Do I need lightroom?

[Picture North Carolina]

I saw this quote in another thread:

The fundamental issue for LR is that it is a total digital data management system, and not merely a RAW convertor

So a question: do I need it?

I have a good image management system. I would not need or use any cataloging, rating, moving, batch processing, printing, etc. functions in lightroom.

The only thing I would be looking for in lightroom was a raw converter that offered more options, better options, better control, additional functions, etc. that allowed me to create better output/import into CS2. I currently use ACR, Capture One, DPP.

That being said, do I need lightroom? Is there anything there that will enable it to create higher quality images for me? /Dan

[cdifoto]

So a question: do I need it?

I have a good image management system.

No. No one really needs Lightroom. It merely makes some things simpler for some of us. If you're happy with what you have then stick with it. If you aren't happy with what you have, try Lightroom and see if it gives you what you aren't getting now. I'm pretty sure the 30 day trial still works.

[Picture North Carolina]

No. No one really needs Lightroom. It merely makes some things simpler for some of us. If you're happy with what you have then stick with it. If you aren't happy with what you have, try Lightroom and see if it gives you what you aren't getting now. I'm pretty sure the 30 day trial still works.

I appreciate you taking time to reply, but it did not address the question. I am happy with what I use, but the question is about lightrooms ability to make me happier.

Perhaps if I rephrase it. Disregarding all lightroom image management, cataloging, rating, printing, etc. functions, is there any image processing/raw conversion functions in LR that will produce a better image than acr, capture one, or dpp? /Dan

[cdifoto]

I appreciate you taking time to reply, but it did not address the question. I am happy with what I use, but the question is about lightrooms ability to make me happier.

Perhaps if I rephrase it. Disregarding all lightroom image management, cataloging, rating, printing, etc. functions, is there any image processing/raw conversion functions in LR that will produce a better image than acr, capture one, or dpp? /Dan

I did address your question. The answer is "Try it yourself." With a 30 day free trial...why would you not? That's why it's offered in the first place.

[In2Photos]

I appreciate you taking time to reply, but it did not address the question. I am happy with what I use, but the question is about lightrooms ability to make me happier.

Perhaps if I rephrase it. Disregarding all lightroom image management, cataloging, rating, printing, etc. functions, is there any image processing/raw conversion functions in LR that will produce a better image than acr, capture one, or dpp? /Dan
No and yes.;) Lightroom still uses ACR for its RAW convertor. While there are more features in Lightroom for editing before conversion, if you don't use these features then CS2 will produce the same oputput file. Lightroom is currently using ACR 4.0, IIRC, (and so does CS3) which has many more options to be done before the conversion process. I like the newer version of ACR but don't want to buy anymore software just yet so I am sticking with CS2.

[eslaydog]

Yes, you do need lightroom.

[Picture North Carolina]

No and yes.;) Lightroom still uses ACR for its RAW convertor. While there are more features in Lightroom for editing before conversion, if you don't use these features then CS2 will produce the same oputput file. Lightroom is currently using ACR 4.0, IIRC, (and so does CS3) which has many more options to be done before the conversion process. I like the newer version of ACR but don't want to buy anymore software just yet so I am sticking with CS2.

Thank you, that addressed the question. The whole reason for the question was why spend time learning a new software package if the final image output was no better than methods currently being used, and that is why a "try it yourself" answer did not address the question.

So in your answer does that mean that to utilize lightroom and the new acr version to their fullest advantage that eventually CS3 will need to be purchased? /Dan

[cdifoto]

Thank you, that addressed the question. The whole reason for the question was why spend time learning a new software package if the final image output was no better than methods currently being used, and that is why a "try it yourself" answer did not address the question.

So in your answer does that mean that to utilize lightroom and the new acr version to their fullest advantage that eventually CS3 will need to be purchased? /Dan

You aren't the only person who is/would be "spend[ing] time learning a new software package" by determining first hand whether LR is worthwhile. And Lightroom is not complex and/or difficult to learn. If you download it and try it you can...get this...see for yourself!

