Upgrading to lightroom from iPhoto and Picasa ??????

I've been thinking about upgrading to Lightroom CC or LR6. I currently shoot in jpeg and edit using iPhoto or Picasa. I've been watching some Lightroom tutorials on U-tube and can see it opens up many more variables that can be adjusted. Just wonder if it is worth the cost, I am a semi serious hobbyist and shoot mainly grandkids and landscape.

Any thoughts, cost isn't really an issue just wondering if by shooting in jpeg I can get all the benefits of LR and if I will really use more of LR's capabilities as compared to iPhoto or Picasa.

Also would appreciate thoughts on going the LRCC route as opposed to buying outright.

Appreciate any and all comments and suggestions.

I love Lightroom. It is pretty much the only package I use. However I shoot RAW which is what LR is mainly aimed at. It is a RAW development package and Digital Asset Management tool. If you are shooting JPEG you certainly can use Lightroom's tool but to a lesser degree than you can with RAW. This is because RAW files contain all the unprocessed camera sensor data, while JPEG files don't. The JPEG has already been processed by the camera and a large amount of the sensor data discarded so the file is less "flexible". You can't make such dramatic changes to the image as you can with RAW - doing so will likely cause processing artifacts that will affect image quality.

For JPEG I would suggest you look at something like Photoshop Elements (there is a one month free trail), which is an image editing package rather than a RAW development package.

I highly recommend LightRoom. I use version 5.7. Dan is right, raw is the way to go. No matter what camera you are using, you can get two more stops of ISO performance out if by shooting raw and processing the noise. White balance is hugely more flexible with raw files. One of the 'biggies' of shooting raw is the ability to pull back 'blown' highlights. Once the byte is maxed out in a JPG file, you've got nothing but white. The raw file can be used to recover detail where the JPG is just blown. I presume that works on the other end (darks/blacks), but I tend to over-expose, so that doesn't matter much to me.

My wife uses Picasa for tweaking my LR JPG output when she isn't quite happy with what I've done. It is a lot of program for the money. Lightroom just has a lot more to offer. The file import/organize/search functions alone are worth the cost of the software.

If the only benefit of LR were to move you to shooting RAW I think it would be worth the trouble and expense. Some great shooters get consistently good results shooting just JPG but the rest of us often benefit from improved exposure and temperature values not to mention the other avenues of correction and improvement.

After hearing people rave about Lightroom, I made the purchase after finding a deal. And I hated it - the photo collection system was not intuitive, and everything I had learned to do in Photoshop Elements was a chore in Lightroom.

But after a few tutorials I find Lightroom to be far superior for my editing needs. I don't know that it is aimed at RAW processing per se, but it makes RAW processing a breeze. A few simple adjustments, and I'm ready to print.

Lightroom does not offer the layer capabilities of Photoshop Elements, where items can be cut from an image, added, etc. And for the vast majority of my photos, that's just fine. I do rely on Photoshop's superior abilities for blemish removal, people removal, so we cannot eliminate photoshop entirely. At least, given my abilities with Lightroom.

As for the subscription service, can't say it appeals to me. The last time I checked, the purchased version would break even with the subscription after a year or so, so for myself, it makes more sense to buy.

iowajim wrote in post #17692834
After hearing people rave about Lightroom, I made the purchase after finding a deal. And I hated it - the photo collection system was not intuitive, and everything I had learned to do in Photoshop Elements was a chore in Lightroom.

But after a few tutorials I find Lightroom to be far superior for my editing needs. I don't know that it is aimed at RAW processing per se, but it makes RAW processing a breeze. A few simple adjustments, and I'm ready to print.

Lightroom does not offer the layer capabilities of Photoshop Elements, where items can be cut from an image, added, etc. And for the vast majority of my photos, that's just fine. I do rely on Photoshop's superior abilities for blemish removal, people removal, so we cannot eliminate photoshop entirely. At least, given my abilities with Lightroom.

As for the subscription service, can't say it appeals to me. The last time I checked, the purchased version would break even with the subscription after a year or so, so for myself, it makes more sense to buy.

Like you, I found it hard to learn Lightroom. It took a long time. Now, after several years, I find it easy and fast. But I am still learning things about it. No doubt there is a steep learning curve. When I go back to photos that I developed three years ago, I can process them better now than I could then, and get more pleasing results.

Lightroom is for RAW, as others mentioned.

LR is (so some say) a great organizer of your photos. Fine, but I don't use it for that at all. I use it for RAW development and processing only. That seems to be the OP's goal too. I would say go for it. Spend the necessary time and you will find it an invaluable tool.

To me the biggest use of Lightroom is asset management, and as a bonus it also contains built in tools for simple image processing as well.

Keyword, rate, sort, and do light processing in Lightroom, or pull it out and into Photoshop. If you aren't taking the time to learn and understand how to use the database aspects of Lightroom, then you aren't getting anywhere near the most use out of the software.

