Is Lightroom enough for simple processing?

[R Mann]

I am using a PC running windows XP.

I want to upgrade from Adobe Elements 4 to something that will do a few simple things-

Import RAW image files

Handle scans with more color depth than 8 bits

Allow for some adjustments to sharpness, contrast & color

Fix red eye and remove dust spots

From what I have been able to get from Adobe & others it would seem that Lightroom would be what I am looking for. Or, should I be looking at the full Photoshop CS package? Getting both is not in my budget.

Could anyone using Lightroom share their impressions/opinions - is there a down side to going with it over Photoshop CS?

[Walter Calahan]

Yes, Lightroom is more than enough for simple post-production RAW processing. Lightroom uses the same RAW processor from Adobe as Photoshop CS3.

For retouching, you'll still need Photoshop. But you can do simple dust spotting in Elements.

[Allen Rumme]

[QUOTE=For retouching, you'll still need Photoshop. But you can do simple dust spotting in Elements.[/QUOTE]

Lightroom does have a tool for removing spots. It functions somewhat differently than the tools in Elements and CS, but it is quite usable for removing most spots and imperfections.

[Aender Brepsom]

You might use the RAW converter that came with your DSLR or the free Adobe DNG converter (to convert your RAW files into DNG files) and use the latest PS Elements version. It can handle the DNG files and does all the adjustments that you need for a fair price.

[Witold Grabiec]

I may be possibly misreading last post, but to my knowledge one of the most important features of Lightroom is, that it does not convert RAW files at all (unless you eventually choose to of course). It works on a RAW PREVIEW and makes no adjustments to pixels. Converting RAW to anything does an immediate damage to original, level of which depends on file type you convert to. Even DNG is NOT a lossless type, contrary to some believes. In other words, in Lightroom the workflow closely matches traditional one. When you work from a negative, the negative itself usually remains unaltered. You correct your image in the darkroom. Same goes for Lightroom. You work directly of a RAW data file, not its conversion. This is an important distinction many people still miss out on.

In the end let me say that Lightroom is meant to deal with images on global scale at the tonal level and will not allow for pixel level edits (as in intricate fixes, retouches etc.). So it does not replace a typical image editor like Photoshop or what have you. This of course assumes, that you want to alter images that far. If you approach digital imaging same way as any good traditional habit would imply (mainly: correct exposure ), you will hardly need anything but Lightroom.

[nathanm]

I would skip Lightroom and get Photoshop and use the RAW converter plugin. Lightroom is in my experience, frustratingly slow. Retouching dust with Lightroom's little weird circle\line tool? It's a joke, you'll gather cobwebs before you get any real work done! It's easily the slowest bit of Adobe software I've ever come across.

[Skorzen]

I find that lightroom is good for about 99% of what I need to do. I find it MUCH more convenient to work in lightroom than photoshop as I can import a group of shots (or roll of MF film) and work on all the photos without having to open each file individually.

[D. Bryant]

I find it MUCH more convenient to work in lightroom than photoshop as I can import a group of shots (or roll of MF film) and work on all the photos without having to open each file individually.

You can do that in PS too.

Don Bryant

[Witold Grabiec]

I guess the debate Bridge (That's what you mean Don, right?) vs. LR will continue all over the web. It seems to me, that LR is partly not getting as much attention as it deserves, because there is a lot of stuff on the web that pertains to its Beta release, that apparently had numerous bugs, but the negativity remains.

There is a number of important differences between LR and Bridge. Frankly, I've not used Bridge and it will be best for the interested to search the web on that issue. As I stated earlier, I'm almost loving LR (almost, due to still learning it). It's possible it will evolve to a more comprehensive editor, although I'm sure Adobe will keep its distance to PS in a comfortable range. However, most adjustments in the tonal area are built in, and depending on your needs, that's all you may ever need.

As for the LR, there is a nice tutorial on what it is HERE. This should be enough for most to decide whether it's worth a try. And last but not least (and once again), LR allows you to work on an image WITHOUT converting the original file first.

[Witold Grabiec]

It looks like my post on how Lightroom deals with original RAW file went through misunderstood.

Bottom line is, if you don't have to convert, don't, yet you must in Photoshop (or am I wrong?).

That's quite important difference (when and where applicable of course). I too like Lightroom, don't see slowness to any degree I would be bothered by, yet it lets me work pretty closely to traditional way. There is a need for a full fledged program like PS (or its less expensive, yet almost as capable alternatives), I don't think that will change any time soon. But almost every I open Lightroom, it makes me wanna work on images (could never say that in PS).