Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: hdomke on February 19, 2007, 12:35:18 pm

Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: hdomke on February 19, 2007, 12:35:18 pm
I think Lightroom looks to be great, but have no intention of using it now.
I just don't see why I need it. What can it do that I can't do in Photoshop CS3?

The ideal user seems to be commercial/wedding photographers who cranks out lots of images and who have never mastered Photoshop.
Someone who knows photography well, but is not a computer geek and does not want to waste hours reading thick books.

Lightroom has a beautiful and logical interface.
However, it only does global corrections to images.
I like to also do "local" corrections such as: removing spots, altering color of one area only, changing contrast in one are only.

If I were starting new today (and hadn't been using Photoshop for 17-years) then undoubtedly I would primarily use Lightroom and finish up my images in Photoshop. The learning curve would be less steep.

The thing is, I already know Photoshop well. I have already climbed that steep learning curve.  I am a fine-art Nature photographer and handling my volume of images is no big deal.

Does anyone disagree with my logic?
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Carl Harsch on February 19, 2007, 12:45:33 pm
Isn't it all about doing what works best for you?  If you're content with what you're using, keep doing so.

I am eligible for a free copy of LR 1.0 (RSP registered owner) and thus will download and use it.  However, like you, I enjoy the workflow and power of Photoshop and will likely continue to do the majority of my work with Photoshop...from ACR to finished product.

There will be some photo shoots that lend themselves well to the workflow of LR and for those I will likely utilize the simplicity LR affords.

What IS nice is that we have so many options available to us for our work ... we are not stuck with just one option.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Tim Gray on February 19, 2007, 04:30:47 pm
So... (to paraphrase) commercial/wedding photographers who crank out lots of images and who have mastered Photoshop won't see any value in LR?

I've followed the development cycle and reviews of LR for the past year.  I agree that without significant volume LR doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to relegate LR to users who don't understand Photoshop.  BTW, LR v1.0 does do spot removal.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: paulbk on February 19, 2007, 04:56:32 pm
I’ve been using Lightroom v1.0 demo version for a few days on a 300+ file shoot. I just now ordered the download version... Adobe’s system is very busy now, but I was able to use the serial number from my order to register my demo version.

After playing with beta 4.1, I was initially skeptical.. “do I really need a database” oriented photo organizing/editing program?

Answer: Yes, I do. Lightroom v1.0 is fantastic! Worth it for RAW conversion alone. More, I can do 95% of crop, tone and color editing without ever using Photoshop. Lightroom is not a replacement for Photoshop. But for 100+ file shoots, it sure do save time. I predict Lightroom will be a HUGE success.
Congrats Adobe Lightroom team!

paul

ps: I also use BreezeBrowse Pro and Downloader Pro. Still an *essential* set of photo software as far as I’m concerned.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: hdomke on February 19, 2007, 05:21:52 pm
Quote
So... (to paraphrase) commercial/wedding photographers who crank out lots of images and who have mastered Photoshop won't see any value in LR?
Tim,
No, that is not exactly what I was trying to say.
Lets just consider two variables: Volume of shooting & Photoshop Skills.

High Volume Shooter and  Low Photoshop Skills = Ideal Lightroom User
High Volume Shooter and High Photoshop Skills = Might find Lightroom Useful (that is who you described). They might see speeded up production and could enjoy the DAM features.
Low Volume Shooter and High Photoshop Skills = No need for Lightroom (that is me)
Low Volume Shooter and Low Photoshop Skills = Should try Lightroom (easier to learn  than Photoshop).

Does that makes sense? Am I on track here?

Thanks,
Henry
Henry Domke Fine Art (http://www.henrydomke.com)
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: john beardsworth on February 19, 2007, 06:00:09 pm
Henry

You're on track as far as your own needs are concerned. Fine art one-off deep Photoshop pixel editing is still Photoshop's domain. When volume comes into the equation, regardless of your Photoshop skills, then Lightroom starts to make more sense. Even if you know scripting, actions, droplets etc backwards, Photoshop's batch processing is nowhere near as flexible or straightforward.

