Lightroom and CS3

[The_Traveler]

I like Lightroom for the databasing and general corrections features but I hunger for CS3 because of the smart filters features.

I have heard the the ACR is very good in CS3 but I would be losing the use of it unless I made a distorted workflow by opening things in CS3 and then later importing them into lightroom,

Any comments on the use of these two programs together?

Thanks in advance,

Lew

 

[RedDevilUK]

i have CS3, although ive only been using it for a day... ive yet to see any difference to CS2

IMO there is no point in having Lightroom if you already have Adobe's flagship software, Photoshop.

Lightroom, is ok, but you can manipulate your picture more with PS... and i dont mean touchup, even lighting and colour etc.
i personally think Lightroom is made for photographers who find PS too complicated.

just my 2 peneth

 

[THORHAMMER]

i have CS3, although ive only been using it for a day... ive yet to see any difference to CS2

IMO there is no point in having Lightroom if you already have Adobe's flagship software, Photoshop.

Lightroom, is ok, but you can manipulate your picture more with PS... and i dont mean touchup, even lighting and colour etc.
i personally think Lightroom is made for photographers who find PS too complicated.

just my 2 peneth

I personally know commercial photographers that could run circles around anyone I know in regards to PS skills that use lightroom. Why?

It frees you up to shoot more. they can do 90% of everything they need to do inside LR....PS was designed almost 20 years ago its tedious to have to use drop down menus over and over it wastes a lot of time for the most part.
The workflow aspect of LR is what portrait/commercial/wedding shooters needed for a long time.

If you are needing to do indepth local touch up to EVERY shot you take just for profing then you are not getting it right in the camera.
After proofing, you can spend the time to adjust every little local detail in PS But for the most part you should be out shooting more instead of tethered to PS all day long... thats the goal of lightroom.

Now, the guy who works FOR the advertising agency inside, whos the designer will be using illustrator/PS almost all day long... but I would rather shoot then process all day long...

 

[lostprophet]

PS was designed almost 20 years ago its tedious to have to use drop down menus over and over it wastes a lot of time for the most part.

just use the keyboard short cuts and create the odd action here and there

 

[THORHAMMER]

We are visual creatures, what can I say
If that were truly the best thing for the majority of us we wouldnt even have a mouse on our computers.

If you can work faster that way thats awsome.. Im not trying to debate the semantics of mouse vs keys thats just not even an argument, If I went through 1500 pictures from a wedding all through actions and shortcuts I'd get carprol tunnel in a matter of months..

If lightroom isnt faster/simpler for your particular workflow then dont bother to buy it. I just dont buy into the idea that its only for photographers that dont know how to properly use photoshop. In fact I think thats right out a lame assumption.

And I use photoshop a lot for many things, but for specific things lightroom seems to be saving a lot of time on the backend as well as the front.

 

[mortallis288]

i got a copy of cs2 the other day and decided to try it out. it is pretty hard to use, i am going to buy a book but i think i might pick up light room because it looks so much like an easier layout and not so much artsy stuff in it. Is this true?

 

[The_Traveler]

i got a copy of cs2 the other day and decided to try it out. it is pretty hard to use, i am going to buy a book but i think i might pick up light room because it looks so much like an easier layout and not so much artsy stuff in it. Is this true?

Except for the healing brush, Lightroom does not do pixel level corrections.

 

[mortallis288]

so am i safe to assume that lightroom has a better workflow layout?

 

[dc502]

Lightroom organizes my photos and provides an easy way to view them. Photoshop is for the heavier editing. Why not have both instead of being loyal to one or the other. They are both available so take advantage of what they give you.

Personally I think Photoshop is a lot different than lightroom. Lightroom is more like adobe's version of iphoto. No offense to apple but I hate iPhoto. Lightroom is way better.

 

[fotogenik]

I have had and been using PSCS2 for quite some time. I have a firm grasp on it's uses and have a decent ability in it IMHO. I got Lightroom the other day and I am totally blown away with it's ease of use. Tasks which used to take me several hours have been totally dropped to minutes.

Example. Sorting and doing quick general exposure/color balancing corrections to a batch of 369 images from a shoot:

Old Way: 2-3 hours using multiple programs alt-tabbing between and making lists as to which shots were keepers. Not to mention the tedious process of converting the raw images to tif files.

New Way: Import raw images to LR, use p and x key to flag photos as keepers and trash. Filter images by flag for keepers, make general exposure, and color balance corrections. Export to tiff for final detail editing. Total images kept from 369 shots.....100. Total time from import to export.....35 minutes.

Cheers,

 

[gtkelly]

I am using the combination of Lightroom and CS3. Have been for a few weeks now.

I find that the Lightroom adjustments are good for snapshot type stuff and to figure out what I want to do the full PS deal with.

The better the picture straight out of the camera the easier it is to stay in Lightroom. Unfortunately, I seem to be spending a lot of time in PS...