even with that, LR is much faster on my laptop than if I try to work with PS.
You can download a 30 day trial from the Adobe website. Doesn't cost anything to take it for a spin and see how you like it.
Posted by John Mumaw on September 3, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Is LightRoom really needed if I already use Photoshop?
In a word....no.
Your workflow sounds exactly like mine. I don't take a lot of images, so I don't need advanced Digital Asset Management capabilities.
Lightroom has the exact same RAW converter as CS3 (ACR), while CS3 has so many more excellent editing features that aren't available in Lightroom.
I simply don't need Lightroom, and it doesn't sound like you do either.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 4, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Thanks guys, ALL of you provided good info, both the pros and the cons. It appears that LR has one great advantage: it's a killer database that also provides editing. For me, I think John is right, my situation is the same as his, so PS and my own filing system will suffice. Robert, your world seems to be set up to take great advatage of LR. Interesting product. I think the one final thing that will keep me solely in PS is that I come from the Tim Grey school of "get your RAW converted with good exposure and then do all edits in non-destructive layers after the fact." Often I don't sharpen an image until output time, since I do it differently for print and web.
ANYWAY, you guys all cleared up the fog in my head about what LR was. Thanks for such detailed answers.
I recently purchased LR 2.0 for one simple reason - better digital image management. Plus the additional modules offer great advantage. It is just so much better than acr and other 'just' raw converters.
Posted by Greg Barteluk on September 6, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Paul: I have both applications and find myself using CS3 less and less. Yes, PS is, hands down, a much more powerful editing tool, and I use it when required. But, for the vast majority of my photos LR gets the job done. The advantage of LR is the simplified work flow, with importing, cataloging, processing, and printing all in one application. As for the databasing function, the ease and functionality are reason enough to own LR. Why settle for a filing system that is "sufficient?"
Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 8, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Greg, there's a question you can answer for me: is LR as powerful in the printing Department as PS? PS offers some serious control when printing, via profiles, etc.
Posted by Greg Barteluk on September 12, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Paul: Printing is more convenient in LR. It allows for profiles to be created, and doesn't require that you step through a couple of menus every time you print. It also has great tools for adjusting print size and resolution, as well as a grid feature for printing multiple images on a single sheet. Adobe is probably never going to make LR so powerful that it replaces PS, but I think they have made it the tool of first choice for photographers. I also highly recommend the Luminous Landscape LR2 tutorial. Cheers.
Discussion
8 repliesI have PS CS3 and am one happy clam with it. For photography, I spend only a few minutes on most photos doing Crop/Levels/Saturation/USM (truly used as a darkroom), and if needed some extra time blending multiple or RAW conversions. The Bridge in CS3 is way better than CS2 and I've gotten to like it a lot. My wife and I also do some graphic work with PS aside from my photography.
So I keep hearing about Light Room, which I don't know anything about. The Adobe site says it speeds up your time at the PC. They also offer a discount if you buy BOTH PS and LR together. That implies Light Room has features not found in PS CS3, and that it would be beneficial to a photographer to own both.
Given all that, can someone quickly explain what Light Room is, and is it necessary to have BOTH? What does Light Room offer that PS CS3 doesn't have? (not a sarcastic question, truly would like to know). Is LightRoom really needed if I already use Photoshop?
Thanks in advance!
Lightroom also provides a very nice interface to Adobe Camera Raw. Some of the current features in Lightroom's Develop module are not available in Adobe Camera Raw (such as the adjustment brush). You can live without it and do the work in Photoshop. I'm new to Lightroom and have already become very comfortable with the workflow and tools it provides. I'm glad I have it and will make full use of it.
LR is a good program but it's different from PS. It's not a full featured editing suite like PS. It doesn't have layers or Layer Masks or similar functions as PS does but it's still a very, very good program.
The basis of LR is Adobe Camera RAW. It is a RAW converter. It has the same functionality with ACR as your ACR version in CS3 does. In fact, because the user interface for ACR was so much better in LR than what it had been in the past in PS, Adobe made the functionality of the PS version of ACR identical to LR. You can do a lot of things in LR. And LR 2.0 particularly because of its new localised adjustment tools. You can adjust saturation, brightness, contrast. You can sharpen. The black and white conversion feature in ACR is terrific. You can work on both RAW files and TIFFs or JPEGs with the same functionality without having to go through any hoops like you to to work on TIFF or JPEG files in the PS version if ACR.
LR is completely non-destructive until you export the file (i.e., save it). Any adjustments you make are recorded but are not written to the file until it's exported. Then all the changes are written at the same time which, in theory, is better than incremental movement of pixels that you do in PS (if you're not using layers). Rather than physical layers like you use in PS, think of each adjustment in LR as being on its own virtual layer.
You can print out of LR and it has the same kind of colour management capabilities for printing that PS has. Some people find that the results they get when printing out of LR aren't as "good" as PS. I think the reason for that is because the native working space for LR is ProPhotoRGB (sort of) whereas many people will have AdobeRGB set as their working space in PS so there may be more out of gamut colours that get adjusted when printing out of LR.
The other big function that LR performs is Digital Asset Management. If you like Bridge, you should like LR a whole lot better. You can keyword photos like you can in Bridge but you can do a lot more. You can create collections of photos based on keywords. With the new version, LR 2.0 you can create what are called Smart Collections. Let's say you keyword a bunch of photos with the word 'mountains' and create a Smart Collection of those photos. In the future, any new photos you use the keyword 'mountain' on will automatically be added to that Smart Collection. Pretty slick. One other thing that's a significant enhancement in LR 2.0 is the ability to manage offline photos. That is, photos you have stored on optical disks or external hard drives. Previously LR 1.x couldn't manage offline photos which meant that a lot of photographers had to use a third party application like ACDSee or Microsoft's Expression software to manage their photo collections. With LR 2.0, that shouldn't be necessary any longer.
LR has other functionality too that is beneficial depending on your needs. You can create a slideshow right in LR to show to clients. I believe you can burn that slideshow to a disk to send to clients. You can create web galleries for use on a website.
If you use a lot of the advanced features of PS then LR won't do everything you need. But with the localised adjustment capabilities now available in LR 2.0, it may mean a lot less work in PS.
Because I bought LR 1.x I have ACDSee to manage my catalogue but I also recently upgraded to LR 2.0. I use LR on my laptop for when I'm traveling and use PS when I'm at home base. My laptop has 2GB of RAM but even with that, LR is much faster on my laptop than if I try to work with PS.
You can download a 30 day trial from the Adobe website. Doesn't cost anything to take it for a spin and see how you like it.
In a word....no.
Your workflow sounds exactly like mine. I don't take a lot of images, so I don't need advanced Digital Asset Management capabilities.
Lightroom has the exact same RAW converter as CS3 (ACR), while CS3 has so many more excellent editing features that aren't available in Lightroom.
I simply don't need Lightroom, and it doesn't sound like you do either.
ANYWAY, you guys all cleared up the fog in my head about what LR was. Thanks for such detailed answers.