Why Make the Switch--Lightroom from CS3/4

[Doug Dolde]

One thing cool about LR is you can do a graduated ND filter at the raw file level. I can't imagine anyone not using PS after LR processing though.

[jnantz]

i used LR when it first came out, now i just use ps when needed.

[JeffKohn]

Any raw processing you can do in LR, you can also do in Bridge/ACR. That includes applying non-destructive presets to whole batches of files at once.

[Ed Richards]

I use both. I was using Lightroom for organizating and working on my digital images, and Photoshop for my LF images. But then I realized that the image management features of Lightroom would help with my LF images, esp. when I also have digital shots of the same scene. It is a really nice way to upload, tune, and spin out JPGs from a family vacation or holiday, then I just upload the jpgs to Shutterful and get prints for the family. For my LF images, it makes it easier to embed and manage metadata, particularly GPS data. I can shoot an Iphone (3GS) photo of the scene, then past the GPS data into the metadate for my LF scans.

[Photojeep]

Not to take this discussion too far off-topic, but I recently found out that the Mac version of Adobe Lightroom 3.0 will be only for Intel Macs. Any older Mac with the Power PC chipset will NOT run the LR 3 software.

The further I dug, the more I found that Apple themselves has turned their back on the Power PC-based machines. Adobe is simply following suit.

I understand that Apple, like all companies worth their stock price have to innovate to survive but for a company that is as "eco-minded" as Apple claims to be (think about their latest Macbook Pro and its eco-friendly design and innards), I find it just a little bit hypocritical to push people to purchase a new computer thereby contributing to the eco-waste problem. I have read that the Intel based machines are faster and better in all manner of measureable ways but to esssentially "force" users to upgrade a perfectly good machine seems ridiculous. Perhaps they aren't as different from Microsoft as they would want us to believe.

Just thought you'd like to know...
Randy

[Jeremy Moore]

Not to take this discussion too far off-topic, but I recently found out that the Mac version of Adobe Lightroom 3.0 will be only for Intel Macs. Any older Mac with the Power PC chipset will NOT run the LR 3 software.

The further I dug, the more I found that Apple themselves has turned their back on the Power PC-based machines. Adobe is simply following suit.

I applaud them for dropping the PPC line and the universal binary coding. This is very similar to the switch from FD to EOS by Canon. Yes, this will leave some people with no upgrade path except the purchase of a new computer, but they have made this (dropping of PPC in new OSs) known for years. If they are going to make significant headway on improving their software then dropping PPC support and streamlining the code allows them to focus on coding just for the x86 architecture and remove bloat. In my mind they are doing exactly what Apple would do--make targeted software matched to their specific hardware line. The Mac PPC line ran from 1994-2006 and was getting old in the tooth. It would require an entirely different OS than Snow Leopard and Adobe would have had to code 2 versions of LR3 to work with PPCs--a dead market and not smart business practice imo. If they were microsoft they would try and provide wide-ranging support for all devices, something Jobs has said time and time again that they have no wish to do.

I would rather see Adobe make a Linux version than a PPC version as that is a growing userbase (and I could finally drop Windows at work!).

In the end, though, this still stinks for those w/o an Intel chip, but then again there were a lot of photogs with FD equipment that had to buy new and I don't think anyone would have wanted Canon to be hampered by holding onto the FD mount.

[Ben Syverson]

dropping PPC support and streamlining the code allows them to focus on coding just for the x86 architecture and remove bloat.

I wonder how much x86-specific code they have. Really, there's no need to have additional bloat for specific processors. Mac apps typically are fairly easily compiled for both Intel and PPC, so I'm not sure what their rationale is for dropping PPC.

Even if they want to transition to 64 bit, they could still support the G5. It seems like throwing away potential sales.

Apple's case is slightly different, as OS X has a good amount of architecture-specific code. It makes some amount of sense for them to focus on Intel for 10.6 and beyond. Adobe on the other hand, I'm not so sure about.

[Lenny Eiger]

I find Lightroom useless. It can't handle large files, and that's all I generate.

Lenny

[Ben Syverson]

I can't imagine using LR for film scans. It's just not built for that.

[Ron Bose]

If you have five to five-thousand images to process, LR is the best. From that batch you can further refine some with PS.

If you have two images which need lots of work, just go straight in to PS.