John
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Tim Gray on February 19, 2007, 06:48:23 pm
I don't think PS skills are relevant.   FWIW I just loaded 300 CR2 files into Lightroom and was able to start working them a lot faster than in ACR/Bridge.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: hdomke on February 19, 2007, 07:10:55 pm
Quote
I don't think PS skills are relevant.   FWIW I just loaded 300 CR2 files into Lightroom and was able to start working them a lot faster than in ACR/Bridge.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=101772\")
Would you then argue that everyone who does digital imaging should get Lightroom?

It is not clear to me What I cando in Lightroom do that I can't do in Photoshop CS3. And because I know PS so well; all the keystrokes, all the commands, it is very fast in PS for me.

By the way, loading my CR2 files on my intel-based Mac is VERY fast using CS3 ACR/Bridge.

Why should I go to the trouble to learn (and pay for) yet another program? I would argue that for users like me (Low Volume, High Photoshop Skills) that Lightroom offers nothing that I really need. Maybe some eye candy.

Henry
[a href=\"http://www.henrydomke.com]Henry Domke Fine Art[/url]
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Tim Gray on February 19, 2007, 08:28:33 pm
Need is relative.  There are those who don't need more than Gimp, or Elements, or PS 5 or whatever.

Everyone who shoots somewhere in excess of 10k or 15k frames per year should at least download the 30 day demo and give it a try.  Learning curve for 80% productivity is a couple of hours.  

I should note that it's free for me as an Pixmantec RSP user.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Richard Marcellus on February 19, 2007, 09:37:06 pm
My volume is in the 5-10K range / year and I even found the Bridge/CR/PS path too slow and I am pretty experienced with PS. I ended up switching to P1C1 for downloading, making selects and doing raw conversions then went to PS and LightZone for further tweaking.

Since LRbeta4 I have been transitioning over to LR and I just bought V1. I find that mixing browsing/pick selection, metadata input, and developing works well for me. I like the interface and I can switch between tasks easily depending on my mood. I still will go into PS and/or LZ for selective editing and sharpening, but I prefer LR as the front end.

LR also works well as a back end. I like printing from LR and for web galleries it is a pleasure to use. Fine Art printing will still be via ImagePrint for me, but anything else is from LR now.

The DAM features of LR also work well for me and my volume of shooting. It isn't really elaborate, but it is good enough. I tested Portfolio and IVMP and I just found them to be too much trouble. What are you using for a DAM?

Richard
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: hdomke on February 19, 2007, 09:50:29 pm
Quote
What are you using for a DAM?

Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have tried everything and liked nothing. I do use iView MediaPro and it is okay.
For the kind of work I do (only about 4 to 8,000 new images a year) I actually find Bridge handles a lot of what I need. And Bridge CS3 is so much better!

Henry
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Mark D Segal on February 19, 2007, 11:00:15 pm
This is in good part an artificial discussion. If you have used both Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw 4 bundled with Beta CS3 you will have observed that they are VERY similar. So if you shoot RAW, whether you "Develop" them in Lightroom or develop them in ACR4 and then proceed into Photoshop for the stuff those programs don't do but you need, six of one and half a dozen of the other. The appeal of a program like Lightroom is that it can do much of what many images will need self-contained but with its modular structure I predict it will grow like topsy into a very versatile, convenient high-quality image editing toolset. The key things Lightroom really needs urgently will be sharpening, and the ability to do soft-proofing before printing.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: nicolaasdb on February 20, 2007, 12:44:25 am
just got the LR1.0 version.....and it looks pretty much the same as the beta 4.1...but it has a couple of features which are super....and the ease of import color correct and making a website gallery are worth the 200 bucks!
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: oldcsar on February 20, 2007, 02:37:23 am
Lightroom may seem especially attractive to wedding photographers, but I think it's more true to say that it's attractive to anyone who takes lots of photos in a moment, whether it's routine or sporradic, hobby or professional. I don't take thousands of photos a month, but I do take several dozen of a certain subject to guarantee one with good focus, composition, and exposure. LR has the ability to apply very specific global adjustments to any of those photos prior to having to perform any conversion through Camera Raw or Bridge. It allows quick browsing with a sleek interface... the process of preparing photos for presentation is more enjoyable than PS.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I find Lightroom a most welcome addition to the Adobe workflow. The fact that Lightroom is designed to work with CS3 suggests that CS3 can't do everything Lightroom can, and vice versa. It remains to be seen what these differences will actually be until CS3 is finally released. Until then, only you and your experience with Lightroom will determine its value.

