Why do we all end up using Lightroom?

Nice to see the discussion continue - I'm reading along, and yes, I know I need to write a full review.. just don't have the time...

CRCchemist wrote in post #17131462
Well, I know (through my friend) that Adobe Camera Raw is actually 90% identical to the develop module of Lightroom. It just doesn't have the little brush, the spot remover, and the radial and graduated filters. It has everything else. So it's just about the same thing and Bridge is 90% identical to the library module of Lightroom too.

To me the big difference is the workflow and tool layout. Lightroom just integrates everything together in a way that makes for a far smoother workflow for me.

To me Lightroom+photoshop feels like a well organized worktable, where as ACR/Bridge/Photoshop feels like swapping between different worktables in the same room. You achieve the same things at the end of the day, but one involves more jumping around.

Luckless wrote in post #17131507
To me the big difference is the workflow and tool layout. Lightroom just integrates everything together in a way that makes for a far smoother workflow for me.

To me Lightroom+photoshop feels like a well organized worktable, where as ACR/Bridge/Photoshop feels like swapping between different worktables in the same room. You achieve the same things at the end of the day, but one involves more jumping around.

Yes, I agree with you. Photo Mechanic packed in there on my workflow is even more scattered, so I thought that Bridge -> ACR -> Photoshop isn't that bad, but it is more extra steps than the all-in-one Lightroom solution.

CRCchemist wrote in post #17131462
Well, I know (through my friend) that Adobe Camera Raw is actually 90% identical to the develop module of Lightroom. It just doesn't have the little brush, the spot remover, and the radial and graduated filters. It has everything else. So it's just about the same thing and Bridge is 90% identical to the library module of Lightroom too.

It has all of those local edit tools in the CC version of ACR. LR's develop module is essentially the corresponding version of ACR.

I think that the users of LR like it for the integrated, all-in-one editing environment, all else being equal among various tools and converters. However, I also think LR users like their pixel editing tools and are requesting more and more local editing tools in LR - they want to have their cake and eat it too, without PS or a similar pixel editor. Adobe have to prevent cannibalism of the Cloud subscription model, so it will be interesting to see how much of these requests go unfulfilled. Presumably that is what the $9.99/mo PS+LR package is for.

kirk

CRCchemist wrote in post #17131462
Well, I know (through my friend) that Adobe Camera Raw is actually 90% identical to the develop module of Lightroom. It just doesn't have the little brush, the spot remover, and the radial and graduated filters. It has everything else. So it's just about the same thing and Bridge is 90% identical to the library module of Lightroom too.

What version is he using? I have all of those (CS6-ACR8.5) except the Radial filter and I know how to simulate it. Not sure what you're referring to as the "little brush" though.

kirkt wrote in post #17131541
However, I also think LR users like their pixel editing tools and are requesting more and more local editing tools in LR - they want to have their cake and eat it too, without PS or a similar pixel editor. Adobe have to prevent cannibalism of the Cloud subscription model, so it will be interesting to see how much of these requests go unfulfilled. Presumably that is what the $9.99/mo PS+LR package is for.

I agree with your observation on LR folks wanting more and more of the editing features of PS. The softproofing seemed to be a big one for LR users. It does make you wonder if some day in the future they will be basically combined into one package. Price wise it'd have to be more expensive for LR users and less for us Photoshop users. The LR crowd has a fairly strong voice with Adobe I'd think. If you took a poll here I'd guess you'd easily find more LR users than non-users.

Slightly off topic - LR users take over. I was a member of NAPP for several years. Slowly but surely it became geared more toward LR users than PS users. They were also rehashing a lot of PS methods that had been known for quite a while. I let my subscription lapse about a year or so ago, just wasn't enough for me anymore.

D Thompson wrote in post #17131598
...Slightly off topic - LR users take over. I was a member of NAPP for several years. Slowly but surely it became geared more toward LR users than PS users.

Well, technically the Lightroom application on my Mac is called "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom" so the first "P" in NAPP pertains, I guess.

kirk

What I really like with the integrated workflow of LR is the fact that it makes it very easy to stick with just the RAW file. If I'm printing for example I can print directly from the RAW, I do not need to create an RGB file at any point in the process. Even for digital output I only need to create an RGB file as my final deliverable. I can also do my soft proofing with my RAW's. Since with LR I am only having to send about 2% of my images for additional processing in a pixel editor this is a substantial benefit. I know that some of this is possible with Bridge but the integrated nature of LR I find really useful.

I do use Bridge along with PSCS5 for photo editing, although I also use Dreamweaver and Indesign CS3. As the file types associated with these applications are not supported in LR I have to use Bridge when working with them. In this case Bridge is a much better file manager than Windows Explorer (Vista) for these file types. I edit the Matchday Programme for my local football club, and although using Indesign for layout and as I said working with Bridge I actually import all of the images that I am sent for inclusion in the program to LR, simply so that I can use export presets to quickly resize the images to fit the various parts of the page that they might have to fit. I could probably use PS to do this but I find that LR allows me just the level of automation that is useful to do what is necessary quickly. As I also photograph games for them those images are processed in LR anyway, so are already there when I need them too.

Alan

No debate necessary.
"We" don't all use LR.
I haven't since 4.something.
I *HATE* the mandatory catalog.
Should be optional.
As it is, I STILL LOVE Bridge and CS6.
That's what I use mostly.

DetlevCM wrote in post #17077051
Here is a good question - that I would like to see a debate about.

Why do we all end up using Lightroom?

I tried LR twice and sold it soon after each time. I refuse to use any software that takes over my media files.

davtackett wrote in post #17132189
I tried LR twice and sold it soon after each time. I refuse to use any software that takes over my media files.

