How good IS Lightroom?

I keep reading rave reviews about Lightroom. I can't help wonder though if those raving about it never used ACR before and were using other raw converters.
Have any of those writing rave reviews about Lightroom used ACR 3.7 with CS2? Is the ACR 4.0 with LR a big improvement over ACR 3.7? how so?
I use ACR 3.7 with CS2 but always do noise reduction, resizing and sharpening in CS2. I just wonder how much of an improvement there is between ACR 3.7 and 4.0. Is the ACR 4.0 sharpening and noise reduction still crude like it is in ACR 3.7?
If so, I'd probably stil do some posr-ptoduction in Photoshop.
And if CS2 is still going to be used for sharpening and noise reduction, what reason would I have to get LR? Is it faster than CS3 for raw conversion? Is it better suited to a duo core processor like my E6600?
Am I better off just upgrading to CS3?


....and yes I know there is a free trial download. My digital darkroom PC is not hooked up to the internet.

philmar wrote in post #3179647
I keep reading rave reviews about Lightroom. I can't help wonder though if those raving about it never used ACR before and were using other raw converters.
Have any of those writing rave reviews about Lightroom used ACR 3.7 with CS2? Is the ACR 4.0 with LR a big improvement over ACR 3.7? how so?
I use ACR 3.7 with CS2 but always do noise reduction, resizing and sharpening in CS2. I just wonder how much of an improvement there is between ACR 3.7 and 4.0. Is the ACR 4.0 sharpening and noise reduction still crude like it is in ACR 3.7?
If so, I'd probably stil do some posr-ptoduction in Photoshop.
And if CS2 is still going to be used for sharpening and noise reduction, what reason would I have to get LR? Is it faster than CS3 for raw conversion? Is it better suited to a duo core processor like my E6600?
Am I better off just upgrading to CS3?


....and yes I know there is a free trial download. My digital darkroom PC is not hooked up to the internet.

...rather than asking Q's download the free trial...burn on to CD/copy onto memory stick (it's only 22mb), install and have a play.

LR isn't just about RAW converstion. It's a combination of RAW conversion, basic editing, (some would argue) basic image management.

I use LR and love it. I still use CS2 for healing and lens distortion corrections.

Here's another Lightroom success story...

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=3177256#p​ost3177256

PS is still the superior all around image editor. Lightroom was never meant to replace it, but to help streamline your workflow. If you don't need everything it offers then you'll probably be happy with CS3, ACR and Bridge.

Works great for me, I prefer to use windows explorer to organize my pics (I feel better about me being in control vs. some program doing things in the background), but LR is awesome for corrections and RAW conversion.

I used CS2 strictly before going to Lightroom so I have used ACR from 3.0 to the current 3.6 version (I didn't like the changes of the interface in 3.7 so I stuck with 3.6). Lightroom/ACR 4 smokes 3.7 and earlier ACR versions. There is so much more capabilities to fine tune. I especially like the Recovery and Fill Light controls but the Hue/Saturation/Luminan​ce is also awesome. There are more colors to control rather than just red green and blue. I like the curves capability but others prefer the older point curve style. Presets absolutely rock, virtual copies are sweet, and snapshots add to the mix. So yeah I like it.

Grentz wrote in post #3179901
Works great for me, I prefer to use windows explorer to organize my pics (I feel better about me being in control vs. some program doing things in the background), but LR is awesome for corrections and RAW conversion.

What do you mean by this? You prefer to move pics around directly rather than have LR tell windows where the files should be? I have 15,000 pics in my Library with no problems thus far.

Ephemeral wrote in post #3179825
...rather than asking Q's download the free trial...burn on to CD/copy onto memory stick (it's only 22mb), install and have a play.

LR isn't just about RAW converstion. It's a combination of RAW conversion, basic editing, (some would argue) basic image management.

I use LR and love it. I still use CS2 for healing and lens distortion corrections.

Maybe I will...but I prefer first to get educated opinions from people that have already used the program and may have already moved up it's learning curve. People perceive things differently, have different perspectives than me and asking these questions may illuminate something that I may miss from my own experience.

THAT, plus I am lazy
Downloading the software on one PC, installing it on another, using it, learning it, uninstalling it all has a cost. Getting the opinions of bigger brains than mine can't hurt.
Basically I am trying to see if ACR 4.0 with LR is sufficiently better than ACR with CS2. I am not a pro - just an enthusiast. I don't process 1000s of files each month so I find XP is all I need for organising photos. Since I don't need LRs organising tools, the ONLY reason I'd go for it would be if LR's ACR 4.0 were a big improvement. Yes, LR is getting rave reviews but I wonder if most of them are by people who never used ACR before.
Ultimately I would download it before I buy it. But it may simply be wiser for me to upgrade to CS3 instead. I believe it has ACR 4.0 as well.

But thanks for mentioning the healing tool in CS2. I also use that extensively.(another reason, perhaps for me to go to CS3 instead). I suffer from dirty sensor in between cleanings due to frequent lens changes.

