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.

[John Olsen]

My scanner is just an Epson "small-in-one", but with a little LR help, quite adequate for documenting my B&W prints for uploading to web pages. I start in PS for rotation, cropping and spotting, then go to LR for clarity, highlights and sometimes vignetting. Then I return to PS for final sharpening and brightening, if necessary. It sounds laborious, but then my production rate doesn't have to be high.
Also, if you do ever get a DLSR, you'll find that LR is great for making B&W versions to compare with (or maybe guide) your large format film work.
There are some great tutorials out there - find one that talks slowly and isn't just someone on an ego trip. I recommend those by Julieanne Kost.

[Barry Kirsten]

Thanks Greg and John. Helpful thoughts.

[Ken Lee]

The last time I looked, Lightroom didn't support Layers. Does it now ?

[bob carnie]

I use lightroom for editing down large bodies of work to smaller , tighter , groups. I find this to be an invaluable tool.
Also when I want to set up web jpegs , or presentation jpegs, the export function in Lightroom is very user friendly .

I never use it for working on a file, but with the new version I see no reason not too, if all one is doing is colour correction and dodging and burning.
I prefer PS as I do a lot of conversions, LAB work, and film separations these days.

[h2oman]

Hmmmm...

I must begin by confessing that I've never used Photoshop. (When I began digital photogrphy I ended up with something called Picture Window Pro, and have used it since.) I use Lightroom for pretty much all of my processing of scanned B&W 4x5 negatives now, and it has seemed adequate for me.

I teach at a small college, so I was able to get an educator deal on the newest Lightroom (I'd been using 2.7 until then), so $80 and I was up and running with the latest version, which ought to hold me for another 5-8 years. Decided to upgrade my computer, too, and I got a refurbished Dell that works just fine for $153, and use it with my old CRT monitor whose picture seems to match the resulting prints well enough for my unsophisticated eyes.

[h2oman]

PS I should add that my needs are much less than others who have posted. I don't work professionally, for myself or others, and I rarely print larger than 11x14, never larger than 16x20. I don't like images so sharp that the sharpness calls attention to itself. I pretty much photograph and print for my own enjoyment, and I have found Lightroom to be simple, intuitive and efficient for my processing needs.

[Ari]

I have found the burn/dodge function in LR to be very close to what a darkroom burn/dodge would look like.
The ability to endlessly fine-tune the burn/dodge is invaluable as well, and it's very easy to use. Ditto for the radial filter.
LR has made working faster and easier, without having to create masks and layers.
I like that none of the corrections I might make are permanent, I can export the finished file over and over while keeping the original intact.
What still baffles me is LR's filing and cataloguing system, but it's never caused me to lose a file or be unable to find one.

I use PS for sizing, cropping and spotting dust.
Then I import into LR.

[Barry Kirsten]

Thanks Bob, h2oman and Ari. I'm beginning to see there's more in LR than I first thought. I'll spend some more time with it. Thanks again.

[biedron]

I use Lightroom for everything, from import to print and anything in between. I got Photoshop through the Creative Cloud a year or so ago, thinking I would try to learn to use PS too. But every time I fire up PS and see the bewildering array of mostly meaningless icons, I just go back to LR.

LR doesn't have layers, but having never used layers, I don't miss them. Dust spotting is easy (though still tedious) using the fn+arrow keys to step through the image.

Bob

[appletree]

I currently use lightroom for everything. But been considering signing up for PS CC as well. I spent an entire summer about 4 years ago organizing and sorting all my photos. Only been photography for 6 years now, but had about 2000 photos mostly 35mm and 120 (of which I use to scan EVERY single negative). It was time consuming and my process/organization evolved over time, but it helps a lot now. I can type in Germany and all my photos from Germany show up, or 35mm and likewise.

I use a color coding system for negatives I need to rescan, negatives I need to edit still, negs that are ready to be uploaded etc. One folder for holding all my negs I need to work on and then folders for each year and location...which hold those negs already uploaded, those that didn't make the cut, etc.

Organizing everything has been really great and helpful. Now that the "system" is already in place it is not hard to continue using it. Although I find my lightroom work eb and flow. Sometimes I can go months without working on the 400 negs that are waiting, and others I can spend weeks actually getting work done.

[bob carnie]

You seem to have got the Lightroom organizing thing down pretty well... I started with Lightroom 2 (still use it) going to the cloud soon for lightroom and PS.

