Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: hdomke on October 14, 2006, 12:30:19 am
-
Forgive me for being out-of-it, but it is not clear to me why we need Lightroom.
As a Fine Art Photographer, the combination of Photoshop and Bridge with CS2 is a wonderful tool.
What can I do with Lightroom that I can't do with them?
Thanks for your insight on this.
Henry
-
Forgive me for being out-of-it, but it is not clear to me why we need Lightroom.
As a Fine Art Photographer, the combination of Photoshop and Bridge with CS2 is a wonderful tool.
What can I do with Lightroom that I can't do with them?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lightroom is supposed to be a photographer only tool that offers more DAM like functions that make it easier to manage your RAW and non-RAW images. The problem being that the built-in RAW converter is the only one easily usable for data managed by lightroom. People using regularly various RAW converters on the RAW files are out of luck, but if you are used to working mostly with ACR, then Lightroom might be a valuable tool for you.
Lightroom is also an answer from Adobe to growing competition from workflow oriented RAW converters like RSP (recently bought by Adobe), Silkypix, Raw Developper... that were taking an increasingly central role in the workflow of many photographers.
My view is that Adobe doesn't, as of CS2 and based on publicly available information, have a very coherent offering with Lightroom and PS CS. There is either too much overlap or too little integration between the 2. The idea seems to occupy all niches of the marketplace with in-house products to avoid competitors entering too much. They might be working on this and the positioning of these 2 products in terms of workflow should become more clear when CS3 is released.
Where they are headed to is probably a positioning where all the global image modifications are done in Lightroom, while local modifications requiring the use of layers are left to PS CS.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
IMO its tremendous & maybe only advantage is Quantity: If you shoot a lot & want to convert batches of images quickly & create a vast archive & run up big slide shows for the web & make a pile of workprints for a client to choose from, you really need it.
But if by fine-art photography you mean you do a lot of previsualizing, shoot carefully, don't often fill a whole CF card on a shoot, & expect one or a few portfolios to grow strong over time, then the answer is probably zilch; Bridge & ACR do everything you (we) want & need.
But I suppose they'll be phased out in due time & we'll all have to buy & use Lightroom.
-
I use Lightroom because I find it more intuitive and quicker to use than Bridge. Also, I am only an occasional user of CS2. Since I only use it occasionally, I find it no big problem to import a piece into PS if I have to. Lightroom also makes it easier to simply browse photos -- you can line everything up, and zip from beginnning to end as fast as you can recognize the individual shots, if you wish. I'm sure Lightroom is going to get better, but for my specialized purposes, I can already do almost everything I need in the program.
I'm also a Mac user; I don't know if this is true with Windows machines, but in the Library module, you'll notice that there's a Spotlight bar. If you're thinking about a number of different shots, you can jot down the file number on a note pad, and then if you want to look at them later, you can simply enter the number of the file in the Spotlight bar, and it will come up almost as quickly as you can type it. I use that when I've taken (as I often do) 20 or thirty shots of precisely the same subject, with slightly different camera settings, or just looking for slightly different "looks."
(For example , I took a long series of photos of a woman with a plant, maybe 90 altogether. I wanted a particular kind of small smile, and she didn't always have it. And she slightly tipped down her head sometimes, and I found out that the upper rim of her glasses would graze the top of the iris of her eye; I wanted that line out of her eye. I also wanted her hands in a particular position, and the flower blossoms just so. She was wearing a black blouse, and I needed to be able to see some contrast in the blouse; instead of deep hard black, I needed some grey; but it was hard to hold the black/grey line and also keep her face good enough. Two of three of the shots were okay; I noted the file numbers, and now can get to them instantly, without having to isolate them from the rest of the shots, or renumber or rename them.)
Anyway, I use Lightroom and, as a guy who basically isn't much interested in either computers or software, I find it easy to work with.
JC
-
(For example , I took a long series of photos of a woman with a plant, maybe 90 ..... Two of three of the shots were okay; I noted the file numbers, and now can get to them instantly, without having to isolate them from the rest of the shots, or renumber or rename them.)
Anyway, I use Lightroom and, as a guy who basically isn't much interested in either computers or software, I find it easy to work with.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
An even easier method for you. Just give the best shots 4 or 5 stars or label them, that way you don't even have to remember the File No. Just view images over a certain rating/find label and you're done. Easy to do in LR or Bridge.
-
But getting back to the question that started this topic: Why do we need Lightroom (given our current tools) and who is the intended user of Lightroom? Is it the professional photographer or is it the Amateur who can't quite figure out how to use ACR with PSCS?