I went from ACDSee Pro 1.0 and Qimage to Lightroom and was disappointed. I bought the Scott K. book thinking that maybe I just wasn't using it effectively, but I still am disappointed with Adobe. I recently downloaded the free beta of ACDSee Pro 2.0 from the ACDSee product forums and although it still is missing features I would like to have, I found it faster and easier to use. I mean amazingly fast. I'm still trying it out, but I think if compliments CS3 and Bridge better without duplicating a lot of things I could have done with CS3 and Bridge.

Try it http://forums.acdsyste​ms.com/index.php?showt​opic=3677

If you're still interested in looking at some of the features in Lightroom, checkout this link:
http://www.whibalhost.​com …hotoshop_LR/01/​index.html

It's a set of tutorial videos that cover different aspects of the application. They're not too shabby.

I think with the recently hinted at upgrade, LR is going to be even better, and will gain ground on other apps.

There will always be people that like other apps, just as some people actually drive Ladas. There are things I accept because I can't change them.

DJS wrote in post #3250307
If you're still interested in looking at some of the features in Lightroom, checkout this link:
http://www.whibalhost.​com …hotoshop_LR/01/​index.html

It's a set of tutorial videos that cover different aspects of the application. They're not too shabby.

Thanks, but I've already watched them as well as read the Scott Kirby book. The book at least got LR configured so that it was workable for me. He gives all his advice on how to set it up. LR just seems way to slow and cumbersome to work with. It makes me do extra steps in my workflow that I didn't need to do before. I thought it was supposed to be fast and I have a very fast PC machine that it's running on.

Here's a comparison to ACDSee Pro1 not Pro2 beta which seems a vast improvement in performance.

http://forums.acdsyste​ms.com/index.php?showt​opic=3401

I'm still using both but I'm starting to lean back to ACDSee.

TooManyHobbies wrote in post #3250454
I'm still using both but I'm starting to lean back to ACDSee.

Jeff, you're comparing apples to oranges. ACDSee is a DAM product like iView MediaPro and they excel because they are limited in what they do. LR has a DAM component, but its main function is as a RAW converter.

Back to the OP's questions:

philmar wrote in post #3179647
I keep reading rave reviews about Lightroom. I can't help wonder though if those raving about it never used ACR before and were using other raw converters.

No, I'm one of the ones who loves LR and I've used ACR for the last 2+ years.

Adobe only put out ACR 3.7 for those folks who use LR with CS2 so CS2 would recognize changes made in LR which uses ACR 4.0. People using 3.7 with CS2 aren't able to use the new features in 4.0 only see the results of using them in LR.

Yup.

It's all about the workflow. I find it much easier to process images in LR than using the combination of Bridge and CS2 (and now Bridge 2.0 with CS3). With the changes announced yesterday about the 1.1 update to LR, round-tripping to CS3 should be significantly reduced because I don't do noise reduction that often.

I personally think it is, but your mileage may vary.

You could and get many of the great develop features of LR in ACR 4.0 but, while I do have CS3, 90%+ of my work will only require LR once the update with the improved sharpening comes along.

lightroom is basically a cheaper (price wise) and *in some ways* better version of capture one. in my opinion.. but i'm too use to capture one to switch to LR

rfreschner wrote in post #3250886
Jeff, you're comparing apples to oranges. ACDSee is a DAM product like iView MediaPro and they excel because they are limited in what they do. LR has a DAM component, but its main function is as a RAW converter.

Is it faster than CS3 for raw conversion?

I personally think it is, but your mileage may vary.

I think LR would be great if you didn't already have CS3, but Adobe advertises it as ....

This it is definetely not and ACDSee Pro 2 does a better job. The only drawback is that it won't be released until Fall and Pro 1 is slower and has some bugs. In fact you could get ACDSee Pro 2, Fotoslate, and QImage for a little more than LR and come out ahead in my book.

You also stated that its main purpose is for RAW conversion, but then stated CS3 is faster anyway. I realize that LR has a new direction for workflow with non destructive edits to RAW and using sidecar files, but I see no use for that in my workflow and can see potential problems instead. LR does import files better assigning tags and renaming at import, but you don't have to import with ACDSee and you can always batch rename and assign tags later. LR room has a better client interface, but I'll use a website for that. LR does run batches, but uses CS3 to do it.

My problem might be that overall image adjustments are not my priority, selective edits are. I don't have a problem using CS3 and batch processing to meet my needs. Of course I thought CS3 could have brought a few new features to the table that it didn't too.

Photoshop was never a one shop stop for me since it needed better noise removal, upsizing, printing, HDR, etc. features that I had to get as plugins, so I guess LR won't be either.

TooManyHobbies wrote in post #3252206
You also stated that its main purpose is for RAW conversion, but then stated CS3 is faster anyway.

Not true, look back at my comment that you quoted. The OP asked if LR was faster than CS3 and I said it was IMO.

rfreschner wrote in post #3252317
Not true, look back at my comment that you quoted. The OP asked if LR was faster than CS3 and I said it was IMO.

Sorry, my mistake.

BTW, I'm waiting to see if LR 1.1 adresses my biggest complaint and that is how to handle RAW+jpg imports. I need to delete both files at the same time as I review them, not delete some in one directory and then try to repeat my deletes in another directory.