Adobe Lightroom opinions please

[ROADRUNNER3]

After years of working with Photoshop, and still feeling I'm only using 5% of it's capabilities, I'm increasingly drawn to Lightroom, and it's focus on post-processing for the digital SLR user.

I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts / comparisons with their experiences with Photoshop before I take the plunge. It appears intuitive and relatively straightforward - is it possible to get working effectively with it quite quickly ?

Thanks in advance,

Tim

[GetCarter]

It's a bit of a mind fk after photoshop as it's workflow is very different.

There is a free download of the Beta version (with 6 weeks to run) on the Adobe website somewhere - I'd try before you buy as you may find it frustrating.

[Hairy Cornflake]

I have just started using it, just started shooting raw so no previous comparison, but I like it. It downloads the pictures from the camera, saves them to the hard drive, puts them into a catalogue, then lets you develop them and export them. It is everything I want and that is without using the slideshow, print and web modules.

[beano500]

I've been using Lightroom virtually since it began - and Rawshooter, its genetic predecessor too. It's been developing nicely and the 2.x version has some neat stuff which makes Photoshop usage for your average shots a nice-to-have not an esential.

I know a lot of people hate what it can do to RAW files (although in the main these seem to have eased off, and were mainly Canon shooters talking about reds going haywire (I have similar with Nikon blue/mauve)). But on balance I think once you start using it you won't look back.

It makes processing very easy - you'll need a Scott Kelby book - or similar - to learn how to get the most out of it. But as Steve say, try the beta for free while it's available. Nothing to lose.

The one thing it doesn't do - which is an increasingly common part of my processing that would be nice to have in one package - is blending. However it's easy to process a range of exposure options to feed into Photoshop or Photomatix - if that's your thing.

[ROADRUNNER3]

beano500 said:

I've been using Lightroom virtually since it began - and Rawshooter, its genetic predecessor too. It's been developing nicely and the 2.x version has some neat stuff which makes Photoshop usage for your average shots a nice-to-have not an esential.

I know a lot of people hate what it can do to RAW files (although in the main these seem to have eased off, and were mainly Canon shooters talking about reds going haywire (I have similar with Nikon blue/mauve)). But on balance I think once you start using it you won't look back.

It makes processing very easy - you'll need a Scott Kelby book - or similar - to learn how to get the most out of it. But as Steve say, try the beta for free while it's available. Nothing to lose.

The one thing it doesn't do - which is an increasingly common part of my processing that would be nice to have in one package - is blending. However it's easy to process a range of exposure options to feed into Photoshop or Photomatix - if that's your thing.

Interesting to hear you say that - I'm finding Photoshop CS3's RAW processing to be a real drag - way too much work to get it right. AUTO exposure is consistently way out.

[gary71]

Hi Tim,

I would thoroughly recommend it. I just love the fact that you can quickly and effectively, crop, adjust exposure, filters, effects, fix red eye, touch up spots, catalogue, monochrome etc etc, and none of it touches the original RAW file. You also don't end up with huge files with millions of layers

It took a while for me to adapt, but now I have the feel for it I very rarely use Photoshop unless I feel like getting fancy with combined exposures or something.

For anyone that can adapt to driving an early 911, driving Lightroom will be no challenge at all!

[ian in lancs]

Lightroom is the thinking mans Photoshop. I echo all the positives in the above posts. I have PSE but rarely use it. If LRIII does cloning and healing I wont need PS at all!

[andy-xr]

I'm not a fan of the clone/heal in LR2, but if they added a Patch tool that'd be alright.

I tend to use LR for cataloguing and initial colour sorting (XRite card and a LR plugin) then export to PS for layered stuff. I dont find it as accurate as CaptureNX, which makes a better job on contrast, but it's more than useable. Also use LR templates a bit as well, and build my own too - thats pretty handy

[Muska]

I love lightroom, it has seriously cut down my workflow time as a wedding photographer. i'd advise getting the 30 day trial if you're not sure. there are a few things in the LR3 beta that look promising to me, just be prepared to have a well specced machine as Lightroom likes RAM, and lots of it.

As much as I love Lightroom Aperture 3 is due out any day soon and features tonnes of great features that are quite specific to the field I shoot in (popular wedding album manufacturerr design template integration to name but one) so i'f you're a mac also give this a look.

regards,
Matt.

[Mermaid]

ian in lancs said:

Lightroom is the thinking mans Photoshop.

But needs patience to get to use it well.

[page3]

Tried Lightroom but didn't really get on with the interface, but then I don't like the Photoshop interface either.

Went for Aperture which is brilliant, and yesterday got Aperture 3 which so far seems vastly improved, if a little buggy. Of course, you need a Mac for Aperture.

[beano500]

I think it's a matter of what you're used to.

I think (being bigheaded) I could probably show anyone round LR in about 20 minutes and they'd agree it was relatively easy to get some very useable results out.

But I would also admit that I have been living with its iterations since before it was a twinkle in Adobe's eye. Probably coming to it new today I'd agree it looks daunting.

So a lot has to do with what you get comfortable with - as most things in life. I'd just say that if you want a workflow to... er... work.... you've sort of got to .... work...and stick with it. You know what I mean

[ROADRUNNER3]

beano500 said:

I think it's a matter of what you're used to.

I think (being bigheaded) I could probably show anyone round LR in about 20 minutes and they'd agree it was relatively easy to get some very useable results out.

But I would also admit that I have been living with its iterations since before it was a twinkle in Adobe's eye. Probably coming to it new today I'd agree it looks daunting.

So a lot has to do with what you get comfortable with - as most things in life. I'd just say that if you want a workflow to... er... work.... you've sort of got to .... work...and stick with it. You know what I mean

Beano 500 - you've got mail.

Tim

[beano500]

SHY!

[muppetdave]

I've found Lightroom to be really helpful, particularly for someone with less experience as some of the other guys here. I don't know PS inside out, but was able to do my basic processing there fairly easily. However once I got my head around Lightroom, it's made my life farrrrr easier, and I just revert to PS when I want to do something more fancy. I'd definitely recommend it, but have patience initially!