Lightroom for a complete beginner

[Ed Blagden]

Hi,

I have very recently started to give tutorials on photography, aimed at complete beginners with their first DSLR.  The sort of people who want to take better photos and are willing to work at it,  but keep their DSLR set on Green "Idiot Mode" because they don't know an f-stop from an AF point.  I'm working with one student right now, on a for-free basis; the deal is that I will teach her to make photographs, and she will teach me to teach, so I can do this on a commercial basis later on.

Anyway, we have covered the rudiments of shot-making (what focal length does to the appearance of an image, how to use Autofocus while remaining in control of the shot, how aperture is a creative as well as an exposure control, how to get control over shutter speeds, how to hold a camera, and how to expose properly).  All very good stuff, and I'm pleased to see that by learning the fundamentals right, she is making much better photos than a month ago.  So far so good then.

But now we are approaching the next hurdle: Digital Image Processing.  In the spirit of getting all the fundamentals right from the outset, from now on I'm going to make her shoot everything in RAW and then process the images herself.

I'm a Lightroom devotee, but in order to save my student some money I had naively thought that I would get her to use Canon's DPP for a while (the disc came with the DSLR) and so I loaded a copy onto my PC last night so I could get myself prepared for the next tutorial.  After 5 minutes trying to work on a few of my own images, I gave up; frankly the workflow and controls are rubbish, and I find the programme almost unusable.  So if I can't use it, I'm certainly not going to attempt to teach it to someone else.

Which leaves us with Lightroom.  What I plan to do now is to give her a copy of LR3 Beta, walk her through the basics of library management and the Develop Module, and then send her out into the wide world to take some shots and play with them in LR.  But I have two questions:

Do folks here think that I am going off in the wrong direction by trying to teach a total novice (albeit an intelligent and enthusiastic one) how to use LR3?  I have been using LR for a couple of years and making photos for much much longer than that, so I think it is simple, but is it simple enough for a novice?  Does anyone here have any experience of this kind of situation?

Second, any idea when the beta will expire?  (ie when will the commercial version be shipping?)  My student will, I am sure, want to know when she is likely to have to pony up $300 in order to continue using her new-found skills.

Comments and advice please?


Ed

[Ken Bennett]

I gave my daughter, who is a college student with a Digital Rebel and no real shooting experience, a copy of Lightroom to process her raw files from a fall break trip. With a little coaching, she picked up the basics very quickly. I helped her set all the preferences, and save some output settings.

The key is to have the coaching -- I think any novice photographer would look at all the tabs in Lightroom and just give up, not knowing what any of it means. Having someone provide a hands-on tutorial makes a big difference.

Not sure how long the beta will last. For anyone who is a student or a teacher, LR is $100 from academicsuperstore.com. Jumping through the hoops to prove your academic status to Adobe is something of a PITA, but the discounts are substantial.

[ceyman]

I think it is simple, but is it simple enough for a novice?  Does anyone here have any experience of this kind of situation?

Second, any idea when the beta will expire?  (ie when will the commercial version be shipping?)  My student will, I am sure, want to know when she is likely to have to pony up $300 in order to continue using her new-found skills.

If you establish a set workflow with your student to get her started, then let her explore the options after she's got the basics, it should go fine -- and be a much better experience for her than using a less-capable program.  I've never believed that beginners should use poor or limited tools.  I gave my brother a set of the LL videos to get him started, and he was able to pick up enough to get good results.  If he ever gets interested in going deeper, the capability is certainly there.

According to Adobe, "The current Lightroom 3 public beta will expire on April 30, 2010."  There may be a new one if they're not ready to introduce the product, but I wouldn't count on that.  

As K Bennett said, there are very good educational discounts on Adobe products.  We buy from studica.com and all you have to do is scan and email, or fax, them the student id and they keep it on file til it expires.  

carl

[Jim Pascoe]

Hi Ed

As a regular user of Lightroom myself I can see where you are coming from, but I would seriously consider who your customers will be and whether they will all be able or willing to afford Lightroom when the trial is over.  LR is not necessarily difficult for a novice to learn, just very expensive for most novices, by their standards.  If they have a DSLR that cost $500, would they spend half that again on software.  We experienced photographers know that it is worth it, but will they appreciate that.  It would be pointless teaching a LR workflow if the student then does not buy the software.

I should think that it would be much better to standardise on something like Photoshop Elements, which is much more affordable, or even Picassa, which I believe is free.  Of course LR is better, but they might need Photoshop to go with it anyway, and the training should not centre around the convenience of the teacher.

Jim

[feppe]

Hi Ed

As a regular user of Lightroom myself I can see where you are coming from, but I would seriously consider who your customers will be and whether they will all be able or willing to afford Lightroom when the trial is over.  LR is not necessarily difficult for a novice to learn, just very expensive for most novices, by their standards.  If they have a DSLR that cost $500, would they spend half that again on software.  We experienced photographers know that it is worth it, but will they appreciate that.  It would be pointless teaching a LR workflow if the student then does not buy the software.

I should think that it would be much better to standardise on something like Photoshop Elements, which is much more affordable, or even Picassa, which I believe is free.  Of course LR is better, but they might need Photoshop to go with it anyway, and the training should not centre around the convenience of the teacher.

Jim

Good points. I'd like to add that for the vast majority of novices JPEGs are just fine, and time spent on squeezing half a stop more from the highlights or working in 16 bit ProPhoto RGB could be better utilized in learning composition and exposure. There are lots of pros who shoot JPEG exclusively, especially in wedding and photojournalism - it's not only for Ken Rockwell .

