Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: jestciddn on April 10, 2007, 04:16:27 am
-
It seems LR is great for processing but not so great for DAM. (I'm using a Lacie external hard drive for storage) Anyone using LR for processing only and Bridge for managing files? Thanks, JC
-
It seems LR is great for processing but not so great for DAM. (I'm using a Lacie external hard drive for storage) Anyone using LR for processing only and Bridge for managing files? Thanks, JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you're using Bridge and will be upgrading to CS3, then Lightroom is useless for you (provided you use LR for RAW processing only). ACR 4 (in PS CS3) and Lightroom share the same engine.
-
If you're using Bridge and will be upgrading to CS3, then Lightroom is useless for you (provided you use LR for RAW processing only). ACR 4 (in PS CS3) and Lightroom share the same engine.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True if you are working on small numbers of images, not once you start turning up the volume and want to adjust images in bulk.
John
-
.... not once you start turning up the volume and want to adjust images in bulk.
That's a good and important point!
-
That's a good and important point!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111676\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I shoot raw only and I will upgrade to CS3 when it's released. The DAM in Bridge is OK for my needs so it seems the general consensus is to use LR for processing and continue with Bridge/CS3 for everything else. Thanks, JC
-
now i completely dont get it.
the new ACR has exactly the same controls as LR. and it can adjust images in bulk, just like LR.
and LR's DAM isn't that good either (AP is much better imho)
so, it seems to me that, if i never need to heavily edit my images, i just need LR and save myself a few hundred bucks by not buying PS CS3. but if i already owned PS CS3, i wouldn't need LR. but then, it is most likely that i will need to use CS3 from time to time, even though not much; therefore, my safest option is to just get PS CS3 and forget about LR.
please let me know where my thoughts go wrong.
-
please let me know where my thoughts go wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111792\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, you can't print out of Bridge...and if you want to print 10 images in Photoshop, you have to open each image and hit print 10 times...that's 10x more work than hitting print in Lightroom.
-
I agree that LR's DAM isn't so hott, I would prefer to work with photomechanic for speed. But, what really won me over was the ease of editing large groups of images, something I am trending toward in my shooting.
-
I agree that LR's DAM isn't so hott, I would prefer to work with photomechanic for speed. But, what really won me over was the ease of editing large groups of images, something I am trending toward in my shooting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Isn't that something you can do quite easily in Bridge?
I agree that LR has little to offer. Photo Mechanic is a better browser and much better at handling metadata. LR lacks a number of image editing tools that I find essential, so I turn to Photoshop for editing. Bridge is better than LR for searching on metadata. IView is better at managing a library of images.
Jeff has a point that you can print a bunch of images at once from LR, but that is something I don't do frequently and I don't like the print controls in LR.
Like Phuong, I just don't get it. LR is a disappointment, especially given the hype and the public beta testing. One must give Adobe high marks for marketing, but LR feels like a beta product that needs another year of work. It also feels as if Adobe doesn't really understand photographic workflow.
I own LR, but just can't find a place for it in my Photo Mechanic, Photoshop, iView workflow. I also don't understand why the clever folks at Adobe can't see the holes in LR. Guess marketing trumps good design once again.
-
Isn't that something you can do quite easily in Bridge?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nope, I don't have bridge...
-
Well, you can't print out of Bridge...and if you want to print 10 images in Photoshop, you have to open each image and hit print 10 times...that's 10x more work than hitting print in Lightroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's hardly a winning argument for spend $200.... If you really, really want to you can script Photoshop to batch print. If you're working at, ah-hem, Fine Art levels, then surely you want to fine tune settings each print individually. If you want to bash out a bunch of photos using the same settings to the same printer, well I'm sure I could suggest several ways of doing that. With or without Photoshop.
And anyway, since you've got to drop into Photoshop for sharpening, you might as well print from there whilst you're at it.
