View Full Version : What's so special about Lightroom?
specialman
08-02-2008, 15:38
Used Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator for going on 13 years now but have always used it to my needs (retouching, readying images for print).
The JPEG to RAW conversion is still ongoing for me but I'm hearing a lot about what Lightroom can do for photographers as opposed to PS, especially when it comes to preparing RAW images (plus JPEGs) for web and print, plus integrating it in web applications.
A friend is 'sorting' me a copy for me to have a play with andd i'm looking forward to it, but is it really going to change how I work and will it effectively do away with Photoshop for the majority of my image processing?
Messiah Khan
08-02-2008, 15:49
For me it doesn't do away with photoshop, instead they work together to make a great combination. Lightroom really is a great program and should massively speed up your workflow. It also makes commonly used edits and features available with simple sliders. If you need to do any selective or more advanced edits however, Photoshop is still the weapon of choice.
marko400d
08-02-2008, 15:51
It won't do away with PS. It's just such a good way of organising your growing library of digital photos. Well for me anyway! Personally i still use ps. for sharpening, cloning, tweaking and printing....
I find Lightroom really handy for quick tweaks to exposure, white balance etc on RAW files, and I like the way it does nothing to your original image: you can quickly correct a few bits and then export it as a TIFF/whatever into Photoshop if need be.
Craikeybaby
08-02-2008, 16:10
I don't use photoshop at all, mainly because I can't afford it, but also because I haven't found the need to with Lightroom. My workflow is 100% Lightroom based, it sorts out importing, backing up, tagging and initial processing of RAW files. Then organising and sorting, further tweaking and printing/exporting for web are all in the same place.
The only things you can't do are layers, blurring etc but then I don't go in for that anyway...
photostar_1
08-02-2008, 16:19
I only recently got Lightroom, but I have to say, it is wonderful! I now do almost everything in Lightroom and only go to PS if I need to do any tweaking using layers.
specialman
08-02-2008, 16:26
What about retouching in LR - is that set aside for its integration with PS or does it have limited manipulation abilities?
I do a hell of a lot with layers, blending, paths and masks so I take it I'lll ahve to do the leg work in PS and then export what i deem as a 50 per cent finished image into LR to LR the final exposure manipulating?
Lightroom is best for people who get the shot right in camera imho. I use it far more than PS these days because its nice to come home, load the shots in and have them processed by the time the kettle has boiled. Of course if I want to play I can edit a shot in PS and save it into my library.
marko400d
08-02-2008, 16:33
Speacialman, i tend to work the other way around, use lightroom to load pics, do raw manipulation, then import to ps to do retouching.... retouching in lightroom is basic at best
Lightroom is best for people who get the shot right in camera imho. I use it far more than PS these days because its nice to come home, load the shots in and have them processed by the time the kettle has boiled. Of course if I want to play I can edit a shot in PS and save it into my library.
Not sure I agree with this. Using RAW helps also those who don't get it right in camera. Lightroom speeds everythig up.
With a quad core processor, it's very quick
What about retouching in LR - is that set aside for its integration with PS or does it have limited manipulation abilities?
I do a hell of a lot with layers, blending, paths and masks so I take it I'lll ahve to do the leg work in PS and then export what i deem as a 50 per cent finished image into LR to LR the final exposure manipulating?
No you do it the other way around. Open in lightroom, do your exposure tweaks and anything else you want then import to Ps for final edit and sharpening.
I only recently got Lightroom, but I have to say, it is wonderful! I now do almost everything in Lightroom and only go to PS if I need to do any tweaking using layers.
+1 for this :)
Not sure I agree with this. Using RAW helps also those who don't get it right in camera. Lightroom speeds everythig up.
With a quad core processor, it's very quick
Its for people who don't need to add layers, do masks and such. I come home and don't even edit my photos really. I import them with the preset set to my custom b&w and I'm done.
I've actually been thinking more about using lightroom, I tried the beta but my pc couldnt really handle it back then but my new machine should be able to run it ok.
