Is Lightroom worth $300

[mcneguy]

When DPP is free?

[Strick]

I wondered the same thing so I downloaded it and used the for the trial period. I learned that to me it was worth the price. It does everything I need to do to PP an image. It collects, sorts, catalogs, edits, and everything I would need. There are times I go to Elements but that is not very often.

Use the trial and see if it fits for you.

[crn3371]

The nice thing about most post-processing programs is the ability to download free trial versions before you buy. Download it, and try it.

[Glenn NK]

I made that decision back in February.

The free part of DPP was attractive (does this seem strange after I spent $7,000 plus on gear;), but after I tried LR, with its very well laid out controls, I gave up on DPP.

Even now, after having a better understanding of the elements of PP, I find DPP awkward - maybe it's just me because many here like it.

One advantage of LR is that there is a wealth of information available online in the form of tutorials, but more importantly (for me at least) there are several very good books on LR available at bookstores. I have Martin Evening's book, and Scott Kelby's is supposedly very good.

Try and find something like this for DPP - it doesn't seem to exist.

I also like being able to sort my photos with keywords, etc.

One neat feature is that I can look at all pictures taken with any specific lens or specific shutter speed or f/stop or ISO. No other pics will show. If I select (24 - 105 for example), only pictures taken with this lens will be visible in the Library.

[davidcrebelxt]

I bought it back in February (or March?) also. Was it worth the $170 I spent on it? Yes.

$300?? Me, with my budget, and a non professional? I'd have to pass. One of those situations where I honestly think Adobe has priced themselves out of a large part of the potential user base.

$300 is harder to swallow considering how buggy 1.0 and 1.1 were (while many issues have been resolved in 1.2... but not all.)

Also some annoying missing functionality, that should be "basic" considering this is from Adobe and the price point:
- No easy AND search, even though its existed for YEARS in Elements by using checkboxes.
- Also weak, weak, weak slideshow module.
- And no softproofing.

None of those are asking too much, I don't think, and two of those have existed in other Adobe products for years. I understand the whole 'its a 1.0 product' mantra of Adobe fanboys... but still, for that price-tag it leaves me wanting.

Sum up... big fan of Lightroom, not a big fan of the price hike. If you have the possibility to upgrade to CS3 for the same $299, I'd do that. As others suggested, make use of 30 day trial before buying to help make decision for yourself.

[cdifoto]

DPP is good.

LR is better (with caveats).

Worth the $300? Maybe. Can't really say though as I was grandfathered in via RawShooter. I might still be using DPP if it weren't for that.

[jdizzle]

LR is worth it.

[Clark]

Is it worth it if you already have CS3?

[bacchanal]

Is it worth it if you already have CS3?

It depends if you like it as an image catalog and if it really speeds up your worflow in terms of raw processing. Bridge/CS3 is a capable combo, but LR is really nice for processing large batches of RAWs at once.

I bought CS3 (upgrade from PSE5) and LR as a package and saved $175 or so, but honestly for what I do, I use LR more heavily than I use CS3, so to me it is worth the money. Of course, I use CS3 to batch resize and sharpen...so pretty much every one of my images now goes through both pieces of software.

Bibble is another great option for less money than LR. If you're on the fence about buying LR due to the price, I would take some time and trial both Bibble and LR. I ended up going with LR just because I wanted to stick with Adobe, and I want to see where they take LR as they continue to develop it and add features.

[JohnJ80]

Is it worth it if you already have CS3?

yes.

CS3 is an editor. Lightroom is a database manager too.

get "The DAM Book"

DAM=Digital Asset Managment.

J.

[Tapeman]

It is a very good program and works seamlessly with CS3. I bought mine when it first came out for $99.

[Familiaphoto]

I feel lightroom is fantastic, but then again I got my copy through academic pricing for $99.

[S.E.V.]

Since i bought light room I edit all my photos through it first. I thinks it is worth 300.

[Dan-o]

I feel lightroom is fantastic, but then again I got my copy through academic pricing for $99.

Me too. Defiantly worth 99.

[ed rader]

I feel lightroom is fantastic, but then again I got my copy through academic pricing for $99.

Paul -- do you have a link? thanx :D.

ed rader

[ed rader]

i wasn't so sure at first but LR is worth $300 to me. it's not a stand alone program for me but using it with PS isn't a hassle :D.

i'm still learning the program tho.......

ed rader

[Fotoscapes]

When DPP is free?


I paid $199 when LR was first announced. I, too, wondered if it was worth the price, whether $199 or $299, seeing DPP is free. Howver, LR, in my opinion, does do so much more. I can remove all color and re-insert just one color for a nice special effect. Example: I can take all the color out of a nice New England foliage shot, that features a large sugar maple tree in full red foliage, then add back just the red to produce a nice effect of one color on B & W. (Not sure if I would have paid $299 when that price became effective 4/1/2007.) LR seems to marry well with Elements 5.0, seeing I can't afford the daddy PS of $900 smackers! I know I have yet to use all of LR's features to it's fullest...

Joe

[S.E.V.]

I paid $199 when LR was first announced. I, too, wondered if it was worth the price, whether $199 or $299, seeing DPP is free. Howver, LR, in my opinion, does do so much more. I can remove all color and re-insert just one color for a nice special effect. Example: I can take all the color out of a nice New England foliage shot, that features a large sugar maple tree in full red foliage, then add back just the red to produce a nice effect of one color on B & W. (Not sure if I would have paid $299 when that price became effective 4/1/2007.) LR seems to marry well with Elements 5.0, seeing I can't afford the daddy PS of $900 smackers! I know I have yet to use all of LR's features to it's fullest...

