Why use Lightroom?

[sunnygirl]

I currently use CS3/Bridge/Raw 4.4.1, what if any advantage is there to having Lightroom (now new Beta version), isn't it doubling up on bridge file managing and Raw Converters?

Sorry probably a dummy beginners question!

[blinded]

I don't use Lightroom, but here are some reasons why people use it

-Metadata browser
-The database stores all XMP data, rather than having files scattered around
-Can print from it
-It's a very "all-in-one" product, so a lot of people don't have to go to another program
-Uses MelissaRGB as a workspace, ACR forces you to use the same working space as export

[sunnygirl]

Thanks blinded for your explanation. Just looking for some justification in spending the money.

[davidcrebelxt]

Some people can't stand Bridge, and prefer Lightroom.
Some people can't stand Lightroom and would rather stick with Bridge.

I like the library module, and having all my images at my fingertips organized by time shot... I also keyword my images to help quickly find them.

Best way to decide if its for you is play around with the 30 day trials of LR and the beta, and see what you think. RAW processing should be very similar to what you use now since LR uses ACR for its processing.

[Shooting]

why use lightroom and then have to go to photoshop for the color filters and other filters and do your special effects...you are still using 2 programs..would be better to stick with cs3 and bridge..the one program does it all...I tried lightroom and gave it away...isn't worth the trouble or money.

[davidcrebelxt]

like I said... ;)

[In2Photos]

why use lightroom and then have to go to photoshop for the color filters and other filters and do your special effects...you are still using 2 programs..would be better to stick with cs3 and bridge..the one program does it all...I tried lightroom and gave it away...isn't worth the trouble or money.
Of course if you don't use all that "stuff" in CS* then LR is a great choice. I only use CS2 if I want to get creative, LR gets all the basics and sometimes some sizzle. Horses for courses as they say.

[sunnygirl]

I currently use keywords, metadata, stacks, Folders -subfolders by dates etc with bridge. Folders vs Librarys in LR what are the differences?
Really what does LR do that I'm not already doing in Bridge/CS3 - am I missing the point?...
I have trialled LR Beta but keeps crashing computer when using new beta tools.

[PixelMagic]

Lightroom keeps track of all your images even if they are stored offline on different media...on the other hand Bridge is a browser so it can only view files that are present on your hard drive. Tje Search function in Lightroom makes it very easy to find specific images.

Also if you shoot a large volume of RAW images its more efficient to process those files in Lightroom.

[Canon Soldier]

Some people can't stand Bridge, and prefer Lightroom.
Some people can't stand Lightroom and would rather stick with Bridge.


Does any like DPP?

[davidcrebelxt]

Does any like DPP?

Yeah, I like DPP too. Better default color than LR/ACR for RAW files. (ie: no red-orange color shift.) I just like the tools better in LR, esp in recovering highlights which is one of my main problems with DPP; though it doesn't affect every image.

[Victoria Bampton]

Really what does LR do that I'm not already doing in Bridge/CS3 - am I missing the point?...
I have trialled LR Beta but keeps crashing computer when using new beta tools.

Other main factors for me:


Quick Develop offers relative adjustments, so if you get to the end of a wedding, and want to warm it all up by X amount, you don't have to do each image individually.
Changes are saved immediately (isn't it irritating when ACR crashes when you're half way through processing a big batch before you've saved to XMP?!?!)
Presets are applied easily & history remembers everything you've done
Greater integration between the main develop controls and grid view - no having to hit done to check grid view unlike ACR
Virtual copies - no more hassle if you want conversions in both B&W and colour, for example
TAT - targeted adjustment tool is fantastic!
Output directly to the size I want.
It's continuing to grow and develop at a great pace.Don't use the beta as a guide - wait until v2.0 is released properly - there will be a trial - and boy is it worth the wait!

[sunnygirl]

I am definitely starting to shoot larger volumes of RAW images now and I currently store all images on a separate hard drive to my computer with an additional backup hard drive, so I guess things are going to get messier over a period of time without lightroom.
Also anything that speeds up processing of large volume of images has got to be a definite plus

[sunnygirl]

Any ideas floating around as to when LR2 will be released

[davidcrebelxt]

The beta expires at end of August I think... but that doesn't really *mean* anything. They could release tomorrow, or they could extend the beta. Adobe doesn't typically pre-announce their release dates... those who actually DO know aren't allowed to tell.

[blinded]

Yeah, I like DPP too. Better default color than LR/ACR for RAW files. (ie: no red-orange color shift.) I just like the tools better in LR, esp in recovering highlights which is one of my main problems with DPP; though it doesn't affect every image.

The tools are way better, but color wise, I think that's a per image thing. Sometimes ACR looks more pleasing, but not exactly more accurate. Sometimes you WANT that hue shift, even if it's wrong. Personally, I prefer Bridge but they both have quirks. I LOVE how you really easily move all the windows around in Bridge, and for some reason I cannot stand the grid thing in Lightroom where the selected images are barely showing you they're selected! Really light up or something! Show us that you're actually selected! I would rather not have that whole "box around every photo" or "sliced up in a grid" style thumbnails for images. I'd rather have them match the background color only. I also don't like how LR has everything scrolling. The tab interface was way faster in Bridge. Plus their export/save as had simple, superior naming schemes, and the metadata was better organized in my opinion. As you can see, there are so many cosmetic things about LR that annoy me.

Other main factors for me:

Changes are saved immediately (isn't it irritating when ACR crashes when you're half way through processing a big batch before you've saved to XMP?!?!)

I've actually seen other RAW converters do this. :lol: Must be Adobe pulling crap to get you to buy LR.