-
If you're working at, ah-hem, Fine Art levels, then surely you want to fine tune settings each print individually. If you want to bash out a bunch of photos using the same settings to the same printer, well I'm sure I could suggest several ways of doing that. With or without Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112211\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well. . .once all the images are tweaked, I bring them back into Lightroom as a collection-from there on, it's a very simple matter to print from. My entire protfolio is in several collections based on content-all I have to do to print our a new, custom portfolio is select the images and hit print. So, putting together a 25 image portfolio is a very simple matter in Lightroom compare to opening 25 images in Photoshop and hitting print 25 time (with also setting the page setup and print driver settings 25 times).
Hey, if you don't like Lightroom...fine...use whatever you want to use. But my experience is that it's a lot better/easier to print from Lightroom than Photoshop...and you CAN'T print from Bridge.
-
For me I find it much easier to compare images including histograms from Lightroom because I don't have to go through the select / load cycle. I've been using CS2, then CS3 beta, then I bought Lighgtroom after a trial, and now I'me getting ready to upgrade CS2 / MX Studio to CS3. And I don't even print from either PS or LR .
But I find that certain tools do certain things more efficiently / to my liking, and I value my time and patience saved over months a lot more than an extra couple hundred dollars, which I am fortunate enough to afford. Sure they could be better coupled / complemented, but they are what they are ...
-
I'm doing it as I do like the tools for develop in LR, I don't think you get the contrast up/down cursor thingy in the new Bridge/ACR either and I'm using it a lot.
I also like the sorting and rating capabilities of LR, if only the bloody 100% view wasn't so bleeding agonisingly slow!
At present I'm sorting and developing in LR then renaming and batching from Bridge. Best of both worlds, I don't like the whole library thing.
-
Hey, if you don't like Lightroom...fine...use whatever you want to use. But my experience is that it's a lot better/easier to print from Lightroom than Photoshop...and you CAN'T print from Bridge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually I like it very much. The Develop module is fantastic, and really encourages creativity. The Library is ok, and I've worked out some ways to make it play nice with iView. The rest is either not really necessary for me, or not quite what I want, but I'm sure it will evolve. And the fact that I can easily run LR and CS2 simultaneously on a MacBook with 2Gb RAM is pretty impressive (Aperture + CS2 destroyed it...)
There are a lot of things that LR could do better, but nothing that the competition is better at (Aperture I'd say is on level peggings, all things considered). The real issue is that digital photography has thrown up a huge series of challenges for software developers, and it is hardly surprising that there are some stress cracks showing.
-
I've just discovered that files straight from LR, and those opened from RAW (with the latest and supposedly compatible) version of ACR (3.7) do not match for colour or contrast. LR is being officially ditched, too slow and I can't batch because the files look different.
CS3 I suppose...
-
I've just discovered that files straight from LR, and those opened from RAW (with the latest and supposedly compatible) version of ACR (3.7) do not match for colour or contrast. LR is being officially ditched, too slow and I can't batch because the files look different.
CS3 I suppose...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Weird, this performance thig. I find LR quite fast enough on a low end Mac laptop, considering al it is doing. I can't say I ever find myself shouting "just bloody get on with it" like I do at Photoshop. Which part do you find slow ? As for the different look, have you tried using the "Zero'd" preset in LR ? I'm not sure if LR's defaults and ACR's defaults (auto settings) are the same. I have to say I do wish Adobe would NOT do this. I hated it about ACR. In LR it is better in 1.0 than in the Betas. I know that some claim that "all RAW developers do this, Adobe is just open about it" (paraphrasing Martin Evening), but certainly those I use don't do it to the extent that LR & ACR do.
-
One thing that ACR4 LACKS, that I really like in Lightroom's convertor: the targeted adjustment tools. Especially handy for Greyscale conversions. Why they left that out of ACR4 Final puzzles me.
Maybe to get you to buy Lightroom?
-
Why they left that out of ACR4 Final puzzles me.
Maybe to get you to buy Lightroom?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No...because the plug-in API for Photoshop doesn't offer that sort of cursor interaction.
-
No...because the plug-in API for Photoshop doesn't offer that sort of cursor interaction.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the clarification Jeff. I REALLY like the targeted tools. On the other side of the coin I like Bridge's newfound speed boost. Hrm....
