Very few commercial pros use Lightroom ....

andybeach

andybeach

Messages
235
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I read this comment on a 'pro' photographer's blog ...

"Very few commercial pros use Lightroom, it’s more for wedding/portrait shooters."

Discuss! :thinking:
 
andybeach said:
I read this comment on a 'pro' photographer's blog ...

"Very few commercial pros use Lightroom, it’s more for wedding/portrait shooters."

Discuss! :thinking:
Click to expand...

Well, I tried it, but found it too limiting for my work. I do very little batch stuff and pretty much every shot I take gets some individual treatment, so I find CS far more suitable. Others differ.
 
neil_g said:
What's the definition of "commercial pro" if not wedding/portrait photographer?
Click to expand...

That question sort of came up here back along. Interesting discussion, I suppose, but a bit pointless. What does it matter? It's just padding for `A` Level courses.
 
neil_g said:
Okay so if I read that right basically the op is "no pros use Lightroom except some pros" :thinking:
Click to expand...

(y)

Yup. A bit like the way I use Manual for every single shot except the ones I use a different setting for. :LOL:
 
it's all a load of old *******s

Professionals use what ever camera is the right and available one for the job. They then use whatever software is right or available to do the job. Commercial, advertising, wedding, portrait, events, sports, landscape, food... is irrelevant what the discipline is, for different jobs, a professional will use the best available tools at his disposal

It is pointless to put different disciplines of photography above or beneath each-other. A good professional will be able to shoot most stuff competently, using whatever camera is needed for the job. Obviously, first principles gets you so far, usually far enough to do a job well, experience in a discipline will let you do the job better quicker. End of rant
 
Interesting. Watches thread for some good arguments for and against :) personally, and only from a weekend warriors point of view I think it does an excellent job :) once you sort your workflow out :)
 
While its true wedding photographers like Lightroom for its capabilities in processing large numbers of images quickly, not all wedding photographers use it and not all commercial photographers don't. It's a silly statement IMO.
 
A lot use Capture One. Personally I thought that was so far behind everything else when I used it, the interface and lack of features was as if it was designed by, well, someone who's never edited a photo before. So I use Lightroom. I believe Capture One has picked up a lot of slack in newer versions though.

Use whatever you get along with, I think most of the major players are becoming pretty similar now anyway in terms of what they offer you.
 
I politely suggest that if you are someone who needs to review, tag and pick images quickly then you are either using Lightroom or that other product who's name escapes me but is the one thats only on the "Jesus Hardware".

Whether or not you are using it for PP'ing images is a different question...

Of course there are people who don't use a cataloging/review tool, but only probably because they havent seen the advantages of using one... in the same way as some people don't (for example) use auto focus...
 
James is right.

Many, if not most, high end professionals shooting commercial work (by this I mean advertising, studio fashion / still life etc for large clients) will be shooting to either capture one or phocus.

Capture one handles raw files better than lightroom, I find. My pictures are noticably better when they come out of the back of capture than they do lightroom. Shame that it's not as usable as lr, and the cataloguing and UI just aren't there yet.

Many also, whose individual shoots will result in just ONE image, will just use bridge + ACR.

But then again, many also use lightroom, either in conjunction or standalone (+PS)....
 
Last edited:
I've tried most converters except Capture one and aperture... Lightroom is the clear winner so far, well except some portraits that require PS treatment, or some complex landscapes... Lightroom can satisfactorily handle 98% of my workflow so that's pretty good news even if it makes me a 'wedding/portrait shooter" :LOL:
 
A 400D in experienced hands will bring in more consistently acceptable images than a 1DX in the hands of a beginner. Someone who knows Elements inside out can produce better results than someone who has just started using Lightroom, CS5, Capture One, or anything else.

What I am saying is that the operator is always a greater factor in how the final result will appear than the equipment. Cameras don't take photographs, software doesn't process them - unless you have everything set to auto.

Quite possibly I could get better results using different kit. But I would have to invest time and money in finding out, and have not enough of the former and a sufficiency of the latter to be happy with the way things are. Of course I keep an eye on new developments, and do try new (to me) stuff - Lightroom was a case in point - but there has to be a good return on the investment to make it worth my while to change.
 
