I'm confused (which seems to happen a lot). I have been using Photoshop for many years (now PS CS5). When Lightroom first came out, I had a copy as a gift from Adobe. At the time, I didn't see that it contained much of value that I didn't already have in PS, so I stopped using it and didn't upgrade it. Lately, I have read about a lot of people praising Lightroom, even though they also use PS. The question continues ... is there something about Lightroom that makes if worth buying? By the way, for cataloging my files, I am using IDimager, so I don't really need another database system.
Those of you who have experience with Lightroom, particlarly if you're also using PS, please give me your opinions. Thanks in advance.
If you don't need a database system and you don't shoot large numbers of images, then you don't need Lightroom, IMO.
It's RAW conversion engine is exactly the same as the one in CS5/ACR. As a CS5 user, I see absolutely no benefit in owning LR, but I'm completely hooked on a layers based workflow (and TK's Luminosity Masks), so I may be biased.
Seems to me that the perfect image processing software complementary package would be LR and PS Elements.
Posted by Dan Roberts on March 26, 2011 at 8:36 PM
The second post/first reply interests me greatly. I currently use PSE but no cataloging program and am drowning in files. For some weeks now I've been pondering the question of whether to get LR3 or IdImager as my cataloging option. I've reached the same conclusion that PSE and a catologing program are the ideal, cost effective solution. But I'm stuck with the choice of which to use as my database tool. Perhaps the OP can shed some light on the use of IdImager
Posted by Mark Seaver on March 26, 2011 at 10:05 PM
I'm a fan of Lightroom because of it's database/cataloging capabilities. I find that the majority of my shots can be processed well in LR (it offers modest burn/dodge & clone tools and now works with many of the PS plug ins) but that there's only about 10% of what I shoot that needs the more detailed processing capabilities of Photoshop. Admittedly, I'm a neophyte image processor and there is clearly much to learn about using PS. If you already have a database, I don't see much reason to add LR.
Posted by David Edwards on March 27, 2011 at 2:48 AM
I've been using Lightroom for many years, but after recently purchasing CS5, I much prefer the speed and layout of Bridge. I also prefer using ACR over Lightroom, not only because I prefer the layout, but ACR also seems to work a lot faster that Lightroom (which seems rather slow since LR3 (mac version), especially the image loading).
I have been a user of IDImager Pro-SQLLite for over a year. One of it's great advantages, aside from very comprehensive cataloging and image search, is you can either view images directly from your file system in the Media Browser, or, once imported, you can view them in the Catalog Explorer. When I work on images, I open ID Imager first, and then open my files from within it. That way, changes are automatically picked up by ID Imager.
If you decide to go with IDIMager, I'll offer a couple bits of advice: Before you install the program, use Windows Explorer to set up and organize your folder/subfolder system. After installing ID Imager, it will then be much easier to import your images. Second, import your images in small batches, catalog them, and then import and catalog another batch. Another hint: Once you've set up ID Imager and imported your stuff, use the Media Browser to move/copy/delete images. Doing so keeps things in sync, and is far easier than working with Windoze Exploder.
--P
Posted by Jim Bullard on March 27, 2011 at 1:28 PM
I am a fan of Lightroom because it is not only a cataloging program but a fairly full featured image processor with an important distinction from Photoshop. It is totally non-destructive without creating a new file. You can make endless edits to multiple "virtual copies" of any image and all it does is save separate sets of instructions to be applied when you open a particular version of the image. They can be saved as "snapshots" or you can create "virtual copies". In either case numerous versions can reside to be reviewed and/or further edited all based on the original RAW, JPG or TIFF image. I shoot everything in RAW and convert to DNG. The only images that I edit in Photoshop are those that require the extra capabilities of Photoshop, layers, stitching pans, etc. All the images are cataloged via Lightroom. Essentially I find that it gives me greater flexibility overall and keeps my storage space more manageable than a bunch of RAW plus layered PSD/TIFF files.
I will echo Jim's analysis. Not discussed particularly here are presets and plugins. Frankly, most of the presets in both LR and ACR I can do without, but some of the plugins, especially the Nik and Photomatix plugins work extremely well with LR. The cataloging feature is OK, in that it provides an easy means to delete a whole bunch of images I thought were "just the best", but were really drones.
At any rate, I use both LR3 and CS5. For the flexibility, as some have mentioned, and for the non-destructive nature, LR works for me. I admit a lot depends on familiarity of use. I use CS5 for the same reasons Jim does.
"...a fairly full featured image processor with an important distinction from Photoshop. It is totally non-destructive without creating a new file. You can make endless edits to multiple "virtual copies" of any image and all it does is save separate sets of instructions to be applied when you open a particular version of the image. They can be saved as "snapshots" or you can create "virtual copies"
You can do exactly the same thing using ACR in PS.
