Lightroom

[mitchell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wondered if anyone has impressions of Lightroom or Lightroom Beta 3. I tried to search the old Forum, but I guess we can't access old threads for the time being.

 

Is lightroom easier, and less complex than PS, more useful for photographer? Are it's organizational abilities better than Bridge?

 

Sorry if this is all old news.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

[andybarton]

I wondered if anyone has impressions of Lightroom or Lightroom Beta 3. I tried to search the old Forum, but I guess we can't access old threads for the time being.

 

Is lightroom easier, and less complex than PS, more useful for photographer? Are it's organizational abilities better than Bridge?

 

Sorry if this is all old news.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

 

"Is lightroom easier, and less complex than PS,"

 

Yes, but less powerful too.

 

Consider iViewMedia Pro before Bridge, although Bridge is "free" with PSCS2

[mark_a_h]

Last week I downloaded and started using Lightroom Beta 3 and I like it very much. It has sophisticated organization abilities - makes it easy to take all the files from a shoot and make selects. Great quick develop and full develop abilities. (I'm an old hand at Photoshop, but quite new at processing RAW so I can't compare the two.) I like how Lightroom processes jpeg's and other formats in the same manner as RAW. I also like its ability to copy your adjustments amongst similar shots. It's nice to have the options to work on the files in their original location or make new copies of them. As expected, they also make it easy to jump to Photoshop for manipulation. I haven't explored its slideshow, print or web capabilities.

 

It didn't take very long to get up and running. I had the instruction video running in another window and I just played and paused through the parts I was interested in. I'm 100% certain that I will buy it when it comes out and will use it for all my sorting and processing.

[Guest Metroman]

I have been using lightroom since the first beta was available. I like it and now have it in my worlflow: Lightroom - Photoshop - iViewmedia Pro

 

It can be used very simply in the Library mode or quite complex in Develop mode. Adobe have tried to approach it from the ground up and from a photographers point of view. As I mainly shoot digital and convert to B&W there is plenty in there to play with and get some pleasing results.

 

Adobe have just bought up the RAWShooter product - which I also have been using - but how much, if any, of that software ends up in Lightroom is a moot point. However, Adobe have promised users of RAWShooter Pro 2006 a free upgrade to Lightroom 1 when it is released.

 

At around the same time Microsoft bought up iView Multimedia which makes me a bit nervous as a Mac user!

 

Just get hold of a copy and give it a whirl. The Windows beta is not available yet but is coming. Also get involved with feedback to Adobe as they are listening and responding.

 

Just remember it is Beta software so there are bugs but at least you can be involved in its development....................

[Guest stnami]

If you have great camera skills and shoot raw it is worth while, but so is Aperture, C1 etc as long as you have a backup application for those occasional hard images.

If you rely on burning, dodging, colour corrections and restructuring of images in a big way stick to Photoshop for now

The Lightroom and LightZone R combination works well with B&W

 

"at least you can be involved in its development..." I doubt it they are smart cookies and anything that we think of they have already. It is more like very smart marketing... leave it out there as a carrot and sure to be shour the bunnies are flopping around.

[lesh]

Been using the beta versions as they are introduced - and fwiw I like it.

I plan to use it to manage my image files and to make most refinements, now and again some will need the greater attention that Photoshop can provide.

No reason not to get acquainted with it while it's free.

[mitchell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks everyone. Sounds like something I may try.

 

I was interested because I'm going on a long trip to the Rockies, and am interested in an Apple laptop to download my DMR images. That took me to the issue native programs for the intel based MacBooks, and Lightroom seemed like the only game in town. But, then Conrad pointed out that Capture One is also now native.

 

I'm the kind of guy that isn't great at tech. I'm beginning to realize these issues will always be with us, compatibility and changes....Hopefully I can get to some decent workflow and then just stop with my head in the sand. !:^)

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

[davephoto]

anyone use lightroom for digilux 2 raw files? I've used a number of programs in the past to process canon raw files, but never leica raw for three reasons: 1. i've found that the low compression jpg files produced by the digilux 2 to be excellent (primary reason), 2. writing raw files are slow due to the limited buffer, and 3. the lack of a good conversion program for digilux 2 raw . i'm not inquiring about compatibility -- the adobe labs site shows support for the digilux 2; i'm more interested in hearing from those who have experienced working on digilux 2 raw files, however limited it may be.

[mark_a_h]

anyone use lightroom for digilux 2 raw files?

 

My post above was referring to photos taken with my Digilux 2.

 

Some results here:

http://web.mac.com/mah9/iWeb/Photography/Wabakimi.html

(mainly jpegs, some RAW... all processed through Lightroom)

 

Keep in mind, I'm a noob at this. Your mileage may vary.

[davephoto]

My post above was referring to photos taken with my Digilux 2.

 

Some results here:

Wabakimi

(mainly jpegs, some RAW... all processed through Lightroom)

 

Keep in mind, I'm a noob at this. Your mileage may vary.

 

thanks, Mark. is the workflow in lightroom quite intuitive? substantially different or improved over photoshop? and in what situations do you still revert to photoshop for processing? your photos look great by the way.

[mark_a_h]

Intuitive as much as Photoshop is... so, not a whole lot. But, I found myself comfortable with it quite quickly - watching the tutorial video is a must. I go to Photoshop after for any retouching tasks, cropping (although can do this in Lightroom) and applying Noise Ninja.

