Talk me into doubling-down on Lightroom

[astroNikon]

In PSE I found the modes to just be "in the way"
I always have to go to Advanced to do the things I want to do anyways.

I think it's time you take the time needed to learn LR.
After I made the leap it has been sooooooo much better.
I wasted so much time trying to find something else that LR makes easy to do once you understand the workflow. The main difference is it's not "menu based" like programs of old. The "menu" moves around the screen dependent upon what you are doing, but once you get it, you then start learning a lot.

 

[JacaRanda]

LR should not be tough to learn at all. For the most part, I've found a video that can get you through almost anything. You can remove things like twigs cutting through a bird etc. but you can't select nearly as easy as drawing a circle around things like you can with PS.


Lightroom Tutorials by Julieanne Kost

 

[vintagesnaps]

Depends I guess if you feel a need to do more than you can do now with what you have.

And I don't like and rarely do subscriptions that have companies billing credit cards monthly; yeah, 'everybody' 's doing it, but if customers go along with it and don't stop subscribing I suppose companies will keep pushing it.


edit - And why have people talk you into doing something that it sounds like you don't really want or need but feel like you should be doing? Just because 'everybody' talks about Lightroom, who cares? lol If it works for people, fine, if you feel like you need it, then maybe get it, or otherwise I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[cgw]

First, if you're thinking about LR6, buy it now. I suspect this may be the last stand alone "perpetual license" non-Elements PS product we'll see before the CC absorbs all.

Once you get over the intimidation/bullying about getting and staying organized in LR manuals and cookbooks, the parts of the program you're after are not ridiculously difficult.

 

[Jim Walczak]

This is just my own .02¢ worth so please treat is as such...

These days, the debate between Photoshop and Lightroom is getting nearly as bad as that of Canon and Nikon or Chevy & Ford...some folks prefer one, some the other. Personally, I've been using Photoshop since version 4 came out in the mid 90's (I used Aldus PhotoStyler before that) and as such, yes, I'm a bit biased towards Phothshop. That said, knowing Photoshop as well as I do, I think this was an advantage when I started learning other Adobe programs as well, such as Illustrator, InDesign and even Premiere...they call had that Adobe commonality to them that was immediately familiar. In any case, for what I do and how I do it, I honestly see no advantage at all in using Lightroom. While some will argue that LR is a great "cataloging program" or argue it's virtues regarding workflow, while this is just my own not so humble opinion, I think the only two real advantages that LR has over PS is simply price and learning curve...LR was cheaper than the full blown version of PS (don't know about this CC stuff they do now a days) and I've read where LR is supposedly easier to learn (Photoshop admittedly does have something of a learning curve). I'm sure some folks could nit pick this and I will even go so far as to suggest that it depends on what you do...everyone's needs are different, however when comparing the two programs, LR just doesn't really give you anything worthwhile that PS doesn't.

I know a lot of people prefer to use LR however, while I don't wish to offend anyone, the simple truth is that Photoshop is a FAR more powerful program than Lightroom...hands down, no comparison. Lightroom is decent enough for some production and commercial work", however as far as serious image editing goes, it's VERY limited to say the least. If the OP is already used to working with Essentials, unless there's a very specific reason to switch, my suggestion would be to stick with either Essentials or go full Photoshop.

Just my own opinions as always.

 

[JacaRanda]

Just for general knowledge, can someone list what LR can't do in the way of importing files, creating folders , naming or renaming folders etc? I'm curious to see what Adobe has neglected.

 

[JacaRanda]

Lightroom is a different beast to elements. It does some of the same things, lots that elements can't and lots it can't do that elements can.

If you are really only doing global adjustments with the odd local brush work Lightroom is great. And if you aren't using it for its cataloguing then you are missing out on a major strength of the program.

It would be best to use it along side elements as each program has their own unique features.

The Adobe CC package will give you both Lightroom and full Photoshop for a very reasonable price.

I've tried several things over the years for cataloguing photos, and at the end of the day I just gave up and made folders for years, and sub-folders for the dates of photo shoots.

Having invested a considerable time into setting up this convention, I'm resistant to jumping ship and learning/implementing a new paradigm, but perhaps that's the medicine that needs to be taken?

You won't have to change anything from the way you have been doing it. LR can handle that very easily.

Tough call.

Do you plan to buy the standalone LR or start paying $10.00 per month till they raise the price? You do get PS for the subscription and that allows you to put Elements away.

Do you shoot and edit raw files or are you using Elements (and LR) to process JPEGs?

They're not an either/or choice. In many cases you need the functionality of both. Assume you shoot raw and use that 18-55mm Nikon zoom. You have a raw original that needs some CA correction and has an obstructing lamp post that you'd like to remove. You need both apps.