Since I already understand ACR and PSCS in some depth, what does Lightroom add to the equation?
I was interested to see this quote on CNET:
"The maturity of the tools to work with raw files hasn't been there for the consumer-level photographers. Lightroom is the solution to making raw files as easy to deal with as any other format they're used to working with," said Dave Story, Adobe's vice president of digital imaging product development.
I understand that it adds some file managment features, but since I already use iView MediaPro, is it needed?
I want to put this new software in perspective. Where does it fit in? What does it replace?
-
If you own, use, and are happy with Photoshop, Camera Raw, Bridge, iViewMediaPro, a slide show program, a simple web gallery generator, and a printing RIP, then – no, you likely don't need Lightroom.
But there are some who will find that having a very powerful raw processor, as well as many of the other basic and not so basic attributes of some of these other programs, to be beneficial.
No program can meet all users needs. But many may find that Lightroom meets some of their needs in an integrated manner that is both efficient and effective.
Michael
-
I just came back from 6 days in Pennsylvania with 1,300 frames. Lightroom is light years (excuse the pun) ahead of bridge in terms of managing extensive shoots. I find the initial tonal adjustments to be much better (ie easier to get good results) than ACR. So far I've just used the library and develop modules. I like Qimage for printing and will see regarding the web module later.
After watching both of Michael's DVDs and Michael Tapes' online video getting up the learning curve was relatively simple.
-
I just came back from 6 days in Pennsylvania with 1,300 frames. Lightroom is light years (excuse the pun) ahead of bridge in terms of managing extensive shoots.
Tim's hit the nail on the head - the big issue here is volume though I'd put it as "managing and processing extensive shoots". Sure, you can use ACR settings files, do lots of copying and pasting of ACR treatments in Bridge, and write actions and scripts to process lots of pictures through Bridge/Photoshop, but that demands a certain amount of geekery. Lightroom is aimed at those who do lots of this relatively light correction of many images, not really at the fine art single image photographer. It's the difference between working on a fine print in your darkroom, and doing clip tests before the 24/7 pro lab processes the remaining rolls.
John
-
I want to put this new software in perspective. Where does it fit in? What does it replace?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quite simply Lightroom enables me to do things that I couldn't do easily in Photoshop CS2/Bridge. Here's a couple of simple examples.
1 - I shoot a sporting event and take 1,000 JPEGs (a normal situation) - in Lightroom I can easily change the white balance on *ALL* of the images in one fell swoop
2 - I can more easily and quickly adjust a large number of RAW images - the controls in "Develop" are simply better and more intuitive than ACR
This will not elminate or replace the need for the king of pixel editors, Photoshop. For fine art stuff I'm still going to be creating dozens of layers and masks and such to get the results I want. That said, Lightroom will keep me from spending needless time in Photoshop on images that simply don't require that level of effort.
Lightroom is something I'll use in addition to Photoshop. I suspect that over time I simply won't be using Bridge except for some very unique needs.
-
Forgive me for being out-of-it, but it is not clear to me why we need Lightroom.
As a Fine Art Photographer, the combination of Photoshop and Bridge with CS2 is a wonderful tool.
What can I do with Lightroom that I can't do with them?
Thanks for your insight on this.
Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Try pushing 5,000 images at a shot through Bridge and you will rethink your position. Bridge is a pretty decent program for up to about 1,000 pictures at a shot but beyond that it has significant problems and can go as far as corrupting images just trying to write metadata. Beyond that, Camera Raw is fast, but is really not that good. The Raw conversions in Lightroom, especially now with the addition of Raw Shooter is light years ahead.
I know Lightroom is supposed to be a complete image management application, though in my estimation (of what the final will look like) it still falls short, but still makes a sold paring with iView.
-
I need LR... I'm just going through 4,000 images from a summer Alaska Grizzly Bear shoot and I find LR wonderful. I've found a number of times while in Library I think... "I think I can really do something with this image"... pop into Develop and crop... color adjustments... and voila I'm back in Library giving the image a 4 Star ranking.
When I'm done any photos that do not have at least a ranking of 1 or better get tossed!
Now I just need to get that Mac!
Kelly
-
The Raw conversions in Lightroom, especially now with the addition of Raw Shooter is light years ahead.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81261\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought Lightroom is still using the same Raw engine as ACR?
Otherwise also the ACR calibration tab would not make much sense.
Jochem
-
I thought Lightroom is still using the same Raw engine as ACR?
Otherwise also the ACR calibration tab would not make much sense.
Jochem
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, it's using the next generation of the ACR engine, due with CS3.
John
-
No, it's using the next generation of the ACR engine, due with CS3.