[canoflan]

This may or may not answer the question. I have LR and am using it almost exclusively now since CS3 RAW will be awhile. Also, the only thing I see that I need to do in PS now is print and special stuff (which is few and far between). It is working well for me and I can compare and move around quite easily.

[lennythelens]

Do YOU need light room?

NO.

You could have done with Picmantec RAW shooter but that is no more. So....

Now

The new ACR 3.7 and CS2 is all you need.

IF you want extra 'refined' RAW controls like

• Recovery
• Fill Light
• Vibrance
• Parametric tone curve
• HSL
• Grayscale
• Split toning

Controls that are available in Lightroom then get Lightroom (with all the other functionality that you don't want!)

You don't need CS3.

IMHO I see little use for ACR if you have lightroom.

[In2Photos]

Thank you, that addressed the question. The whole reason for the question was why spend time learning a new software package if the final image output was no better than methods currently being used, and that is why a "try it yourself" answer did not address the question.

So in your answer does that mean that to utilize lightroom and the new acr version to their fullest advantage that eventually CS3 will need to be purchased? /Dan

Not at all. If you spend a lot of time in CS2 now, then CS3 might be a good choice later. However, after you have used Lightroom (or your current RAW convertor) to process your RAW image and spend very little time in CS2 then why spend the money on CS3. I spend most of my time in the conversion process and less time "editing" shots so Lightroom would be a good choice for me. I have used it and liked it very much (except for having to import my files which I now know was due more to my lack of knowledge about Lightroom than the software itself). I could probably do 95% of my work in Lightroom and use CS2 for only the little extras. CS3 is of no benefit to me right now.

[Picture North Carolina]

So basically you're lazy and don't want to find out for yourself. Gotcha. :rolleyes:



I see no reason to reply to this other than to say this is a personal attack and is not any where near fitting the community spirit of helpfullness nor comradery of potn. I am surprised and very disappointed to see this from a senior members of these forums - a senior member whom junior members look up to and learn behavior from.

To the others, thank you for your help. You answered the question directly: Lightroom does provide additional functionality that may help produce a better image. /Dan

[Tsmith]

Its a very nice application that goes beyond just a RAW converter as it also handles JPEG and TIFF's.

This is one feature that I found works extremely well and fast for working in the Tone Curve.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/958/untitledqp7.png

[ssim]

is there any image processing/raw conversion functions in LR that will produce a better image than acr, capture one, or dpp? /Dan

That's kind of a loaded question. It depends on your ability in those other programs. I use C1 Pro as my normal raw converter. I have done a couple of tests where I took the same CR2 file and converted it in C1 and Lightroom. As far as basic conversion I really couldn't tell the difference. LR has some advantages in the area of presets. This is something that C1 doesn't have right now but can be accomplished in photoshop itself. There are some sliders available in Lightroom that I have not seen elsewhere.

Given what is available as far as raw converters go, I wouldn't purchase LR simply for its RAW capability. One has to wonder if the technology deployed in the raw conversion part of Lightroom will be extended to the next generation of ACR that will probably come with CS3.

Why don't you download a copy of Lightroom and try it for yourself. One should be able to make the determination if it is going to work for you within the 30 day trail period.

[Picture North Carolina]

Not at all. If you spend a lot of time in CS2 now, then CS3 might be a good choice later. However, after you have used Lightroom (or your current RAW convertor) to process your RAW image and spend very little time in CS2 then why spend the money on CS3. I spend most of my time in the conversion process and less time "editing" shots so Lightroom would be a good choice for me. I have used it and liked it very much (except for having to import my files which I now know was due more to my lack of knowledge about Lightroom than the software itself). I could probably do 95% of my work in Lightroom and use CS2 for only the little extras. CS3 is of no benefit to me right now.

Thanks. And I am the opposite. I spend time in the raw conversion process with any available image enhancement function to produce the best image possible to send to photoshop. But I do spend lots of time in photoshop masking, tweaking, etc. /Dan

[cdifoto]

That's kind of a loaded question. It depends on your ability in those other programs. I use C1 Pro as my normal raw converter. I have done a couple of tests where I took the same CR2 file and converted it in C1 and Lightroom. As far as basic conversion I really couldn't tell the difference. LR has some advantages in the area of presets. This is something that C1 doesn't have right now but can be accomplished in photoshop itself. There are some sliders available in Lightroom that I have not seen elsewhere.

