Another RAW question..

clanthar · May 13, 2011

KmH said:
Unfortunately, Lightroom is an incomplete image editing solution and lacks most of the precision editing tools, features, and functions something like Photoshop CS(x) has.

Yes, but he has Photoshop which is an incomplete image management solution (Bridge is not Lightroom). Lightroom's less robust editing capabilities are nonetheless formidable and frequently all that's needed. The OP's weak link here is iPhoto. Lightroom solves that and works well with Photoshop.

Joe

fokker · May 13, 2011

Plus, lightroom is incredibly useful for simply cataloging and displaying RAW files without the need to convert them into jpeg or TIFF unless you actually need to (which is probably at least half the photos I take typically)

ronda · May 13, 2011

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom was not made to compete with Adobe Photoshop. It was not meant to be an image editing or compositing tool like Photoshop. Although it was nice of Photoshop to incorporate some of Lightroom's features, fact is the two programs can't be compared fairly because they are not in the same category.

I find Lightroom extraordinarily capable for doing what it was meant to do.

alvarez57 · May 13, 2011

I do not have CS4 nor 5 and I also do not (for the moment) intend to spend a fortune in a program I may be using 1/5 of it! Maybe in a future when I can shift to photography to pay my bills

.

I have a Canon 60D and was encountering the same problem. With the help of the same friend who introduced me to RAW format, I got the Adobe .DNG converter program which is very simple to use. All my photos are then stored (and extracted) from an external drive (WD Ware).

Addendum:

I concur with Ronda in regards to Lightroom. I had the PS Essentials (no need for the pro) and I didn't use half of the features. I come from the old darkroom experience and in this case, Lightroom is ideal for me.