Elements can't deal with the CA and LR can't remove the lamp post.

Often LR will be able to do all the editing necessary for an image and you can rely on it to complete the entire job, but you'll still need Elements for the occasional lamp post type edit.

If you're working with raw files Elements is deficient. It lacks critical features that eventually leave you screwed. The version of ACR in Elements is frustratingly crippled.

Joe

I currently 'own' PS Elements 13- not the monthly plan.

Not a huge fan of the software subscription model, but that's the direction adobe is pushing. I shoot raw, so I can have the most data available, and the ability to white balance as needed.

I guess since I have never owned the 'full' PS, I don't know what I don't have. Lots of provocative info in your post. Thanks!

 

[tirediron]

This is just my own .02¢ worth so please treat is as such...

These days, the debate between Photoshop and Lightroom is getting nearly as bad as that of Canon and Nikon or Chevy & Ford...some folks prefer one, some the other. Personally, I've been using Photoshop since version 4 came out in the mid 90's (I used Aldus PhotoStyler before that) and as such, yes, I'm a bit biased towards Phothshop. That said, knowing Photoshop as well as I do, I think this was an advantage when I started learning other Adobe programs as well, such as Illustrator, InDesign and even Premiere...they call had that Adobe commonality to them that was immediately familiar. In any case, for what I do and how I do it, I honestly see no advantage at all in using Lightroom. While some will argue that LR is a great "cataloging program" or argue it's virtues regarding workflow, while this is just my own not so humble opinion, I think the only two real advantages that LR has over PS is simply price and learning curve...LR was cheaper than the full blown version of PS (don't know about this CC stuff they do now a days) and I've read where LR is supposedly easier to learn (Photoshop admittedly does have something of a learning curve). I'm sure some folks could nit pick this and I will even go so far as to suggest that it depends on what you do...everyone's needs are different, however when comparing the two programs, LR just doesn't really give you anything worthwhile that PS doesn't.

I know a lot of people prefer to use LR however, while I don't wish to offend anyone, the simple truth is that Photoshop is a FAR more powerful program than Lightroom...hands down, no comparison. Lightroom is decent enough for some production and commercial work", however as far as serious image editing goes, it's VERY limited to say the least. If the OP is already used to working with Essentials, unless there's a very specific reason to switch, my suggestion would be to stick with either Essentials or go full Photoshop.

Just my own opinions as always.

I don't get the concept of a debate between LR and PS... to me they're two complimentary tools in the same box. Each one has different applications, different strengths and different weaknesses, and can do some things the other can't. One with out the other is like a cheeseburger without bacon!

 

[JacaRanda]

I bought LR years ago. I also used PSE 8 and upgraded to 12.

Due to LR's "confusing" workflow I tried to avoid it by using about anything else out there.
The problem is the "better" free stuff out there is based on workflows, and was just as confusing.

So from all the features I kept reading about LR compared to everything else I finally doubled down one weekend and decided to learn how to use it.

After It finally made sense.
And once you learn the file mgt / Collections of LR ... it just makes more sense too.

FYI, you can still buy LR as a standalone buy once from Adobe. They just don't make it very apparent.

One their main screen it's on the bottom (very bottom) right ==> Digital photography software | Download free Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC trial

The teacher version is no longer standalone .. I'd have to buy CC but I get everything or pay full price for LR

I have my own workflow; do you mean their develop module is layed out funky?

My somewhat normal workflow is: Import from, tell it what drive, folder or subfolder to go to, place duplicate in a backup folder, convertv or rename file to basically any naming convention I choose, add keywords, use preset I created. Walk away while all that is done. Once imported, I cull by tagging each file by tapping the letter x. Once complete, all those files can be deleted from the hard drive or just the catalog.

Then I crop if needed, make wb change if needed, brush in adjustments as needed. Some brushes I've created have several adjustments in one brush. Spot removal brush to remove branches or twigs or telephone poll. Radial button to dodge or burn areas/vignettes etc. (also other adjustments can be added to that filter).

Basically that's the workflow.

 

[JacaRanda]

Some naming conventions on import. Pretty much anything you would ever want to name your files. Creating a Custom File Renaming Templates in Lightroom

 

[Jim Walczak]

I don't get the concept of a debate between LR and PS... to me they're two complimentary tools in the same box. Each one has different applications, different strengths and different weaknesses, and can do some things the other can't. One with out the other is like a cheeseburger without bacon!

