Computer Graphics with Photoshop - Why do I need Lightroom?

Author

Why do I need Lightroom?

Annika1980

2007-05-29, 6:16 pm

I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
quickly view them.
Then I use Photoshop to edit them.

So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on
Friday
given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.

So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?

Mike Russell

2007-05-29, 10:15 pm

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180458805.517446.321590@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
> quickly view them.
> Then I use Photoshop to edit them.
>
> So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
> I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on
> Friday given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.

Kelby always puts on a good show, so if someone else is paying the bill and
the drive is not too long, it's a no brainer. I'd go.

> So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?

My two cents: it's a non destructive editing and photo shoot organizing
environment. Some people believe it will eventually replace Photoshop
completely, but my two cents is that this is over the top. Time will tell.

I think of LR as being an important tool that an editor might use to scope
out a large collection of shots, find the ones that are going to click, and
then do some pretty sophisticated adjustments to get them pretty close to
the final product. Photoshop would then be used for the final editing of
individual images.

If you're already using other products to fill this niche, then the Kelby
class would be a good opportunity to see if you want to replace your
workflow with an Adobe product.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

John Passaneau

2007-05-30, 6:16 pm

"Mike Russell" <RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote in
news:vj47i.12601$RX.4386@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:

> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1180458805.517446.321590@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Kelby always puts on a good show, so if someone else is paying the
> bill and the drive is not too long, it's a no brainer. I'd go.
>
>
> My two cents: it's a non destructive editing and photo shoot
> organizing environment. Some people believe it will eventually
> replace Photoshop completely, but my two cents is that this is over
> the top. Time will tell.
>
> I think of LR as being an important tool that an editor might use to
> scope out a large collection of shots, find the ones that are going to
> click, and then do some pretty sophisticated adjustments to get them
> pretty close to the final product. Photoshop would then be used for
> the final editing of individual images.
>
> If you're already using other products to fill this niche, then the
> Kelby class would be a good opportunity to see if you want to replace
> your workflow with an Adobe product.

I liked Lightroom, except there was no way to do something I do to almost
every photo I print. That is doge and/or burn in places. For me that was
a deal breaker. Of course you can go to an external editor and do that
operations but then why use Lightroom and Photoshop when you can do
everything that Lightroom does with bridge and Photoshop which I already
have. If they add that ability I would switch to Lightroom as Photoshop
is a big program that does many things I have no use for.

John Passaneau State college Pa

Quintsys

2007-05-30, 6:16 pm

Annika1980 schreef:
> I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
> quickly view them.
> Then I use Photoshop to edit them.
>
> So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
> I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on
> Friday
> given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.
>
>
> So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?
>
I wondered as well, but right this afternoon I saw a presentation by
Matt Kloskowski, and he convinced me.

Lightroom is for enhancing the photo overall, whereas Photoshop is way
better in enhancing certain spots (and dodging/burning somewhere).
So Lightroom is a photo-organizer as well as a photo enhancer when it
comes to color and light (overall).

Carlo

Joe

2007-05-31, 6:14 pm

John Passaneau <w3jxp@arrl.net> wrote:

<snip>
> I liked Lightroom, except there was no way to do something I do to =
almost=20
> every photo I print. That is doge and/or burn in places. For me that =
was=20
> a deal breaker. Of course you can go to an external editor and do that =
=20
> operations but then why use Lightroom and Photoshop when you can do=20
> everything that Lightroom does with bridge and Photoshop which I =
already=20
> have. If they add that ability I would switch to Lightroom as Photoshop=
=20
> is a big program that does many things I have no use for.
>=20
> John Passaneau State college Pa

Well, if you can do anything with Lightroom then either you don't do =
some
very serious retouch or you don't know Photoshop well enough to know that
Lightroom can't do what Photoshop can. And that's probably why it may =
only
take a newbie few weeks on Lightroom when Photoshop you are looking at =
years
of practicing and learning.