Given what is available as far as raw converters go, I wouldn't purchase LR simply for its RAW capability. One has to wonder if the technology deployed in the raw conversion part of Lightroom will be extended to the next generation of ACR that will probably come with CS3.

Why don't you download a copy of Lightroom and try it for yourself. One should be able to make the determination if it is going to work for you within the 30 day trail period.

Thank you! I really fail to see what's so difficult about this. Try it. Find out if it works for you. End of discussion.

[cdifoto]

I see no reason to reply to this other than to say this is a personal attack and is not any where near fitting the community spirit of helpfullness nor comradery of potn. I am surprised and very disappointed to see this from a senior members of these forums - a senior member whom junior members look up to and learn behavior from.

To the others, thank you for your help. You answered the question directly: Lightroom does provide additional functionality that may help produce a better image. /Dan

I apologize for the personal attack. It has been deleted.

I just have little tolerance for those who are unwilling to help themselves. I responded by offering a suggestion and shrugged it off as if my reply was worthless. Another respected poster offers the same bit of advice. I can't be too far off the mark.

[In2Photos]

Thanks. And I am the opposite. I spend time in the raw conversion process with any available image enhancement function to produce the best image possible to send to photoshop. But I do spend lots of time in photoshop masking, tweaking, etc. /Dan
Hehe! After my last comment I realized that I might want to give Lightroom another go and downloaded it just now. I have seen a bunch of new tutorials and articles written lately so maybe I can better understand its capabilities. Should make for some fun these next few weeks.:)

[Picture North Carolina]

I apologize for the personal attack. It has been deleted.

I just have little tolerance for those who are unwilling to help themselves. I responded by offering a suggestion and shrugged it off as if my reply was worthless. Another respected poster offers the same bit of advice. I can't be too far off the mark.

Thank you for your apology. But it was followed by another personal comment which is not true. Perhaps if I take the time to explain it will calm the clamor down.

I see potn as a community built upon the principle of people helping people grow, learn and become better photographers. Sharing knowledge and helping each other better manage talent and resources. Time is one of those resources and a valuable one at that.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with me being "unwilling to help myself." If someone had replied, "Dan - there is nothing whatsoever in LR that will add functionality to what you already use" then that answer would allow me to better manage my time. Instead of using valuable time to install, learn, evaluate and eventually uninstall a software package that was of no benefit to me, I could use that time for another useful, productive purpose.

The difference between ssim's reply you reference is that he didn't simply say "try it yourself." He said it has additional functionality, try it yourself and see if these are of benefit to you. And that was the core essence of the original question; i.e. does it have additional features.

There are many talented and knowledgeable people in these forums, yourself included. I trust those people and their opinions. If the replies had been to bypass LR, I would have done just that and saved the time.

That's all I was asking with the original question: i.e, will lightroom help me improve my skills or should I spend the very valuable resource of time elsewhere. Hope that made sense. /Dan

[Picture North Carolina]

I have seen a bunch of new tutorials and articles written lately Any links you have time to post would be very greatly appreciated. /Dan

[coreypolis]

That's all I was asking with the original question: i.e, will lightroom help me improve my skills or should I spend the very valuable resource of time elsewhere. Hope that made sense. /Dan

Its all about finding something that works. Other programs will do some of the same things, maybe even better, but in different ways.

Personally I am loving LR to pieces, its a breeze to work with, and to me, very intuitive, and the RAW proccessor, while part of ACR, is much easier to use and I am getting better results. Even just applying some presets globally at import made old photos come to life more so then I ever got them before.

The print driver rocks, slide shows and web galleries are fun but I have better overall software for that if its for a client.