I'm not sure about Lightroom appealing especially to those who haven't "mastered" photoshop. I find that Lightroom accomplishes most of the work I do in photoshop, with exception to noise reduction and sharpening (and these are PS Plugins, not proprietary)... but for the things it does, it does it more intuitively than CS2... I won't speak for CS3, because we have yet to see a final version.

 If Michael R. now uses lightroom in his workflow, does this also mean that he  hasn't mastered photoshop? Clearly, there are examples of professional and experienced photographers who see the value in Lightroom. On the other hand, if beginners find Lightroom easier to use, and they produce beautiful photographs with its help, then what exactly is the problem?
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Nick Rains on February 20, 2007, 03:40:17 am
I like LR 1.0, much better than the Betas, faster, more responsive etc. It's a nice bit of software and I will probably use it for the web galleries.

However, it is still not a good enough browser, IMHO. It has to generate high q thumbs from RAW data and this takes too long. Banging through a shoot checking for sharpness in 100% zooms is still tedious. I know why it works this way, and that is fine, but it still does not meet the needs of someone who has to do a fast edit.

I still use Photomechanic and I know of no other software that can open DNG or RAW files at 100% as fast as PM can. It pulls out the embedded preview, it does not convert the RAW data (it can't). Thus it's faster.

'Horses for courses' for me. I have yet to change my opinion that LR is trying to be too many things for too many people.

Did I mention that I do like the web galleries...  :-)
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: LGeb on February 20, 2007, 10:23:52 am
I won't be using it because it doesn't support files larger than 10,000 pixels in one dimension. This makes it a poor choice for DAM. Even if you don't scan film, many here stitch panoramas that have long dimensions greater than this. How Adobe lets this limit exist in the final is beyond me. I guess I will stick to iViewMediaPro and Photoshop.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: John Camp on February 20, 2007, 12:31:06 pm
I like the fact that LR and CS2 work well together; I'm like Oldcsar. I may go out and shoot 400 shots in a couple of hours, especially when I'm screwing around in my boat, maybe shooting a regattta, but with the idea of really focusing on one or two shots. Lightroom allows for a fast import and scan, fast discard, intuitive selection and the ability to quickly enlarge something for a better look and then move on...and when you get your two or three shots, it's easy to take them into CS2 for more work. Haven't tried CS3, but probably will.

JC
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: jschone on February 20, 2007, 12:37:50 pm
Quote
By the way, loading my CR2 files on my intel-based Mac is VERY fast using CS3 ACR/Bridge.

Henry
Henry Domke Fine Art (http://www.henrydomke.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101776\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Henry,

Little bit off topic, but doesn't it bother you that the cursor is not behaving properly with CS3 and Intel based macs? Like you I do a lot of local corrections, but CS3 with the "defective" cursor makes it impossible to use, so I am back to CS2, with all performance issues involved.

How do you cope with that?


Jochem
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: orangekay on February 21, 2007, 09:23:19 pm
Quote
It is not clear to me What I cando in Lightroom do that I can't do in Photoshop CS3.

