DSLRUsers.com

Ok realise I'm probaby a bit of a relic even asking this question but given the upcoming release I thought I'd re-raise the question: is Lightroom essential to most peoples' workflow?

I've been comfortable using Photoshop for years now, but have had a bit of a play with LR4 and can see many of its advantages. However, perhaps because I have been late adopting [& haven't grown with it] I have so far found it a fairly steep learning curve to get the best out of it.

Just wondered are there others like me who've stuck with P/shop and have found it more-or-less sufficient for most digital photography needs, or has pretty much everyone taken the plunge, & would [presumably] whole-heartedly recommend putting in the learning effort?

cheers
A

I'm probably not your target - but I am a wholehearted LR user (since LR 1 or 2). I don't use PS much at all and pretty much do all my editing in Lightroom itself (effectively the Camera Raw part of PS). However I also make use of most of the other modules of Lightroom too - e.g. the Library module for managing, sorting, finding, etc my 70,000+ image library; the Web module for making Web Galleries (I probably make and publish one every few weeks); the Print module (not so much for printing but for creating multi image layouts, etc (e.g. *tychs)); and rarely the Slideshow module.

I moved to LR about 12 months ago after using CX2 and some ps4. I do not use it to the same extent as Rodney but am starting to come to grips with some of the better features such as catalogues, collections, presets etc. I think it is worth the effort.

LR and PS are different beasts and I don't think it's a matter of comparing the two, for serious editing you will always revert to PS anyway imo. LR strong points (imo) are the catalogue and relatively comprehensive and simple to use editing module, the extras like web publish and printing modules are nice and handy additions.

What do you use for your Catalogue management now? if none, then i suggest just jumping into LR and trying it for a few months. Its probably very suited to your really since you can simply manage your files in LR and whenever you feel the need for PS you can just use that as an external editor in LR, they interface fairly weel from my experience.

A reasonable question given the recent bastardry at Adobe.

You will no longer be able to buy stand-alone copies of Photoshop - you will be forced to lease it for approx $20 per month. Adobe calls it "membership". What happens when you cannot afford to continue or when the software morphs into something you don't want/like?

Thankfully LR is (so far) excluded from this money grab.

That makes my decision quite simple. I'll continue to upgrade LR and Photoshop can die a slow lingering death. (Hello GIMP)

I use both. They both perform quite different functions for me and I think it likely that will remain the case.
Lightroom is really pretty straightforward to use and you can always ignore it's editing functions entirely and just use it for cataloging etc.
In fact the only reason I currently use a Windows O/S based machine at home now is for these two applications. I would happily do most other things in Linux Mint.

I used to do pretty well just using Bridge for cataloguing, but have had a couple of shoots where I've done quite a high volume, hence looking at alternatives..

Just out of interest, has any used [or still use] Aperture?

A

feldy wrote:Just out of interest, has any used [or still use] Aperture?

Yes, I am.

Cheers
Steffen.

advantages or dis-advantages vs Lightroom?

Not sure really, I haven't taken a look at Lightroom since version 1 or 2. Aperture does everything I need, and then some.

Cheers
Steffen.

the foto fanatic wrote:A reasonable question given the recent bastardry at Adobe.

 PS have been doing a bit of reading up on Aperture vs Lightroom in the Mac blogs [as this is obviously a mac-only conundrum]; a lot of pros & cons with both - according to mac users - but seems to be a consensus that the raw processing of ACR seems a little superior, while they mostly prefer the file management/structure of Aperture [not surprising, considering they're mac users!].

Big one is Adobe's Cloud thing however, with a general view that Adobe will eventually do the same thing with LR; there was previous concern that Apple may not continue development of Aperture, but [hopeful] consensus is that Apple may now come out with an Aperture 4, given peoples' general disillusionment with Adobe...

I guess, it all comes down to how much manipulation
one does to a photo. If it is basic photographic
adjustments, then LR will probably do more than it
is required. However, if there is some serious graphic
editing involved the PS is the way to go.

The question is if people are going to accept the future
cloud version for I imagine that one thing is to edit
a one or two MB file and another is a 60 or 100+ MB
using an internet connection of the type we have in OZ.
I suspect many people with limited internet connection
or outside the national broadband will defect to an
alternative application. Adobe will not learn its lesson
till we give them a good kick to their profits.

One of the features I really enjoy in LR is the non-destructive edit. I can come back later and adjust processing or fix mistakes with impunity. I haven't tried Aperture, but I don't think it does this?

The other thing I have enjoyed about the continuing development of LR is that useful features of PS become incorporated in LR over time. I still have PS (Elements these days) but I don't use it much. AFAIK Adobe Cloud apps does not mean you are running PS on the cloud - you will be able to open a 60 or 100MB file just as easily on your computer as you always have. Adobe would lose their core market if it didn't work!

I can understand why Adobe has moved to a 'rent' offer instead of a 'buy' offer, but I don't like it as it doesn't suit small users like me. It should have little impact on big users, but will cost the smaller users who in the past have put off upgrades depending on finances etc. Now we pay for and get the latest all the time whether we want/need it or not. We probably also lose the advantage of being able to source the software from markets where the price is more reasonable. Choice and the ability to manage expenditure on Adobe Software is being lost. All or nothing. I choose Elements and I will keep the last version long after they 'cloud' it.

Michael

photohiker wrote:One of the features I really enjoy in LR is the non-destructive edit. I can come back later and adjust processing or fix mistakes with impunity. I haven't tried Aperture, but I don't think it does this?

Yes, it does. It was Adobe who was late to the non-destructive editing game. LightRoom was developed in response to Aperture (and other non-destructive editing and DAM tools such as Bibble Pro). The era of pixel bruisers (a la Photoshop) was over, and Adobe knew it.

Cheers
Steffen.

Thanks for the info Steffen, good to know if I ever get tempted.

Steffen wrote:LightRoom was developed in response to Aperture (and other non-destructive editing and DAM tools such as Bibble Pro)

I think not. Apple was first to market by a few months, but LR was a long time in development: Wikipedia: Adobe Lightroom

Cheers,

Michael

In any case, I have been using non-destructive photo editing long before either of them came about, with Bibble Pro. And that wasn't even the first of its kind (I can't remember the name of the first non-destructive editor right now). I switched to Aperture when it came out because it was much more polished and user-friendly than Bibble and had much better DAM capabilities as well as backup stuff etc. After Aperture came out Adobe quickly released a LightRoom beta to stake a claim, though the 1.0 was many months away.

Cheers
Steffen.