I find the export function and resizing of files very helpful, also flagging and coding hero images.. I have always found the Library and how it functions with original files stored to be a real PIA and want to learn
more about this function of Lightroom ..
I believe its a very powerful program if you can learn it inside out.. I am still working on PS and all its complexitys , but both programs are powerful weapons that is for sure.. they both have strengths.


I currently use lightroom for everything. But been considering signing up for PS CC as well. I spent an entire summer about 4 years ago organizing and sorting all my photos. Only been photography for 6 years now, but had about 2000 photos mostly 35mm and 120 (of which I use to scan EVERY single negative). It was time consuming and my process/organization evolved over time, but it helps a lot now. I can type in Germany and all my photos from Germany show up, or 35mm and likewise.

I use a color coding system for negatives I need to rescan, negatives I need to edit still, negs that are ready to be uploaded etc. One folder for holding all my negs I need to work on and then folders for each year and location...which hold those negs already uploaded, those that didn't make the cut, etc.

Organizing everything has been really great and helpful. Now that the "system" is already in place it is not hard to continue using it. Although I find my lightroom work eb and flow. Sometimes I can go months without working on the 400 negs that are waiting, and others I can spend weeks actually getting work done.

[appletree]

It took awhile, that's for sure. I have an entire cheat sheet of notes posted up near the computer. What colors mean what, and what stars mean what. That way I can click on 5 stars and see 40 photos all of which are labeled to print in the darkroom.

I usually highlight batches of film and mark notes such as film type and speed, location, names of friends, color, b/w, camera used, lens, etc. It saves the keywords you type so it goes by relatively quick as generally an entire roll of film is very similar. For sheet film it seems like it won't be too bad either.

Makes it nice to find a photo by location instead of camera or time. At first I sorted everything by camera used. Then it dawned on me it sucked. Cause I could not remember back 3 years ago to say hmmmm where is that photo I took on my Leica. But I could remember my trip to NY in 2012. And keywords helps me to find things fast. If I keep shooting for many years, I guess it only helps to have it all sorted now.

I also hired my ex-gf's sister to help me sort it all. After a few weekends and $200 I got a system in place that I am happy with. One of the few areas of my life that is organized. Sine buying a house 1 1/2 years ago I realized I really need a filing cabinet...yet to pick one up...sigh!

[paulr]

The last time I looked, Lightroom didn't support Layers. Does it now ?

It doesn't, although the editing tools work in a way that's analogous to adjustment layers (I guess you could say this about any parametric editing program).

This both simplifies the program and limits it. In general, for any kind of edit that requires the complexity of layers, or that requires pixel-level manipulation, you still end up exporting to photoshop. The programs are at least designed to work together for this purpose.

[john borrelli]

I am an amateur landscape photographer but have never really used layers. In photoshop, I used selection tools and then if needed I used the cloning tool to smooth over anything jagged-y. Amazing how the cloning tool at various levels of diffusion can work wonders with that kind of thing.

Now I use Lightroom for digital and for my epson scanned LF images. Lightroom is better at lightening and darkening areas without needing layers, selection tools, dodging or burning. For me Lightroom is photo software and Photoshop is desktop publishing software. The only thing I use photoshop for now is the cloning tool. In my opinion, the cloning tool in Lightroom is primitive compared to Photoshop, even the low priced version of Photoshop or older versions of Photoshop have a better cloning tool then Lightroom.

[h2oman]

I never really understood the whole catalog thing for years, due at least in part to being too lazy to think about it. When I upgraded to the newest version I decided it was time to get off my butt and figure it out. And the best source I found was the videos by Julianne Kost. She's very clear and succinct - if you search her name and go to her web page she links to all of her videos from there.

[Ari]

I never really understood the whole catalog thing for years, due at least in part to being too lazy to think about it. When I upgraded to the newest version I decided it was time to get off my butt and figure it out. And the best source I found was the videos by Julianne Kost. She's very clear and succinct - if you search her name and go to her web page she links to all of her videos from there.

Thanks; the LR catalogue function has always baffled me.

[analoguey]

One thing I never liked about LR is that the ' Digital negative ' format files have less Info than the original RAWs - probably An Adobe raw converter thing? No idea .

Catalogues are nice but having more than one is the stuff of nightmares reg retrieving or organising.

[appletree]

I have no idea what (a) catalog is in Lightroom. Never really even noticed it, I don't think.

[SergeiR]

I have tried all versions of LR but i kept coming back to Capture One, when it comes to processing of digital files from digital cameras.