I haven't bothered with CS3 yet, but Lightroom's primary appeal to me is the fact that it provides the user with the full compliment of ACR image adjusting tools regardless of whether or not you're actually working with camera raw files. This is quite a boon to retouching, and while Lightroom's interface is frustratingly slow and unresponsive, I still find that I am able to accomplish more in less time when using it. The "Fill Light" and HSL adjustment sliders alone make 90% of the stuff I'd normally do to correct exposures in Photoshop fly by in just a few clicks, and they do it frighteningly well.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Mark D Segal on February 21, 2007, 09:44:45 pm
Quote
The "Fill Light" and HSL adjustment sliders alone make 90% of the stuff I'd normally do to correct exposures in Photoshop fly by in just a few clicks, and they do it frighteningly well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Both of these tools are in ACR4 which is bundled with CS3.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: orangekay on February 21, 2007, 10:09:00 pm
Quote
Both of these tools are in ACR4 which is bundled with CS3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Does ACR4 work with TIFFs and JPEGs?
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Mark D Segal on February 21, 2007, 10:40:45 pm
Haven't tried - I don't use JPEGS - only raw files.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: orangekay on February 21, 2007, 11:37:44 pm
Quote
Haven't tried - I don't use JPEGS - only raw files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So explain to me how anything you've said is relevant to my post again because I'm really missing something here.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Mark D Segal on February 22, 2007, 08:56:12 am
You said whether working with raw or not  - all I meant is that with raw ACR4 and Lightroom have those same adjustments. OK? If you're mainly doing JPEGs Lightroom is most likely the best way to go.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: francois on February 22, 2007, 11:21:39 am
Quote
Does ACR4 work with TIFFs and JPEGs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Orangekay,
ACR stands for Adobe Camera Raw! So it's not for JPEG or TIFF files.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: orangekay on February 22, 2007, 06:08:16 pm
Quote
Orangekay,
ACR stands for Adobe Camera Raw! So it's not for JPEG or TIFF files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It was a rhetorical question. What I really wanted to know was why anyone felt it was necessary to provide that tidbit of non-wisdom when my entire point was that Lightroom allows me to use a common set of tools on all file types. I believe the answer is that reading is very difficult for a lot of people and everybody's in a big hurry to sound like a genius on the internet.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Mark D Segal on February 22, 2007, 07:41:22 pm
Quote
It was a rhetorical question. What I really wanted to know was why anyone felt it was necessary to provide that tidbit of non-wisdom when my entire point was that Lightroom allows me to use a common set of tools on all file types. I believe the answer is that reading is very difficult for a lot of people and everybody's in a big hurry to sound like a genius on the internet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

People can innocently misinterpret what a poster was trying to get at. You don't have a clue who you are talking to and what they know or don't know about this business, so please keep your invective and your insults to yourself. It helps no-one and is not considered tolerable behaviour on this platform, which has and maintains standards of decorum.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Ubtree on February 25, 2007, 05:31:32 am
Quote
Does ACR4 work with TIFFs and JPEGs?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=102247\")

Quote
It was a rhetorical question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whether or not the question was rhetorical, the actual answer seems to be [a href=\"http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs3/CS3.htm]yes, it does.[/url]

Thank you for asking the question, Henry.  I came across this thread because I had similar views to yours, and was trying to assess how valid they were.

Lightroom is an excellent product, and is sorely needed.  But I do not see Adobe discontinuing Photoshop any time soon, and as long as Photoshop continues to exist I do not see Adobe ever providing all the functionality of Photoshop in another package for which they charge only a third the price.  

As a Canon user, I see Photoshop as Adobe's 1Ds MkII, whilst Lightroom is their 30D  -  a superb piece of kit that more than meets the needs of most users.  But niche users will still need niche products.  And I think that Henry's analysis is probably broadly right.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: francois on February 25, 2007, 06:21:38 am
Quote
...the actual answer seems to be yes, it does. (http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs3/CS3.htm)...
So I stand corrected.

