Adobe Lightroom

[ian_w]

Hi

I'm puzzling over purchasing Lightroom, Photoshop or both. I realise that this may not be the precise forum to place this, but I figure that a fair few of you will be using one or both. The main question is - Do I need both?

If I'm only 'developing' Raw files for print then surely Lightroom is enough. If I'm thinking about scanning film as well do I need Photoshop or will I be able to use Lightroom for this too? What are the main functions you think important that I give up in going for Lightroom only?

Hopefully a few of you are users and can answer my questions!

Thanks

Ian

[mascarenhas]

Lightroom handles scanned film very well, it supports 16 bits! A good workflow is to scan as 16/48 bit TIFF, then import into Lightroom telling it to convert do Digital Negative, you are going to save some space that way. The only thing I miss when working with Lightroom is dodging/burning, but I am not a Photoshop expert. But for global exposure/contrast/color adjustments, and for sharpening, cropping and spotting Lightroom is great, and pretty fast.

[BigSteveG]

I use Lightroom and love it precisely because I am not a P/S expert. It handles most functions well though I do have a bit of trouble cropping. Probably user error.

[Benjamin Marks]

I use both. Sophisticated manipulation (masks, perspective correction and so on) cannot be done in Lightroom. I find printing in Lightroom easier than printing in Photoshop, however. I find that they complement each other nicely.

Ben Marks

[xabi]

Lightroom is great. I've bought it and like it. It is the complete package for managing your photo library, making exposure adjustment and exporting images for different uses (haven't tried printing and exporting for web yet).

[Simon Larbalestier]

I work with both Lightroom and CS3 both are a learning curve but i can see the potential of using the two softwares in conjunction with one another- i do find Lightroom's Library much easier to use then CS3's Bridge.

[alansoon]

Lightroom is a dream. Here's what I use

1) Vuescan: To scan my Tri-X negs straight in to TIFFs
2) Photoshop: To clean up dust spots, scratches, adjust levels, dodge/burn
3) Lightroom: Cataloging, picking favorites, exporting to my online gallery

I'm wondering if I should move to DNG instead of TIFFs. Any ideas?

[Simon Larbalestier]

Alan i work with the same film and scanner software what scanner do you use?

[jlw]

You need to understand that these are almost completely different products.

-- Lightroom is designed to help you manage large collections of raw image files. It provides a lot of tools for organizing, keywording, and selecting batches of images. It also lets you make basic adjustments to images -- changing their exposure, color balance, cropping, etc. -- so that you can edit a batch of raw files into a form you can work with or present to clients.

-- Photoshop is designed to help you make drastic adjustments (if necessary) to individual images. It provides a lot of tools for changing the individual pixels that make up an image, compositing it with other images. It doesn't have any features at all for managing a whole library of images; Adobe wants you to use Lightroom or Bridge for that.

To give a very basic example: If you shoot some headshots and later decide that they're all a bit underexposed, Lightroom gives you a simple way to apply a bit of overall correction to all of them. Photoshop doesn't do that; it would make you correct each image individually.

On the other hand, if you look at your collection of headshots and decide that #4 is the best one, except that the model's teeth need to be whiter, some blemishes need to be removed from her face, and she'd look better against a different background. Lightroom is no help at all in this scenario, because it can make only simple overall corrections to the image. Photoshop, with its selection and layering tools, will let you edit the individual pixels as much as necessary (or even paint in completely new ones) while blending and combining the image with other images if you want.

Which works better comes down to how you like to handle your images and what needs to be done to them. I can't imagine that Lightroom alone would have enough tools to clean up scans from film, removing all the tiny defects (it does have a clone tool, but it's very limited) and on the other hand Photoshop alone wouldn't be much help in looking at a whole batch of scans, trying various looks on them, and then picking the one that looks best.

I suspect that in the end (as Adobe probably realized quite well) most digital photographers are going to need both: Lightroom (or its competitor, Apple Aperture) to handle organizing and basic prepping of large groups of images, and Photoshop to handle finely-detailed retouching of individual images.

[alansoon]

Simon: I use a Nikon Coolscan IV ED. You?

[mascarenhas]

Alan, Lightroom's DNG saves some space compared to TIFF. But don't bother exporting DNGs directly from Vuescan (with the new save raw scan as DNG), as the image appears inverted. There's an invert image preset for Lightroom to correct this, but it's a drag as all the exposure related and curves sliders begin working backwards...