Its for people who don't need to add layers, do masks and such. I come home and don't even edit my photos really. I import them with the preset set to my custom b&w and I'm done.
Don't agree with this either.
Although you cannot edit using layers, you can do quite a bit of work to a RAW file that is non detructable. Adding vignettes, toning, removing red eye, adding contrast, making B&W images and a whole lot more.
It does many of the jobs I used to do in Ps only faster and mostly better!
Don't get me wrongh if I need to use layers to edit specific pasrts of an image I'll export my image as best I can then do the required work in Ps.
JD
I just don't get how you can disagree tbh. Thats exactly how I am using LR. :cuckoo: You're really missing my point. I'm fully aware of what you can do to edit the RAW file but my point is that its great for photographers who have presets setup. For those that don't want to spend 2hrs per photo tweaking every area of it. For people who know they got the shot at the scene and just need LR to apply their b&w preset.
I just don't get how you can disagree tbh. Thats exactly how I am using LR. :cuckoo: You're really missing my point. I'm fully aware of what you can do to edit the RAW file but my point is that its great for photographers who have presets setup. For those that don't want to spend 2hrs per photo tweaking every area of it. For people who know they got the shot at the scene and just need LR to apply their b&w preset.
But many use lightroom to edit their images then import into Ps to continue editing.
Also many who don't get the shot right use it to tweak their images as best they can and for working on many images, it's very quick.
I think the answer is really a bit of what we are both saying though. It has many uses for many different photographers.
But many use lightroom to edit their images then import into Ps to continue editing.
Also many who don't get the shot right use it to tweak their images as best they can and for working on many images, it's very quick.
Yup I do that too, but then its hardly a reason to use LR. The ability to edit in photoshop. You're basically using PS then :) But LR is definitely for wedding / portrait photographers who have got the shot right in camera. Far more so than Photoshop is because you can batch process so easily on import. I'm not saying you can't use it to play, I do. I do a fair bit of HDR work using my Lightroom library. But for me when I've spent the day documenting some event in town I import say 400 images using my custom b&w setting and I'm done. Its a matter of picking out the best images from the day then.
Yup I do that too, but then its hardly a reason to use LR. The ability to edit in photoshop. You're basically using PS then :)
Well to an extent but I'm getting the best from my images before I do this. Making sure everything is right before adding a soft focus effect to a wedding portrait etc.... Many things cannot be done in lightroom.
But LR is definitely for wedding / portrait photographers who have got the shot right in camera.
This is where I don't agree. I think it's for anyone that shoots RAW images. It speeds up workflow, it's easier and quicker than ACR and web galleries can be created very easily for those who wish to do this. Slideshows are simple to create and printing from lightroom works very well. I'm a wedding, portrait and event shooter and use it as a fast way to edit my images and it's great but I also use it for when I do photography for fun so it';s not right to say that it's only for specific groups or for those who get it right in camera. In fact if you get it right in camera there's litt;le need for an editing program at all.... just shoot jpg and print!
When you get it wrong in camera, I find lightroom an amazing tool for recovering an image that would normally have been lost. In fact my favourite wedding image from a recent wedding was shot about 1.5 stops under and didn't look ver good until lightroom did it wonders! So I find it excels when you get a shot wrong!
Batch processing sure is fantastic and quick in Lightroom and this is what really speeds up the workflow as you note.
Pete, I think I understand what you mean.
You still use the tweaking facilities in LR, but don't always need PS as LR does it for you. Unless that is, you want to add layers and selective editing etc.
I didn't know you can add Vignettes with LR though (I'm an Aperture user).
With lightroom it's easy to add a vignette. In the lens correction setting you can use it equally to remove vignetting or add.
It can tone images, make amazing B&W images, it can add/remove saturation/contrast/luminance etc to any of your colours so you can make skies bluer or make landscapes punchier and a whole lot more.
I understand what Pete is saying too and to an extent I agree but I think he misses my point too. His pooint is it's best for people who get it right in camera and I think it excels more when you don't - within reason....!
