CS4 and LR2?

[rgs]

I currently have CS2 and have tried demos of both LR1 and LR2. Although I like LR (especially 2), I find that I frequently revert to CS2, especially for final sharpening. I like LightRoom's developing controls and I much prefer it's printing controls to those of CS2. I am not especially fond of Lightroom's method of handling files.

To those of you who have CS4, how does it compare to LR2 especially in the specifics of printing different packages, sizes, and profiles?

How likely am I to be satisfied with only CS4? Or should I have both? I would just like any comments or opinions while waiting for the appearance of a CS4 demo. Right now my LR2 demo is expired and I miss it.

Thanks for any comments.

Richard Smith

[Wayne Fox]

I currently have CS2 and have tried demos of both LR1 and LR2. Although I like LR (especially 2), I find that I frequently revert to CS2, especially for final sharpening. I like LightRoom's developing controls and I much prefer it's printing controls to those of CS2. I am not especially fond of Lightroom's method of handling files.

To those of you who have CS4, how does it compare to LR2 especially in the specifics of printing different packages, sizes, and profiles?

How likely am I to be satisfied with only CS4? Or should I have both? I would just like any comments or opinions while waiting for the appearance of a CS4 demo. Right now my LR2 demo is expired and I miss it.

Thanks for any comments.

Richard Smith

CS4 printing isn't much different from CS2/CS3 - in fact the automate->Picture Package function isn't included (you can still get it from Adobe). It does not have anything that resembles LR 2's terrific printing module that allows nearly instant package creation.

CS4 alone works if your workflow focuses on a limited number of images, such as  1 or 2 'keepers' from a shoot.  Bridge has some nice enhancements, and ACR 5 includes the terrific local adjustment tools.   LR 2 really shines when it comes to working with a large number of files, especially if you need to go from RAW processing to printing.  

Personally I don't think I could give either of them up, although I spend considerably more time in LR and less in Photoshop than I used to prior to LR 2.

Just curious, what did you mean by "I am not especially fond of Lightroom's method of handling files."  LR doesn't handle files, they are handled by the OS.  LR works within the OS file system.

[rgs]

Just curious, what did you mean by "I am not especially fond of Lightroom's method of handling files."  LR doesn't handle files, they are handled by the OS.  LR works within the OS file system.

Possibly an inaccurate way of expressing myself. Maybe because I've been around too long, I prefer my photographs organized as in Bridge (in CS2) instead of LR2. I understand what LR is doing and I do like the whole idea of LightRoom's automatic non-destructive editing very much so it may be just a matter of adapting to a different manner of organizing photos.

Thanks for the comments about the printing modules of the two. I really like the way LR handles printing.

RGS

[Photoartist]

Like a previous comment stated, I print a limited number of keepers from a shoot.  I cannot see the appeal of LR2.  I owned LR1 and was hard pressed to find anything it could do that I would need to leave CS3 for.  I actually erased it from my computer.  I got CS4 and love it.  I do a lot of localized tonal and color editing and find that all the broad tools and localized tools that LR2 advocates brag about are already in ACR or can be taken further in layers, smart objects and NIK plugins that LR2 does not allow at this time.  I purchased the LR2 with the CS4 pre-release and found the process of having to import all images to be of no use to me personally.  I am not saying it is bad.  I have done non-destructive editing on PSD files as smart objects and with layers while having the original CR2 files as a backup for years and am puzzled that the LR2 advocates act like this is the first time we can perform non-destructive editing.  Just don't feel afraid of layers.  Lynda.com has excellent training that can teach you to make CS easier to comprehend (same for LR) and you will find that when you find out how much more you can do, you will start to do more.  Sometimes doing less is truly better, but sometimes people advise doing less because they are out of their comfort zone.

Everybody seems to voice the mantra about not having to leave LR to go to CS, but I seem to have the opposite situation in not really needing to leave CS to go to LR.  I saw the printing video by Michael and Jeff and while I got a tremendous amount of info from them I do not find the ability to waste the hard paid for paper size on extra wide margins to be of use to my personal workflow.  Both of these guys have printers that make table cloth sized prints and so perhaps this is an option for the lucky few who can afford such printers.  For the money I had to take away from other facets of my life to purchase a 17x22 printer and supplies, I want a 1/4 inch standard border on the image as large as that paper will hold.

Admittedly the keywording in LR is a little more advanced, but I have been able to track all of my images, key them with templates and manually and use templates to imbed metadata with no real pain in CS.  Once again, what it the superior option.  I don't find the $$ for LR to give that much better rating or tracking.  I have devised a logical and easily trackable set of folders in bridge and never am at a loss to find any image quickly.