Lightroom is a dream. Here's what I use

1) Vuescan: To scan my Tri-X negs straight in to TIFFs
2) Photoshop: To clean up dust spots, scratches, adjust levels, dodge/burn
3) Lightroom: Cataloging, picking favorites, exporting to my online gallery

I'm wondering if I should move to DNG instead of TIFFs. Any ideas?

[RayPA]

You need to understand that these are almost completely different products.

-- Lightroom is designed to help you manage large collections of raw image files. It provides a lot of tools for organizing, keywording, and selecting batches of images. It also lets you make basic adjustments to images -- changing their exposure, color balance, cropping, etc. -- so that you can edit a batch of raw files into a form you can work with or present to clients.

-- Photoshop is designed to help you make drastic adjustments (if necessary) to individual images. It provides a lot of tools for changing the individual pixels that make up an image, compositing it with other images. It doesn't have any features at all for managing a whole library of images; Adobe wants you to use Lightroom or Bridge for that.

To give a very basic example: If you shoot some headshots and later decide that they're all a bit underexposed, Lightroom gives you a simple way to apply a bit of overall correction to all of them. Photoshop doesn't do that; it would make you correct each image individually.

On the other hand, if you look at your collection of headshots and decide that #4 is the best one, except that the model's teeth need to be whiter, some blemishes need to be removed from her face, and she'd look better against a different background. Lightroom is no help at all in this scenario, because it can make only simple overall corrections to the image. Photoshop, with its selection and layering tools, will let you edit the individual pixels as much as necessary (or even paint in completely new ones) while blending and combining the image with other images if you want.

Which works better comes down to how you like to handle your images and what needs to be done to them. I can't imagine that Lightroom alone would have enough tools to clean up scans from film, removing all the tiny defects (it does have a clone tool, but it's very limited) and on the other hand Photoshop alone wouldn't be much help in looking at a whole batch of scans, trying various looks on them, and then picking the one that looks best.

I suspect that in the end (as Adobe probably realized quite well) most digital photographers are going to need both: Lightroom (or its competitor, Apple Aperture) to handle organizing and basic prepping of large groups of images, and Photoshop to handle finely-detailed retouching of individual images.

I agree. There's no way Adobe would come out with a PS-killer or even a PSE-killer app. I've never understood Lightroom to be a replacement. It seems Adobe is gearing the product to digital photographers who shoot a large number of images of a single event and need to manage those images and apply basic adjustments globally. Seems like a wedding photographer's dream app. That said, it seems there could be some value to the dedicated or part-time film scanner. I like the non-destructive editing and the huge RAW support.

:)

[alansoon]

Fabio: So, in other words, you scan as TIFF and then get them converted into DNG in Lightroom?

[mascarenhas]

Yep, you can then throw away the TIFF (which are BIG, even for BW scans). Even if you use Vuescan's DNG you get a modest size reduction.

Fabio: So, in other words, you scan as TIFF and then get them converted into DNG in Lightroom?

[ian_w]

Well, that's a few more replies than I thought I'd get! Looks like I'll be getting them both:)

Thanks a lot for the information!

Ian

[JNewell]

You might try just LR first. You probably need an editor for those "drastic" jobs, but LR 1.1 has a lot of basic and even intermediate capabilities, and it may be better to learn LR's workflow first. YMMV!

[milos]

I belive that when you have PS (speaking of ps cs3) you dont need LR at all.
Since Cs3 has the new cameraRaw included you can make all adjustments you could do with LR with cameraRaw (even with jpg, tiff and dng).
The new bridge also includes all features (and more) for organisation like LR, and since bridge has a Live-DB you dont have to import new images everytime.
Exporting image gallerys to the web is a build in feature since forever in PS... so again, no need for LR

Now, i am not saying that LR is bad, ..., not at all. It just makes no sense to have PS CS3 and LR together... waste of money.

[Tuolumne]

While we're on this subject, where does Adobe Elements fit into all this? I have a trial version. It seems like it has some major components of Photoshop, tailored for a digital photo environment. Other than lacking some of the detailed controls of Lightroom, it seems to provide many of the same photo processing functions and photo management, but with the added advantage of "one click" corrections, which I really miss in Lightroom. I find Lightroom rather tedious to use.

/T

[mervynyan]

if you have the money to get photoshop, then skip the lightroom. adobe bridge works quite well for managing the collection of raw and jpg files.

