Quitting Photoshop for lightroom users views requested

[Vuurtoren]

Hallo merry gentlemen,

I have been using Photoshop CS3 and Bridge along with camera raw for a number of years now.  I never thought this day would come, but I am loathed to purchase a new photoshop or upgrade.  Other factors necessitate a complete re-think on a new package for my photography.

I have tried to assess lightroom by reading a lot of web posts but I really need to have certain questions answered and would greatly appreciate answers from those who use lightroom regularly.

I use adobe camera raw very heavily, I rely on it as 80% of my editing before photoshop.  I use layers frequently and curves of course in Photoshop.  I create custom luminosity and density masks as my main editing/touch up in Photoshop, high pass sharpening and a small bit of USM.  I print to an epson 3800, often using advance B/W mode with custom icc profiles and soon to be created by myself.

Question:  How much of the above would I have to sacrifice if I switched to Lightroom and abandoned photosop all together?

Thanks

[JeffKohn]

I use layers frequently and curves of course in Photoshop.  I create custom luminosity and density masks as my main editing/touch up in Photoshop,

No layers, masks, blend modes, etc in LR. The brushed-based local adjustments are incredibly weak in comparison.

[sniper]

Lightroom is more or less the camera raw tools with a few other bits, you do have some limited selective control with ajustment brushes, but no layers or layer masks, no swopping parts of images (sky from one foreground from another etc)  I think of lightroom as a batch camera raw really.  I couldn't manage with just LR, but if push come to shove I could live without LR as long as I had PS.

[NikoJorj]

I use layers frequently and curves of course in Photoshop. 

The brush and gradient of LR do remplace layers to a fair extent ; however, curves are to be translated into a few sliders (exposure/brightness/contrast) which is not easy.
After some time complaining against them and some time trying to learn them nonetheless, I wouldn't say they're "incredibly weak", but yes I'd be glad to have a curve associated with the brush for some cases.

[Vuurtoren]

Hi guys, thankyou.  What about output sharpening for print, the interpolation?  I need that and would be surprised to hear if it was not there.  Also, would I then need camera raw if I had lightroom? I think i will have to download a trial version, but just getting some info because I do not want to download unnecessarily - too time consuming getting rid of all those extras that adobe might plonk somewhere.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Hi guys, thankyou.  What about output sharpening for print, the interpolation?  I need that and would be surprised to hear if it was not there.  Also, would I then need camera raw if I had lightroom? I think i will have to download a trial version, but just getting some info because I do not want to download unnecessarily - too time consuming getting rid of all those extras that adobe might plonk somewhere.

LR3 has excellent output sharpening and interpolation. Ask Schewe!

Jeremy

[pegelli]

Everything you did in ACR (in CS3) can be done (and better) in lightroom.
Everything else can still be arranged with a round trip to CS3 just like you do today. After that it's up to you if you print in Lightroom or CS3.
As mentioned Lightroom has great sharpening tools, but no soft proofing.

The big advantage of getting lightroom is that you don't have the very expensive outlay to CS5 to get the latest ACR, but the more modest cost of lightroom for the updated "process 2010" raw converter. Unless CS3 is too limited  for your needs no need to upgrade (I still use CS2 and that's more than enough for my work)

[Robert Katz]

What Lightroom offers is a system of data management that is very powerful and cannot be duplicated by PS with or without Bridge. For example the ability to make Collections is an easy way to sort images for projects, etc.
Robert

[Schewe]

For example the ability to make Collections is an easy way to sort images for projects, etc.

Actually, Bridge has had Collections since CS4.

[JeffKohn]

Everything you did in ACR (in CS3) can be done (and better) in lightroom.

Better how? Subjectively speaking you may like the controls layout in LR better, but the capabilties are the same as far as the RAW engine.

The big advantage of getting lightroom is that you don't have the very expensive outlay to CS5 to get the latest ACR, but the more modest cost of lightroom for the updated "process 2010" raw converter.

Hmm, how much does a CS5 upgrade cost, compared to a full version of LR?

[digitaldog]

Better how? Subjectively speaking you may like the controls layout in LR better, but the capabilties are the same as far as the RAW engine.

Well its not a big deal to most, but in LR you can export through the raw processing pipeline to any RGB working space, not just the four found in ACR. But in ACR, the numbers you see are based on something real (the space you select), while in LR, its based on a space you’ll never use. Some prefer the 0-256 scale, others the 0-100.

Hmm, how much does a CS5 upgrade cost, compared to a full version of LR?

There’s a fire sale on LR: http://direct.adobe.com/v?xPvnccnEclHTHW

[JeffKohn]

Actually, Bridge has had Collections since CS4.

Not to mention stacks, and a lot of the other functionality people seem to tout in LR (filtering, keywording, etc).

What it really comes down to is whether you like the database concept of LR or the filesystem-based approach of Bridge. LR's database makes some of the metadata-based operations faster, so if you use them heavily that can make LR appealing. Personally I don't like having to mess with the import/export stuff, and am perfectly happy with Bridge's filesystem-based approach.

[pegelli]

Better how? Subjectively speaking you may like the controls layout in LR better, but the capabilties are the same as far as the RAW engine.

What I mean is that CS3 will not take any ACR version with "raw process 2010", which is superior to the older "process 2003" (especially noise handling, detail preservation and sharpening)
So as far as I can see CS3 does not have the same raw engine as Lightroom 3.

Ergonomics and ease of use is personal/subjective and it's very hard to define "better", but that's not what I meant.

[wolfnowl]

While the processing engine in LR 3 and ACR 6 are essentially the same, that takes care of the Develop module.  Lightroom has four other modules as well, and while some of it can be duplicated in Bridge, personally I like the 'all-in-one' aspect of Lightroom.  I import my images, keyword, add metadata, sort, select, cull, grade, mark, etc in the Library module.  I can also do some basic (relative) processing there.  If I want to play with an image I press the D key and pop over to the Develop module.  If I want to export images to Flickr (or Smugmug or...) there's a facility for that.  I can get plugins for geocoding support (Jeffrey Friedl) or combining images for HDR (Enfuse) and a number of other aspects.  If there's processing work to be done that LR can't handle, I can right-click on an image, export to Photoshop as an image or a smart object, do what needs to be done, save it, and an edited version pops up back in my Lightroom library.  I can create slideshows, web galleries and I can print from Lightroom.

Now, I got into LR1 before I had a lot of experience with PS, so for people who are used to going from Bridge to ACR to Photoshop this is a slightly different perspective.  Personally I prefer it, but some do not.  You get to choose.

Mike.

[Schewe]

While the processing engine in LR 3 and ACR 6 are essentially the same...

Just to be clear, the processing pipeline between ACR and LR is EXACTLY the same given the same number version...so ACR 6.2 and LR 3.2 will render a file exactly the same. The usability and toolset is slightly different but the rendering is indeed exactly the same–not "essentially the same".

[wolfnowl]

Sorry, Jeff, poor choice of words.

Mike.