Joe

2007-05-31, 6:14 pm

Quintsys <quint.sys@inter.nl.netniet> wrote:

> Annika1980 schreef:
> I wondered as well, but right this afternoon I saw a presentation by
> Matt Kloskowski, and he convinced me.
>
> Lightroom is for enhancing the photo overall, whereas Photoshop is way
> better in enhancing certain spots (and dodging/burning somewhere).
> So Lightroom is a photo-organizer as well as a photo enhancer when it
> comes to color and light (overall).
>
> Carlo

Lightroom and just about all RAW converters just happen to have just few
simple color/brightness/contrast etc. commands (probably about 1/30 or 1/50
of Photoshop commands) those Photoshop has those commands and lot more, but
because Photoshop has hundreds of them so each needs to know what to use and
where to locate the command etc..

Example, just the color adjusting ARC v3 has around dozen, Lightroom adds
around 2 more windows (most people may only use 1) so Lightroom has around 3
dozens, when with Photoshop you may be looking at 200-300+ of them.

just bob

2007-05-31, 6:14 pm

"John Passaneau" <w3jxp@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9940664BFD88Djxp16psuedu@128.118.141.40...

>
> I liked Lightroom, except there was no way to do something I do to almost
> every photo I print. That is doge and/or burn in places. For me that was
> a deal breaker. Of course you can go to an external editor and do that
> operations but then why use Lightroom and Photoshop when you can do
> everything that Lightroom does with bridge and Photoshop which I already
> have. If they add that ability I would switch to Lightroom as Photoshop
> is a big program that does many things I have no use for.

Agreed. And not having a way to apply sharpening meant I needed Photoshop.
I bought a copy of Lightroom and used it for a while - still have it on my
PC - and show it off to people who are interested, but my workflow is better
with Bridge and CS.

John McWilliams

2007-05-31, 6:14 pm

just bob wrote:
> "John Passaneau" <w3jxp@arrl.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9940664BFD88Djxp16psuedu@128.118.141.40...
>
>
> Agreed. And not having a way to apply sharpening meant I needed Photoshop.
> I bought a copy of Lightroom and used it for a while - still have it on my
> PC - and show it off to people who are interested, but my workflow is better
> with Bridge and CS.

There is sharpening in LR, but it's not up to snuff. I am awaiting the
1.1 version eagerly to see what improvements there are in it.

If one feels one needs to d+b on most photos, that suggests to me that a
bit more attention to lighting pre shutter might be in order. No? Yes?

Also, the control used to remove vignetting from (some) lenses can be
used to add such for those who desire.

--
John McWilliams

Joe

2007-05-31, 6:14 pm

"just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> wrote:

> "John Passaneau" <w3jxp@arrl.net> wrote in message=20
> news:Xns9940664BFD88Djxp16psuedu@128.118.141.40...
>=20
almost[color=darkred]
was[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
already[color=darkred]
Photoshop[color=darkred]
>=20
> Agreed. And not having a way to apply sharpening meant I needed =
Photoshop.=20
> I bought a copy of Lightroom and used it for a while - still have it on=
my=20
> PC - and show it off to people who are interested, but my workflow is =
better=20
> with Bridge and CS.=20

Same here, while waiting for CS3 to release (and I can't get CS3 beta =
to
install) so I bought Lightroom to give it a try, and trying to stay ahead=
of
the game. And I find that Lightroom displaying is way too slow for my
taste, the adjustment works kinda different than ARC (the one I have been
using for over a year), and it doesn't work well with Photoshop (doesn't
have single_button to launch Photoshop) so LR is a turn off to me.

I spent few weeks working, learning Lightroom and because I was learning
so I didn't get much done, or I should be able to get lot more done =
within
1-2 hrs with ARC.

Barry Pearson

2007-05-31, 10:16 pm

On May 31, 6:57 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
> There is sharpening in LR, but it's not up to snuff. I am awaiting the
> 1.1 version eagerly to see what improvements there are in it.
[snip]

Among other things, there will be a major improvement in sharpening!

