What do *you* use Lightroom for?

[Barry Kirsten]

I finally admitted to myself that I need Photoshop and signed up for PS CC at $9.99 per month. My photography is mainly B&W landscape, and I can see little use for Lightroom which comes bundled with PS. I know many forum members use LR but I can't see myself batch processing images, and I have my own simple system of cataloging images. I see some value in being able to stitch images to create the occasional panorama, and can see real value in HDR scanning, but beyond that I can't see much use for LR. I'm wondering what other members find valuable in LR for B&W work. Thanks for your input.

[Deval]

Do you have a digital camera. LR strength comes in its RAW engine. The latest incarnation may be useful to you as you can sync your library with mobile so if you wanted to show your library on an iPad or another laptop you can. You can use camera raw filter for any image nowadays, but you can switch to the older raw engine in light room which has different sliders for dealing with highlight and shadows. Also it's engine is nondestructive. You may want to consider movng your library into it... Future scans will remain untouched and if you wanted to digitally dodge burn exchange contrast on an image your original stays untouched just like your real negative. Once you change in PS you have to save multiple files to keep the original scan. To directly answer your question I use mine for my digital photography.

[TPanico]

For DSLR work, it's the power of manipulating RAW files. When adjusting scanned negatives, they come in as TIFFs and are corrected in Lightroom and Elements.

One of the features I didn't think I would use as much as I do is cataloging and keywording.

I tried Photoshop CC, but my computer is a bit older and some adjustments were slow, at times making me think my computer locked up.

[mijosc]

I use Lightroom for organization and editing. After I scan my negative, I import it into Photoshop and invert. At this point, I'm looking for a "flat" image with full tonal range. Then I clean up up any major dust spots and save the image. At this point I import it into Lightroom and do the bulk of my editing and adjustments there. I may bring it back into Photoshop for some extra spot removal, or if I need to do something with layers. I may also use Silver Efex Pro for some things as well. However, the bulk of the image adjustments are usually done in Lightroom.

I do like, with Lightroom, that I can always go back to the initial imported image create a virtual copy and try something new.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

I use it for organizing and viewing my photos. I will also apply some global edits when all of my PS work is done.

[Wsufans]

I use it for initial viewing, sorting, tagging, searching and rough edits. Then take the best of the bunch into full PS.

[paulr]

I never used it with large format, although it would be great if I could figure out a way to use its organizational powers for that work. Right now I'm stuck in old habits and workflows with my film images, and would like to avoid a massive reorganization project (although I'd probably happy if I bit the bullet and just did it).

For DSLR work I use lightroom for nearly everything. The raw processor is powerful, the organization features make it almost painless to work on a huge project, and it's trivially easy to export in whatever format you want. My web publishing software has a lightroom plugin, so I can create web galleries from within the program. I have various exposure blending tools that work within the program for extending dynamic range.

In the cases where I need to do pixel-level editing, it's relatively easy to export to photoshop and then re-import the edited file.

I do all final printing from photoshop, where I need the layer features to do my final sharpening. This means I need a library of photoshop exhibition print files that's separate from LR. But this is very small percentage of images.

FWIW, some people who do work with critical color (portraits, products) don't like LR/Photoshop's raw engine. There's the standard kind of debate over what's best, but I hear a lot of praise heaped onto CaptureOne (which requires a workflow that I can't wrap my head around, so I passed on it. But I don't doubt it's an excellent raw processor).

[fishbulb]

Like others, I use both programs together.

Lightroom:
* For organizing files
* For editing digitally captured files and small-format scans (35mm)

Photoshop:
* For merging digital files as multiple layers (panoramas, focus stacking, blended exposures)
* For working with large format scans (4x5) - LR is too slow to handle the huge 80mp to 300mp files
* For advanced retouching work work on any format (dust and scratches, content aware fill, clone stamp, layer masks, etc.)

[Barry Kirsten]

Thanks everyone, very much. Much food for thought here I'll ponder what you've all said. I'm a bit of a slow learner when it comes to digital processing, having worked only with film and paper for decades, but I see the folly of ignoring it, especially as I want to get into alt processing. I don't have a DSLR, but may some day, and I can see that LR would be more valuable to me. Thanks again for your help.

[gregmo]

I tried LR once with their 3rd release.. It couldn't handle the file sizes from LF film, so I have not looked into it since.

All my editing is done in PS.