I don't like lightroom althrought I have one for free from my Rawshooter conversion. LR is too lite for many uses. Of course, it is much cheaper than CS3.

[robert blu]

I'm using since a few weeks Lightroom, which seems ok for general use/correction. Not yet learn all, need more time! The only point where I miss PS is to make dodge/burning (as in darkroom) on a specific area of the picture. I would try PS Element 4 (for mac) but not sure it it support the 16 bit files. CS3 is excellent but too expensive and contains a lot of things that are not necessary for a pure photographic use, at least for my way to work.
robert

[einolu]

alen, if you are only using lightroom to organize your library, have you tried googles picasa? very simple software (and free) but it works great if you want to browse through a tone of photos and create albums. seems to me that lighroom is much more for working with batches of raw files and smooth editing.

[M4streetshooter]

LR works great for what everybody has stated. I find that most of my work can be handled in LR. When I need corrections with plug ins, I send the image to PS CS3. If I didn't have LR, I'd be ok with just PS.....LR is just way more intuitive......that means a lot to me.

When I shoot for the PGR (Patriot Guard), I maybe have 200+ images and they need the images fast. SO, I use LR, import DNG files, adjust all to...Auto WB, and Auto tone...then export to Jpeg at 72 dpi...this all happens in a matter of minutes...I send the files to them and the work is over....what a break.....don

[niimo]

I belive that when you have PS (speaking of ps cs3) you dont need LR at all.
Since Cs3 has the new cameraRaw included you can make all adjustments you could do with LR with cameraRaw (even with jpg, tiff and dng).
The new bridge also includes all features (and more) for organisation like LR, and since bridge has a Live-DB you dont have to import new images everytime.
Exporting image gallerys to the web is a build in feature since forever in PS... so again, no need for LR

Now, i am not saying that LR is bad, ..., not at all. It just makes no sense to have PS CS3 and LR together... waste of money.

Since I only use PS2 I have no idea about this. I would be curious to hear a "second opinion" on this though since it is pursuading, if true.

I use both PS2 and Lightroom. Lightroom to organize and batch edit, PS for more intensive editing, masking, cloning, adjusting, etc. I did try Bridge at first, but it just did not work well for me.

[kshapero]

Well, I'll join this thread. I am currently using PSE 5.0. I downlaoded a trial of ACDSee Photo Pro 2.0. I t organizes better and does image adjustments better. My question is should I upgrade to PSE 6.0, get the real version of the above ACDSee or Lightroom?

[edlake]

Greetings:

I use both Lightroom and PS (CS2, currently). However, I'm primarily in Graphic Arts (printing) not a pro photographer. Lightroom allows you to edit files in Photoshop and re-import them back as copies, so you have both. I find it better than Bridge in CS2, don't know about CS3. I have about 1500 photos in Lightroom so far, mostly digital, but scans also. It's quick at most tasks. I don't know if there is a trial version still, but you can check Adobe.com.
Cheers

[Benjamin Marks]

I have Lightroom and CS2. Lightroom - very good for editing, organizing, printing images that don't need a lot of manipulation. Very good for batch processing. Not good for nitty-gritty image work. I recently took a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge with the M8 and the CV15. For minimizing key-stoning and other distortion, as well as treatment of the various tones of gray, Photoshop was absolutely necessary. The final image is one of my favorites, but it really was a product of hours of PS work that could not have been done in Lightroom.

[iridium7777]

word. cs3 + bridge greatest combo ever, makes everything else pretty much useless. as advance or simple as you want it to be. and you can do multiple image manipluations.



I belive that when you have PS (speaking of ps cs3) you dont need LR at all.
Since Cs3 has the new cameraRaw included you can make all adjustments you could do with LR with cameraRaw (even with jpg, tiff and dng).
The new bridge also includes all features (and more) for organisation like LR, and since bridge has a Live-DB you dont have to import new images everytime.
Exporting image gallerys to the web is a build in feature since forever in PS... so again, no need for LR

Now, i am not saying that LR is bad, ..., not at all. It just makes no sense to have PS CS3 and LR together... waste of money.

[weser]

I use both as well, Lightroom and Photoshop (also currently CS2). They are a perfect match. Wouldn't wanna live without either one.
To print, at least for photos, I use neither one but a colorburst rip.

