Why add Lightroom ?

9designs2

9designs2

9designs2

Soldato
Joined
5 Jan 2003
Posts
3,523
Location
Somewhere in the middle
I use Elements 7 at present, was tempted to update to the latest version 9... but Adobe sent me a promo for Lightroom. (£79+Vat) I struggle to see why I would want both. Basically I'm taking the camera file, RAW normally, and tweaking for levels, bright and contrast, and sharpen, with a bit of cropping and cloning any annoying marks etc. Some times some graduated layer work....and convert to B&W.

To me LR and PS/Elements do the same job...... or am I missing the point ?
 
If you are doing the odd bit of editing then i agree with you. if you have a big batch and a large catalogue of pictures, then lightroom is an angel sent from god.
 
Once you get into LR, it really is hard to beat, and that includes Aperture (which is its only real competitor)...

Not only is it a great tool for editing (it can of course do all the stuff you mentioned with ease, a lot more ease even than Photoshop), but it is an immensely powerful cataloging tool (a point you definitely seem to have "missed" like you say).

In a nutshell, as a tool to catalogue all your photos, tweak them (completely non-destructively I might add, which tucking the original raw files away safe and sound) and export to various places out of the box like flickr and facebook, there is no better in my opinion ;)
 
Hmmm I'd seen the batch option, which could be useful having a few pre-sets.

I'm tend to prefer storing and managing my files myself through windows, in folder and paths I want.... so never use catalogue software options !!! ..... Perhaps I'm just a bit old fashioned LOL.

I don't destroy my RAW files either anyway !!! ......

Perhaps I'll down load the trial and give it a go.....

So would be better to keep Elements 7 and add LR than update to V9 Elements ?
 
me neither. it took a while but i am now completely dependant on it for organising, backing up, publishing, and to a large extent... editing. its suprisingly powerful when you get used to it.
 
I really need to spend more time with LR, the cataloguing (?) is getting on my nerves a bit.
 
Lightroom is redundant, its just a bloated cover version of camera raw with bridge. Why bother having both (or does elements not come with bridge)
 
Just moved from Elements 9 to Lightroom, and I'm very happy.

Elements is the more powerfull "editor" but when it comes to standard developing/catalog/batch processing Lightroom is so much faster. Faster import, faster preview, faster processing, just FASTER !!
 
ChroniC said:
Lightroom is redundant, its just a bloated cover version of camera raw with bridge. Why bother having both (or does elements not come with bridge)
Click to expand...

again, i used to think the same, but lightroom is so much more powerful for catalogue, editing, publishing. all depends on how much you use it,if a light user i can see how you can get by on bridge etc.
 
99% of my processing is done in lightroom, only switching to photoshop for large cloning etc.

the cataloging is a god send.
 
After shooting a large amount of images at an event such as a wedding Lightroom becomes an absolute godsend, It's very quick, very powerful and a great way to view & catalogue all your images. I agree if your just editing the odd one or two pics then photoshop is a great way of doing that, I also use photoshop if I really want to be creative with a shot or need lots of cloning / editing applying to it. I suppose what I'm trying to say is why make things a lot more difficult & time consuming when you can use lightroom to make life easier and achieve the same results
 
LR is fantastic. I used to self-manage my photos using a complex folder structure but when you amass a lot of images it simply becomes unworkable. I now just stick with a year/month structure and use LR for import, renaming based on date/time and keywords to enable search.

It does everything I need for digital photography - in fact I can't recall the last time I started up Photoshop CS. :)
 
i dont even use it for cataloging , only processing and just for that i think its much better workflow than photoshop
 
Unless you are a pro running a studio with hundreds of images a week coming in then LR is not essential - heck you can even use something like picassa.

But what it does well, it does very well. The noise reduction, resizing, non-destructive editing, sharpening tools are all excellent. The cataloging is also good. Sure you can have a directory path for date/place/etc, but what if an image is from an outside birthday party with both family and guests where you just happened to see a gorgeous sunset - where/how do you file that shot ! In LR you just add the keywords that fit the image.

I use it week in and week out and can't image life without it now.
 
Don't see why you need to be a pro. Picasa sucks compared to Lightroom. Lightroom is one of theose great programs that is easy to use and makes a big difference if you only need a little bit but is also powerful enough if you need it to be at a higher level.

Not hard to learn to use, easy work flow, great cataloging yet is very powerful if you take the time to learn to use it to it's full capabilities.
 
I said "not essential" :-) I'd still buy it even I was just a keen hobbyist. If someone has a child at school or is a student it is a no brainer as it is so cheap. Even at full price it is worthwhile.
 
I agree I couldn't do without Aperture now as the workflow is so quick and easy. I just got into Ap without trying LR and stuck with it and I love the integration with FB, MobileMe, Flickr and iPhone/iPad, does LR give anymore than this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom