Photoshop Users Who Also Use Lightroom, Need Your Opinion

Need your help: First, I'm a longtime Photoshop user, always on the latest version. I rely on Layers heavily when needed, especially for landscape work. Masks and adjustment layers get used a lot. I also use Bridge extensively and I have a good workflow down for managing my images (took since CS3 to create a workflow I liked, lol!). I do a LOT of post work in ACR, as much as I can due to that excellent adjustment brush, although I don't do noise reduction there, that's later with Noise Ninja. There are times when I want to process a bunch of images quickly without needing layers, just typical Levels, Saturation and USM. That's doable in my workflow...

SO, the $64,000 question: I've never used Lightroom, so I'm trying to find out if I NEED it, what it would do for me, and why some photographers use both. Therefore, do I need Lightroom?

Thanks in advance!

No.
If you shoot a large number of images constantly, then LR's image cataloging feature may be helpful to you. Otherwise, PS/ACR/Bridge can do just about exactly what LR can, while the inverse is certainly not true.
Like you, I use a layers based workflow (adj. layers, layer masking, TK's luminosity tools, etc.) that I'm quite comfortable with.
I've given Adobe enough of my $$$, thank you.

Hi Paul: Your use of Photoshop and mine sound very much the same. I'm a heavy PS user with nearly every image having adjustment layers with masks, etc. Things that can not be done in Lightroom. I would not want to be without Photoshop. That said, I've been using Lightroom for the past 2-1/2 years. At this point, I can't imagine a workflow without it. Full disclosure..... I never liked Bridge and fought it every step of the way. I found it difficult and counter-intuitive. So, why do I like Lightroom.. The cataloging of images in Lightroom is straightforward and very powerful. Having a Database (catalog) on top of the file system is what gives Lightroom it's power. The raw processing engine in LR is the same as that in PS. The interface into that raw processing engine is more elegant and intuitive for me. LR collections are also something I rely on heavily. There are so many nice features in the LR Library module that it would be difficult to discuss each and every one of them here. I would strongly encourage you to download the free trial of LR and give it a try. Do you NEED LR? No, since it sounds like you've got a good workflow. I firmly believe that LR would enhance your workflow. I wouldn't be without it.

The advice to download the trial version of LR will help you get a feel for how LR can enhance your workflow. Suggest that you contact Nat Coalson for his advice. He authors books, teaches classes on LR and is a member of the RMNP forum. Believe that you will find LR to be a valuable enhancement. Try it and see.

Bill Brennan

Lightroom os also very strong when you do a lot of shooting under consistent lighting conditions (weddings, for example). It allows you to process a large number of images with the same adjustments settings and quickly get through a batch of images. You can then get into the fine details of the image in CS5 and hopefully have a lot of the repetitive work done already.

I would say that if you shoot portraits, sports, weddings,1,900 postage stamps one at a time(yeah, I really did that), etc, it is worth the money to purchase. For my personal nature work, I can can easily live without it.

The cataloging in Lightroom is worth the money all by itself plus I find that I can do most of the post exposure work I need to non-destructively in Lightroom. More plus is that I can create virtual copies to try out various ideas without eating up a lot of hard drive space. They are just extra sets of instructions for interpreting the same RAW file. I still use Photoshop when I need layers or certain plug-ins but I use it a lot less then I did and save HD space on all those TIFF file duplicates.

".. I find that I can do most of the post exposure work I need to non-destructively in Lightroom.

Just as you can in PS.

More plus is that I can create virtual copies to try out various ideas without eating up a lot of hard drive space. They are just extra sets of instructions for interpreting the same RAW file.

Just as you can in ACR.

I'm not a hard-core pro and my experience is somewhat opposite of yours: I've been using Lightroom since v.1 and have just added on Photoshop. I use LR to manage my 30,000-odd images. I find I do end up in Photoshop for a variety of tasks, but by far the most of my processing is done in LR. As others have said, I wouldn't like to be without collections, the catalog, etc. Because Bridge doesn't have a "memory" like LR's database does, it seems to take nearly forever to bring up a folder with lots of images in it--well, it's not really forever, but nevertheless, LR already knows they are there
You also wouldn't have to give Adobe as much $ to add on LR as I had to give them to add on Photoshop
I also find the LR interface pretty intuitive - but if you're already used to Photoshop/Bridge, it might take you awhile to be converted.
It will be interesting to hear what you have to say after giving it a whirl. Good luck!

It's sure been interesting seeing the replies, a good assessment came back from everyone which I appreciate. And I did download LR, worked on one image. It was nice. Then I needed a layer mask so I just shut the thing down.

