Lightroom; is it just awful?

Status
Not open for further replies.
inkiboo

inkiboo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,115
Name
Gerard
Edit My Images
No
I never use Lightroom. Always Photoshop. But for various circumstances, I have no choice but to use for the next week.

Christ alive, it’s awful. Slow, buggy, and a generally terrible interface.

Am I missing something? Surely it can’t actually be this bad?
 
I use PS. I can't say Lightroom is awful but when I did try it I thought it looked more like a cataloguing tool with photo processing tucked away in a corner just in case you might want to use it. Having said all that, I get the impression that more people use LR than PS.
 
Last edited:
Each to their own I guess.

I have the Adobe Photography package and use Photoshop some of the time when I want/need to edit images, but use mainly Lightroom Classic (ver 14.5 currently) for image processing and cataloging. Importing images can be slow, but otherwise, it's fine for me.
 
I'm the opposite, do 99% of my editing in LR, as it's quick and easy. When I do need to switch over to PS for something unusual I find it horribly cumbersome and counter intuitive, I know what I want to do, but it takes ages to find the right option in the mass of menus, etc.
I suspect it's mainly down to familiarity with the two programs.
Edit: I mean LightRoom Classic when I say LR
 
Last edited:
Gosh!

I'm lucky I can do everything I want with OSX's Preview... :exit:
 
Been using LR Classic for as long as I can remember - easily 99% of my editing aside from the rare occasions I need to blend layers.

Bulk editing, easy to cull and sort images, tools for editing are awesome, full export in one go, amongst many other things. But the best thing, you can just come back and edit more and change stuff etc at different times without re- opening and loading images etc
 
Faldrax said:
I'm the opposite, do 99% of my editing in LR, as it's quick and easy. When I do need to switch over to PS for something unusual I find it horribly cumbersome and counter intuitive, I know what I want to do, but it takes ages to find the right option in the mass of menus, etc.
I suspect it's mainly down to familiarity with the two programs.
Click to expand...
(y)


95% LRC; I only go to PS when I need to do something more advanced that LR can't do as well.
IMO, LR's non-destructive raw editing is an essential component to a raw file workflow. I only export files (png/jpeg) for a specific use, and then I delete them; that keeps my organization simple/clean and storage requirements a lot smaller.
 
Last edited:
The only real thing wrong with LR is it's slowness. It seems to take longer than you think it should. Otherwise - what it does is super.
 
Lightroom can be clunky and slow sometimes, a lot depends on the file size. Strangely enough I often find camera raw In photoshop quicker, and yet they are the same
 
Adamcski said:
I use LR not LRC and I find LR really good. LRC I don’t like at all. Seems clunky and the layout and interface is not as smooth as LR (in my opinion).
Click to expand...
Same here I use LR not LRC as i also find the interface of LRC not to my taste
 
inkiboo said:
I never use Lightroom. Always Photoshop. But for various circumstances, I have no choice but to use for the next week.

Christ alive, it’s awful. Slow, buggy, and a generally terrible interface.

Am I missing something? Surely it can’t actually be this bad?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's awful, but while I enjoy using Photoshop, I find LRc rather clunky, irritating and inflexible, compared to Capture One, which, after many attempts to dump in favour of using LRc and saving a bit of money, I've failed to do.

If you don't need the cataloguing, I would certainly prefer Bridge plus Photoshop to using Lightroom Classic.

I haven't used LR.
 
I also use LR Classic for about 99% of my editing.

That’s gone up since the AI erase tool, because most of my Photoshop use was simple retouching.
 
No it's not awful.

I use it in tandem with Topaz and, on a good powerful computer, it works extremely well for me.

Perhaps it's down to what you are used too...though I've only been using LR for 5 or 6 months and it all seems very intuitive.
 
I use lightroom (or “lightroom cloud” or “lightroom cc” as it is known) but cannot fathom lightroom classic at all.
Occasionally use photoshop if I need layers.
 