In essence, I would actually agree...both programs do have their strengths and weaknesses. I will also go so far as to admit that I don't have that much experience with LR. I've messed with it a number of times over the years and never found any real advantage in terms of how I do my own work...my own work flow (as far as photography is concerned) has always incorporated Adobe Bridge and ACR, which does much of the same work LR does (and I've always been able to setup batch files or actions for the rest). I will also admit that it's been a few years since I bought Photoshop and what's more, I got my current version at the college I was attending a few years back, essentially as a stand alone (at that time I had upgraded to CS 5.5 because that's what the college was using and I was able to use my funding to pay for it)...at that time, Lightroom was a separate purchase and again I just didn't see the point.

That said however, I've noticed both here on TPF and other photo forums where yea...there does seem to be something of a division in the masses regarding these programs. Perhaps it has something to do with these newer versions of Windows and Mac and how they store files(?)...personally I'm STILL running XP64 and I have no problems with issues such as "file management" and such (it's just a matter of keeping your harddrive organized). Regardless, Lightroom does indeed seem to have a rather loyal following...just going back and thumbing thru this thread alone, it looks like there are people suggesting Lightroom, regardless of the OP's previous experience with PSE, which to me at least, equally doesn't make a lot of sense.

Ultimately I think it's really just a matter of using whatever you need that gets you where you need to go. I do have to stand by my original comment however in that there's just sooooo many things you can do with Photoshop that you just can't do with Lightroom.

That said...I don't really care for bacon either .

 

[The_Traveler]

and other photo forums where yea...there does seem to be something of a division in the masses regarding these programs. Perhaps it has something to do with these newer versions of Windows and Mac and how they store files(?)...personally I'm STILL running XP64 and I have no problems with issues such as "file management" and such (it's just a matter of keeping your harddrive organized).

This is not right. The reasons for using LR have nothing to do with the strengths of the underlying operating system and there is no way to use a file system to organize and retrieve in the same way LR does.
You can organize files in any way you want on your drive; LR uses your filing structure and adds an interface for sophisticated management on top of that.

Regardless, Lightroom does indeed seem to have a rather loyal following...just going back and thumbing thru this thread alone, it looks like there are people suggesting Lightroom, regardless of the OP's previous experience with PSE, which to me at least, equally doesn't make a lot of sense.

Yet, you are saying the PS is better than LR with little or no experience of LR - and that small experience being with an older version.

Ultimately I think it's really just a matter of using whatever you need that gets you where you need to go. I do have to stand by my original comment however in that there's just sooooo many things you can do with Photoshop that you just can't do with Lightroom.

Since you have so very little or no experience with LR, you really don't know this.

I have a good deal of experience with both (using LR since version 1 and PS since 2002):

• where LR is much better than PS is the managing and retrieval of images in many different and useful ways (LR is essentially a relational database ), batch processing of images -(invaluable for sorting and culling of images and synchronizing characteristics across a set of like images), in certain methods of editing that I can't generalize into a topic and anything to do with disseminating or publishing images.

One of the neater and most useful abilities of LR is to create various versions of the same image with the only added impact is a single sidecar file; in PS, additional 'versions' incur multiple versions of large files (or single huge files with many layers).
LR is a much more economical way to store work extensively edited or duplicated in LR because the only added data burden is an xmp sidecar file.​

• Where PS is better than LR is in bit level edits, layering and compositing and the ability to do many types of creative sharpening. At this time, PS has many more creative and utility plugins available.

 

[astroNikon]

That said...I don't really care for bacon either .

Blasphemy !!

Have you noticed how much a roll of film looks like a rolled up piece of bacon?
They are one in the same ... nearly !!

 

[astroNikon]

I have my own workflow; do you mean their develop module is layed out funky?

I mean the screens are layed out funky.

To import file you go to "Library"
then you have to go to the bottom left to the "Import" button
instead of a menu LIbrary, which would then have a submenu on it with the options.

BUT, when you do Library it's broken down into segments
at the top is the Main Menu - Library, Develop, Map, etc

Then it breaks the screen up in Functional Segments
For LIbrary on the left is the "file handling" functions for Catalog, Folder, Collections and the Import and Export buttons. On the Right is Photo information for Histogram, Quick Develop, Keywording, Meta Data and the ability to Sync settings etc
The middle has the pictures with option on the bottom.
Of course on the bottom you have the bottom strip where you can select, Identify, Mark various ways (stars, colors, etc), filters,

So the screen "layout" to me was non-intuitive initially. Until you understood the screen was broken down into different segments

Might make more sense to the OP if I do a screen shot of the Develop screen.

 

[The_Traveler]

Since some screens have changed in LR CC since LR 4 (which came out in 2011 or 2012), you might use those for more understanding.