John
Does this mean that ACR in CS3 will have the appearance, and latest excellent adjustments that are now in Lightroom Beta 4 (plus any further alterations before completion of course)?
John
-
So to calibrate Lightroom I should start with a RAW file from Lightroom, is that right?
I copied my ACR 3.4 calibration settings that I made a few months ago from a GMB color checker to Lightroom, so that is not right I assume?
No, it's using the next generation of the ACR engine, due with CS3.
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81470\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So to calibrate Lightroom I should start with a RAW file from Lightroom, is that right?
I copied my ACR 3.4 calibration settings that I made a few months ago from a GMB color checker to Lightroom, because I assumed they used the same engine.
Thanks for the update on this, John.
Jochem
-
Lightroom, will be better them Phase One pro?
Thank You
BlasR
-
If you own, use, and are happy with Photoshop, Camera Raw, Bridge, iViewMediaPro, a slide show program, a simple web gallery generator, and a printing RIP, then – no, you likely don't need Lightroom.
But ...
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Micheal.
I do have all those programs and am quite happy with them, but I thought I would see what all the noise about Lightroom was about, so I dug in. First, let me say that your DVD with Jeff Shewe "Adobe® Lightroom™ beta 3 Tutorial" was very helpful at answering my questions, and a true bargin at $15US. Even though beta 4 is available now, everything on your DVD is still current.
Adobe's website also has some excellent information. The podcasts on Lightroom Beta were particularly helpful: feed://rss.adobe.com/www/special/light_room.rss
After listening, reading and using the program some, here are my initial conclusions:
I think Lightroom will replace Bridge and Capture RAW for me.
Photoshop will still be required for working on selected parts of an image (local corrections) but for adjustments that affect the entire image (global corrections) I see the vast majority of that occurring in Lightroom.
What is not clear is if it will make iView MediaPro unnecessary for me. It has always been a bit of a pain to use and having DAM functions built into Lightroom is certainly a plus.
Advantages:
• Better Grayscale Conversion
• Much nicer interface. It makes Photoshop and Bridge seem old-fashioned.
• Native on my Intel-based Mac (Bridge and PS won’t be until Spring)
• Excellent Metadata editing
• Tailored to deal with large volume of images
• It is database driven, not cache driven like Bridge
• It encourages a more efficient workflow that is not based on image-by-image adjustments
• Develop has some advances over ACR: easier to use curves, auto-grayscale, HSL, Split toning & Vibrance.
Disadvantages
• Not pixel based, hence only global adjustments, no local corrections.
• Only deals with images, as opposed to all CS2 files like Bridge which can handle Illustrator, PDF and InDesign files.
• Currently Camera RAW can’t read Lightroom edits, but it will when the 1.0 version ships.
-
Lightroom, will be better them Phase One pro?
Thank You
BlasR
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=81542\")
Capture One is only a RAW developer with limited web galleries & IPTC editor features. It lacks all the other features of Lightroom such as printing, library, slideshow etc... I understand that the next version (4.0) of Capture One will be able to read and write DNG format files and therefore be able to use it in conjunction with Lightroom or Aperture.
You can read more about Capture One 4.0 here: [a href=\"http://www.phaseone.com/upload/press_phaseone_captureone4_260906.pdf]http://www.phaseone.com/upload/press_phase...one4_260906.pdf[/url]
-
Francois, thank you....
BlasR
-
I have been using lightroom extensively for the last 6 weeks..together with Raw developer, and ofcourse bridge...
Bridge is great for simple color correcting and perfect for fast cropping of images, but when you really want to make detailed and fast colorcorrection to your images...Lightroom is the way to go...Bridge is not intuitive enough, the highlight and color control in Lightroom is the best I have worked with in the last 6 years!!
I hope that they will make it faster and the cropping tool a little better (like bridge would be great!)
-
Hi all,
English is not my native language so excuse me an odd word here and there. I've been playing around with LR4 for some 2 weeks now (and the previous Beta's before). IMO It's a big step forward again and hovers around 80% to fit the bill for all my needs.
LR has SO MUCH excellent implemented features. Light and color control are the best and most intuitive I've came across so far. The same goes for the white balance control. The GUI is good and classy looking. I never thought this would ad so much to the simple fun of working with a program BTW... I work in JPG and keeping the edit history separate from the source files without the harddisk eating PSD format or second 'copy' files is brilliant in my view. Just managing large amounts of files is a breeze too.
A few things that will keep me from going over to LR completely and that I really miss are:
- virtually no correction for lens distortion /perspective. Even good lenses produce these errors
- crude sharpness control
- no 'single key/click' full screen view like F11 in Elements (annoying!!)