[iridium7777]

i second that opinion. i'm speaking from a mac perspective, but i'm sure it's close enough if you're using pc.

with cs3 when you click on browse images, bridge comes up. you can keep your pictures in any folder that you want (used to be a problem for me dealing with aperture). create any "tags" that you want. then simply highlight the picture and click off on the tags. now all your pictures are keyworded. looking for something? simply click search and type in your tags...

i usually always start bridge and not even go into ps unless i need to and then bridge will automatically bring it up. bridge is like your massive photo gallery and you do everything from there.

select a bunch of pictures and add your name to them, location or email, or any other information that you want.

if you're using digital, raw/jpeg, all your camera settings show up for each picture when you're browsing them in bridge -- wb, iso, f stop, shutter speed, focus metering, light metering...

when dealing with raw, when you click on the picture in bridge it doesn't start up ps right away, it opens it's own raw adjuster. here you can do crops, rotates (by simply dragging a straight line it will automatically ajust the photo and auto crop it for you), wb, and even curve manipulations, or pretty much anything else that you want out of the "adjust" menu you'd have in ps. from here you can save it directly into a jpeg format, or if you need to remove dust or anything else click continue and it'll bring it into photoshop for you to mess around with even more.

you can also do batch adjustments with raw files. select a bunch of them, adjust all your settings on the first picture -- curves, wb or whatever else, click done, it opens up the next picture, simply select "previous settings" and it'll apply what you did to the previous picture to this one.

as i wrote in my previous post, it's a great program and you can make it as simple or as complicated as you want. if you're dealing with all raw files and never need to remove any dust spots or anything, you can do everything (all wb, curves, saturations) directly out of bridge and export them into a jpeg without even bringing up the main ps screen.

i never dealt with lr, but i've used aperture which i'm assuming is somewhat similar and cs3 suite (ps + bridge) completely blows it away.

it does decent job exporting to "web" jpegs too but that has been around for a while now so i'm sure you know your way around it. you can also export to a website with templates and stuff, but i never use it since i use iweb.

they used to give out 30 day beta trial versions, i'd see if i could find one of those since the ps suite is pretty expensive.






Since I only use PS2 I have no idea about this. I would be curious to hear a "second opinion" on this though since it is pursuading, if true.

I use both PS2 and Lightroom. Lightroom to organize and batch edit, PS for more intensive editing, masking, cloning, adjusting, etc. I did try Bridge at first, but it just did not work well for me.

[jlw]

word. cs3 + bridge greatest combo ever

I agree these are a great combination. Bridge makes Photoshop much more useful and more convenient for dealing with groups of images. Great way to go through a batch of photos you've just shot, do basic cropping and balancing, and go into the ones that need further Photoshop work. The loupe in CS3 Bridge is a pretty slick editing tool, although still not quite as slick as the one in Aperture.

makes everything else pretty much useless.

Don't know that I'd go that far. An application such as Lightroom (or Aperture) still has an important place for cataloging and managing a large collection of images. I also think it's easier to use Lightroom for batch printing and file conversion than messing with Photoshop Actions.

The good thing is that in the latest versions, Adobe has gotten Lightroom and CS3 so they'll play nice with each other -- you can bring in your take, sort it with Bridge, shape up the shots that need it in Photoshop, then dump the batch into your Lightroom catalog, and Lightroom will read your Bridge raw-file edits.

If you work with relatively small, well-defined groups of images, Bridge + Photoshop CS3 may be all you need... but if you've got a huge collection of raw files, then it makes sense to add Lightroom (or something like it) to the mix.

[mllanos1111]

Not sure if it was mentioned but Lightroom is also non-destructive. So you can make any changes you want to the RAW file and it never permanantly changes the original.

[Shac]

jlw - thank you for this very useful summary. Most appreciated.

[iridium7777]

neither is aperture and neither is bridge. when you modify a raw in bridge/cs3 it'll show it in the preview screen but the changes are reversible. the only way to make them permanent would be to save the file into jpeg or something else.



Not sure if it was mentioned but Lightroom is also non-destructive. So you can make any changes you want to the RAW file and it never permanantly changes the original.

[shadowfox]

I use Picasa to organize and tonal adjustment, and Paint Shop Pro for dust/scratch removal and other "surgery" type post-processing.

I used LightZone briefly and was very impressed by the ability to change the tonality of an image per zone. I imagine Lightroom would have something similar.