I can see that if you shoot a lot of images for weddings or stock, and you need advanced cataloging and also a way to quickly process images the same way (although ACR can do that to some degree), LR works there very well. I don't shoot that many keepers, so my workflow with Bridge is fine with my smaller inventory.

I also noticed that LR has some Gallery options and social media upload functions, nice if you need it (Bridge does Galleries too, not sure if LR does it better). I did notice that LR doesn't do softproofing, so that's pretty much useless. Non-destructive editing is not an issue, most of my editing is non-destructive except for Noise Ninja and USM, but I'd rather do those specifically for the needed output. Copies of files are not an issue, have 7TB of space.

All in all, everybody's input was very helpful, and may help others with the same question. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and being I don't shoot 1900 stamps at once like John, a content management solution like LR isn't for me. Editing-wise there's just WAY too much missing. Please, if you like LR, that's great, I'm not knocking it. I probably should have said for MY workflow there's way too much missing, lol!

When I start shooting weddings, I'll start using LR. Which means I'll probably not be using LR. Actually, what everyone told me here is also helpful when someone asks ME if they should get PE, LR or PS. Now I know what LR does. I could have searched Google for this info, but y'all on here are the best to ask for a real-world answer.

Thanks all!

Glad you brought this topic up, Paul.
I think it will be helpful to others who have the same basic question:
Do I need Lightroom if I already own PS?

Paul - Another thought, keeping up with updating Lightroom lets me bypass a couple iterations of Photoshop at a time without feeling like I'm losing out on much. I only "have" to upgrade before my old version is no longer upgrade worthy. If you're already moving to every new PS as they come, LR could probably never fall in the "need" category.

Hey Kent, if you ARE just using Photoshop and Lightroom, that's actually a pretty good strategy, keeps the cost down. For me, I'm stuck because I also do the whole video thing, so I've invested ine the Production Premium suite which means a $599 upgrade every new version (Another reason I'd prefer not to spend on LR, lol!). I know that sounds like a lot, but I do get Photoshop Extended, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Illustrator, Soundbooth, Flash, and all the encoding and Blu-Ray burning utilities, and I do use every one of those apps (welllll, not Flash so much). So it's like Federal Taxes, I just plan on paying out every time!

My photography is primarily focused on scanned large format images with some small format digital capture mixed in. The large format work all has to be done in photoshop. I still find lightroom to be useful even though it can't realistically open any of the large format images at 1:1 on my system. I prefer the visual cataloging and database systems over bridge. Keeping lightroom updated is a much smaller kick in the pocketbook than the upgrade for CS3 - CS5 design or photoshop. The ACR version underlying Lightroom 3 has some significant improvements over the ACR backbone of CS3 including the new noise reduction engine. The addition of gradient tool, spot brush and adjustment brush can be very helpful at the RAW level. It can reduce the need to double process many images.

But when I am shooting digital, there are a couple of things I really like about lightroom that I don't think Bridge can functionally match. First at the ACR level, if I've got a series of images that need the same base processing, the Sync function of Lightroom is extremely useful, just highlight and click sync and the ACR adjustments will be applied to all. Virtual copy is handy if I want to take one image in two or more different directions, for instance a B&W copy and a Color version. The preset strategy in Lightroom can be very handy. The print layout capability has for many people eliminated the need for a RIP when printing multiple output sizes onto large sheets.

If you are in a situation where you do shoots in the field and maintain more than one set of images, the ability to export, import and merge Lightroom catalogs is very, very powerful. It provides the ability to apply changes in the field, do some preliminary work to them on a laptop and then merge the work into your main catalog without losing any of the fieldwork.

I don't use the lightroom print module or gallery module. I use a different website engine, and the large format prints are done out of Photoshop for a number of reasons. But the slideshow module can provide the ability to output a professional digital portfolio to share with potential customers.

Do you need lightroom if you already have PS? For many users the answer is no.

Is there are benefit to lightroom if you already have PS? I think most users are finding the answer is yes.

I use LR for probably 90% of my work and that goes up everytime a new version comes out as "improvements" and added functionality are included in those new versions. Having said that I do find PS invaluable for the remaining 10% (for now) of my images. Bottom line, for me, is I need both.

I am still using the first version of LR. I use it solely for Image Management. It is the third software I have tried over the years and it is the best image management software I have used. It has been worth it to me for that. I don't know if I'll upgrade, but my concern is that if I don't I'll eventually have no choice and the multiple version jump may be an issue -- so I will probably "upgrade" to LR3 in 2011.