Tell me why I should use lightroom over photoshop

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
Everyone seems to be using lightroom these days, I haven't ever treid it and always developed with photoshop.

What about lightroom makes it better than photoshop for this task - if any?
 
I find it a much smoother workflow, better consistency between images, for general raw conversion and basic processing its a breeze.

I like the ability to jump between images without having to load umpteen images into PS at the one time. Its a faster workflow for me.
 
LR is MUCH faster to use than Photoshop - no loading or saving files saves hours - everything is written to the database in the background. Also catalogues files so you can keep track of everything. Process one file - copy and paste settings to others in a flash. Photoshop is only needed for a few special tasks - 95%+ of my work is done in LR alone now.
 
Fast fast fast fast fast.

For most pics it does everything you need. Did I mention that it's much faster than Photoshop? :)
 
awp said:
LR is MUCH faster to use than Photoshop - no loading or saving files saves hours - everything is written to the database in the background. Also catalogues files so you can keep track of everything. Process one file - copy and paste settings to others in a flash. Photoshop is only needed for a few special tasks - 95%+ of my work is done in LR alone now.
Click to expand...

this is where i struggle, it sounds like it will interfere with my cataloging in iphoto, a bit like aperture did when i tried that, what if i dont want to use all the cataloging stuff, can i just use it as an editor?
 
yes - the catalogue won't interfere with anything - although you will screw up the LR catalogue if you don't move/copy/delete files from within LR.
 
awp said:
yes - the catalogue won't interfere with anything - although you will screw up the LR catalogue if you don't move/copy/delete files from within LR.
Click to expand...

ok, so can you give me an idea of how i import a photo, use lightroom and then transfer to iphoto without having a duplicate copy?
 
I find the cataloguing in Lightroom a pain, but I seem to have found a way round it!

Because its advantages really do outweigh the disadvantages. Processing images is easy and fun, because that's what it is designed to do. You can easily go back to an image and add a few tweaks if you want to. Lens corrections are great, and the noise reduction is now very good.

I can't imagine using photoshop again!

There will always be a learning process to go through when you try new software. Just take the plunge.
 
joescrivens said:
ok, so can you give me an idea of how i import a photo, use lightroom and then transfer to iphoto without having a duplicate copy?
Click to expand...

nope - sorry - I know nothing of iphoto - why would you keep using it - what does it do?

I think the catalogue is great and you can sort pics in all sorts of ways too - by lens/aperture/keyword/camera/date/anything!
 
awp said:
nope - sorry - I know nothing of iphoto - why would you keep using it - what does it do?

I think the catalogue is great and you can sort pics in all sorts of ways too - by lens/aperture/keyword/camera/date/anything!
Click to expand...

its incredibly simple, i love the gui and the automatic upload to facebook, my wife is a bit of a luddite and she really gets on with it so she uses it too. also i have appletv and sync my iphoto library with my tv so i enjoy my photos there with faces feature and events feature
 
you can upload diect to Facebook from LR - god know why they think anyone will want to - but it's there.
 
awp said:
you can upload diect to Facebook from LR - god know why they think anyone will want to - but it's there.
Click to expand...

you're kidding right? do you realise how many people use facebook? i'd bet more people than not use that feature.

we have relatives in canada and with a new daughter and another on the way uploading regular facebook albums has been a lifeline for nanna and grandad
 
Why would a pro stick images on facebook? I know millions use it - but I don't want to give my pics away on facebook or Flickr or anywhere like that. I don't think it's an obviously useful facility on professional editing software thats all. I have my own websites I can upload pics to - where they don't get ripped off.
 
awp said:
Why would a pro stick images on facebook? I know millions use it - but I don't want to give my pics away on facebook or Flickr or anywhere like that. I don't think it's an obviously useful facility on professional editing software thats all. I have my own websites I can upload pics to - where they don't get ripped off.
Click to expand...

Bet there's lots of pro nightclub photographers that upload straight to facebook.
 
awp said:
Why would a pro stick images on facebook? I know millions use it - but I don't want to give my pics away on facebook or Flickr or anywhere like that. I don't think it's an obviously useful facility on professional editing software thats all. I have my own websites I can upload pics to - where they don't get ripped off.
Click to expand...

why would a pro stick images on facebook?

dont you ever take photos that arent for business? ones that you want to share with just friends and family? i dont think you'll find you mum stealing your pics.

you may not have family abroad but im sure many pro's do, and if they do then fb is a very simple way of sharing, sure theres other ways too but this is just another option
 
I do have family abroad but I still don't use FB - I'm on there - but I'm never quite sure who can see what I write - so I don't much! I just put stuff on a web page on my server and email them a link.
 
Thats fair enough, the privacy settings mean you can set it so that nobody but specific people can see anything. Facebook for many can be something they waste hours on playing those stupid games etc, but for many others like me, it's just a way of sharing footage with family.

I could use a web page to do this as well, and I did used to actually, but I found it was easier for them to do it on facebook as they were already on there and anytime I put something new up it automatically shows up on their home page rather than me always having to send an email link and have them click on it.
 
