Lightroom

Phil V

Phil V

Suspended / Banned
Messages
26,303
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Circumstances dictate I've been forced to download a trial of Lightroom. This is the 3rd time I've tried it, and I'm wondering whether I would gain anything from a purchase?

As a Canon shooter my usual workflow is to select in Canon DPP, do all my primary processing whilst there (nudges to exposure, white balance etc) Then I batch to jpeg and do whatever pixel level editing is required in PS, but then add any effects / B&W conversions etc before saving.

The whole 'library' thing winds me up - as an IT guy I have a concise and regimented filestore and don't feel I need it.

Would I gain anything from a move to Lightroom? Importantly, all my B&W conversions, warming, curves adjustments etc are handled with Actions in PS, and many of them might need to be ported to LR as presets - is it worth the pain?
 
No point in buying it until YOU are sure you need it.

I do all the batch stuff and tweaks in LR but the big bonus for me is finding photos.

In LR, I just have one big catalogue (currently nearly 160,000 photos).

Now if I want to find pics of a certain person, racer, motorbike etc. etc. I just type in the name and there are all my photos of that subject. Simples!

Well not really cos it is a wee bit of a pain adding keywords but once it's done, it's done.
 
Well, you may see an improvement in quality as you wouldn't be processing JPEGs, it could also save you a lot of space as I assume you are keeping copies of originals and JPEGs if you are processing the JPEGs.

I don't have any 'finished' files saved, except those that go to Photoshop as PSDs for additional retouching. The vast majority of retouching is done in Lightroom which means there's no need to keep any JPEGs after burning the disc / sending the files.

I can't imagine sending every file through Photoshop, would seem like a huge waste of time and disk space.
 
I'm a bit undecided too. I normally use DPP and PS Elements 9 (if necessary), and they seem to do just about everything I want, but it's a slightly clumsy solution. I've tried Lightroom more than once and I'm tempted, but haven't made up my mind yet. I'll probably buy it one of these days though, it's a reasonably affordable package.
 
It works well with Photoshop anyway, just hit Ctrl + E and it transfers straight over.
I wouldn't think it essential to try to do everything in Lightroom alone (but you almost can with many images)
 
Because I was already using a DAM program, I was a little dismayed to find that the Lightroom Library was the only way to import images into LR for processing.
However, having spent a little time to learn how LR works, it has now replaced my previous DAM and I'm using it for all my image management, titling, keywording etc.
It's very sophisticated, and as has been pointed out, the search facility is very useful, but to get the best out of it does require some learning.

In terms of image processing, compared to DPP, I find that Lightroom has far better highlight recovery, and that is the main reason I've started using it.
Because of the range of adjustments available LR can, for me, produce better results more quickly than using DPP, which seems quite primitive in comparison.
I particularly like the Lightroom 'Clarity' and 'Vibrance' sliders.
The highlight recovery alone makes LR my preferred developer.
The lens corrections in LR also seem to be very useful, and in my opinion, equal to those in DPP.

I find another big advantage of LR is it's ability to use plug-ins.
For me, LR with NIK and a few Topaz plug-ins does everything I want, and I rarely find the need for any other programs.
I've also been looking at the latest version of OnOne's 'Perfect Effects' program as an additional plug-in.

I trialled Lightroom 1, 2 & 3 and did not like it, but I found that LR4 was a step up in every area from the earlier versions, so if you've only tried earlier editions I would suggest you give the latest release a try.
I also need to work with raw files from different brands of camera, so using Lightroom means I can process them all using the same program, giving me a consistency of controls that I would not get using a different program to develop each type of raw file.
 
I love Lightroom 5, with a bit of time learning you can do a massive amount just in there

H
 
Phil V said:
The whole 'library' thing winds me up - as an IT guy I have a concise and regimented filestore and don't feel I need it.
Click to expand...

I wholly agree. Some value keywords etc etc & some of us don't. However - LR is a VERY capable RAW converter / editor that doubles as an image browser, is currently very affordable, and greatly reduces the need for PS which is now being priced out of reach for many of us. So for my purposes I judge it to be the way forward, and I could well be reduced to using PSE for further functions & living with whatever limitations it has.
 
Phil V said:
The whole 'library' thing winds me up - as an IT guy I have a concise and regimented filestore and don't feel I need it.
Click to expand...
In which case, you probably aren't using it properly. My filestore is also quite regimented, but I'm also pretty @n.l about tagging photos on import. If I want all the photos of one of my daughters taken in the past 2 years, that is now a simple library search in lightroom as opposed to a delve through my filestore.
 
Thanks guys.
I suppose that leaves me with the biggest hurdle of recreating all my favourite actions though. Some of which I purchased and are invaluable, I'd almost certainly be purchasing similar plugins for LR.
 
Mank said:
:lol:

Is this my fault?? :D
Click to expand...

A bit ;)

BTW I had a quick look through the stuff, and my fave shot involves no bells and whistles and is a straight candid that's just perfect - I'll PM when I get on with processing them (I'm a wedding behind :()

Ta again, it was fun. :thumbs:
 
I'm surprised you don't already use it. As a work flow tool its great and I assume as someone who shoots a lot of stuff you would be eager to embrace it. I'm still learning on it and it still amazes. I like being fully conversant with lightroom as opposed to knowing a small part about PS.

I personally don't bother with the library aspects as i have things a certain way which I'm happy with.
 
Blasted said:
I'm surprised you don't already use it. As a work flow tool its great and I assume as someone who shoots a lot of stuff you would be eager to embrace it. I'm still learning on it and it still amazes. I like being fully conversant with lightroom as opposed to knowing a small part about PS.

