Why Make the Switch--Lightroom from CS3/4

[Raymond Bleesz]

Why would you make the switch from CS3/4 to Lightroom & who has done so? Reasons if any--to switch or not. Has it been worth the while to do so???

I am comfortable with CS3 at this time--with the amt of work I do. There seems to be a large sentiment out there promoting Lightroom as the latest, the greatest thing since ..........

[Frank_E]

they are two different animals. I use both.

The advantage of Lightroom is that I find it a more easy to use and convenient tool for organizing my photos and converting the RAW images than Adobe Bridge. Every digital photo I take goes through LR.

CS3 is much more flexible for making adjustments. You can't create Layers in LR and the tool for making adjustments with selections is much more limited.

[Robert Brummitt]

they are two different animals. I use both.

The advantage of Lightroom is that I find it a more easy to use and convenient tool for organizing my photos and converting the RAW images than Adobe Bridge. Every digital photo I take goes through LR.

CS3 is much more flexible for making adjustments. You can't create Layers in LR and the tool for making adjustments with selections is much more limited.

That is what I've been told as well. I use both programs at work and home. I use LR for organization and prep work and PS3 for final specialized work. Great tools these are.

[Jeremy Moore]

they are two different animals. I use both.

ditto.

[venchka]

I'm cheap. I don't do anything that requires Photoshop on purpose. I use Lightroom. I skipped the 2.0 upgrade. Waiting for the 3.0 upgrade. I hope they don't charge double.

[Kirk Gittings]

I gave my copy of Lightroom to my assistant as I never used it. As I see it if you shoot a large variety of stock imagery it is useful to organize your images, but I don't. As I have to open virtually every image in PS, as I extensively use layers, Lightroom was superfluous.

[Jeremy Moore]

As I see it if you shoot a large variety of stock imagery it is useful to organize your images, but I don't.

I think if you shoot a lot and don't already have a DAM* plan Lightroom is a powerful and useful tool. Additionally, if you shoot a lot in similar situations the pre-sets and ability to test them across your many, many images at once is much more powerful than using photoshop actions as nothing is baked in and photoshop would require overwriting the original or saving another copy (which takes me back to if you don't already have a DAM plan...).

DAM =Digital Asset Management, but it's always much more fun to use the acronym.

edit: Like Kirk I open every exhibition image in PS to work-up, but don't need or care to do so with more personal digital snaps photographs like my wife playing with our dogs that she wants to put on facebook. This does take us outside the realm of LF, though.

[Kirk Gittings]

if you shoot a lot in similar situations the pre-sets and ability to test them across your many, many images at once is much more powerful

First of all I am very familiar with what Lightroom can do. I owned it for many years and periodically used it for a few things like hot folder teathered shooting. But unlike Jeremy, I don't shoot allot in similar situations personally or professionally. Architectural photography is about quality not quantity and layers are essential and they are different for every image. But what Jeremy describes, volume edits, are easy enough to do in ACR and with PS scripts anyway at the volume I shoot.

If Adobe succeeds in adding a plugin for easy two click copyright registrations for Lightroom which they have hinted at, I would buy it again.

[Jeremy Moore]

First of all I am very familiar with what Lightroom can do. I owned it for many years. But I don't shoot allot in similar situations. Architectural photography is about quality not quantity. But what you describe, volume edits is easy enough to do in ACR anyway.

Wasn't saying you aren't familiar with it nor that your shoots are in similar situations. I quoted you because I think you hit the nail on the head in reference to large image sets and was just building on your comment as I do use it that way in addition to using it as the core of my DAM system involving LF scans. I assume you already have a robust DAM plan as a pro using digital, but many here may not have that worked out yet and LR is one way to go.

Now I am feeling defensive, though, and will point out that you did write you never used it and i don't think owning it for years means much if you never used it to the point you gave it away.

[Kirk Gittings]

I am not trying to confuse you Jeremy, but that is the result. Sorry. I was just trying to simplify the story so I didn't have to write as much. The long of it......I used LR for sometime, all through LR1, but increasingly found it did not fit my needs and ultimately increasingly used Bridge until I wasn't using LR for image processing at all. I continued using LR for tethered shooting because it was more stable than DPP. I quit using LR altogether when the magazines I was working for went over to wanting to drop their masthead etc. in a layer onto the test shots to see if images would fit the layout. So it was no longer useful even to bother shooting tethered to LR. After not even opening LR for over 6 months I gave it to my assistant. Here is the thing. There is no way I could get by only with Lightroom-no layers, but I can get by with just Photoshop. So my usual motto applies KISS and gave LR to my assistant who does shoot volumes of stock. LR is tailor made for him.