Yes but LR has the same RAW proccesing engine as Photoshop. So for rescuing RAW images that you got wrong you can use either PS or LR. Thus that takes away what is so special about LR which is the batch processing and library features.
photostar_1
11-02-2008, 09:11
I now always import with LR; keyword and catalogue; and then start to tweak if necessary. I find that as a not very competent PS user, Lightroom is much more friendly and intuitive. Whilst I do try to get it right in camera ;) I frequently need the facilities in LR to help me out with exposure, when I have messed up. I personally find the controls in LR much, much easier than PS. I only go to PS if I want to do things I can't in LR, like using layers.
It's horses for courses, I suppose.
Helium_Junkie
11-02-2008, 09:25
I've been using Picture Project which came with my camera to import files from my camera, but afaik it doesnt give any backup power... so with Lightroom I can import all my new pics, AND my old pics from HDD, and it will organise them and back them up too?
Chappers
11-02-2008, 10:49
. Thus that takes away what is so special about LR which is the batch processing and library features.
Totally agree. Plus it image control tools are excellent. Same as camera Raw but much better interface and easier to batch adjust.
OK there is no retouching in LR but then it was never intended to have any. That's handed off to Photoshop or similar. Keyword searching makes it easier to find that image you shot 3 years ago, (provided you added the keywords).
I find it so essential now that if were only available on Mac I would change platform to use it.
specialman
11-02-2008, 13:09
With lightroom it's easy to add a vignette.
Vignettes.... (*shudders) :)
It seems that no-one is quite sure whether one can be used as a standalone piece of kit but it's clear to see that PS has the 'all-round' edge over LR because it can do so much more.
I work a lot with layers, doing blending etc, so PS satisfies. I can't guage from people's posts what the major selling point of LR actually is? Is it that it can handle RAW Data better when processing? Is it that it works more effectively than Adobe Bridge to help you find files? Or is it that it's actually geared towards automated cataloging and back-up, something I'm not sure is available in Creative Suite 2.
Put it this way; I know where all my files are on my built-in and external hard drives and manually cataloguing shots means I'm brutal in sorting the wheat from the chaff. I also believe that if you're using batch processing automation (like processing actions in PS) you're missing the point - no two shots are the same, even if they're shot on similar/identical setting, so how can you process them using general settings? Each shot should be treated as individual.
But maybe that's just me being a bit antiquated?...
Yes but LR has the same RAW proccesing engine as Photoshop.
Are you sure about that? Im sure thats why they purchased RawShooter. They used alot of the engine code from that.
shrimperblue
11-02-2008, 13:17
I was new to the more advance side of PP etc. Lightroom for me has been brilliant. Organises, Corrects, Filters, Crops etc etc and Easy to use.
You can sort by meta, imbed your copyright, see all of your stats on the photo. Yes I do enjoy using it that much!
SB
Craikeybaby
11-02-2008, 13:42
Vignettes.... (*shudders) :)
It seems that no-one is quite sure whether one can be used as a standalone piece of kit but it's clear to see that PS has the 'all-round' edge over LR because it can do so much more.
I work a lot with layers, doing blending etc, so PS satisfies. I can't guage from people's posts what the major selling point of LR actually is? Is it that it can handle RAW Data better when processing? Is it that it works more effectively than Adobe Bridge to help you find files? Or is it that it's actually geared towards automated cataloging and back-up, something I'm not sure is available in Creative Suite 2.
Put it this way; I know where all my files are on my built-in and external hard drives and manually cataloguing shots means I'm brutal in sorting the wheat from the chaff. I also believe that if you're using batch processing automation (like processing actions in PS) you're missing the point - no two shots are the same, even if they're shot on similar/identical setting, so how can you process them using general settings? Each shot should be treated as individual.
But maybe that's just me being a bit antiquated?...
It can certainly be used as a standalone product, but only if you aren't intending on manipulating the image too much in post! I just adjust the levels, WB etc so don't need all the extra complexity of Photoshop for 99% of my shots.
