100 Ways Lightroom kicks Bridge & Camera Raw's (ahem) butts

kompressor wrote in post #12430335
I have to disagree. I do tend to take Kelby's affiliation with Adobe into account when considering his recommendations but I believe this one is spot-on and sincere. I never used Bridge until I upgraded to CS5 last year. I thought it was the best photo manager ever invented. I read books, watched videos, and most importantly, experimented with Bridge until I felt my skills were pretty good. I raved about it to some fellow photogs. They promptly turned me on to LR3.

The learning curve was steep. Had to change my entire philosophy of managing and outputting my work. Now that I have, it has saved me countless hours in PP and publishing. Adobe got it right with LR3.

Scott Kelby Sincere? He's a pitchman not exclusively affiliated with Adobe.
Nevertheless, just to be clear, I'm reluctant to recommend Photoshop CS* for photographers anyways. If photography is the only purpose that a person would use CS* for, then it would be a waste of good software and their money.
LR is less expensive and was developed for the photographer, PSCS* is much more than any photographer will ever need.

I think both Kelby and Kloskowski are earning lots of money 'Promoting' Lightroom...

Kelby is also associated with OnOne Perfect Layers and others probably...

Russell Brown, watch your back..

I think their videos are great though..

For those on a Mac, with slow connections and not enough time, download a product called 'Site Sucker'.. Right-click on the video to get the URL address and paste it into it..

Make sure it's the video URL and not the whole page one, otherwise it will suck everything down (not a problem, just delete them and start again)..

It's usually very fast.. Then you can watch them over and over as you have Lightroom open next to it and practice..

Not sure if there's a Windows version though..

tkerr wrote in post #12429153
I didn't feel like waiting on or viewing 100 different little videos. But I would like to know how since both LR and ACR use the same Raw engine does LR kick ACR's but.
Browsing through the list of reasons, I only saw a couple that LR does that you can't with Bridge and ACR.

^^^ This.

Also, there are a few thing where ACR/ PS kicks LRs butt:

1. softproofing
   
2. layers
   
3. selections
   
4. cloning
   
5. softproofing
   
6. I probably could go one for quite a while
   

imho some of you are looking at this the wrong way. i look at it like they are saying lr is better for ease of use and speeding up your basic workflow, which imho is totally correct. i dont think they are saying ditch photoshop you dont need it. for me i use lr3 to import, view, select keepers, rate, basic edit, and last to show friends. for 95% of my photos this is the whole deal, the other 5 percent are the ones i want to try more advanced pp on.


as for kelby i only know of his books and of course he's trying to make money and he's doing it by teaching. i've never bought software because of kelby but i have bought kelby books because of software.

René Damkot wrote in post #12432873
^^^ This.


Also, there are a few thing where ACR/ PS kicks LRs butt:

1. softproofing
   
2. layers
   
3. selections
   
4. cloning
   
5. softproofing
   
6. I probably could go one for quite a while

LR transfers pictures to PS the same way, so it's not about dissing PS in any way; it's just about LR's capabilities compared to Bridge and RAW. When you watch the videos, there are a lot of advantages.

LR's organization ability alone is worth more than Photoshop. I only use photoshop when I need something removed. I don't do much PP, but when I do, I just use my LR presets. Saves a ton of time.

René Damkot wrote in post #12432873
^^^ This.

Also, there are a few thing where ACR/ PS kicks LRs butt:

1. softproofing
   
2. layers
   
3. selections
   
4. cloning
   
5. softproofing
   
6. I probably could go on for quite a while
   

Emphasis added by me. Lightroom is completely useless to me as an end-to-end processing solution until they implement soft proofing. Regardless of what the naysayers assert, even if it only saves you one print proof, that's a huge amount of money over the, say, 5-year lifespan of the average photo printer. And the numbers get all the more egregious if you like to print larger than 8x10.

I very nearly jumped on Lightroom when the NIK Complete collection was on uber-discount at B&H, but when I realized I'd still have to export everything out to Photoshop to soft proof and print, I considered it a waste of money.