I've been using Lightroom Classic in all its forms since its' RawEssentials days. Program limited more by older PC internals and user incompetence.
 
sirch said:
Clearly
Click to expand...
Having spent the day with it, not sure I am.

I think if I had never used PS, I could live with Lr. But I have. And I can’t.

Cropping is dire compared to Ps.

I can see how it could be a real good tool but for me it is just too clunky.
 
inkiboo said:
Having spent the day with it, not sure I am.

I think if I had never used PS, I could live with Lr. But I have. And I can’t.

Cropping is dire compared to Ps.

I can see how it could be a real good tool but for me it is just too clunky.
Click to expand...
Do you work only with jpegs? If not, you really are missing a lot from not using a raw workflow.

(I'm not saying you "should" use a raw workflow, that's a personal choice)
 
You tried CaptureOne? I do 99% of my edits in C1. Not the cheapest, but it works well for me - you can get a 30 day demo if you're curious.
 
Interesting thread, I use Photoshop to do all my editing after initial opening on Camera raw via PS then use lightroom to do the printing, often port the image out of lightroom back into PS to final edit once initial printing parameters are set paper etc. then reload in LR to print, always edit and print from .tiff files, only use jpgs for places like this forum and then they are created in PS from the tiff.
 
Been using both for years. Dont find LR slow unless I'm using lens correction and noise reduction on large batches, and even then it's only a few seconds.
For the odd image here and there I use PS, but for any number or weddings it's LR.
I dont use LR for cataloguing as such though.
 
inkiboo said:
Having spent the day with it, not sure I am.

I think if I had never used PS, I could live with Lr. But I have. And I can’t.

Cropping is dire compared to Ps.

I can see how it could be a real good tool but for me it is just too clunky.
Click to expand...

In what way is it dire?

You click the crop/rotate, select the ratio, and then just crop and/or rotate, the close the menu. You don't even have to click 'ok' to confirm......

EDIT - actually, to add to that..... You don't even have to click 'ok' - you can just click on the next image in the time line and crop/rotate that as the "crop window" stays open..... And the next, etc I add profiles to all images in one click, you can crop all in one go, you can add lens corrections etc to all image in one click, same for HSL or sharpening, etc..... In PS don't you have to do everything individually to one image at a time?

________

Is LR Cloud & LR Classic not the same then aside from the 'cloud' & 'hard drive' image file location?
 
Last edited:
Lr is the best, and probably the hardest to .learn, it is a professional product, which means in most peoples mind easy to use. But that has never been the case., a professional product has always required a bit of knowledge about the ;process
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
In what way is it dire?

You click the crop/rotate, select the ratio, and then just crop and/or rotate, the close the menu. You don't even have to click 'ok' to confirm......

EDIT - actually, to add to that..... You don't even have to click 'ok' - you can just click on the next image in the time line and crop/rotate that as the "crop window" stays open..... And the next, etc I add profiles to all images in one click, you can crop all in one go, you can add lens corrections etc to all image in one click, same for HSL or sharpening, etc..... In PS don't you have to do everything individually to one image at a time?

________

Is LR Cloud & LR Classic not the same then aside from the 'cloud' & 'hard drive' image file location?
Click to expand...
I've only briefly looked at the occasional review, but the interface is very different, and not all features are shared by both programs, e.g. plugins don't work with LR.

Lightroom Queen publishes two separate handbooks for the two versions

I feel from some of the Youtubers I watch that several people prefer the LR interface.

One of the most interesting features of LR is that fairly recently they added a feature that allowed you to avoid using a catalogue with local photographs. I'm not sure if that means you can bypass the cloud part of LR entirely. I keep on meaning to try this.

Here is a list of the differences (most things are the same):

 
I tried it once, and just couldn't get on with it. Probably down to using Photoshop since CS3. But each to their own I guess.
 
sk66 said:
Do you work only with jpegs? If not, you really are missing a lot from not using a raw workflow.