How does Lr take over your media files?

buggz wrote in post #17132188
As it is, I STILL LOVE Bridge and PS 6.0.
That's what I use mostly.

I'm guessing you mean CS6 since PS6 didn't have Bridge/ACR included.

davtackett wrote in post #17132189
I tried LR twice and sold it soon after each time. I refuse to use any software that takes over my media files.

I wonder what non-take-over software you use.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17132205
How does Lr take over your media files?

Yes, please explain that because I have seen that statement before and never understood it. In seven years and tens of thousands of photo files, I have never seen any "taking over". The files remain on your hard drive exactly where you choose to put them. LR never alters their content or overwrites them. When a file is "imported" (a term that apparently misleads many people because it conjures up images of files being moved to some unknown foreign shore - "registered" would have been a better choice but I suppose a poetic corner of Thomas Knoll's soul wanted to maintain a linguistic symmetry with "exporting" converted files) LR does two things; it lists the file's name and location in its database (an action that is analogous with listing your name, address and phone number in the phone book - you would probably have to suffer from a high level of paranoia to believe that the phone company has "taken over" your life - although I suppose it might be realistic to think that Google controls you) and it makes a low resolution jpg to be used in its Library display - your choice: 1024, 1440, 1680, 2048, or 2880 pixels wide. Having its own jpg conversion instead of using the camera's embedded jpg allows LR to render it to reflect its own defaults and to quickly revise it later according to any editing that is done. Is this 350 KB jpg the "taking over"? ("We don' need no stinkin' previews")

Later, when you edit an image the text list of the desired edits is added to the database. But in any converter, if you don't want those edits to disappear when you close the program, they have to be written down somewhere, just as in a pixel editor any image changes have to be retained by writing them to disc either by overwriting the original (Save) or creating a second file (Save As). In converters that are not catalog based it is done by creating a sidecar file or in the case of DPP writing the edit instructions into the CR2's metadata. An equivalent and unavoidable measure of "taking over".

Over the years I have seen countless complaints of LR "taking over" and performing actions that the poster did not want, ("Why is LR putting my photos in dated sub-folders?", 'Why is LR making my photos dull and dark?", "Help, where did my photos go?"). Inevitably it turns out that the poster lacked the computer skills to understand the UI - or just couldn't be bothered ("Manuals are for sissies"), and failed to see that what they were complaining about was an option that could be turned off by unchecking a box or an action that could easily be customized.

On the other hand, for many people LR doesn't "take over" enough - for them there are too many user controlled options, too little automatic replication of camera processing.

tzalman wrote in post #17132935
I wonder what non-take-over software you use.

Yes, please explain that because I have seen that statement before and never understood it. In seven years and tens of thousands of photo files, I have never seen any "taking over". The files remain on your hard drive exactly where you choose to put them. LR never alters their content or overwrites them. When a file is "imported" (a term that apparently misleads many people because it conjures up images of files being moved to some unknown foreign shore - "registered" would have been a better choice but I suppose a poetic corner of Thomas Knoll's soul wanted to maintain a linguistic symmetry with "exporting" converted files) LR does two things; it lists the file's name and location in its database (an action that is analogous with listing your name, address and phone number in the phone book - you would probably have to suffer from a high level of paranoia to believe that the phone company has "taken over" your life - although I suppose it might be realistic to think that Google controls you) and it makes a low resolution jpg to be used in its Library display - your choice: 1024, 1440, 1680, 2048, or 2880 pixels wide. Having its own jpg conversion instead of using the camera's embedded jpg allows LR to render it to reflect its own defaults and to quickly revise it later according to any editing that is done. Is this 350 KB jpg the "taking over"? ("We don' need no stinkin' previews")

Later, when you edit an image the text list of the desired edits is added to the database. But in any converter, if you don't want those edits to disappear when you close the program, they have to be written down somewhere, just as in a pixel editor any image changes have to be retained by writing them to disc either by overwriting the original (Save) or creating a second file (Save As). In converters that are not catalog based it is done by creating a sidecar file or in the case of DPP writing the edit instructions into the CR2's metadata. An equivalent and unavoidable measure of "taking over".

Over the years I have seen countless complaints of LR "taking over" and performing actions that the poster did not want, ("Why is LR putting my photos in dated sub-folders?", 'Why is LR making my photos dull and dark?", "Help, where did my photos go?"). Inevitably it turns out that the poster lacked the computer skills to understand the UI - or just couldn't be bothered ("Manuals are for sissies"), and failed to see that what they were complaining about was an option that could be turned off by unchecking a box or an action that could easily be customized.

On the other hand, for many people LR doesn't "take over" enough - for them there are too many user controlled options, too little automatic replication of camera processing.

Alternatively, maybe software shouldn't alter some behaviour without explicit user consent.
It has been a long time since I installed Lightroom but if I am not mistaken, the "import dialogue" will "take over" control over removable media without asking the user for explicit consent.
Yes, you can switch it off, BUT it should be the other way round - the user explicitly turns this function on.

DetlevCM wrote in post #17132981
Alternatively, maybe software shouldn't alter some behaviour without explicit user consent.
It has been a long time since I installed Lightroom but if I am not mistaken, the "import dialogue" will "take over" control over removable media without asking the user for explicit consent.
Yes, you can switch it off, BUT it should be the other way round - the user explicitly turns this function on.

Again, how does it "take over"? Saying it doesn't make it so, you have to explain what you're talking about. I tell Lr where to put my files. If I need to open an image in DPP, it's right where I told Lr to put it. No issues.