M9: Who's switching to LR?

[noah_addis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A few months ago I finally switched over from just using PS + ACR to C1. I actually bought C1PRO and I felt the quality of the raw conversions was much improved over ACR.

 

Now with the M9 I have the opportunity for a free copy of Lightroom. I've downloaded it and played around with it a bit, but I was curious to see what people are planning to use. Are you switching to Lightroom (or using it all along) or sticking with C1?

 

I actually like the workflow of C1.

 

Currently, I ingest my disks and attach copyright, caption and keyword info in Photo Mechanic. I then edit in Photo Mechanic into a selects folder, which I then open in C1 to do my raw conversions.

 

I really like this workflow and love the captioning and renaming features of Photo Mechanic. It's very simple and intuitive. If I make a mistake, it's also quite easy to, say, change the date or location on a group of photos without affecting the rest of the iptc info.

 

However, since Leica has chosen Lightroom to ship with the M9, I'm wondering if it will be better to use in the long run.

 

I'm curious to hear from people who have had more time to compare the two programs...

[delander †]

At the moment I probably wont because I am so used to C1 and LR seems so complex. Looking forward to C1 ver5. I also like the M9 file from C1.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[UliWer]

You can use both together. Do the essential things for white balance and colour in C1 and export the file as a TIFF to Lightroom for printing - perhaps after some repairs or adjusting, for which LR is better and easier to use.

[noah_addis]

You can use both together. Do the essential things for white balance and colour in C1 and export the file as a TIFF to Lightroom for printing - perhaps after some repairs or adjusting, for which LR is better and easier to use.

 

Once I get to the tiff stage I use photoshop, and don't plan to change that.

 

Just looking to decide how to get from DNG, through the editing and captioning process to a tiff file.

 

I like the C1 conversions too. Maybe I'll stick with it.

[Jeff S]

and LR seems so complex.

 

In what way(s)? I'm new to digital this year (35 years with film, however), and don't consider myself any whiz on computer/software stuff. I've used LR for my M8.2 files with no problems whatsoever...in terms of figuring out what does what, including the program's logical cataloguing features. The Scott Kelby book (ignoring his grating humor) is written for simple minds like mine. Other books are similarly straightforward.

 

I've read many forum comments about better conversions (more accurate colors, for instance) with C1 as opposed to LR, but many say they use C1 despite its complexity. I haven't tried it, and I have no vested interest in one application or the other, but I'm a bit surprised at the concern over LR complexity.

 

Jeff

[Marty]

(I have only started using LR since it came with M9, but have used Aperture, C1, ACR, Bridge and PS previously.)

 

For "workflow" LR is simply unbeatable (and so is Aperture). Everything is integrated, from ingestion right down to selection, keywording, editing, cataloguing and output. It looks like the new v3beta leaves even Aperture behind in the dust. Its "complexity" only reflects the bigger feature set, but even there I would say Adobe's documentation and resources are vastly superior to C1's. Once you get used to having everything in one application there is no going back. The benefits are huge if you come home with as little as a handful of photos each day.

 

The only thing I would still consider C1 for is the initial RAW conversion. Sometimes it seems better. Sometimes. Unfortunately that alone doesn't outweigh the rest for me, and usually isn't worth it anyway.

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In what way(s)? I'm new to digital this year (35 years with film, however), and don't consider myself any whiz on computer/software stuff. I've used LR for my M8.2 files with no problems whatsoever...in terms of figuring out what does what, including the program's logical cataloguing features. The Scott Kelby book (ignoring his grating humor) is written for simple minds like mine. Other books are similarly straightforward.

 

I've read many forum comments about better conversions (more accurate colors, for instance) with C1 as opposed to LR, but many say they use C1 despite its complexity. I haven't tried it, and I have no vested interest in one application or the other, but I'm a bit surprised at the concern over LR complexity.

 

Jeff

 

Firstly I'm not a DAM or cataloguing person I prefer Windows for managing my files.