Last edited:
Oh I know it can be done - thanks for looking at my work! :) If I'm showing stuff to family I put it on www.awp.co.uk/xxxx where xxxx is a directory that is not public facing - can also be password protected. I do a similar thing for delivering work to clients. I just don't see the need for FB - for me - I'm sure it's wonderful for others.
 
for sure, I'm not trying to convince you to use it, and it sounds like now you are singing from a different song sheet as above you said you didn't why anyone would use facebook but now you are saying you can see it's wonderful from others, I think it was the LR option to upload to facebook which made no sense to you for a pro - and I don't think many would put their work shots on it either, but pro's are still family members to and I think it's for this thing that they would likely use it.
 
I can look at your pics on FB - should that be if they are private? By clicking a pic on the 'wall' I can see all in the album - although if I click on the photos tab it won't let me in.
 
no it's because i didn't have them set to private, take another look now
 
i changed the settings so only my friends can see me and anything i post. Facebook can be private, you just have to make it so, it's not that way by default
 
That's my learning for today then! Something new everyday! :)
 
Just wanted to say thank you for giving advice on this. I was about to post the same question, until I found this thread!
I'm totally new to post processing so apart from the massive price difference, seeing what they both offer has really helped. Thanks guys :thumbs:
 
I moved overto LR3 a few months back and without question it's far superior to my old work flow. The latest RAW converter is so more consistent over my CS3 version and the organising process much slicker than bridge.

I would advise to get the Kelby book which will teach you all you need, an invaluable source I have bought every time I move to a new adobe package. It took a while to get my head around exporting etc over save as [silly now]. It's worth it for the latest converter alone, skin tones are much better and the noise reduction is as good as Noise Ninja making that redundant. I love the ability to have virtual copies of files instead of choking your hard drive with extra files - you can have a B&W, sepia, etc etc over the top of your original file.

If you have your own website [in the process of sorting] then the ability to create galleries is also another fantastic feature.

Seriously Joe, just buy the book and start using it, I was a bit sceptical but it really is that good.
 
LeeAlexander said:
Just wanted to say thank you for giving advice on this. I was about to post the same question, until I found this thread!
I'm totally new to post processing so apart from the massive price difference, seeing what they both offer has really helped. Thanks guys :thumbs:
Click to expand...

There may be one or two things that LR can't do; I imagine PS Elements would take care of these....
 
Ok, another question, if i import a raw into lightroom then make my changes and turn it into a jpeg. What happens to the raw - i understood that LR is non destructive editing so does that mean the RAW is kept? What if I don't want that )I can see why some do) but I generally scrap my raws once i have my jpeg because I don't have the hard drive space for huge raw files
 
The RAW is kept of course - it is valueable - it's yourt digital negative - and by editing in LR the edits are saved to a database - so you can come back to the RAW at anytime in the future and make further/different edits. HD space is cheap - just buy more but don't throw away your RAW files - not the good ones anyway. I clear out all the RAW files I have NOT edited after about 3 months.
 
awp said:
The RAW is kept of course - it is valueable - it's yourt digital negative - and by editing in LR the edits are saved to a database - so you can come back to the RAW at anytime in the future and make further/different edits. HD space is cheap - just buy more but don't throw away your RAW files - not the good ones anyway. I clear out all the RAW files I have NOT edited after about 3 months.
Click to expand...

I really don;t want those raws, I never go back to old raws, I don't have time. Remember my shots are just personal ones not for work. I don't go back to old photos, once they are done, they are done. I only have a very small amount of time to do editing so I'd rather spend it on new files than revisit old ones.

More space won't help with this either, I use time machine for my backups and you can't back up external drives with time machine so it all needs to go on my internal one.

It's the same with my video, once I edit the movie together the source files are deleted, I've done this for 6 years and always will
 
Then to keep things tidy you'd best to delete the RAW files from within LR and re-import the jpegs - so that you have them in the catalogue. Still not a recommended way to wotk though.
 
awp said:
Then to keep things tidy you'd best to delete the RAW files from within LR and re-import the jpegs - so that you have them in the catalogue. Still not a recommended way to wotk though.
Click to expand...

ok, I can try that out when I take a look.

What about importing all my files from iPhoto if I did use LR for all the hosting, anyone done this, can you keep all the events and tags you have added already?
 
What are the 5% of tasks which Lightroom can't do which Photoshop can? I've had a look at Adobe's website, and for me, it does not seem easy to understand their product portfolio.
 
Last edited:
lodious said:
What are the 5% of tasks which Lightroom can't do?
Click to expand...

That's a good question! Photoshop has filters LR doesn't have - so I'd use it for these special effects. Cloning out some objects in difficult images is easier in PS - Montages and layer masking - in fact anything that requires layers needs PS - adding text is easier in PS although it can be done in LR3 using the watermark feature - cut outs require PS. The vast majority of pictures from a normal shoot can be processed in LR - better - faster than in PS. LR is a huge time saver - and the catalogue facility is very useful indeed.
 
Thanks for that awp. Can I do things like red eye removal or spot healing in Lightroom or would I still need a photoshop type editor that type of thing?
 
no - you can do spot removal and red eye in Lightroom. The adjustment brush and Graduated filter tools are also very very good. Download a free trial and give it a whirl - you'll never look back! :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top