I think this has more to do with the cameras a typical pro uses. If you have to shoot with a MF back, you probably dont use lightroom

Its a bit like comparing professional drivers. The choice of vehicle reflects the load
 
Richard King said:
I think this has more to do with the cameras a typical pro uses. If you have to shoot with a MF back, you probably dont use lightroom
Click to expand...

Exactly... the opening sentence from that link I posted says:

Phase One's Capture One Pro software offers the ultimate workflow for Phase One and Leaf cameras, and much of this functionality — but not all — is available for Nikon shooters
 
I've worked with quite a few commercial studio photographers - food, products, fashion - and none of them have used Lightroom. They tend to use Phase One or Phocus with PS for editing individual shots. By editing, I mean cleaning up blemishes and stacking focus - I can't recall seeing them doing any batch processing at all.
 
andybeach said:
I read this comment on a 'pro' photographer's blog ...

"Very few commercial pros use Lightroom, it’s more for wedding/portrait shooters."

Discuss! :thinking:
Click to expand...


could not care less - why would what other people use be relavent to anything :LOL:
 
For starters I'd say the initial quote has it has to be read in context to understand the point he was making.

The photographer was 'probably' providing his tips for someone learning to be a pro-photographer's assistant and he was listing the software to learn and the one to not bother with.
 
graphilly said:
For starters I'd say the initial quote has it has to be read in context to understand the point he was making.

The photographer was 'probably' providing his tips for someone learning to be a pro-photographer's assistant and he was listing the software to learn and the one to not bother with.
Click to expand...

quite possibly. Though in this case, I'd argue that any assistant should still be at least familiar with Lightroom, as many pros (namely ones who won't be hiring an additional digital operator) do use it, even for commercial work.

Personally, I'm adjusting my workflow to do all my cataloguing etc in lightroom, but then actually develop the raws of (special) selects - ie where a job renders one or two final images for the client - in capture one. It handles nikon raw files much better, and you get a visibly different handling of tones, especially skin.
 
graphilly said:
The photographer was 'probably' providing his tips for someone learning to be a pro-photographer's assistant and he was listing the software to learn and the one to not bother with.
Click to expand...

Spot on!
 
A lot of "Commercial" photographers are probably shooting medium format digital cameras, such as the Phase One. For this application Capture One is ideal. I used Capture One several years ago and it was an excellent piece of software. It doesn't have the cataloging or the speed of Lightroom which is what I needed.

It does have some nice tools though. The ability to link directly to an iPad looks like a great feature.
 
I think itsdavedotnet has made a very good point - if the result of a shoot is one or two images, then I'm sure a greater degree of retouching and actual processing will be required because the chances are it'll be a high-end finished product for something like a glossy mag, poster or billboard. Capture One or similar probably offer something extra for situations like this. I could see myself going down that kind of route if my photography took this route, AND if my finial output was being used in a way where the additional quality can be observed.

Personally, because I shoot several hundred images per shoot I need something quick yet intuitive and Lightroom offers just that. The ability to make global adjustments across a batch (sharpness, white balance) is essential for me but I do find LR has a high degree of adjustment that helps for those images that need a bit extra work. Ultimately, those hundreds of images are submitted to the editor for perusal so working quick is great for me and more importantly, the final output hits a ceiling because of the paper stock onto which we print. Going that one step further would be a pointless task in my case because the PDF process and print just won't carry those final tweaks over to the end product.
 
yup. certainly all the magazine shooters I've worked with use either LR or ACR+bridge. Hell, I even know of one (very) respected fashion show photographer who largely uses Aperture.

I think that this thread is mistaking 'commercial pros' to mean professional photographers... biiiig difference.
 
jon ryan said:
What I am saying is that the operator is always a greater factor in how the final result will appear than the equipment. Cameras don't take photographs, software doesn't process them - unless you have everything set to auto.
Click to expand...