Presets are applied easily & history remembers everything you've done

Pretty handy, but sometimes I wish I could turn off history. How much do you think history takes up?

Greater integration between the main develop controls and grid view - no having to hit done to check grid view unlike ACR

Never thought of that. How does that work? You still have to click back to the library.

Virtual copies - no more hassle if you want conversions in both B&W and colour, for example

I thought Bridge had this too? This is just them holding back on purpose, rather than making high quality products.

TAT - targeted adjustment tool is fantastic!

Pretty cool, but I never used it. Did you ever find that it was slow or jerky? For me, it would freeze.

Output directly to the size I want.

Handy, but I don't use it.

It's continuing to grow and develop at a great pace.

lol, this might be a good thing. I already know that DxO and Capture One have really crashed and burned recently. Lets hope nobody else does.

[davidcrebelxt]

Sometimes you WANT that hue shift, even if it's wrong.

I've never ONCE had that be the case. Granted, sometimes it gave a pretty hue to a flower... but a hue that clearly wasn't there when I walked back outside and looked at it.

Only time I had jerky movement in LR was when I had it running on a 600mhz PIII at one point when my main machine took a nosedive. On my low-end core2duo 2.0ghz, it flies right along. But as I said, LR's not for everyone, and I have a feeling Adobe knows that... that's why bridge is likely to stick around for quite awhile... though I have seen it slow on other peoples machines, so I see where you are coming from.

The big benefit for me is that I can get that power for so little $ (Got it at discounted price at first release.... btw, students get it for $99) and it goes well with Elements, as I have no plans to pay the "one Alex" for CSx. {Let's see if anyone catches that reference!}

Since processing is the same as ACR, though, I have often wondered too why so many CS3 users so willingly plunked down the extra $300 for it, however I guess Victoria points out a number of those reasons for me now. Now if they could fix a couple of my MAJOR disappointments... ahem *checkboxes next to keywords*... that'd be great. Taking it you've gotten a sneak peak at it Victoria? Gotta tell you I start looking forward to it, then after awhile I start to think its going to be a let down... we'll see though. Still seems odd they plan to leave out features that have existed for ages elsewhere.

[sunnygirl]

I have had Bridge slow right down on my 2GB Ram Mac but I have put another 1GB in now and seems better. However on the Lightroom Beta when making adjustments it was much worse. Don't know if that was because it is Beta or whether LR just needs more RAM to run more efficiently

[blinded]

I've never ONCE had that be the case. Granted, sometimes it gave a pretty hue to a flower... but a hue that clearly wasn't there when I walked back outside and looked at it.
Not me, people in general. It's like having the post-processing built in. That extra kick that takes no work. Some people like it.

[sunnygirl]

Thanks for all your advice, much appreciated.

[Victoria Bampton]

Pretty handy, but sometimes I wish I could turn off history. How much do you think history takes up?

Not a lot. If you create a catalog of images, make adjustments, and then write to xmp, the xmp files combined are not much smaller than the catalog itself, yet the catalog includes extra data including the history.


Never thought of that. How does that work? You still have to click back to the library.

True, but it's very quick to hit G to go back to Grid, D to go back to Develop, and carry on editing from where you were. ACR has to hit done, then reload all of the images again, and you have to remember where you were.

I thought Bridge had this too? This is just them holding back on purpose, rather than making high quality products.
Last time I checked VC's were LR only, although they may appear in Bridge in the future.[/quote]

Now if they could fix a couple of my MAJOR disappointments... ahem *checkboxes next to keywords*... that'd be great. Taking it you've gotten a sneak peak at it Victoria? Gotta tell you I start looking forward to it, then after awhile I start to think its going to be a let down... we'll see though. Still seems odd they plan to leave out features that have existed for ages elsewhere.

I couldn't possibly say David!! Some features that have existed elsewhere for ages will obviously take time to include - it still all needs programming. And however much they do, there will ALWAYS be some who are disappointed. But I'm expecting some happy people this time round.

I have had Bridge slow right down on my 2GB Ram Mac but I have put another 1GB in now and seems better. However on the Lightroom Beta when making adjustments it was much worse. Don't know if that was because it is Beta or whether LR just needs more RAM to run more efficiently
Try again when it's finally released, as the beta code isn't optimized. That said, LR does benefit from RAM, and switching LR to 64-bit will help too.

[René Damkot]

Last time I checked VC's were LR only, although they may appear in Bridge in the future.

Well, kinda: Click (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/07/camera_raw_versioning.html)

[Desertraptor]

I use LR to do basic adjustments and conversion to TIFF. I then use CS to do the rest.
I don't like how LR does not give size control over crops. If it did I'd likely use it alone.

[In2Photos]

I use LR to do basic adjustments and conversion to TIFF. I then use CS to do the rest.
I don't like how LR does not give size control over crops. If it did I'd likely use it alone.
What do you mean by "size control over crops"?

[SeanH]

The more I use LR the more I love it. I'm a JPG shooter so to have the same adjustments for a JPG as I would a RAW file is a great thing. Yes I know I can open my JPG's in ACR in PS, but it's way slower.

I also love the presets you can create. I also like the copy & paste feature. I can get a rough adjustment for a whole shot then apply it to every shot......in about 3 seconds. I also find the crop tool works much better than the one in PS. But the best thing I love about LR is the time I save editing images. If I was to do the same thing in PS it would take me AT LEAST twice as long.

Sure there are still things I need PS for.........of course anything with layers, I still sharpen & resize with PS, cloning is also something I use quite a bit. And if I need to straighten a building I'm back to PS.

But for the most part I'm using LR more and more.........I now consider PS as a big fancy plug in.........LOL