A bit of background:

Back a number of years ago, there were early Raw processors being developed, a good thing! Adobe was "leading the pack" with the Adobe Camera Raw coming out with Photoshop back a long time ago, maybe 10 years ago when CS1 came out with ACR?

But there was another issue that was getting attention, which was the fact that many (many) people with many (many) images, especially with the introduction of digital photography, were becoming frustrated by the inability to properly manage their onslaught of digital photos! In fact, this led to a well-known book, "Digital Asset Management" (The DAM Book) that argued for systems that "enabled" managing of 10's of thousands of photos stored in our digital systems!

A lot of us identified with that frustration!

So, when in 2006 Adobe came out with Lightroom (Beta version), we jumped!

I'll say that the original Beta/LR1 had problems, still we saw the potential! And when bugs were fixed and LR 1.2 came out, well, many of us took the leap and have not regretted it!

Now for those who don't care for the DAM aspect, fine! You might want to check out "The DAM Book", but anyway, happy sailing!

Luckless wrote in post #17692887
To me the biggest use of Lightroom is asset management, and as a bonus it also contains built in tools for simple image processing as well.

Keyword, rate, sort, and do light processing in Lightroom, or pull it out and into Photoshop. If you aren't taking the time to learn and understand how to use the database aspects of Lightroom, then you aren't getting anywhere near the most use out of the software.

Maybe, it depends on your needs and on what might happen in the future.

I rename my pic files with keywords so can find stuff just by searching the files. This way if Adobe becomes unreasonable or if I want to switch to GIMP or other photo app, no problem.

Little late to the party, but I didn't see any comments for LRCC. I'm running LR6 which is upgraded from 5, 4, and 3. I have used PSCC, but let the account run out since I was given cs6 through work. What I've read regarding LR and LRCC is that the CC versions will have the latest and greatest updates and tweaks, which I will never see in my purchased copy. I've considered using CC again, but haven't really needed what it's offering now, and for the amount of shooting I do, it would be overkill I think, since I have cs6. Adobe, I believe, is still running the LR and PS combo for about 10 bucks per month, which gives you a couple of powerful programs.

Having said that, easily 99.95% of my processing is done in LR. There is a bit of a learning curve, but it's not that bad, and once you have used it for a little while, you will realize that it's possibly the only program you find yourself using. It doesn't destroy the original RAW's, and allows you to do so much more in processing your images.

You MIGHT be a bit happier with Adobe Photoshop Elements as the learning curve isn't as steep and it will most certainly do everything you want it to do. I used to use the full version of Adobe Photoshop and kept up with it and it's various upgrades for years. I have Lightroom, Aperture (it's being phased out by Apple though) and Photoshop Elements 11 and really don't feel the need to use the heavy duty versions of photo editing software anymore now that I'm not photographing professionally any more and don't need to deal with art directors or design firms any longer. Photoshop Elements is the consumer version of Photoshop and is amazingly powerful for the price. It's about? $89 ish. Download a trial version of both LIGHTROOM and Elements, I suppose? I suspect that Elements will be an easier learning curve and you'll be able to edit photos of your grandkids and landscapes quite well with it.

frayne wrote in post #17690358
I currently shoot in jpeg and edit using iPhoto or Picasa.

......... just wondering if by shooting in jpeg I can get all the benefits of LR and if I will really use more of LR's capabilities as compared to iPhoto or Picasa.

You can actually start shooting RAW now, with the software you already have. Few seem to realize that iPhoto is a RAW converter. I shoot RAW and the only program I currently use is iPhoto. There isn't really any learning curve - just switch the quality setting on your camera to RAW.....then shoot, download, and edit as you usually do. You won't have to learn anything new, but you will notice a difference in the quality of your images after processing, as RAW files allow you to make editing adjustments without making the images look weird.

You will find a huge, huge difference in what you can do with your editing once you switch to RAW. huge.

Luckless wrote in post #17692887
To me the biggest use of Lightroom is asset management, and as a bonus it also contains built in tools for simple image processing as well.
.... If you aren't taking the time to learn and understand how to use the database aspects of Lightroom, then you aren't getting anywhere near the most use out of the software.

Each to his/her own, I guess. I recently bought LR after many years of using just DPP and Paintshop Pro. It's not an intuitive interface, but I'm finding it more and more impressive the more I learn. I couldn't care less about its database aspect since I have had my own way of organizing photos for years, and I have to totally disagree that it only has "simple" image processing.

teekay wrote in post #17704568
Each to his/her own, I guess. I recently bought LR after many years of using just DPP and Paintshop Pro. It's not an intuitive interface, but I'm finding it more and more impressive the more I learn. I couldn't care less about its database aspect since I have had my own way of organizing photos for years, and I have to totally disagree that it only has "simple" image processing.

Lightroom's editing power is limited to fairly simple edits and adjustments. You cannot use layers, advanced compositing or other more complex digital image manipulation. If you're looking to add someone or something to a photo, then you're going to want something a little more powerful than just Lightroom.