In fairness to the pro-LR folks, it seems that when I talk to someone who loves it they are wedding, portrait, wildlife or sports.  These (and probably other) subject/markets seem to need a greater ability to almost never micro-manage an image and perform overall/global changes to hundreds or thousands of images at a time.  That would truly be a LR strong point.  For the person who shoots 500 still life images and then enhances every inch of 2 or 3 keepers CS wins the race.

[jjj]

People like Jeff Schewe reckon finish your image off in PS, but printing from LR is the best way for maximum quality and ease of printing.

If you miss LR you need to buy it! I really like Bridge and CS4 version is very good indeed, but at times LR is better as is Bridge at other times. All depends on the particular job in hand.
Databases and having to import everything into programme can be a real pain and sychronizing large folders can be really slow even on a fast machine. When I was beta testing CS4 I hardly ever used LR2 as Bridge was so good. Doesn't mean I don't use LR2 or would not have it.
To me Photoshop is PS, LR + Bridge combined to make a better whole.

[Photoartist]

[quote name='jjj' date='Nov 6 2008, 11:14 AM' post='235005']
People like Jeff Schewe reckon finish your image off in PS, but printing from LR is the best way for maximum quality and ease of printing.


I agree with the above.  I try to do as much in ACR as possible (which is just like LR)  and then open as a PSD and preferably a smart object to finish it off.  I do not want to give the impression that LR is evil or anything, I just think that based on the flow I gave in the first sentence you can see how I have little use for LR as a processing tool.  With plug-ins like Viveza, you can do spot on masking and changes to layers with no pain and unbelievable speed. I also have used a stylus a lot less, u-point technology is great for those of us with hand problems.

The course I am referring to is from Calumet and Luminous-Landscape on Fine Art Printing.  Michael and Jeff play well off of each other and thru the course give answers to questions I have had for years.  Worth twice the price.  Both of them were very vocal about using LR as the place to print from and I am in the process of trying that.  Only thing is I would have to import every image I need to print.  Not a big deal but one more thing to do.  Also CS does not seem to have the buffer/space issues on large file size images that LR has.  Also neither Michael nor Jeff seemed to make it clear where they did the digital 'heavy lifting'.  Perhaps they also use both as the task requires.

[Schewe]

Also neither Michael nor Jeff seemed to make it clear where they did the digital 'heavy lifting'.  Perhaps they also use both as the task requires.

It all depends on the image. With LR 2+ a lot of the images I print can be finished in Lightroom...but since Lightroom doesn't have soft proofing, any serious print I'll be making will go into Photoshop for soft proofing if nothing else. It's really not a big deal to take the image from LR>PS>Lr for printing. The advantages are that the way LR's printing is designed, you can print from one main archive file for just about any size print you wish.

Sure, Photoshop is useful for substantial image manipulation...I'm pretty good in Photoshop and pretty good in Lightroom and Camera Raw. I just use the tool I need to use to accomplish what an image needs to have done to it. But printing is much easier and more efficient from Lightroom...

[rgs]

Sure, Photoshop is useful for substantial image manipulation...I'm pretty good in Photoshop and pretty good in Lightroom and Camera Raw. I just use the tool I need to use to accomplish what an image needs to have done to it. But printing is much easier and more efficient from Lightroom...

That's kind of what I think too. But I didn't know how much CS4 has progressed so I thouogh I'd ask. I am qualified for an education discount so it's not too big a deal to have both. I much prefer LightRoom's printing module so it sounds like I should get it.

Here's another question: If I currently have CS2 and add LR2, what would I miss if I chose to wait for one more PS version before upgrading?

Thanks all for your help. I appreciate it.

Richard Smith

[jani]

Here's another question: If I currently have CS2 and add LR2, what would I miss if I chose to wait for one more PS version before upgrading?

If you're a Windows Vista 64-bit user, you're missing out on the benefits of lots and lots of RAM; large amounts of RAM are not yet supported under MacOS X, that's for CS5.

In both the Mac and Windows versions, CS4 can utilize graphics cards for speeding up operations.

The automated panoramic stitching is supposedly even better than in CS3.

The user interface is, to a certain extent, customizable.

I'm also a CS2 user, and those points above are part of my consideration.

Unfortunately, I don't want to shuffle more money in Microsoft's direction, and I also don't feel like purchasing a new Mac, so I'm sitting on this nice little fence, right here.

[madmanchan]

The other thing to consider is images that you've already prepared for print, whether in LR, PS, or elsewhere. You may need to go back and print those images later on (e.g., upon request from a client). Assuming your essential printer setup hasn't changed, you can really speed up that printing task within LR by using a printing preset.

For example, say you have a portfolio of 20 print-ready images that you are selling. In many cases you can simply select all 20, click the proper preset within LR, and hit the Print button.

The way to view LR in my opinion is to see it as being optimized for working with groups of images. PS has the depth for working with single images but is less well-suited to dealing with large sets of images.