(I'm not saying you "should" use a raw workflow, that's a personal choice)
Click to expand...
Work with RAWs.

I just find Lightroom too slow and clunky compared to Ps. Repeat exporting is nice but the speed gained there feels lost in the clunkiness of getting to export.

And my laptop is not slow. 32GB, fast SSD etc.

It’s so nearly very very good but I just can’t get on with it.
 
steve_lyt said:
Lr is the best, and probably the hardest to .learn, it is a professional product, which means in most peoples mind easy to use. But that has never been the case., a professional product has always required a bit of knowledge about the ;process
Click to expand...
Spent 8 years working at Getty, very much aware of the process.

If the cropping and tweaking were as quick and responsive as photoshop, it would be awesome. Why they didn’t just lift the whole features from Ps I do not know.

Maybe it’s just me and my wonky eyes but I really miss the draw to straighten tool from Ps!
 
inkiboo said:
Work with RAWs.

I just find Lightroom too slow and clunky compared to Ps. Repeat exporting is nice but the speed gained there feels lost in the clunkiness of getting to export.

And my laptop is not slow. 32GB, fast SSD etc.

It’s so nearly very very good but I just can’t get on with it.
Click to expand...

If you open a RAW file in Photoshop it automatically opens in ACR which is Lightroom.

The CROP TOOL in Photoshop, Lr and Lrc are for all intents and purposes identical, they all work in the same way with the same options.
 
Eucris said:
If you open a RAW file in Photoshop it automatically opens in ACR which is Lightroom.

The CROP TOOL in Photoshop, Lr and Lrc are for all intents and purposes identical, they all work in the same way with the same options.
Click to expand...
Being pedantic, ACR isn't Lightroom. ACR is a plugin for Photoshop and Bridge.

Lightroom uses the ACR processing engine, which has been around longer than Lightroom, and over the years the interfaces have been increasingly similar, and may well be the same nowadays.

But historically, ACR has tended to get new features before LR gets them (e.g. a recent example would be DenoiseAI), and have minor differences in the controls.

if you don't need cataloguing, using ACR as a plugin with PS, is a much simpler workflow.
 
I keep going back to LR to try and get to like it but I fail every time, I just find it confusing. Last time I tried, I had both my screens on and ended up with it on both screens automatically and couldn’t figure out how to rearrange the screen and panels to suit my workflow…. My commonly used plugins instal to
LR automatically but I couldn’t find them either…..
I use Bridge to cull and catalog and PS for all my editing.
 
Love LRC from a workflow perspective, and with regards to the slowness, since changing to an Apple Silicon based Mac I’ve not had a single complaint. Only on a relatively basic m2 Pro/16gb Mini and its very snappy even with a big library.
 
inkiboo said:
I never use Lightroom. Always Photoshop. But for various circumstances, I have no choice but to use for the next week.

Christ alive, it’s awful. Slow, buggy, and a generally terrible interface.

Am I missing something? Surely it can’t actually be this bad?
Click to expand...
Which version ? classic or what was known as CC ?
 
Rob Sims said:
Which version ? classic or what was known as CC ?
Click to expand...
CC

Maybe I should give classic a go (I did many years ago).

To be honest, if your product is that good, you need a classic version, does ring alarm bells.

Should say my normal workflow is Bridge into Photoshop but Adobe can’t be arsed to make an ARM version.
 
inkiboo said:
Work with RAWs.

I just find Lightroom too slow and clunky compared to Ps. Repeat exporting is nice but the speed gained there feels lost in the clunkiness of getting to export.

And my laptop is not slow. 32GB, fast SSD etc.

