ksargent Posted March 22, 2007 Share #1 Posted March 22, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi all, Looking for advice and info here. I have CS2 and will have the upgrade to CS3 at no cost to me (but legal - my wife is a Graphic Artist). Furthermore, I work in education and can get LightRoom for $99 or so. What am wondering is - should I? I like to shoot RAW (with D-Lux 3 and an FZ-30) and I do a lot of B&W conversions. I am comfortable with the Channel Mixer technique so that is what I use. Would LightRoom have anything to offer that might improve my B&W? I'm not a pro, so workload is not an issue for me (I understand that LR is geared for quick production). I also assume that the improved Camera Raw that I hear LR has will be in CS3 - as well as a much nicer Bridge interface. So - I guess my question is - would LR improve my B&W work from RAW? Thanks Ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted March 22, 2007 Share #2 Posted March 22, 2007 Since CS2 (and presumably CS3, when it ships) include ACR, Lightroom wouldn't be strictly necessary - if you like ACR. But many of us think LR is a much more powerful RAW sorter/editor/converter than ACR. It has a very simple (one-click) grayscale conversion, with a handful of presets. Whether that is sufficient for your B&W needs is something only you can answer. You can download the program for a 30-day free trial. I'd say certainly give it a go... Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted March 22, 2007 Share #3 Posted March 22, 2007 Yup, try the demo, answer your own question. I used to use ACR CS2, but don't know CS3. Lightroom is head and shoulders above ACR in every way, except that the conversion results are similar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertknappmd Posted March 23, 2007 Share #4 Posted March 23, 2007 I agree with Casten and just ordered my LR from B&H yesterday.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertknappmd Posted March 23, 2007 Share #5 Posted March 23, 2007 I will keep my PS CS2 for the moment as a patient of mine who does Beta testing for Adobe told me off the record that there were still a fair number of bugs to be sorted out in CS3 and to wait about 6 months.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted March 23, 2007 Share #6 Posted March 23, 2007 I have the trial version of LR now downloaded for a week and am not impressed .... too much bells and whistels .. sliders to pull and push ... and i do not like the whole "data-base" organizer ... because it does not organize my folders on the comuter but just ads stuff to my chaos. For raw-conversion .. i am back to capture one, because i like the results with profiles better. All modules in LR, including printing and webpraparation .... give me the feeling i loose control overe the whole process .... Capture One + PS CS ... get me faster where i want to be: and give me the feeling i am in control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted March 23, 2007 Share #7 Posted March 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know which sliders you want to remove, J. It is certainly not less minimal than C1! It can manage your files for you, both on disk and in the library. You just have to read the documentation, to be honest. Sounds like you did not give it much of a chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 23, 2007 Share #8 Posted March 23, 2007 Yup, try the demo, answer your own question. I used to use ACR CS2, but don't know CS3. Lightroom is head and shoulders above ACR in every way, except that the conversion results are similar. The 4.0 ACR which comes with CS3 is equivalent to Lightroom in functionality. But C1 just gives better files, I believe. Nutshell summary: Lightroom or CS3/ACR4 if you're in a hurry and don't want to learn C1, C1 if you are willing to learn it properly, or have the time to get the best out of some individual file. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted March 23, 2007 Share #9 Posted March 23, 2007 I don't know which sliders you want to remove, J. It is certainly not less minimal than C1! It can manage your files for you, both on disk and in the library. You just have to read the documentation, to be honest. Sounds like you did not give it much of a chance. You might have a point Carsten .. still 3 weeks to go;) My workflow with Capture One and CS is bullet-proof and the same for years .... i honestly do not have the feeling i gain something if i dig deeper into LR. For me there is so far always the need to go to to PS afterwards (sharpening, resizing, work in layers etc), so i could as well do the basic processing in PS ... i have my own set of curves .. so i am fast with that. I have not managed one single raw conversion in LR that matches what i get in Capture one (might be just me )Above that with LR i feel like i am working in a black box with several features: with C1 + CS .. i have far more the feeling i am in control! I will dig into the database options to see how it can organize my actual folders ..... because those facilities + web/ slideshow are the only feautures making it a worthwhile addition to my workflow for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted March 23, 2007 Share #10 Posted March 23, 2007 J., Not to be grumpy about it, but it is hardly fair to criticise a product as an answer to someone asking for more info, when you have only been using it for one week. Anyway... The import dialog has the storage location settings. ACR and Lightroom have very similar settings, so once you map the ACR names to the Lightroom names, it ought