I'm sure it's a great way to streamline workflow for web-only use, but I've transitioned to primarily print presentation, and for that reason I'm still holding off.

mitsu13gman wrote in post #12440298
Emphasis added by me. Lightroom is completely useless to me as an end-to-end processing solution until they implement soft proofing. Regardless of what the naysayers assert, even if it only saves you one print proof, that's a huge amount of money over the, say, 5-year lifespan of the average photo printer. And the numbers get all the more egregious if you like to print larger than 8x10.

I very nearly jumped on Lightroom when the NIK Complete collection was on uber-discount at B&H, but when I realized I'd still have to export everything out to Photoshop to soft proof and print, I considered it a waste of money.

I'm sure it's a great way to streamline workflow for web-only use, but I've transitioned to primarily print presentation, and for that reason I'm still holding off.

Two options:

This one will cost about $20.00...

http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/ProofIndex​.php


This one is free...

http://pindelski.org …-proofing-with-lightroom/

The Outlaw wrote in post #12433503
imho some of you are looking at this the wrong way. i look at it like they are saying lr is better for ease of use and speeding up your basic workflow, which imho is totally correct.

Well, I've been using LR since the betas, and been using PS since PS4 , so I think I know both.

The problem I'm having with the LR sales pitch, is that quite a few of the arguments used are (IMO) non-issues, have incomplete (or sometimes wrong) info.
I realise a catchy title is a good way to drive traffic to the site, but at least offer good info...

LR is great because it is catalog based, it has "output modules" that are nice (web module in bridge doesn't convert to sRGB for instance, which is just plain stupid), and I use LR exclusively for part of my workflow. But I wouldn't want to do without PS for other things (like printing or "advanced" editing)


Not saying I dislike LR, but I don't like "experts" giving prejudiced information.

Well, I didn't check out the videos -- it sounded like a goofy Scott Kelby thing, and he is known for goofy stuff occasionally. I like him for the substance he provides, and you know, the next time you check he'll probably be doing a goofy "100 Ways Photoshop Kicks Lightroom's Butt" and so it goes.

That being said, there are very valid reasons for having a Lightroom workflow, we discuss these in here all the time, and don't need Scott Kelby goofiness to make a knowledgeable choice!

Just to clarify, they are not putting down PS at all. It's about LR V Bridge/RAW. They all work together with PS.

Well, I'd take it all with grain of salt. Kelby's books are pretty good, but not particularly comprehensive.

I'm not sure why switching between applications is a bad thing - so why does LR let you do that?

Seriously, though - time is precious - LR is a new program to learn - why bother, when there's very little (if anything) you can do in LR any better than you can do it in PS - except non-photographic things like cataloging, filtering, labeling, etc. I don't bother with that in Bridge, so why is attractive in LR?

Hen3Ry wrote in post #12446235
Seriously, though - time is precious - LR is a new program to learn - why bother, when there's very little (if anything) you can do in LR any better than you can do it in PS - except non-photographic things like cataloging, filtering, labeling, etc. I don't bother with that in Bridge, so why is attractive in LR?

If you've already got PS CS* then you probably won't need Lightroom. But, For the upcoming photographer who has yet to decided which software to get for his/her photography needs, of the two options LR is the better choice. For most photographers, PS CS* and all its bells and whistles is much more than is necessary. IMHO!

tkerr wrote in post #12446428
If you've already got PS CS* then you probably won't need Lightroom. But, For the upcoming photographer who has yet to decided which software to get for his/her photography needs, of the two options LR is the better choice. For most photographers, PS CS* and all its bells and whistles is much more than is necessary. IMHO!

Well, actually I installed LR and used it for a couple of months, but really didn't see an advantage (for me} when doing so. I have a workflow that relies on layers, and there are things you can do with PS that you cannot do in LR. Simple as that, though I agree that LR is easier to learn and probably easier for a beginner to use. But in my view, the most difficult part of "beginning" is learning about e.g. color management, and things like how and when to use the tools.

Hen3Ry wrote in post #12446235
Well, I'd take it all with grain of salt. Kelby's books are pretty good, but not particularly comprehensive.

I'm not sure why switching between applications is a bad thing - so why does LR let you do that?

Seriously, though - time is precious - LR is a new program to learn - why bother, when there's very little (if anything) you can do in LR any better than you can do it in PS - except non-photographic things like cataloging, filtering, labeling, etc. I don't bother with that in Bridge, so why is attractive in LR?

You have to watch the videos -- they have 100 reasons its better.