Would I benefit from Lightroom?

[zombiemann]

I know this has probably been done to death, but my search-fu is failing me miserably today. I have Photoshop CS6, would I find much benefit to having Lightroom along side it? I shoot pretty much exclusively in RAW but I bracket for HDR a lot and don't typically "edit" my RAW before feeding them in to Photomatix. Going on 30 years of computer work has taught me that no software can replace good directory structure for cataloging. I know LR doesn't exactly cost an arm and a leg, but I just am not sure if I would actually get much use out of it.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I know this has probably been done to death, but my search-fu is failing me miserably today. I have Photoshop CS6, would I find much benefit to having Lightroom along side it? I shoot pretty much exclusively in RAW but I bracket for HDR a lot and don't typically "edit" my RAW before feeding them in to Photomatix. Going on 30 years of computer work has taught me that no software can replace good directory structure for cataloging. I know LR doesn't exactly cost an arm and a leg, but I just am not sure if I would actually get much use out of it.

Yes. Download the trial and see for yourself.

 

[LaFoto]

I went through the trial version and now want to have it!

 

[SCraig]

Oooooh ... you said "Directory" and not "Folder"! You must go back about as far as I do

I can't stand Lightroom. I keep trying to like it and each time it makes me mad again. I've got about 50,000 images in a database and I decided I was going to try cataloging them in Lightroom The directory I have my present database in is about 1.5gb in about 450 files (I can't remember the exact number). When I got them into Lightroom the directory was over 8.5gb and contained a bit over 53,000 files. You know as well as I do the drawbacks to having a directory with 53,000 tiny little files in subdirectories of it. Once again I stuffed all of Lightroom into a big Zip file and deleted it.

Just FYI the software I'm using now is called PicaJet FX and I think I paid $50 for it several years ago. It has gone the way of the Dodo, and the dev team that was doing it has a new project called Daminion. Daminion is presently freeware because it is still in beta. I tried it, it imported my PicaJet database just fine, but it also threw close to 50,000 little files onto my disk. I've still got it on there but I don't know for how long.

PicaJet works for me, it keeps track of where my files are, and that's all I want. It's relatively compact because it doesn't try and build it's own thumbnail for every file but uses the thumbnails in RAW files and simply resizes other file types. I guess I'll stick with it for now.

 

[zombiemann]

/facepalm

Yea, my brain is missfiring today... I didn't even think about the trial version. Thanks

 

[zombiemann]

Oooooh ... you said "Directory" and not "Folder"! You must go back about as far as I do

I can't stand Lightroom. I keep trying to like it and each time it makes me mad again. I've got about 50,000 images in a database and I decided I was going to try cataloging them in Lightroom The directory I have my present database in is about 1.5gb in about 450 files (I can't remember the exact number). When I got them into Lightroom the directory was over 8.5gb and contained a bit over 53,000 files. You know as well as I do the drawbacks to having a directory with 53,000 tiny little files in subdirectories of it. Once again I stuffed all of Lightroom into a big Zip file and deleted it.

Just FYI the software I'm using now is called PicaJet FX and I think I paid $50 for it several years ago. It has gone the way of the Dodo, and the dev team that was doing it has a new project called Daminion. Daminion is presently freeware because it is still in beta. I tried it, it imported my PicaJet database just fine, but it also threw close to 50,000 little files onto my disk. I've still got it on there but I don't know for how long.

PicaJet works for me, it keeps track of where my files are, and that's all I want. It's relatively compact because it doesn't try and build it's own thumbnail for every file but uses the thumbnails in RAW files and simply resizes other file types. I guess I'll stick with it for now.

I might give Daminion a shot. Not big on the idea of extraneous files though. Maybe I'll just stick with my current methodology. Time to fire up Virtual Box and do some testing.

 

[Big Mike]

One of the big differences is the way that LR works. You (should) still start with a good solid file storage structure. But that doesn't necessarily matter to LR. You 'import' your images, at which time LR saves a preview and registers where the file is stored (as a database). From that point on, anything you do, in terms of editing, within Lightroom, is stored in the catalog and sidecar files. None of the edits/changes are applied to the image, thus leaving them untouched and thus undamaged. Some call this parametric editing, some call it non-destructive editing...whatever. So there really is no 'save' button...it's not the typical open, save (overwrite) type of workflow.

One of the benefits is that you're not damaging the photo during the editing process. You can go back, change anything, as often as you want. Sure, you can do this with layers and such in PS CS, but it's not functionally the same.

So when you're done editing, you 'export' and LR spits out copies of your images, with any specific settings you might want to apply (file size, resolution, color space etc.) You can still go back and change 'the original' and have it spit out something different. Again, you can do pretty much anything in PS CS, but Lightroom just makes it faster and easier IMO.