I see the biggest selling point to be that it is non destructive editing and that you are working with you RAW files, not having to create PSDs/Tiffs. Also when you output a file it is made straight from the RAW, I only output an image when I need it and very rarely keep that image as it is so easy to output another one.
When it comes to presets I aggree that when it comes to levels etc, but it is very useful for things like white balance settings, outputting images for forums and web galleries. Infact with less than 10 clicks I could have a cardfull of images imported, tagged up, metadata added, corrected for white balance and auto levels then added to a web gallery and uploaded.
Yes but LR has the same RAW proccesing engine as Photoshop. So for rescuing RAW images that you got wrong you can use either PS or LR. Thus that takes away what is so special about LR which is the batch processing and library features.
Yes you can use ACR to rescue images too. But lightroom is faster and easier to use. that's why I say lightroom is not restricted to certain users.
Use in conjunction with Ps makes it a very powerful tool.
Speed and ease of use in comparison to ACR is night and day. Plus you get a few extra goodies thrown in.
specialman
11-02-2008, 14:21
I'm a bit of an oaf when it comes to digi cataloguing - metadata?
I basically just download, create folder with name and date tag and then put it in another folder respective to what kind of photography it is. I take it this is the laborious, unscientific way that LR would make mincemeat out of if I did it automated though LR?
no two shots are the same, even if they're shot on similar/identical setting, so how can you process them using general settings? Each shot should be treated as individual.
But maybe that's just me being a bit antiquated?...
Although technically correct, the exposure of a group of shots shot under the same lighting will be as close to being the same shot as you could possibly get.
Batch processing is a huge time saver when shooting 1000+ wedding, portrait or event images.
I usually check each after I've batch processed but rarely there is much to do afterwards to amend exposure.
It depends on how and what you shoot but if you are shooting weddings and edit every single image you are spending a lot of time (and therefore money) doing things that noone will really notice.
I appreciate your view and if a specific image requires it, I do edit individual images but time is prcious and Lightroom helps making the process from RAW to print very quick.
Craikeybaby
11-02-2008, 14:52
I'm a bit of an oaf when it comes to digi cataloguing - metadata?
I basically just download, create folder with name and date tag and then put it in another folder respective to what kind of photography it is. I take it this is the laborious, unscientific way that LR would make mincemeat out of if I did it automated though LR?
Not really, there are two types of Metadata, the first are the tags that describe the image, if you are using Lightroom, or a Mac it makes the images much easier to find, the second is filling in the IPTC data, your name, website, copyright statement etc. Neither are essential, but I wouldn't want to have have images anywhere online without the IPTC data.
specialman
11-02-2008, 16:06
Although technically correct, the exposure of a group of shots shot under the same lighting will be as close to being the same shot as you could possibly get.
Batch processing is a huge time saver when shooting 1000+ wedding, portrait or event images.
I usually check each after I've batch processed but rarely there is much to do afterwards to amend exposure.
It depends on how and what you shoot but if you are shooting weddings and edit every single image you are spending a lot of time (and therefore money) doing things that noone will really notice.
I appreciate your view and if a specific image requires it, I do edit individual images but time is prcious and Lightroom helps making the process from RAW to print very quick.
I appreciate the batch processing and the easy life it offers when,a s you say, you're shooting an events where a set value has been used to dictate exposures, but when you're shooting landscapes etc, I still beleive that treating every shot as individual is still the best route to sorting out the best shots, as it's only on closer inspection do you see the things your equire to make it useable..
Not really, there are two types of Metadata, the first are the tags that describe the image, if you are using Lightroom, or a Mac it makes the images much easier to find, the second is filling in the IPTC data, your name, website, copyright statement etc. Neither are essential, but I wouldn't want to have have images anywhere online without the IPTC data.
I understand now...
Certainly Adobe took over Pixmantec and stopped Rawshooter. Maybe they were doing the corporate "close down your rival" act. I liked RWP. Lightroom offers more but is significantly more resource heavy IMO.