 
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: judyn on February 26, 2007, 12:36:45 pm
To me the main feature of Lightroom is as a catalog.  I wouldn't care if it had adjustments and I probably won't use their presentation tools (slide show, web).  What I badly need is a catalog.  

I bought Elements 5 about a month ago after evaluating both Lightroom Beta and Elements but then after entering a few thousand images into Elements, I decided I really wanted Lightroom because of the increased capabilities with respect to metadata.  Also I felt since Lightroom is a product targeted more at professionals, it will be able to handle the number of images I will eventually put into it.  Although it's not perfect now, this is version 1 and I trust it will get better.  

I have 50 years of photos of my own plus my husband's.  We have family photos, travel photos, miscellaneous photos. I have more than 10 years pictures taken with digital cameras, but we have a zillion slides to scan and are working on that now.  Without a catalog we would still not be able to find anything.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: craigfraser on February 26, 2007, 02:37:48 pm
Quote
Whether or not the question was rhetorical, the actual answer seems to be yes, it does. (http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs3/CS3.htm)

Thank you for asking the question, Henry.  I came across this thread because I had similar views to yours, and was trying to assess how valid they were.

Lightroom is an excellent product, and is sorely needed.  But I do not see Adobe discontinuing Photoshop any time soon, and as long as Photoshop continues to exist I do not see Adobe ever providing all the functionality of Photoshop in another package for which they charge only a third the price. 

As a Canon user, I see Photoshop as Adobe's 1Ds MkII, whilst Lightroom is their 30D  -  a superb piece of kit that more than meets the needs of most users.  But niche users will still need niche products.  And I think that Henry's analysis is probably broadly right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102926\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi there, I do see your point regarding lightroom being the 30D in comparison to photoshop being the 1DSmkII, however I use Phase One's Capture One to do all my image processing, it hasn't got the fancy extra's that lightroom holds but in my opinion is the best raw processing software on the market.   Lightroom however, does have the most incredible Web faciltity for proofing images, which looks really slick and the Print functionality is great as well.  The one thing that really bothers me about all the raw camera software packages is that apart from capture one, the way it organises shoots is really slack.  Capture one uses a system called sessions which keeps everything together in captures, processed and holds its own trash bin.  It also shoots tethered without having to use eos capture software like that of lightroom.
Does anyone agree?

Capture One Fan
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: CatOne on February 26, 2007, 07:14:10 pm
Quote
Whether or not the question was rhetorical, the actual answer seems to be yes, it does. (http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs3/CS3.htm)

Thank you for asking the question, Henry.  I came across this thread because I had similar views to yours, and was trying to assess how valid they were.

Lightroom is an excellent product, and is sorely needed.  But I do not see Adobe discontinuing Photoshop any time soon, and as long as Photoshop continues to exist I do not see Adobe ever providing all the functionality of Photoshop in another package for which they charge only a third the price. 

As a Canon user, I see Photoshop as Adobe's 1Ds MkII, whilst Lightroom is their 30D  -  a superb piece of kit that more than meets the needs of most users.  But niche users will still need niche products.  And I think that Henry's analysis is probably broadly right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102926\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't see LR as replacing Photoshop.  It doesn't.  What LR can replace is Bridge + ACR.  It neatly wraps up those two applications, and adds some editing functionality superior to what ACR offers.  And it allows you, for photos that you do not need to round trip to Photoshop, to save tons of disk space, given that going from a compressed RAW format to a PSD format with layers balloons up file size from say 9 MB (1D mark II file) to 48+ MB.  