The following is about ACR 4.1, but the same will apply to Lightroom
1.1:
http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31...-camera-raw-41/

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

just bob

2007-05-31, 10:16 pm

"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1180650973.137778.147680@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 31, 6:57 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> [snip]
>
> Among other things, there will be a major improvement in sharpening!
>
> The following is about ACR 4.1, but the same will apply to Lightroom
> 1.1:
> http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31...-camera-raw-41/
>

That's great. I look forward to see how it works as I'm concerned the
sharpening will be applied to the full-size image when I want to sharpen
after resize.

just bob

2007-05-31, 10:17 pm

"Joe" <joe@dontspam.com> wrote in message
news:q55u535osq9js0jrkrl44p51g6cg4om76f@4ax.com...
"just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> wrote:

> "John Passaneau" <w3jxp@arrl.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9940664BFD88Djxp16psuedu@128.118.141.40...
>
>
> Agreed. And not having a way to apply sharpening meant I needed Photoshop.
> I bought a copy of Lightroom and used it for a while - still have it on my
> PC - and show it off to people who are interested, but my workflow is
> better
> with Bridge and CS.

>Same here, while waiting for CS3 to release (and I can't get CS3 beta to
>install) so I bought Lightroom to give it a try, and trying to stay ahead
>of
>the game. And I find that Lightroom displaying is way too slow for my
>taste, the adjustment works kinda different than ARC (the one I have been
>using for over a year), and it doesn't work well with Photoshop (doesn't
>have single_button to launch Photoshop) so LR is a turn off to me.

Similar experience with LR and CS3: displaying images is a little slow.

When if they update the sharpening in LR like they did in CS3 with ACR 4.1,
I will give it another try (changing my workflow). But me thinks Adobe is
not going to let LR have too much more of what CS can do.

John Passaneau

2007-06-01, 6:14 pm

John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in
news:p6KdnTDXNLz5kcLbnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@comcast.com:

> just bob wrote:
>
> There is sharpening in LR, but it's not up to snuff. I am awaiting the
> 1.1 version eagerly to see what improvements there are in it.
>
> If one feels one needs to dab on most photos, that suggests to me that
> a bit more attention to lighting pre shutter might be in order. No?

I find that most photos can benefit from a bit of corner darkling, some
dust spot removal and other cosmetic adjustments. I do mostly high
magnification pictures of mineral specimens. The average size of what I
photograph is about 1mm. I use bellows and special macro lens with fiber
optic lighting and the distance between the lens and object is about
12mm, not a lot of room for fancy lighting effects. So I’m left to do it
in photo shop. I’ve come to digital photography from a 30 year history of
wet darkroom work. I’m very used to burning and dogging and my mind set
is still to replicating what I’ve done for a long time.

> Yes?
>
> Also, the control used to remove igniting from (some) lenses can be
> used to add such for those who desire.
>
>

In the end I’m getting as good if not better prints now than I did in the
wet darkroom days, and I can do it the light while sitting in a comfy
chair.

John Passaneau

John McWilliams

2007-06-01, 6:14 pm

John Passaneau wrote:
> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in

[color=darkred]

[I wrote d+b, but 'dabbing on' is quite apt, too.]
[color=darkred]
> I find that most photos can benefit from a bit of corner darkling, some=
=20
> dust spot removal and other cosmetic adjustments. I do mostly high=20
> magnification pictures of mineral specimens. The average size of what I=
=20
> photograph is about 1mm. I use bellows and special macro lens with fibe=
r=20
> optic lighting and the distance between the lens and object is about=20
> 12mm, not a lot of room for fancy lighting effects. So I=92m left to do=
it=20
> in photo shop. I=92ve come to digital photography from a 30 year histor=
y of=20
> wet darkroom work. I=92m very used to burning and dogging and my mind s=
et=20
> is still to replicating what I=92ve done for a long time.
>=20
[color=darkred]
> In the end I=92m getting as good if not better prints now than I did in=
the=20
> wet darkroom days, and I can do it the light while sitting in a comfy=20
> chair.