[coreypolis]

Any links you have time to post would be very greatly appreciated. /Dan
here's a few to start

http://polisphotography.com/Resources/Lightroom.html

luminous landscapes is selling a 4.5 hr HD set of like $11. Adobe has a bunch of videos, Matt antinio has a bunch of short tutorials on the simple photo minute, theres some free podcasts, but the NAPP's versions are great and free (done by scott kelby)

[cdifoto]

Thank you for your apology. But it was followed by another personal comment which is not true. Perhaps if I take the time to explain it will calm the clamor down.

I see potn as a community built upon the principle of people helping people grow, learn and become better photographers. Sharing knowledge and helping each other better manage talent and resources. Time is one of those resources and a valuable one at that.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with me being "unwilling to help myself." If someone had replied, "Dan - there is nothing whatsoever in LR that will add functionality to what you already use" then that answer would allow me to better manage my time. Instead of using valuable time to install, learn, evaluate and eventually uninstall a software package that was of no benefit to me, I could use that time for another useful, productive purpose.

The difference between ssim's reply you reference is that he didn't simply say "try it yourself." He said it has additional functionality, try it yourself and see if these are of benefit to you. And that was the core essence of the original question; i.e. does it have additional features.

There are many talented and knowledgeable people in these forums, yourself included. I trust those people and their opinions. If the replies had been to bypass LR, I would have done just that and saved the time.

That's all I was asking with the original question: i.e, will lightroom help me improve my skills or should I spend the very valuable resource of time elsewhere. Hope that made sense. /Dan

First, there is no clamoring. Second, I did not attack you this time. You are simply not helping yourself and that's a fact. Asking people to give you answers, when you could find out more effectively and accurately on your own by trying, is not helping yourself.

Downloading the software takes a few minutes, installing it takes a few seconds. A few minutes later you could have an image imported and playing around with it to see if you can get more functionality out of LR vs your current workflow. It doesn't take 30 days of the trial to do it. You can either work with it or you cannot.

Trying for yourself is the only way to determine definitively whether a change is in order. It's no different than asking if a body upgrade is worthwhile. Only you know what you shoot, how you shoot, and whether an upgrade will help or be a wasted financial outlay. No one can answer for you but they can give recommendations. My recommendation was to simply try. You came back with "that doesn't answer my question" but the fact is it may not have been a direct answer but it was pointing you in the direction to find your own answer.

I don't handhold. I'm not a babysitter. And I have no experience with ACR or CS2. So I gave the best response I could. Don't sit there and tell me I didn't help.

[Tsmith]

Here's some I've amassed:

http://lightroom-news.com/
http://inside-lightroom.com/index.html
http://www.seanmcfoto.com/lightroom/
http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/

[coreypolis]

First, there is no clamoring. Second, I did not attack you this time. You are simply not helping yourself and that's a fact. Asking people to give you answers, when you could find out more effectively and accurately on your own by trying, is not helping yourself.

Downloading the software takes a few minutes, installing it takes a few seconds. A few minutes later you could have an image imported and playing around with it to see if you can get more functionality out of LR vs your current workflow. It doesn't take 30 days of the trial to do it. You can either work with it or you cannot.

Trying for yourself is the only way to determine definitively whether a change is in order. It's no different than asking if a body upgrade is worthwhile. Only you know what you shoot, how you shoot, and whether an upgrade will help or be a wasted financial outlay. No one can answer for you but they can give recommendations. My recommendation was to simply try. You came back with "that doesn't answer my question" but the fact is it may not have been a direct answer but it was pointing you in the direction to find your own answer.

I don't handhold. I'm not a babysitter. And I have no experience with ACR or CS2. So I gave the best response I could. Don't sit there and tell me I didn't help.
way to promote good fellowship. :rolleyes: just let it go for once

[cdifoto]

way to promote good fellowship. :rolleyes: just let it go for once

I never hung on. I'm allowed to respond.

[coreypolis]

I never hung on. I'm allowed to respond.
it doesn't accomplish anything though ;)

[In2Photos]

Any links you have time to post would be very greatly appreciated. /Dan
I found some on Adobe's site as well as the others already posted here:

Adobe (http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/designcenter/search.cfm?product=Photoshop+Lightroom&go=Go)
From another post here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2755632&postcount=6)