Joe


I also noticed that CS3 with raw files has most of the features as lightroom does. But i think LR is still a great software and worth 300 or 99 for students.

[Dan-o]

Ed I bought mine straight from Adobe for $99.

[Franko515]

Is anyone using LR & PS3? Or is it one or the other?

[Fotoscapes]

Is anyone using LR & PS3? Or is it one or the other?

I'm using LR with Elements 5.0. I know that E5.0 is no PS3 but it works for me. However, the right person could most likely use LR as a stand-alone. No bout a doubt it! :D

Joe

[davidcrebelxt]

You'll likely want SOME type of pixel editor, be it Elements, CS, Gimp, etc, along with LR... all work similarly (it saves a copy of your file, opens other editor, and you save out image with same name LR orginally gave it.) Only exception is CS2/3 in which you can additionally use "droplets" to automaticly run actions in photoshop without any user interaction it that other program.

Remember, LR only does global edits, no selective edits, layers, blending, text, or plugins which my be very much needed for noise or sharpening.

[stasber]

Remember, LR only does global edits, no selective edits, layers, blending, text, or plugins which my be very much needed for noise or sharpening.
I think the idea behind LR is that it's supposed to be the digital version of a photographer's dark room, so is tuned to the toolbox that a photographer needs today without image 'manipulation' per se, so often blurred (or gaussian blurred :lol: ?) and associated together.

Two points: Firstly, selective edits should be introduced, as how else would a photographer dodge & burn? Secondly, maybe they're keeping a careful eye on product margins, so that people will continue to have a need for CS3 in addition to LR. Err, thirdly... here's watching the product updates ;) and hoping.

Anyhoo. I'm weening myself off DPP as I think it's a very good bit of kit, and kudos to Canon for supplying this free app. It's under-rated and actually can achieve a high quality of finish used with skill, especially as it is optimized for it's own brand. Overall, and when compared to other products out there, it is pretty basic. I still use it for quick 'sketching', i.e. rough edits to get an idea of what examples of a tricky shoot would look like. This helps me decide what/how to work a shoot in LR (I'm a concert photographer, lighting is usually a bitch). I can work faster in DPP for this reason.

For a couple of months my results were better in DPP than in LR, then I realized that LR can fix colour issues that DPP can't. LR has a comprehensive toolchest, and I really like the DAM and metadata handling. All of which is lacking in DPP.

Is LR worth the money? At version 1.2 of a product thats not been out a full year yet, yes I think it's worth it.

[René Damkot]

then I realized that LR can fix colour issues that DPP can't.
And vice versa...
metadata handling. All of which is lacking in DPP.
DPP does seem to 'transport' IPTC data from CR2 to tiff file when processing nowadays. Still gets stripped out of a jpg.

[stasber]

And vice versa...
Tell me more... I'm still experimenting, but so far have found LR to give me more flexibility/latitude than DPP, namely in the 7 colour channels and the split toning.

I had a series of gigs that was shot in a predominantly red ambience and DPP gave me some nice results from that. I've yet to find time to go through some of those again to see how LR could cope with that; though some of those gigs were a bit much for DPP, and those I'm sure would fare better in LR, now that I've got a handle on it.

Another job was for a dance show with poor lighting design, DPP would not allow me to neutralize skin tones from the over-bled rouge on everyone's faces, but easily remedied in LR.

DPP does seem to 'transport' IPTC data from CR2 to tiff file when processing nowadays. Still gets stripped out of a jpg.
Interesting, will have a look though I seldom use TIFFs.

[Riff Raff]

I paid $169 for Lightroom, but I'll agree that it's worth double that. My copy of Photoshop is practically unused these days. The time I save using Lightroom is more than worth the price.

[ed rader]

Ed I bought mine straight from Adobe for $99.

thanx Dan-O.

ed rader

[René Damkot]

Tell me more... I'm still experimenting, but so far have found LR to give me more flexibility/latitude than DPP, namely in the 7 colour channels and the split toning.

True, but the problem is that you are going to need them: DPP offers better color 'out of the box', and better skin tones no matter what IMO.
Off course, LR can also recover highlights. Something DPP is uncapable of.

An older thread: Click (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=337343).
I'm using LR more often now, and I've found that setting a correction in the calibration tab makes quite a difference. Still have to update that thread...

Two other threads: Click (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=379897&highlight=LR+calibration) and click (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=379507&highlight=LR+calibration).

[stasber]

Thanks Rene - a mine of information as usual (can you tell I lurk a lot :cool: ).

Yes I remember your Challenge thread, though didn't post up my lame attempts in DPP :oops: . Must get round to it in LR or LightZone some time. It's a good 'un!

I would generally agree that DPP is better for OTB skin tones and colours, and calibration is overall excellent; overall meaning under different lighting conditions. LR is not bad and so far I've gotten by with it, probably made easier by stage lighting masking some of the true tones, allowing me more creative license. Not done much daylight photography at all, but do have one project awaiting processing, so will see how we go with that.

But.. I like the fact that DPP is still has it's merits, in the face of LR et al, and it's not simply relegated to an also-ran.

[davidfig]

Are you a student. search google for academic software and you can pick it up for $99.

[Tandem]

If you are like me and want to minimally process 300-400 photos a day from sporting events then Lightroom is a bargain at any price. If you plan on spending hours on a photo getting it just right then Lightroom is not much help. There is a big gray area in between those two extremes.