Or, sitting up in bed, as I am doing this minute..... <s>.

John- It isn't clear to me if you are using LR for your processing, but=20
everything you describe can be done in LR, batch processsed.

--=20
John McWilliams

John Passaneau

2007-06-01, 6:14 pm

John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in
news:G5ydndY3DM0iy_3bnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com:

> John Passaneau wrote:
>
>
>
>
> the
>
> Or, sitting up in bed, as I am doing this minute..... <s>.
>
> John- It isn't clear to me if you are using LR for your processing,
> but everything you describe can be done in LR, batch processsed.
>

No I’m not using Lightroom. I used the beta for a while, and I couldn’t
find a way to do burning and dogging without going to Photoshop. In the
end as I already had Bridge and Photoshop which could do everything that
Ligthtroom does, plus burning and dogging I saw no reason for me to use
Lightroom. I liked the idea of Lightroom but I envisioned it as a tool
for photographers, as an replacement for a “wet” darkroom where I could
do all the normal things that a print central photographer needs.
Photoshop, to me is leans heavily to the graphic desiger/offsetprinter
type of user and has things that I will never use. It would have been
nice to have a simplified software package for what I do that cost less
and was lighter and more nimble that Photoshop is. In some ways
Photoshop Elements is closer to what I want than Lightroom is but the
last I looked it was crippled by not having curves and a few other
useful or necessary tools.

John Passaneau

John McWilliams

2007-06-01, 6:14 pm

John Passaneau wrote:
> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:G5ydndY3DM0iy_3bnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com:=20
>=20
[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>=20
> No I=92m not using Lightroom. I used the beta for a while, and I couldn=
=92t
> find a way to do burning and dogging without going to Photoshop. In the=

> end as I already had Bridge and Photoshop which could do everything tha=
t
> Ligthtroom does, plus burning and dogging I saw no reason for me to use=

> Lightroom. I liked the idea of Lightroom but I envisioned it as a tool
> for photographers, as an replacement for a =93wet=94 darkroom where I c=
ould
> do all the normal things that a print central photographer needs.
> Photoshop, to me is leans heavily to the graphic desiger/offsetprinter
> type of user and has things that I will never use. It would have been
> nice to have a simplified software package for what I do that cost less=

> and was lighter and more nimble that Photoshop is. In some ways
> Photoshop Elements is closer to what I want than Lightroom is but the
> last I looked it was crippled by not having curves and a few other
> useful or necessary tools.=20

Ah, I see. It's possible that LR will develop into such a tool, but who=20
knows? Localized D + B has been talked about, and the 1.1 release is=20
around the corner, but I doubt that version will have other than the=20
vignette- (add or remove) tool and the spot/dust removal and cloning in i=
t.

--=20
John McWilliams

Joe

2007-06-01, 10:14 pm

"just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> wrote:

> "Joe" <joe@dontspam.com> wrote in message=20
> news:q55u535osq9js0jrkrl44p51g6cg4om76f@4ax.com...
> "just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> wrote:
>=20
that was[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
already[color=darkred]
Photoshop[color=darkred]
Photoshop.[color=darkred]
on my[color=darkred]
=20[color=darkred]
>=20
to[color=darkred]
ahead=20[color=darkred]
been[color=darkred]
(doesn't[color=darkred]
>=20
> Similar experience with LR and CS3: displaying images is a little slow.
>=20
> When if they update the sharpening in LR like they did in CS3 with ACR =
4.1,=20
> I will give it another try (changing my workflow). But me thinks Adobe =
is=20
> not going to let LR have too much more of what CS can do.=20

Me, I work a lot with headshot portrait so I almost never sharpen the
whole image, and I often apply soften on female portrait. And besides =
some
not important photos like church events, almost all wedding, portrait =
photos
have to go through Photoshop before go to printlab. So to me, there is =
no
way I can go without Photoshop