I'd argue with the bit in bold. If you're using a digital camera, some software, somewhere, has got to convert the raw sensor data into something you can see/print. Each bit of software will have its quirks, and generally many many ways of tweaking it to produce a result, but we are all somewhat at the mercy of the raw processing engine in whatever software we choose to process the raw (in camera or not).

So I agree with the spirit, that the human factor is a much bigger differentiator than the hardware/software, but just as a pro will get better shots with a 1D and L glass than the same pro will get with a 400D and a kit lens, he may also get better shots with a particular raw processing engine.

Personally, I like Lightroom very much, but then I'm about as far from pro as it's possible to get :).
 
Originally Posted by jon ryan
What I am saying is that the operator is always a greater factor in how the final result will appear than the equipment. Cameras don't take photographs, software doesn't process them - unless you have everything set to auto.
Click to expand...

rex008 said:
I'd argue with the bit in bold. If you're using a digital camera, some software, somewhere, has got to convert the raw sensor data into something you can see/print. Each bit of software will have its quirks, and generally many many ways of tweaking it to produce a result, but we are all somewhat at the mercy of the raw processing engine in whatever software we choose to process the raw (in camera or not).

So I agree with the spirit, that the human factor is a much bigger differentiator than the hardware/software, but just as a pro will get better shots with a 1D and L glass than the same pro will get with a 400D and a kit lens, he may also get better shots with a particular raw processing engine.

Personally, I like Lightroom very much, but then I'm about as far from pro as it's possible to get :).
Click to expand...

Ability to get the most out of software is just as much a skill as ability to get the most out of a camera. Back in t'olden days, the best photographers did their own darkroom work. Today, they learn how best to use the available software. Sure there are a number of automated processes. Most of us now are happy to use auto focus and more and more are using auto WB. And I personally don't grind my own lenses - I buy them from a manufacturer I trust to deal with that aspect.

Yes, different processing engines will produce different results. As will different auto-exposure settings. I don't use Face Recognition Technology because, after years of practice, I can now recognise what a face is ( can be tricky shooting rugby players :D) . When processing I don't use `auto-levels`, say, because experience has shown that the `auto` rarely results in how I want the shot to appear. Auto Focus, on the other hand, works in the majority of cases. The trick is knowing how to get the best out of each, and only by learning what pressing buttons and sliding sliders does to a file can you lean how a given alteration should be applied.

If you rely on the auto settings, you may get a good shot - and you may not. But you probably won't know why one worked and the next didn't. This is at the shooting stage as well as the processing stage.
 
jon ryan said:
Back in t'olden days, the best photographers did their own darkroom work.
Click to expand...

Unless you're talking about Henri Cartier-Bresson (notoriously averse to spending time in a darkroom) Robert Capa, or quite a few other famous names, and many of the rest, like Cecil Beaton or Norman Parkinson, often handed their pictures over to other people for printing.
 
Last edited:
Great post there Richard.

After Christmas I'll do a post about commercial assisting, its what I'm mostly doing at the moment, and has a specific yet very wide ranging set of skills and behaviours.
 
andybeach said:
I read this comment on a 'pro' photographer's blog ...

"Very few commercial pros use Lightroom, it’s more for wedding/portrait shooters."

Discuss! :thinking:
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of the word "commercial". Certainly if you do a lot of "comping" you'll need Photoshop (or similar) as Lightroom doesn't support that sodt of thing.
 
I take, in this context, "commercial" to mean corporate, editorial and advertising photographers - the people who hire freelance assistants such as myself. End of the day we're talking £1k + budget per day from the client. Not talking weddings. PhotoShop is a given regardless of what PIEware / raw converter you use.

That is the context in which the original quote came from.
 
Lightroom/Aperture seem much more to be an image catalogue/management tool with editing capability (with an eye towards batch management) bolted on, where the other programs PS/Phocus etc are more focused on editing individual images with some catalogue ability thrown in. The UI points towards this as does the seeming audience for them. I'd also imagine when he says commercial photographer it's not antagonistic as some seem keen to take it - he means those contracted by a business rather than an individual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top