to be possible to have an almost identical workflow, as far as developing is concerned. There are modules which many won't need, like Web and Slideshow, but the related settings are hidden away until you choose them, so they don't clutter anything up. Every single panel and tab can be hidden, and the tabs can even be removed from the interface. The little swirls at the bottom of the tabs can be disabled. The interface is very configurable. There are some nice tutorials here, which it might pay off to watch, just to get a feel for it: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Tutorials by Michael Tapes I am no C1 expert, and I do realise that there are several photographers here who claim that C1 does better, but Lightroom does do very nice conversions most of the time. It might be interesting for you to do your best with some shot in both C1 and Lightroom, and then post the DNG here to see if anyone can do better, and then explain how. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 23, 2007 Share #11 Posted March 23, 2007 Yes, Carsten, there are a lot of "features" in Lightroom, just like the Canon or Nikon SLR camera shave a lot of buttons and program modes. But how good are the actual images ? Edmund J., Not to be grumpy about it, but it is hardly fair to criticise a product as an answer to someone asking for more info, when you have only been using it for one week. Anyway... The import dialog has the storage location settings. ACR and Lightroom have very similar settings, so once you map the ACR names to the Lightroom names, it ought to be possible to have an almost identical workflow, as far as developing is concerned. There are modules which many won't need, like Web and Slideshow, but the related settings are hidden away until you choose them, so they don't clutter anything up. Every single panel and tab can be hidden, and the tabs can even be removed from the interface. The little swirls at the bottom of the tabs can be disabled. The interface is very configurable. There are some nice tutorials here, which it might pay off to watch, just to get a feel for it: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Tutorials by Michael Tapes I am no C1 expert, and I do realise that there are several photographers here who claim that C1 does better, but Lightroom does do very nice conversions most of the time. It might be interesting for you to do your best with some shot in both C1 and Lightroom, and then post the DNG here to see if anyone can do better, and then explain how. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted March 23, 2007 Share #12 Posted March 23, 2007 I like them. Try it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
designdog Posted March 23, 2007 Share #13 Posted March 23, 2007 Let me give you my take as a graphics pro and a family - not pro - photographer. Lets say, as you do, that you already have PS CS2. You will of course be upgrading to CS3, which will cost around $149 in a month or so. First, there is nothing that you can do in Lightroom that you can't do in Photoshop, and the reverse is not true. There are some things you can do in Lightroom more conveniently, to be sure - the HSL control is revolutionary at first, but you can do the same thing, with a little work, with curves in PS. Yes you will have to put in some learning time on PS, but that will help you in the long run anyway. For the cameras you own, and for most digital cameras, you will be going to PS for de-noise and sharpening, preferably using plugins, which aren't available for Lightroom - yet. If you plan to do a lot of web galleries Lightroom is super convenient, and there are 3rd party templates available. (But the images are not sharpened!) I never print from Lightroom - I am going to be in PS anyway, for the reasons above, and for the use of layers, etc. and PS has better print control. Lightroom - and Bridge - offer good asset management capabilities, but if that is your need, consider iView Pro. Finally, since we all have limited resources, here is what I would do, from a prioritized spending perspective: 1. upgrade to CS3 2. get noise reduction and sharpening plugins for Photoshop (I use Noiseware and Photokit) 3. get asset management - iView has a good promo going 4. get Lightroom or Aperture 2 All this said, I use Lightroom as the first line of input with all of my photography. But I also use iView, and, of course, PS CS3. -ddog Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevme Posted March 23, 2007 Share #14 Posted March 23, 2007 J., There are some nice tutorials here, which it might pay off to watch, just to get a feel for it: Lynda.com has a tutorial on Lightroom, several on CS2 and one on the CS3 beta. In general, I find the level of teaching superior to that on the actual Adobe website. You pay about $30/month for use or you can order a CD. The Lightroom teacher, Chris Orwig, is a true son of California and, eventually, he wins you over -- at least that was my experience. Deke McClelland's Photoshop and Masking titles are very well done. I find it helpful to have a text editor open at the same time I watch (along with the program itself) in order to take notes. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnwolf Posted March 23, 2007 Share #15 Posted March 23, 2007 Ken, I'm using the Lightroom trial and like it very much, but am waiting for CS3. It shares LR's RAW engine, so it will presumably give the same results -- including similar BW conversion. And I like the integration of ACR, PS, and Bridge, which BTW is vastly improved in CS3. So CS3 sounds like pretty much the same capability, but in one suite. Just one less product to learn/support/upgrade, etc. -- which always appeals to me. Not to mention that you will be buying PS CS3 anyway. Of course, Adobe's marketing positions LR for photographers with large volumes of images, so if that's you, maybe it's for you. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_tanaka Posted March 23, 2007 Share #16 Posted March 23, 2007 Hi all, Looking for advice and info here. I have CS2 and will have the upgrade to CS3 at no cost to me (but legal - my wife is a Graphic Artist). Furthermore, I work in education and can get LightRoom for $99 or so. What am wondering is - should I? I like to shoot RAW (with D-Lux 3 and an FZ-30) and I do a lot of B&W conversions. I am comfortable with the Channel Mixer technique so that is what I use. Would LightRoom have anything to offer that might improve my B&W? I'm not a pro, so workload is not an issue for me (I understand that LR is geared for quick production). I also assume that the improved Camera Raw that I hear LR has will be in CS3 - as well as a much nicer Bridge interface. So - I guess my question is - would LR improve my B&W work from RAW? Thanks Ken Despite all of the current replies (most of which completely ignored your question and offered only the posters' general current stance on Lightroom) an accurate answer is impossible. It's like asking a group of strangers whether a new hammer will make better nail holes. The facts are as follows. 1. Lightroom is designed to be a rather comprehensive digital photographic working environment encompassing cataloging ("digital asset management" - DAM) as well as basic processing and printing. As such, it's a far more specific and encompassing system than the 1-off tool of Photoshop. 2. Lightroom does feature some very nice b&w processing features. Photoshop CS3 does, too. 3. If you're not really interested in DAM and if you're already comfortable with Photoshop's facilities Lightroom will have little to offer you. As suggested earlier, just download the LIghtroom trial and try it for yourself. Of, if that's too much commitment for you right now, just go to one of the seemingly 100,000 free Lightroom tutorials screaming for attention on the Web right now. Your questions will be much more effectively answered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share #17 Posted March 23, 2007 Thanks to all for taking the time to respond. I used LR in beta a while back, but didn't get very far with it; we got CS2 at home soon after so I concentrated on working with it instead. I've become reasonably competent at doing what I do with it - which is a relatively small subset of its capabilities. I'm not wild about the CS2 interface - I find it cluttered. I'm happy enough with Bridge - but I'm an IT professional and I could just as easily (almost) use the Finder; I think in terms of directories. As far as CS3 goes, I'll get it when my wife's employer gets it - not sure when that will be. The attraction of LR to me is (1) its beautiful interface (I love looking at it) and (2) its specificity: I'm not especially interested in liquifying my photos, for example - I just want to turn out the best BW product that I, in my limited experience, can. As Ken T. pointed out, it is a more focused product. That in and of itself might lead to better results. I downloaded the trial version last night and the interface pretty much won me over. I took a B&W conversion that I had done in CS2 and immediately improved it. Not to say that I could not have done that in CS2, but LR seems to offer a much more direct method. Since I'm an educational user, I'm only risking $100, so I went ahead and ordered it. Thanks again for your assistance and your comments. Ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksargent Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share #18 Posted March 23, 2007 btw, regarding noise: it's not that much of a problem for me as I like grain. I'm not really looking for the "medium format" look that a lot of digital users seem to expect and want (not that there's anything wrong with that ). Maybe it's just the Cartier-Bresson books that I've been reading lately. But seriously, I don't do a lot a noise reduction. I tend to use low ISO's anyway and I like the effect with B&W. Ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egibaud Posted March 24, 2007 Share #19 Posted March 24, 2007 try Lightroom and your question will be, should I keep CS3? :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted March 24, 2007 Share #20 Posted March 24, 2007 I'll go against the flow here and state my preference for PS CS2. I'll also wait for the bugs to get worked out, but will undoubtedly move to CS3 in a few months. Maybe it's just that I've kind of "grown up" with PS, but I have no complaints whatsoever about the way it fits into my workflow. I can come in from a shoot with 300 images, open Bridge and make all of my adjustments, then save and rename the files to a folder created for the shoot and walk away without ever even opening Photoshop.. Computer time is about 45 minutes, and that's far less time than I used to spend over a lightbox with a similar number of images. When I need to make more significant alterations to an image, I love the controls available to me in Photoshop--specifically the Healing brush, History brush and Layers. I've also added several plug-ins to make things even faster and easier. I'm looking forward to the upgrade, though I don't feel the need to anything right now that the program isn't capable of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.