Nah I remember they did take alot of the code and algorithms to incorporate into Lightroom
Are you sure about that? Im sure thats why they purchased RawShooter. They used alot of the engine code from that.
Fairly sure yeah. Afaik they both use ACR4.x. If you look at the feature set they are very similar.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html
Yes you can use ACR to rescue images too. But lightroom is faster and easier to use. that's why I say lightroom is not restricted to certain users.
Use in conjunction with Ps makes it a very powerful tool.
Speed and ease of use in comparison to ACR is night and day. Plus you get a few extra goodies thrown in.
Again, yes I know :p I think you're under the impression that I've pigeonholed LR and won't budge from the idea that its *just* for one type of photography. Thats not it all. The thread was about why its so special and thats all I've been trying to say this whole time. I'm the HDR guy and I use LR. I never said you can't use it to play. What I've been saying is that *if* you're this or that type of photographer then LR is special because....
I appreciate the batch processing and the easy life it offers when,a s you say, you're shooting an events where a set value has been used to dictate exposures, but when you're shooting landscapes etc, I still beleive that treating every shot as individual is still the best route to sorting out the best shots, as it's only on closer inspection do you see the things your equire to make it useable..
Yes absolutely. Batch processing is probably not for landscape shooters although use of lightroom will still speed up the overall workflow.
Helium_Junkie
11-02-2008, 16:48
I'll probably be looking to LR to organise and backup my collection to another HD, can it do this? Can it do this also to an existing unorganised collection of folders?
Chappers
11-02-2008, 16:52
It seems to me that either you find LR an essential piece of software , or can't see it's advantage over say Photoshop. It probably depends on the type of work you do. If in doubt simply download the 30 day trial from Adobe and see for yourself.
It wont suit everybody, but then what piece of software does.
Again, yes I know :p I think you're under the impression that I've pigeonholed LR and won't budge from the idea that its *just* for one type of photography. Thats not it all. The thread was about why its so special and thats all I've been trying to say this whole time. I'm the HDR guy and I use LR. I never said you can't use it to play. What I've been saying is that *if* you're this or that type of photographer then LR is special because....
Pete
It was the few comments that you made that made me think you were pigeonholing LR.......
Lightroom is best for people who get the shot right in camera imho.....
Its for people who don't need to add layers, do masks and such.....
But LR is definitely for wedding / portrait photographers who have got the shot right in camera....
I agree with all the above as it is for those but a whole lot more people too. I think we are both saying the same thing...... just differently :)
Yup :) I'd still say best, and for peeps who don't need to add layers and for those types of photographers but obviously anyone can use it if they want. This is instead of PS.
Yup :) I'd still say best, and for peeps who don't need to add layers and for those types of photographers but obviously anyone can use it if they want. This is instead of PS.
It is indeed for all those and many more. I say it's for ANYONE that shoots RAW whether they use Ps or not.
There will be some who may not see the full benefits but most I think would have a positive experience over using ACR and bridge.
specialman
12-02-2008, 00:43
Oh well, I guess this thread is null and void thanks to the fact that my mac isn't running Tiger or above!!
Balls - just dowloaded the trial and it don't work on my machine... looks like I'll be sticking with CS2
Lightroom and photoshop are totally different in my eyes. I feel lightroom is a Photographers tool where as photoshop is a graphic designers tool. It does not do away with PS but pete said it right its more for people who get the shot in camera. I think LR is excellent and has helped my workflow and many people I know massively.
Alistair
13-02-2008, 09:37
I have only been using Lightroom for a month or so and really really like it. Previously I reviewed and categorised all my images in CS3 Bridge, which was ok, but since I am often working with over 1000 images, Bridge was a bit slow. Lightroom to me, basically replaces Bridge, I sort and categorise in LR make minor exposure and white balance changes, then once I have the final set of images, I go into Photoshop and use actions to process them to final. LR is brilliant. I stayed away from it for a long time but I am glad I finally made the jump. :)
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.