-
i subscribe to napp magazine. the latest issue came with a magazine called "Darkroom" which is dedicated for Lightroom. i didndt bother to read it until today and i just realized that LR can do a lot more than i thought. its DAM may not be very good atm, but there are other things such as batch printing or tethered shooting, etc... things that can't be done in PS10. so i think it's best to get both LR and PS10.
-
No...because the plug-in API for Photoshop doesn't offer that sort of cursor interaction.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This was really a feature I was hoping for in PS3 or Bridge, sorry but using the HSL Control in ACR4 without the target control system, epsecially in BW kind of sucks...
-
What I find that is excellent is the Develop module controls--very powerfull. However, for my work i begin with jpegs and do not use raw. Adobe has addeed the develop controls to the new ACR module--why not let us have these controls in photoshop to work on jpegs or tiff's as in Lightroom??
MDIJB
-
What I find that is excellent is the Develop module controls--very powerfull. However, for my work i begin with jpegs and do not use raw. Adobe has addeed the develop controls to the new ACR module--why not let us have these controls in photoshop to work on jpegs or tiff's as in Lightroom??
MDIJB
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114921\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not 100% sure, but I think you can use ACR 4.0 with all TIFF and JPG images.
-
I checked the Adobe site and you are correct--you can work on JPEG's abd tiff's, just as in LR. What is not clear is whether ALL the controls, including the curves, targeted adjustments, and Hue/Saturation section availble in LR Develop module are present in ACR 4.0.
I am curious why Adobe did not iclude support for it's own PSD format as well.
MDIJB
-
After hours of trying I finally gotthru to Adobe.
NO-- the module in ACR 4 is not the complete module that is in LR. The tech said the targeted adjustment tool is not included and the Hue/Sat is not the extensive one that is present in LR. Most other functions work similarly, but not as complete.
-
The tech said the targeted adjustment tool is not included and the Hue/Sat is not the extensive one that is present in LR. Most other functions work similarly, but not as complete.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The ability to adjust settings and render results are exactly the same between Camera Raw 4 and Lightroom 1.0. EXACTLY...the only differences are ones of toolset and usability. The results will be exactly the same.
-
Jeff
When I watched you LR video Tutorial, there were extensive hue/sat sliders in the bottom right palletes--I did not see these in the screen shots of ACR 4 at Adobe--are these present in ACR? If not as extensive, how can one get the same level of control that is possible in LR ??
What about the Curves functions--Are these the same as in LR??
The targeted adjustment tool looked very powerful and useful--how easy is it to get the same results without this tool in ACR?
If anyone knows it would be you--why doesn't adobe support it's own PSD format, just jpeg and tiff with ACR?
MDIJB
-
Jeff
When I watched you LR video Tutorial, there were extensive hue/sat sliders in the bottom right palletes--I did not see these in the screen shots of ACR 4 at Adobe--are these present in ACR? If not as extensive, how can one get the same level of control that is possible in LR ??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115233\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Camera Raw has a slightly different UI in that not all 24 sliders are available at once...but if you click on "Hue", Saturation & "Luminance" you'll see all 24 sliders are there...
What about the Curves functions--Are these the same as in LR??
More in Camera Raw actually since CR has BOTH parametric sliders as well as point editing...LR only has parametric sliders.
If anyone knows it would be you--why doesn't adobe support it's own PSD format, just jpeg and tiff with ACR?
Cause the PSD format sucks...Lightroom almost didn't support PSDs either (they blinked).
Fact is, the support of jpg and tiff was designed for "camera files" not edited Photoshop images...you really don't want to take highly edited files and run them though Camera Raw (unless they are clean 16 bit large color space files).
-
I was intrigued about your comments regarding the PSD format
.[Cause the PSD format sucks...Lightroom almost didn't support PSDs either (they blinked).
Could give me some insight as to why you think this?? Should we always be working with Tiff's as apposed to PSD?? Why??
Mdijb
-
Jeff has already answered the tif versus psd question in this posting (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t13479.html).