Secondly it is the number of sliders, with various names - some seeming to redo or undo what other sliders have done. I find it hard to see the small nuances that these introduce. Because of the number of settings I find it hard to decide on the best and spend too much time on it.

I do have a full version of Photoshop CS3 so I dont need many of the LR features. (ACR of course also has all those sliders)

 

I dont have the pro version of C1, the non-pro version is more simple and having learnt it I find it easy and quick to use. It does have its quirks however. I prefer the conversions from C1 - somehow it just gets more from the file with little effort. I like the use of icc profiles for the cameras. Adobe's implementation just seems a fudge. If they would use icc camera profiles then I would feel that I have proper colour managed workflow.

 

To me LR is like a modern DSLR with a myriad of functions, C1 is more akin to the Leica M8/9.

 

So some of it probably comes down to me not wanting to spend time on learning LR.

 

I'm not a computer whiz either and I'm not into heavy post processing of my pictures, just the basics to getting them looking right.

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

 

To me LR is like a modern DSLR with a myriad of functions, C1 is more akin to the Leica M8/9.

 

Funny...I would have said the opposite about LR...for the same reason I owned M film cameras for 25 years and only reluctantly went digital this year. I refused to take the plunge until I was certain I could get the image on paper with minimal fuss, and with similar quality.

 

I use very few adjustments with LR...and most images require the same ones. I spend a few minutes and get very close to the end result. I guess if I owned a dslr, I'd shoot it manually and ignore all the bells and whistles. But, LR doesn't require me to take any special steps to access the tools I use, or to de-select others.

 

My working philosophy and process is no different now than with my darkroom work over the years...other folks may have labored for days with fancy procedures, but my methods were disciplined, organized and with clear intent. It just takes a basic understanding of a few key variables, and how to fine tune them. If an image requires too much work, I didn't do my job on the front end.

 

Different strokes....

 

Jeff

[delander †]

I suppose I'm just comfortable with C1, I know how to process images with it.

It now seems that it might not be possible to upgrade (paid) the C1 that came with the M8 to ver5 so now that I actually have lightroom it might be a good idea to spend some time with it.

 

Jeff

[Guest malland]

...To me LR is like a modern DSLR with a myriad of functions, C1 is more akin to the Leica M8/9...

Now, that is a strangest and singularly most inapt comparison I've read on this: I've used LR and went on to Aperture and both have logical and intuitive workflows that one can learn by watching a few brief instructional videos on the respective website. While C1 also has instructional videos they simply don't take help that much in learning this program because of it's counter-intuitive design and workflow — it requires much more of an effort to learn C1.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Walks in Bangkok (GRD3)

[stunsworth]

To me LR is like a modern DSLR with a myriad of functions, C1 is more akin to the Leica M8/9

 

Jeff, sorry, but like the others above I'd reverse the similes. I find LR much more intuitive that C1. While many obviously love C1 I don't think it could be called simple.

[delander †]

Jeff, sorry, but like the others above I'd reverse the similes. I find LR much more intuitive that C1. While many obviously love C1 I don't think it could be called simple.

 

OK but no one has yet answered my query regarding the number of slider controls in LR.

Obviously I'm the only one that finds them somewhat confusing?

 

Jeff

[delander †]

OK but no one has yet answered my query regarding the number of slider controls in LR.

Obviously I'm the only one that finds them somewhat confusing?

 

Jeff

 

I think there are about 60 in all!

 

Jeff

[Jamie Roberts]

For me C1 Pro 5 is so capable and the output so gorgeous (going back and redoing ISO 1250 and 2500 M8 shots right now!) that I have no interest in LR or anything else.

[coup de foudre]

For me C1 Pro 5 is so capable and the output so gorgeous (going back and redoing ISO 1250 and 2500 M8 shots right now!) that I have no interest in LR or anything else.

 

honestly?

 

i'm off for a long weekend and decided to upgrade when i come back, but that is way cool to know! are you still using your own profiles? is the NR better? do tell!

 

********************************************************************************

 

as for the OP's question, i don't think i'll leave C1 any time soon. using it for all my RAW conversions now and then tweaking in Photoshop makes my images look the best they can be. that's all that counts, IMHO.

[Jeff S]

OK but no one has yet answered my query regarding the number of slider controls in LR.

Obviously I'm the only one that finds them somewhat confusing?

 

Jeff

 

I use only a few controls most of the time. If you're going to try it, I again suggest Scott Kelby's LR 2 paperback...very easy reference. Martin Evening also has a decent guide.

 

Jeff

[johnbuckley]

I think there are about 60 in all!

 

Jeff

 

Jeff - Honestly, try it. You'll like it. Of those 60 sliders, on any given image you'll probably use no more than 10. As others can attest, LR is very easy and intuitive, well organized, and becomes automatic very quickly. The complaint people usually have has to do with color rendering, which is why I'm not surprised Jamie's sticking with C1. But since you framed your objection in terms of its difficulty to use, I believe wholeheartedly that it makes Photoshop and C1 seem like advanced calculus compared to LR's simple arithmetic.

[Jeff S]

For me C1 Pro 5 is so capable and the output so gorgeous (going back and redoing ISO 1250 and 2500 M8 shots right now!) that I have no interest in LR or anything else.

 

Don't blame you when you find something that excels for you. I do hope, however, that someone with your knowledge and familiarity with C1 will eventually offer a comparison once LR 3 emerges in its final form. While I'm sticking with LR for its overall functionality and simplicity, it would be nice to know that the LR folks are working toward closing any gaps on color rendering, etc. compared to what I hear from you and others about C1. I'm also sticking with the M8.2, so hope any progress will apply to it, not just the M9.

 

Jeff

[Jamie Roberts]

honestly?

 

i'm off for a long weekend and decided to upgrade when i come back, but that is way cool to know! are you still using your own profiles? is the NR better? do tell!

{snipped}

 

Yep honestly. It's not miraculous, but the NR is much better (and the fact that you can

"see" what you're doing in real time--on the focus tab--in V5 is great. I'm pretty amazed at the ISO 2500 stuff I'm seeing. Way better than before, and might actually be printable!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[glenerrolrd]

A few months ago I finally switched over from just using PS + ACR to C1. I actually bought C1PRO and I felt the quality of the raw conversions was much improved over ACR.

 

Now with the M9 I have the opportunity for a free copy of Lightroom. I've downloaded it and played around with it a bit, but I was curious to see what people are planning to use. Are you switching to Lightroom (or using it all along) or sticking with C1?

 

I actually like the workflow of C1.

 

Currently, I ingest my disks and attach copyright, caption and keyword info in Photo Mechanic. I then edit in Photo Mechanic into a selects folder, which I then open in C1 to do my raw conversions.

 

I really like this workflow and love the captioning and renaming features of Photo Mechanic. It's very simple and intuitive. If I make a mistake, it's also quite easy to, say, change the date or location on a group of photos without affecting the rest of the iptc info.

 

However, since Leica has chosen Lightroom to ship with the M9, I'm wondering if it will be better to use in the long run.

 

I'm curious to hear from people who have had more time to compare the two programs...

 

Noah

 

I ve looked at your website and have a pretty good idea of your mix of work . You should stick with your current workflow . Photomechanic is still a great image editor and allows you to focus your efforts on only your selects verse working on everything.

 

C1 provides the best raw conversions I have seen. I feel its difficult to learn but if you are there you will get great conversions. Then if you use PS for your back end printing,web presentaion etc.

 

LR has some decent DAM capabilities and some advantages with local area adjustment tools but its biggest advantage is its end to end integration isn t worth much to you. If Lr improves its raw conversions to the point that C1 doesn t have such a big advantage ..then I would start to look at LR.

 

You might consider it for your weddings as the fully integrated solution can be very fast and effective and most images probably don t need the full C1 conversion.