"...some of the plugins, especially the Nik and Photomatix plugins work extremely well with LR.
And they work just as well in PS.
Sorry, but unless you need the image cataloging features available in LR, then there is no advantage to using it over PS if you already own PS. On the other hand, if layer based editing and/or using Luminosity Mask actions is essential to your workflow, then PS is the way to roll because you can't have that workflow using LR.
For me, I like LR over ACR. The controls in LR are more intuitive, again for me.
I am fully retired and a hobbyist/enthusiast. Workflow is relatively unimportant to me. I like the tools I use, and I generally work on one photo at a time until I get where I want to go—or not—starting in LR and ending in PS. The desktop in LR lets me see what I am doing and where I am storing as I go, If I don't like the result I either park it to come back when I am fresher, or to forget it, or to delete it. From there it goes to PS to do any layer/mask adjustment. I admit to a bias in enjoying the process of crafting an image.
What is more important to me than workflow is to use the tools I am comfortable with and the tools I have a good grasp of as to where they will take an image. For me that would be Lightroom coupled with Photoshop.
One factor that hasn't been mentioned is that the LR versions of the Nik plug-ins are a lot cheaper than the PS versions.
Posted by Dan Roberts on March 28, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Dan,
... One of it's great advantages, aside from very comprehensive cataloging and image search, is you can either view images directly from your file system in the Media Browser, or, once imported, you can view them in the Catalog Explorer. ...
If you decide to go with IDIMager, I'll offer a couple bits of advice: Before you install the program, use Windows Explorer to set up and organize your folder/subfolder system. After installing ID Imager, it will then be much easier to import your images. Second, import your images in small batches, catalog them, and then import and catalog another batch. Another hint: Once you've set up ID Imager and imported your stuff, use the Media Browser to move/copy/delete images. Doing so keeps things in sync, and is far easier than working with Windoze Exploder.
--P
Thanks for the tips. I'm going to give it a test drive.
Posted by Ken Canning on March 29, 2011 at 7:20 AM
I have been trying to like LR for years, to no avail. The interface is inflexable, the major features that I would use are already in ACR, and I really dislike "cataloging" images and being tied to LR in that way. The new version of Bridge, introduced with CS4 I think, is my catalog software now. The interface is extremely customizable, it has great interface with ACR and PS, and it is finally fast enough to be usable every day. I'm sure I'll try LR again when the next new version comes out, but for now its Bridge and PS. And heck, Bridge is free!
Discussion
12 repliesThose of you who have experience with Lightroom, particlarly if you're also using PS, please give me your opinions. Thanks in advance.
It's RAW conversion engine is exactly the same as the one in CS5/ACR. As a CS5 user, I see absolutely no benefit in owning LR, but I'm completely hooked on a layers based workflow (and TK's Luminosity Masks), so I may be biased.
Seems to me that the perfect image processing software complementary package would be LR and PS Elements.
I have been a user of IDImager Pro-SQLLite for over a year. One of it's great advantages, aside from very comprehensive cataloging and image search, is you can either view images directly from your file system in the Media Browser, or, once imported, you can view them in the Catalog Explorer. When I work on images, I open ID Imager first, and then open my files from within it. That way, changes are automatically picked up by ID Imager.
If you decide to go with IDIMager, I'll offer a couple bits of advice: Before you install the program, use Windows Explorer to set up and organize your folder/subfolder system. After installing ID Imager, it will then be much easier to import your images. Second, import your images in small batches, catalog them, and then import and catalog another batch. Another hint: Once you've set up ID Imager and imported your stuff, use the Media Browser to move/copy/delete images. Doing so keeps things in sync, and is far easier than working with Windoze Exploder.
--P
At any rate, I use both LR3 and CS5. For the flexibility, as some have mentioned, and for the non-destructive nature, LR works for me. I admit a lot depends on familiarity of use. I use CS5 for the same reasons Jim does.
And they work just as well in PS.
Sorry, but unless you need the image cataloging features available in LR, then there is no advantage to using it over PS if you already own PS. On the other hand, if layer based editing and/or using Luminosity Mask actions is essential to your workflow, then PS is the way to roll because you can't have that workflow using LR.
I am fully retired and a hobbyist/enthusiast. Workflow is relatively unimportant to me. I like the tools I use, and I generally work on one photo at a time until I get where I want to go—or not—starting in LR and ending in PS. The desktop in LR lets me see what I am doing and where I am storing as I go, If I don't like the result I either park it to come back when I am fresher, or to forget it, or to delete it. From there it goes to PS to do any layer/mask adjustment. I admit to a bias in enjoying the process of crafting an image.
What is more important to me than workflow is to use the tools I am comfortable with and the tools I have a good grasp of as to where they will take an image. For me that would be Lightroom coupled with Photoshop.
Thanks for the tips. I'm going to give it a test drive.
-Ken