Yet another benefit is the speed at which you can go though your images...especially with an 'optimized' workflow. For example, the workflow I teach in my LR class, is to first go though and cull/weed whack the images, then go though and pick/rate/label them. Then go though and crop/straighten, then go though and deal with exposure (basic panel), then go though and deal with color, then go though and deal with details & effects. In other words, rather than taking one image at a time and going though your workflow, you take one or two aspects of the workflow and you run though all the images. It seems weird at first, but it helps to run though a lot of images in a more efficient way.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

One of the big differences is the way that LR works. You (should) still start with a good solid file storage structure. But that doesn't necessarily matter to LR. You 'import' your images, at which time LR saves a preview and registers where the file is stored (as a database). From that point on, anything you do, in terms of editing, within Lightroom, is stored in the catalog and sidecar files. None of the edits/changes are applied to the image, thus leaving them untouched and thus undamaged. Some call this parametric editing, some call it non-destructive editing...whatever. So there really is no 'save' button...it's not the typical open, save (overwrite) type of workflow.

One of the benefits is that you're not damaging the photo during the editing process. You can go back, change anything, as often as you want. Sure, you can do this with layers and such in PS CS, but it's not functionally the same.

So when you're done editing, you 'export' and LR spits out copies of your images, with any specific settings you might want to apply (file size, resolution, color space etc.) You can still go back and change 'the original' and have it spit out something different. Again, you can do pretty much anything in PS CS, but Lightroom just makes it faster and easier IMO.

Yet another benefit is the speed at which you can go though your images...especially with an 'optimized' workflow. For example, the workflow I tech in my LR class, is to first go though and cull/weed whack the images, then go though and pick/rate/label them. Then go though and crop/straighten, then go though and deal with exposure (basic panel), then go though and deal with color, then go though and deal with details & effects. In other words, rather than taking one image at a time and going though your workflow, you take one or two aspects of the workflow and you run though all the images. It seems weird at first, but it helps to run though a lot of images in a more efficient way.

Well said. I was CS5 / ACR / Photomatix guy and LR has completely changed everything about my workflow from the ground up, in a very good way. To the extent I would not enjoy processing nearly as much without it.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

The question to myself is "can I handle how bad life would suck without the LR4 software tool"

 

[bhop]

I keep reading how LR is faster and easier.. it's not faster and easier for everybody. I've been using Photoshop since version 2.5 so needless to say, I can get around the tools and edit menus faster than LR which is relatively new to me. Also, on the non-destructive thing, just don't save over your original file with PS and it's non-destructive as well.

I do however prefer using LR for batch editing. Example, I go to a car show, I shoot 200 photos.. I don't want to edit each individually.. that's where LR comes into play. For this reason alone it's worth the cost... but I generally don't edit a lot of photos at once so just photoshop is better for my personal workflow.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I keep reading how LR is faster and easier.. it's not faster and easier for everybody. I've been using Photoshop since version 2.5 so needless to say, I can get around the tools and edit menus faster than LR which is relatively new to me. Also, on the non-destructive thing, just don't save over your original file with PS and it's non-destructive as well.

I do however prefer using LR for batch editing. Example, I go to a car show, I shoot 200 photos.. I don't want to edit each individually.. that's where LR comes into play. For this reason alone it's worth the cost... but I generally don't edit a lot of photos at once so just photoshop is better for my personal workflow.

Yep. I've hard this a lot before, and it's whatever works for the individual. I know one thing that has always driven me crazy: PHOTO ORGANIZATION! And Lightroom is so good at that with it's keyword Hiearchy, rating systems, etc.

Some of these things are in Bridge, but Bridge is NOT devoted to photographers. It's a "dumb" directory.

Lightroom was built by photographers, for photographers. It's purpose is to make RAW organazing and handling easier on the photographer, and it does a damn good job!

 

[KmH]

Since you already have CS 6 and it's Camera Raw plug-in, you also already have Adobe Camera Raw 7 (ACR 7).

Lightroom's edit module, the Develope module, uses essentially the same ACR 7.

So, if you learn how to use CS 6's Camera Raw and the other plug-in that comes with CS 6 - Bridge (Bridge 5), you likely don't need Lightroom.

But Adobe will love you for spending the money for Lightroom anyway.

FWIW, the difference between Bridge and Lightroom is not so much file organization, but the speed at which images can be retrieved and searched.

 

[Big Mike]

But Adobe will love you for spending the money for Lightroom anyway.

Not as much as the love you for spending the money on PS CS in the first place.

No offense to meant to anyone here...but I've found that those who have been using Photoshop for years and years, are the one who seem most resistant to changing to/using Lightroom. They have a system, they have worked long and hard to perfect their system, and they don't want (or need) to change.
But I've also heard over and over again, from those who have made the switch, they really love LR.

 

[Rwsphotos]

Have copies of and have used both light room and photo shop. I use ps for heavy editing like removing and replacing backgrounds. But all my basic editing is done in lr. If I only ran one I would give up ps first cause you will have to pry lr out of my hands. lol