For that reason Picasa would be my choice: it's free, has decent file handling, you can edit, print, email, blog, collage and geo-tag your photos, and you can use it seamlessly to post to Google Web Albums, and it has an intuitive and non-threatening interface. It even supports RAWs.

[Jim Pascoe]

Good points. I'd like to add that for the vast majority of novices JPEGs are just fine, and time spent on squeezing half a stop more from the highlights or working in 16 bit ProPhoto RGB could be better utilized in learning composition and exposure. There are lots of pros who shoot JPEG exclusively, especially in wedding and photojournalism - it's not only for Ken Rockwell .

Yes, I didn't like to add the bit about JPEG's in case I had my head bitten off!  Until about three years ago (or was it two) I shot exclusively in JPEG for all my work and got pretty good results most of the time.  However I must say that I wouldn't go back now, especially when Lightroom makes RAW so easy to handle.  But for novices as I said it partly comes down to costs for software.  Most of the amateurs I know are using bootleg versions of Photoshop and Lightroom anyway, and as I cannot recommend this course, a cheaper software package has to make sense.

[wolfnowl]

Ed's the only one with the answer here, but while this woman is 'his' student, is she 'a' student in the traditonal sense of the world?  IOW, is the $300 a problem for her?

For my part, I agree with Carl:

I've never believed that beginners should use poor or limited tools

no matter what the field is.  My only concern with LR3 Beta as a sole processing pipeline is whether or not her work will be able to be integrated into the full package when it's released.  As far as the software itself, there are any number of resources available on how to use Lightroom - Michael's video comes to mind (nudge, nudge), but if cost is an issue there are quite a few sites with free videos/ tutorials, etc.

Mike.

[Ed Blagden]

Hi Ed

As a regular user of Lightroom myself I can see where you are coming from, but I would seriously consider who your customers will be and whether they will all be able or willing to afford Lightroom when the trial is over.  LR is not necessarily difficult for a novice to learn, just very expensive for most novices, by their standards.  If they have a DSLR that cost $500, would they spend half that again on software.  We experienced photographers know that it is worth it, but will they appreciate that.  It would be pointless teaching a LR workflow if the student then does not buy the software.

I should think that it would be much better to standardise on something like Photoshop Elements, which is much more affordable, or even Picassa, which I believe is free.  Of course LR is better, but they might need Photoshop to go with it anyway, and the training should not centre around the convenience of the teacher.

Jim

Jim,

Those are great points which I hadn't thought about before, so thanks.  But I have a slightly different take on things.

I'm a firm believer in the benefits of RAW only shooting.  Sure, if a JPEG is shot well exposed and in good lighting then the benefits of RAW are marginal, but when bad lighting or poor exposure come into play then RAW is always the best option.  Programmes like Aperture and Lightroom have made the RAW workflow so easy and painless that I can see no downside and plenty of upside in going straight into RAW capture, even as a beginner.

Most of my course is devoted to teaching the fundamentals of camera control and shooting technique, and the digital processing bit comes right at the end, just as a taster to get the student started.  I have been shooting with SLRs for 15 years but came to Digital very late, just 2 years ago, and I bought Lightroom at the same time that I bought my 5D, so the slightly embarrassing fact is that I actually don't know too much about all these other software options, so it is difficult for me to teach them!

However, I think you are right to point out the cost issue (although I think the majority of my customers are going to be expat wives with plenty of time and money to burn).  In response, I think I would say the following to my students:

"Look, when you signed up I told you I was going to show you how to make photos the right way.  This means holding the camera properly, learning to use the aperture, understanding focal lengths etc etc, and it also means processing your images.  So let's do this: I'll get you started on Lightroom, which will do everything you are ever likely to need, and you can download a trial copy and play with it for a month.  After that month has passed, you will most certainly have learned a great deal about Digital Processing.  So you will be in a much better position to make an informed decision about whether it is worth laying out $300 to continue, or not.  If you decide not, then you will at least have acquired a technical foundation which will help you evaluate all the cheaper alternatives out there.  So give it a try - there is no downside.  Also, in the days of film, $300 would not have bought you even 6 months of film and processing, so actually it isn't that much".

Does that make sense?

Ed

[Ed Blagden]

Ed's the only one with the answer here, but while this woman is 'his' student, is she 'a' student in the traditonal sense of the world?  IOW, is the $300 a problem for her?

For my part, I agree with Carl:

no matter what the field is.  My only concern with LR3 Beta as a sole processing pipeline is whether or not her work will be able to be integrated into the full package when it's released.  As far as the software itself, there are any number of resources available on how to use Lightroom - Michael's video comes to mind (nudge, nudge), but if cost is an issue there are quite a few sites with free videos/ tutorials, etc.

Mike.

Mike,

Thanks for the comments.  Agree 100% with you and Carl about using the right tools for the job.

As for my "student", she is probably representative of a typical customer for me, assuming I ever get this thing off the ground.  Forty-something, expat wife, lots of time on her hands, plenty of money, artistic ambitions.  Also, by taking the step of laying out several hundred $ for the dubious privilege of spending four two hour sessions with me talking about making photographs, one must assume that any student is reasonably serious about photography.

As for the issue of integrating LR3 beta with the final release, according to Adobe's Release Notes this will not be a problem.

And yes, as someone who owes a huge debt of gratitude to LuLa for teaching me everything worth knowing about photography over the years, I will make sure I give a plug for Michael's videos, and diss all the "freeware" out there  

Salaams,


Ed

[Jim Pascoe]

Forty-something, expat wife, lots of time on her hands, plenty of money, artistic ambitions.  


Ed

Sounds like the perfect pupils!  If they ever need a tutorial here in the New Forest send them over.

Jim