[erl]

Dave,

 

If I read your question above correctly, I can suggest you seriously consider using Adobe DNG for standardizing and archiving ALL RAW file, regardless of souce. I use it to convert and archive RAW files from Nikon, LC1(D2) and Epson digital cameras. I then dump the RAW from the camera which is bloated with proprietary stuff, thus saving considerable space on my hardrive. I don't think I am exagerating to say it is becoming an internatiuonal standard.

 

Cheers,

Erl

[vic vic]

hi -

i have tried to use the lightroom a few times, including the beta 3. it looks great indeed in terms of aesthetics. it has additional web gallery builder which is very nice in macromedia style. but it doesnt work smoothly many times (on latest powerbook 1.67). aperture is a much better software at the moment in all aspects.

photoshop has greater control, but if u usually limit yourself to RAW conversion and color editing - the lightroom has all the tools u may need (in develop section). for film users though, u cannot have a tool to clean your film with the lightroom.

as organizer - bridge is much faster and smoother, cause it is very simple and effective software which does what it should do without aesthetical adds on it. aperture is the best as library manager, and the most intuitive as well.

[davephoto]

Dave,

 

If I read your question above correctly, I can suggest you seriously consider using Adobe DNG for standardizing and archiving ALL RAW file, regardless of souce. ...I then dump the RAW from the camera which is bloated with proprietary stuff, thus saving considerable space ....

Cheers,

Erl

 

thank you mark, earl. earl, you bring up another excellent point -- raw files are extremely huge. i usually process my photos and keep two jpg copies: one suitable for printing and one for viewing, eliminating the (canon) raw file. does lightroom incorporate their therwise freely distributed dng converter? and have you noticed a significant reduction in file size by storing in adobe's digital neg format?

[erl]

Dave,

 

My workflow (when organized!) is:

 

1. Convert RAW files to DNG and dump original RAW. This gives an archival 'original' without proprietory bloat that has all essential image capture. This file is approxiamately 1/3 smaller than the original capture with no loss of image data. That represents a great HD space saving!

 

2, Edit and process in RawShooter, now owned by Adobe! Hopefully the good parts of RawShooter will be emulated in Lightroom.

 

3. Final cropping and other adjustments or fine tuning in PSCS, including Noise Ninja if required and sharpening in PhotoKit Sharpener.

 

4. Print using ImagePrint or output to Web.

 

Hope this answers your question fully.

 

Cheers,

Erl

[stunsworth]

Dave, I feel like pleading with you not to throw away the RAW file. It's like throwing away the negative and just keeping a print. What happens when you want to change the interpretation at a future point?

 

Storage is cheap, even PC World in the UK are offering a Toshiba external drive (300 gig?) for £80 or so.

[davephoto]

Dave,

 

My workflow (when organized!) is:

 

1. Convert RAW files to DNG and dump original RAW. This gives an archival 'original' without proprietory bloat that has all essential image capture. This file is approxiamately 1/3 smaller than the original capture with no loss of image data. That represents a great HD space saving!

 

2, Edit and process in RawShooter, now owned by Adobe! Hopefully the good parts of RawShooter will be emulated in Lightroom.

 

3. Final cropping and other adjustments or fine tuning in PSCS, including Noise Ninja if required and sharpening in PhotoKit Sharpener.

 

4. Print using ImagePrint or output to Web.

 

Hope this answers your question fully.

 

Cheers,

Erl

 

thanks, erl. that is helpful indeed. i played around with lightroom this evening and found that it has adobe's camera raw converter built in with conversion to DNG. it's an entirely new program from other imaging products i've used which, imo, requires a relatively high learning curve to master.

[davephoto]

Dave, I feel like pleading with you not to throw away the RAW file. It's like throwing away the negative and just keeping a print. What happens when you want to change the interpretation at a future point?

 

Storage is cheap, even PC World in the UK are offering a Toshiba external drive (300 gig?) for £80 or so.

 

you're absolutely right, steve. with storage costs as low as they are, there isn't any reason not to keep the original files. it wasn't so much a cost issue that let me to discard the raw files, but rather the idea that once i had spent time -- too often too much time -- processing the image to where i was finally content, i shouldn't (and wouldn't) spend an additional minute of my life reprocessing. life is short and if anything, i would prefer to shoot. anyway i haven't shot any raw files in the past 6 months but when i do, i intend to retain the unprocessed and unprocessed versions of the image. after all, i did purchase an external hard drive last month for backing up my photos.

[erl]

Dave & Steve,

 

I agree with you re. retaining an original unmanipulated file for archiving, but my point is that an Adobe DNG is exactly that, minus ONLY the proprietary crap that nobody wants. So you archive the DNG, dump the 'out of camera' file and save space with a cleaner file that is EXACTLY identical to the RAW image data. Then go to work in Lightroom, PS or whatever.

 

Your 'original' remains intact disguised as a DNG file. In fact you have an option to store the RAW inside the DNG anyway, but I cannot image any advantage in that.

 

Please tell me if I am missing some bleeding obvious point, in which case I will go crawl under a rock.

 

Cheers,

Erl

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[spylaw4]

Dave,Steve,Erl,

 

Although I take Erl's point about the DNG being for all intents and purposes identical to the RAW, provided storage space is not a problem, why go to the bother of converting?

 

I certainly would not throw away the RAW/DNG, although I am a bit ruthless at chucking any bad shots away after initial appraisal. I do find that I often return to the RAW file to re-crop, maybe to try a convert to B&W, maybe re-adjust colour.

 

I use Lightroom B3 - never could get on with Photoshop - and like it a lot - straightforward to use, although it does have some quirks and flaws which hopefully will get ironed out. Regrettably my Mac's video card is not man enough to allow me to use Aperture which is definitely frustrating.