[Michael Rosenberg]

I thought that all the tools in LR are also in ACR. Is that incorrect? I use ACR a lot in PS - and can re-edit it if I need to. I think it is cumbersome to have to import images into LR, and creating different galleries etc. is a lot of work. Then if I want to move images around it requires a lot more work.

So, are there any tools, or toosl that behave differently, in LR Vs ACR??

Mike

[Bill McMannis]

In addition to all my digital processing, tagging and cataloging LR's ability to both upload to my Flickr and Behance accounts are quite good. It synchs with Flickr to download comments from the site as well as updating images that I may adjust after the initial upload.

[Barry Kirsten]

I've been really helped and encouraged by the replies here, and also by some of Julieanne Kost's LR tutorials that someone mentioned. I spent some time this morning with LR and produced an inkjet print I considered half decent (something of a first for me as I haven't had much success with inkjet printing). Printing aside, I have to say that I'm starting to appreciate the power of LR. I need to spend a lot more time with it, but I can see myself using it a lot, perhaps even more than PS. Thanks everyone for your comments.

[Bill McMannis]

Lynda.com has a number of excellent tutorials on LR. One on B&W portrait touch up and another on urban landscapes are particularly good.

[Barry Kirsten]

Thanks Bill. I looked at some of Lynda's tutorials on youtube where they're free. They are good.

[fishbulb]

I thought that all the tools in LR are also in ACR. Is that incorrect? I use ACR a lot in PS - and can re-edit it if I need to. I think it is cumbersome to have to import images into LR, and creating different galleries etc. is a lot of work. Then if I want to move images around it requires a lot more work.

So, are there any tools, or toosl that behave differently, in LR Vs ACR??

Mike

Yes you are correct. Lightroom, Photoshop, and Bridge all use the same Adobe Camera Raw software as their underlying RAW processing engine. Assuming all three programs are of the same vintage, the results are going to be the same.

The only difference that could occur is if the programs are not all up to date. For example, Photoshop CS2, Lightroom 4, and Bridge CC 2015 all use different versions of ACR, because the programs came out at different times.

The big differences between Lightroom and Photoshop are the other tools that are not contained withing ACR. They have different ways of doing HDR and Panorama merging. Photoshop can do layers, Lightroom can't. Lightroom has great organizational tools, Photoshop doesn't. Lightroom's adjustment brush works differently than the one in Photoshop. Etc.

[fishbulb]

I have no idea what (a) catalog is in Lightroom. Never really even noticed it, I don't think.

Understanding catalogs is REALLY important to using Lightroom - mainly so you don't screw something up.

The Lightroom Catalog is just a database file that tells Lightroom two things:
(1) Where the actual image files are located and
(2) What changes you made to the files

Important things to understand about Catalogs:

* If you move files around (such as RAW files you've imported) WITHOUT doing it inside of Lightroom, the Catalog won’t know where to find them.
* If you need to move files around after you've imported them into Lightroom, do it by dragging and dropping the files in the Folders Panel on the left side of the Library module in Lightroom. DON'T do it by moving the files in Windows or Apple Finder.
* When editing files in Lightroom, the original files are untouched - changes are stored in the Catalog, and then you export a new, edited copy when you’re done editing.
* If you need to edit a file in Photoshop, open it from within Lightroom, by right-clicking and choosing Edit In->Photoshop. Lightroom will know you're doing this, and keep the Catalog updated accordingly, even if you create new files when you're working in Photoshop.
* You can have multiple catalogs that track different sets of folders (I don't), but you need at least one to even use Lightroom. Otherwise, Lightroom won't have a place to store the information on your image files.

Also, you should have three folders on your computer that Lightroom uses.

(1) A place to store your unedited photos (anything you've imported in Lightroom, such as RAW files):
- For example in “My Documents\Lightroom Imports\”
- You then would have subfolders like:
- “My Documents\Lightroom Imports\2015\Bob's Wedding\” and “My Documents\Lightroom Imports\2015\Trip to Yellowstone\”
- Or however you set up your organization of folders.
- This location is set when you import files, on the right side of the Import panel. Subfolders can be created each time you import new files.

(2) A place to store your Lightroom Catalog (the database) and its backups:
- For example in “My Documents\Lightroom Catalogs\”
- Lightroom will create its own subfolders
- You can set the location of your catalog when you create it, or change it in “Edit -> Catalog Settings”

(3) A place where you put finished files (finished files exported from Lightroom):
- For example in “My Documents\Lightroom Exports\” for example.
- This location is set when you export files, at the top of the Export panel.

These three core locations should be *separate folders* as in the example, and not contained within one another.