It’s so nearly very very good but I just can’t get on with it.
Click to expand...
The problem (IMO) is that once you open the file in PS it is no longer a raw file and any data discarded after/by the edits in ACR are lost. And all edits from that point forward are either lossy, or they add to the size of the file significantly (even a basic layer mask). Of course you could go back and start over from the original raw, and you can jump back in the edit history timeline/create snapshots; but that is far less convenient than just changing the one thing you changed your mind about. And if you want multiple versions you have to save separate files which fills drives quickly; especially if you are saving the layers for less destructive editing. And you're probably keeping the original raw file as well...

All that compared to LR where all edits and virtual copies are just database entries referenced to a single/original raw file.

I imagine some of it is just familiarity... you are probably quite fluent with PS's shortcuts but not with LR's. I do wish the shortcuts were the same, and that LR had *the ability to create custom shortcuts like PS does. But once you learn the shortcuts you use the most it speeds things up ("R" for crop and rotate instead of "C").

If you are finding the edits slow/glitchy then it may be your LR settings (GPU usage, cache file, preview size, etc); or it could be an incompatible GPU. I don't hav issues working with 46MP raw files (Z9/D850).

(*there is a plugin called "any shortcut" for LR)
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
The problem (IMO) is that once you open the file in PS it is no longer a raw file and any data discarded after/by the edits in ACR are lost.
Click to expand...

What? I have a problem believing this. I use PS and all I have to do to get the raw back to its original state is reset it. It doesn't matter what I do, crop the bejesus out of it, convert to B&W, edit out people, paint the sky yellow... whatever... Reset and it all comes back.

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
 
sk66 said:
The problem (IMO) is that once you open the file in PS it is no longer a raw file and any data discarded after/by the edits in ACR are lost. And all edits from that point forward are either lossy, or they add to the size of the file significantly (even a basic layer mask). Of course you could go back and start over from the original raw, and you can jump back in the edit history timeline/create snapshots; but that is far less convenient than just changing the one thing you changed your mind about. And if you want multiple versions you have to save separate files which fills drives quickly; especially if you are saving the layers for less destructive editing. And you're probably keeping the original raw file as well...

All that compared to LR where all edits and virtual copies are just database entries referenced to a single/original raw file.

I imagine some of it is just familiarity... you are probably quite fluent with PS's shortcuts but not with LR's. I do wish the shortcuts were the same, and that LR had *the ability to create custom shortcuts like PS does. But once you learn the shortcuts you use the most it speeds things up ("R" for crop and rotate instead of "C").

If you are finding the edits slow/glitchy then it may be your LR settings (GPU usage, cache file, preview size, etc); or it could be an incompatible GPU. I don't hav issues working with 46MP raw files (Z9/D850).
Click to expand...
It’s a fair point about once it’s in PS then it’s no longer RAW. It’s probably also the reason everything then feels quicker.

Will tweak the CPU settings and see if I can improve. To be honest, it’s only when I’m travelling and need to edit on the go. Main editing machine is a Mac Studio; tempted to try LR on that as that won’t have performance bottle necks.
 
woof woof said:
What? I have a problem believing this. I use PS and all I have to do to get the raw back to its original state is reset it. It doesn't matter what I do, crop the bejesus out of it, convert to B&W, edit out people, paint the sky yellow... whatever... Reset and it all comes back.

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Click to expand...
Reset ("reverting") just discards all of your edits done while in PS. It doesn't revert it to the original raw data as it was when first opened in ACR, any edited data is fixed/lost. If you changed the exposure/crop/etc in ACR that is permanent unless you start over again in ACR. I.e. if you open the image in the camera raw filter all of the sliders will be zeroed out and the original raw edit cannot be reset. Even subsequent uses of the camera raw filter are lossy inside PS.
 
I have the subscription package but I've only ever used LRC, a throwback to when you could buy LRC as a standalone package. I wish I could still have a standalone because I really haven't needed any of the updates (even though some of them are pretty good). I'd willingly pay a couple of hundred quid, and never have to fork out again, than trawl Amazon every couple of years looking for discounted LR/PS package, especially as I have never used PS and probably never will; it's like having to have a smart phone when all you want to do is make a telephone call.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top