- no plug-in support for excellent tools like Noise Ninja
A simple question that probably has been covered before but will I be able to keep the file structure, shoots, collections and keywords from this Beta 4 once the final product gets out or do I need to start all over again?...
Richard.
-
A simple question that probably has been covered before but will I be able to keep the file structure, shoots, collections and keywords from this Beta 4 once the final product gets out or do I need to start all over again?...
Richard
Treat it as a beta - keywords should be OK but there's no guarantee at all that the structure like shoots will remain in version 1. And nor should there be if beta-compatability restricts Adobe from producing the best solution. In Beta 4 the Library area is much less finished than Develop, so use it to process and output images, but don't depend on it until it's fully released.
John
-
After listening, reading and using the program some, here are my initial conclusions:
I think Lightroom will replace Bridge and Capture RAW for me.
Photoshop will still be required for working on selected parts of an image (local corrections) but for adjustments that affect the entire image (global corrections) I see the vast majority of that occurring in Lightroom.
What is not clear is if it will make iView MediaPro unnecessary for me.
After several months of working with Lightroom, I've found a place for it that might prove useful for you. In essence I use it as an input processor. When I come back from a shoot (fine-arts stuff, usually a hundred images or so) I convert the Canon raw files to DNG and then import those by reference into Lightroom. I run through the images and rate the better ones, take them into Develop (which I find an increasingly excellent and flexible processor) and then export the images in Photoshop format. I do all my spotting, cropping, noise reduction, sharpening, and whatevers there and save the final version for printing with Imageprint. After a week or so of contemplation (to make sure I haven't missed something) I delete all the non-rated originals and put the DNGs and their finished Photoshop files in a shoot folder that I then catalog and keyword in iView. After a while I completely empty the Lightroom library and start over.
This is working really well. I don't think there is much wasted effort and it seems to be the best use of the strengths of all three programs.
Dave
-
Forgive me for being out-of-it, but it is not clear to me why we need Lightroom.
As a Fine Art Photographer, the combination of Photoshop and Bridge with CS2 is a wonderful tool.
What can I do with Lightroom that I can't do with them?
Thanks for your insight on this.
Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Henry,
I am right with you!
I love Bridge and ACR 3.X - as it has changed everything for my workflow. Lightroom may be a better option for some, but it seems overly busy and designed for speed and not fine art quality. Lightroom on dual monitors may solve that (time will tell and I hope to keep evaluating the product).
The future for Bridge 2.0 and ACR 4.X seems to be the right place for some of us.
I do plan on always keeping my mind open to the changing software landscape with Adobe. I read some opinions on this site that seem to be way too based in a certain 'camp of opinion' and not so much in allowing the best answer to present itself in testing.
Having multiple options has to be considered great.
-
I'm also a Mac user; I don't know if this is true with Windows machines, but in the Library module, you'll notice that there's a Spotlight bar. If you're thinking about a number of different shots, you can jot down the file number on a note pad, and then if you want to look at them later, you can simply enter the number of the file in the Spotlight bar, and it will come up almost as quickly as you can type it. I use that when I've taken (as I often do) 20 or thirty shots of precisely the same subject, with slightly different camera settings, or just looking for slightly different "looks."
Anyway, I use Lightroom and, as a guy who basically isn't much interested in either computers or software, I find it easy to work with.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
where is the spotlight bar in the library module,I have not noticed in the UI. Is it by any chance are you talking about FilmStrip at the bottom of the interface.
Next, you don't need to jot down the file names(images) which you like to view it again in selected collection, you can simply use the quick collection facility meant for for that purpose only
-
I love Bridge and ACR 3.X - as it has changed everything for my workflow. Lightroom may be a better option for some, but it seems overly busy and designed for speed and not fine art quality.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, it is designed precisely for speed of working with large numbers of images, a very different perspective than working on individual fine art pieces.
@AjantaKVS - he means the Find panel in Library.
John
-
Hi!
Please don't forget it is a Beta. Version three or four will probably be a matureapplication.
Best regards
Erik
Try pushing 5,000 images at a shot through Bridge and you will rethink your position. Bridge is a pretty decent program for up to about 1,000 pictures at a shot but beyond that it has significant problems and can go as far as corrupting images just trying to write metadata. Beyond that, Camera Raw is fast, but is really not that good. The Raw conversions in Lightroom, especially now with the addition of Raw Shooter is light years ahead.
I know Lightroom is supposed to be a complete image management application, though in my estimation (of what the final will look like) it still falls short, but still makes a sold paring with iView.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81261\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]