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.

[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.

[Jeremy Moore]

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

I use it for large scans without a problem. 14,400 x 18,000 pixels.

[Lenny Eiger]

I use it for large scans without a problem. 14,400 x 18,000 pixels.

I found it completely untenable to handle two and three Gig files with it. It would take forever to show them in the browser and would crash trying to open them. What a mess. The other issue is once you start, you are going to stay in their model forever. Not for me... Might be great if I have 5,000 files to look thru... Thankfully, I don't.

Lenny

[Jeremy Moore]

I found it completely untenable to handle two and three Gig files with it. It would take forever to show them in the browser and would crash trying to open them. What a mess. The other issue is once you start, you are going to stay in their model forever. Not for me... Might be great if I have 5,000 files to look thru... Thankfully, I don't.

Lenny

All of my work that large is 16-bit b&w so it's only ~500mb.

[venchka]

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

I must be totally ignorant. That's all I use Lightroom for. The computer I use Lightroom on is a relic.

Wayne, Doing dumb things with the wrong software and an obsolete computer, in Texas.

[Ben Syverson]

Hey, if it works, it works!

[Kuzano]

You''ve got to understand the aims of Adobe in providing Lightroom in the first place. It was never intended as a replacement for Photoshop. Adobe would never shoot themselves in the foot like that.

There are three markets for both the applications.

Those who can get all they need out of Photoshop CS3/4
Those who can get all they need out of Lightroom
Those who have to have both to get all their needs met.

Neither of them can perform the functions that a creative photographer can conjure up or imagine as functions for photo editing and/or file management.

[john biskupski]

I just bought Lightroom 2 after a while reviewing the various choices of digital film editing applications for handling serious amateur DSLR picture files and MF/LF scanned film files. I needed to get away from iPhoto which degrades Raw files and has such limited editing features. I had wanted to buy Aperture, as I use a Mac and supposed it would be the best 'fit' as a comprehensive storage and editing application, but it wouldn't work on my old G4 PPC, and had a reputation for slowness. I have always shied away from Photoshop, as I have no interest in acting as a graphic designer, and 80% of that expensive application would be wasted, along with my time.

What I've learned so far is that L2 can do almost all the editing that I could need, but misses out really only on HDR image merging and panoramic stitching, which PS, or other 3rd party plug-ins, could handle. So far I'm happy with my choice for my needs, although to answer the OP question, if you had invested your time and money in mastering PS, I don't see why you would then downgear to L2. Some things are said to be superior for now in L2 than in PS (non-pixel level edits, end-to end integrated workflow), but Adobe ensures that PS/ACR/ Bridge/L2 products all keep up with each other eventually in successive rolling releases.

[Wayne Crider]

In the last edition of Photo Techniques I read, there was a comparison between Aperture, LR and Capture One software as raw converters. Addressing the OP's question, the article went into depth as to the capabilities of the programs outside the conversion process as well, and was insightful if anyone is looking to add some such abilities.

From what I have found out, LR2 needs a faster machine with alot of ram. I would suspect that working in LF scans would tax it's abilities and I doubt that it was designed to address pro oriented LF shooters inclusive. I believe it's more oriented to the wedding and amateur market for raw conversion, quick edits and filing.

The last I read, early this year, my impression is that if Adobe were to write anything that could be used on a Linux machine without emulation, I could see Linux becoming the replacement for the old Mac platform's early domination in graphics. I'd be more then willing to work in Linux, but the (familiar) programs are not there just yet for me as of late 08 when I looked seriously at Linux. That may have changed now tho; Maybe someone can update us. Still that OS is exploding with major companies using Linux servers and from what I can tell Microsoft is/may be fighting an uphill battle, if not now very soon. Once Photoshop works on a Linux machine without emulating Windows, every computer photo/graphic/tv editor nerd will buy one and it's a big market. Here's a (somewhat old) link I just found, but yet to fully read, about Google being behind Photoshop's new Linux capability. An interesting adjunct to the conversation.

[neil poulsen]

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

Hmmm. Interesting. What's the file-size limit for Lightroom?

[Lenny Eiger]

Hmmm. Interesting. What's the file-size limit for Lightroom?

I've heard different things, but my guess is that its tuned for the 5-100mb sizes, and can handle probably up to about 300 fairly easily. AFter that, it gets harder and by the time you get over a Gig, things go awry. Maybe they'll fix it in CS 5.

But of course, we're just film users, a very small part of the population. Maybe they won't.

Lenny