I personally don't bother with the library aspects as i have things a certain way which I'm happy with.
Click to expand...

How do you open your files in Lightroom if you don't use the library?
I thought that was the only way to open images.
 
Blasted said:
I'm surprised you don't already use it. As a work flow tool its great and I assume as someone who shoots a lot of stuff you would be eager to embrace it...
Click to expand...

The thing is, I'm a bit lazy when it comes to non-core functions. I have a method of working that gives me consistent results and it pre-dates Lightroom.

The old phrase 'if it aint broke- don't fix it' comes to mind.

The flip side of the laziness is that I'm half certain LR could save me work in the long run, but it's investing the time up front...
 
Phil V said:
The whole 'library' thing winds me up - as an IT guy I have a concise and regimented filestore and don't feel I need it.
Click to expand...

The simplest way to use Lightroom is to have your library mirror your own file storage system. You add some photos to a folder, you sync that folder. You add a new folder, you sync the parent folder.

What would you gain? The ability to bulk-add tags on import can save a massive amount of time. The ability to sync your processing across multiple shots taken under the same lighting conditions can save even more. And, as has been pointed out, the ability to search for old items is invaluable. Even if they're not tagged, you can search on camera metadata, such as photos taken by a particular lens on a particular camera where the photo was taken at f/1.8, and so on.
 
I was a stauch DPP user until I processed some high ISO RAW files from my 7D in LR. From that point on I don't think I opened DPP again.

Unfortunately there will be no substitute for sitting with tutorials to get you started.

The more I learn he more I like it.

D
 
garryknight said:
The simplest way to use Lightroom is to have your library mirror your own file storage system. You add some photos to a folder, you sync that folder. You add a new folder, you sync the parent folder.

It should be no problem to add and integrate with an existing folder structure.
Also, unlike Photoshop, applying consecutive image adjustments does not degrade the image, as the changes are only applied as a single adjustment when you choose to edit in PS or export as a fixed-pixel image.
Click to expand...
 
Phil V said:
The thing is, I'm a bit lazy when it comes to non-core functions. I have a method of working that gives me consistent results and it pre-dates Lightroom.

The old phrase 'if it aint broke- don't fix it' comes to mind.

The flip side of the laziness is that I'm half certain LR could save me work in the long run, but it's investing the time up front...
Click to expand...

I think this is the way to look at it... what will you gain from learning LR?

I used to do everything in PS but since I learnt LR it's really become a core part of my workflow... however you already have actions save in PS which is probably then not going to save time importing them or recreating them in LR. So I'm not sure how it will really help?

I agree with Jayst84 that editing JPEGs isn't a great idea though... RAW and the PSD for me... only JPEGs I create are those that are finished and require no further editing. However this can be avoided in PS too again not sure LR will benefit you so much.

Interestingly in my job interview for the photography teachers job I got I had a good chat with the interviewer who seemed to be of the opinion that LR is nothing more than an amateurs tool and PS is the pro tool. I don't actually agree with that fully but maybe for some people LR is a step backwards if they use PS to its full potential.
 
Well I'll be editing my last wedding in LR on a free trial, so far it's a bit of a nightmare because of where I'm used to seeing the tools and capture info in DPP, but I'll crack on, and see how it goes.

It appears the only saving I might get is by not re-editing the JPEGs, unless it really can improve the noise performance of the 7d (that'd sell it for me).

Thanks guys.
 
Phil, I am going through the rather steep Lightroom learning curve too, and winning. I don't use it for processing as I am accustomed to the more sophisticated editing tools in PS, but it is a most marvellous tool for archiving, with a brilliant smart selection utility.

There are many tutorials, but Ian Barber (a member here) has some very useful hints and tips on his youtube stream, and offers one-to-one tution on his website, though I don't imagine you will need that!.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKWZQiPb0KaeX8i0UCp2M2g/videos

http://www.digitalblackandwhite.co.uk/
 
I have been looking at the compatiblity of LR 4 & 5, and was wondering if either are compatible with windows XP, anyone know for sure ?.
 
You need LR3 for XP. It's pretty capable.

Thing is, though, M'soft support for XP will allegedly terminate early April 2014 (no more security updates ...)
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
The whole 'library' thing winds me up - as an IT guy I have a concise and regimented filestore and don't feel I need it.
Click to expand...

Lightroom makes perfect sense once you start to think of it as a database of edits to RAW files rather than a file store of finished images.
 
Rocket said:
I have been looking at the compatiblity of LR 4 & 5, and was wondering if either are compatible with windows XP, anyone know for sure ?.
Click to expand...

LR 4 & 5 will only run on W7 or W8.
 
Thanks Rog & Brian , I have CS5 on my main pc, but was looking at lightroom for my laptop,
 
Last edited:
pamplemoose said:
Lightroom makes perfect sense once you start to think of it as a database of edits to RAW files rather than a file store of finished images.
Click to expand...

Since I bought Lightroom primarily for it's raw developer abilities I prefer to think of it as a raw developer program with an additional image catalog.

With Lightroom plus a few plug-ins, I don't need to use any other editing programs (and I've never owned Photoshop anyway).
 
I used to get my images looking ”about right" in Lightroom and then final clean up and colour correction in Photoshop, I upgraded to v5 recently and to be honest I do nearly all my processing in Lightroom 5 now.

Its a real time saver. I've developed a bunch of presets which do the basics all for me and getting the colour tones looking just right seems to be less fussy than using Photoshop.

I'd say stick with it and keep playing. You'll soon be wondering how on earth you managed before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top