I see LR really as a replacement for Bridge + ACR, not for Photoshop.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: culturalvisions on May 25, 2007, 07:59:17 pm
Why aren't people talking about this file size problem? For me it is a real deal breaker. Why would any photographer with a wide format printer be interested in Lightroom? I installed it before I found out it wouldn't process my larger file sizes. Does anybody know if Aperture can handle images bigger that 27inches sq

Quote
I won't be using it because it doesn't support files larger than 10,000 pixels in one dimension. This makes it a poor choice for DAM. Even if you don't scan film, many here stitch panoramas that have long dimensions greater than this. How Adobe lets this limit exist in the final is beyond me. I guess I will stick to iViewMediaPro and Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: Jon Meddings on May 26, 2007, 10:32:48 am
Quote
Why aren't people talking about this file size problem? For me it is a real deal breaker. Why would any photographer with a wide format printer be interested in Lightroom? I installed it before I found out it wouldn't process my larger file sizes. Does anybody know if Aperture can handle images bigger that 27inches sq
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I couldn't agree more. I now use LR as a DAM for my RAW files (only) and as a RAW decoder. However, as soon as I export an image for some PS work I'm in trouble. In PS I do my local touch up but more importantly sharpen in Photokit. Here I always work on a 360 dpi upressed image at my printing size which gives me great output on an Epson 7800. When I save the image in PS I'm in trouble. I can no longer use LR for printing and now have to have a second collection of images, not in the DAM, and print using Qimage.

This limit on size for LR really makes my workflow clunky and removes much of what I perceived as an advantage for LR. Does anyone know if this is being addressed in the update? I haven't seen it really discussed either.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: The View on May 27, 2007, 02:13:39 am
I am a late convert from slide film to digital (and still continue shooting slides, by the way).

For me Lightroom is wonderful. I have very little experience in PhotoShop, and it saves me dealing with that labyrinth of menus and functions, which are - as I heard - due to a long history not always very logically placed.

Lightroom is very intuitive and lets you concentrate on photography.

It is great to select the images you want and to discard the rest.

It also displays images in a much higher quality than other software. (Silkypix' photo browser, which comes with the Pentax cameras, and the photo laboratory, may produce results, but for a photographer these are just awful pieces of software, unintuitive, poor display quality of the images).

In Lightroom, where I can quickly make and compare versions (called "snapshots"), for example, I can focus on the essential and fascinating.

After all, this is version 1 (and an upgrade, free for early adopters, as I read on this forum, is on the way) is truly workable. Those unhappy with LR: haven't you ever worked with really awful software? endless sub menus. Unintuitive. Deflecting your creativity by needing too much attention.

I can understand the frustration about the size limitations, and I hope this will be corrected in future upgrades.

Well, I also wish the keyword functions to be a bit more accessible.

But, to return what pleases me: the design of the software. The working space a software creates on your screen is like a face you look into. It is a very elegant design, and I like the face - it is like an architecturally well built and designed house you like to walk into.

It is, in its intuitiveness, a great prolongation of the joy of photography, making the lightroom work (opposite to the traditional darkroom work) a joy,  not a chore.

And I guess this is the main point.

Speed, picture size limitations, a better working library: this all will come, but the basic structure is sound and good.
Title: Why I won't be using Lightroom
Post by: jjj on May 27, 2007, 10:08:58 am
Quote
I'm not a professional photographer, but I find Lightroom a most welcome addition to the Adobe workflow. The fact that Lightroom is designed to work with CS3 suggests that CS3 can't do everything Lightroom can, and vice versa. It remains to be seen what these differences will actually be until CS3 is finally released. Until then, only you and your experience with Lightroom will determine its value.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually Bridge CS3 and LR seem to be mutually incompatible. LR cannot see RAW + JPEG pairs, whereas  Bridge not only can, but can rename them simultaneously and won't let you separate them. So to import them into them into LR after naming in Bridge, you have to use a 3rd programme to move them into separate folders. I bought LR a while back, but due to moronic problems like this example, it never gets used. Hopefully 1.1 will address LR's serious flaws.
LR cannot do automatic functions in PS like Bridge can either, so not sure why you think LR integrates well if at all with CS3. There seems to be no overlap with other Adobe Products at all. It's not even possible to buy it with any CS3 packages.
Oh and modifications done in Brigde or LR are not exactly seemlessly recognized by the other. Sometimes not at all.