How much better is lightroom?

<p>I am currently using the trial of Lightroom 3. Previously all of my editing has been done with elements 5, and DPP from canon.</p>

<p>Is it worth the upgrade? So far it seems to be a HUGE time saver from my old way of doing things... it seems fast, and the noise reduction on the images from my 5D seems much smoother than any other way of doing it.</p>

<p>Are these perceptions correct or is there another program that might be worth my money?</p>

<p>Oh and by the way I am a teacher, so I am looking at getting the program at a discounted price instead of the 300 it will normally cost... so is it worth even the $300?</p>

<p>I guess my biggest question is... will I outgrow lightroom? I'm an avid amateur photographer, just wondering how powerful Lightroom really is since I wont be able to get into everything in these 30 days that I have to test it out.</p>

<p>It's well worth the $300, but Adobe is very good about offering educational discounts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> ...will I outgrow Lightroom?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anything is possible, but I'm a professional with about 18 thousand images on file, and I'm not worried at all about "outgrowing" Lightroom.<br>

It is, however, primarily an organizational tool. I use Photoshop extensively for hard core image editing.</p>

 

<p>Unlike Greg P. I am an amateur photographer who uses LR and thinks it is a wonderful program. Its strength, IMO, is as an organizational tool, but it also has almost all the editing functions that PS has, enabling you to do most, if not all, of your editing in LR</p>

<p>The educational price of Lightroom is around $99, if I recall. (I teach too.)</p>

<p>There are people who swear that DPP is slightly better at rendering Canon RAW files, but I find LR so powerful and helpful that I never even made the comparison. Like Hosteen, I find I can do all of my editing of many images in LR. It does not have layers or masks, and it lacks some other editing features of Photoshop, but when I don't need layers, I can often do everything in LR. Its printing module is very good. And of course it is very good as an organizational tool.</p>

<p>The noise reduction in version 3 is pretty good. I find it is sufficient for most of my shots, but if I have a serious problem, I use Noise Ninja.</p>

Thank you for your input! I think I am satisfied enough that as soon as my trial is up I'll grab the full version.

I've used it since v1.3 and couldn't live without it. Well worth the money. But learn how to DAM before diving in too deep. It will save you a lot of time down the road with good habits.

<p>I switched from doing most edits in PS to most edits in Lightroom and saved a huge amount of time. I love that I can undo anything I do at any point and as the software further improves. I don't think you'll outgrow it as long as Adobe continues to update it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is it worth the upgrade? So far it seems to be a HUGE time saver from my old way of doing things... it seems fast, and the noise reduction on the images from my 5D seems much smoother than any other way of doing it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Objection, Your Honor - asked and answered!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Oh and by the way I am a teacher, so I am looking at getting the program at a discounted price instead of the 300 it will normally cost... so is it worth even the $300?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I started with LR v.1 beta, so I got in the door for $199, but yes. At least <em>I</em> think so. I do use DxO, but probably won't upgrade that again since LR3 has made it mostly redundant. I expect LR's perspective distortion correction will improve, and they could definitely use volume anamorphosis correction.</p>

<p>Some Canon folks prefer DPP and some Nikon folks prefer NX2 because they can render their respective RAW files to use the in-camera picture settings and look exactly like a jpg straight from the camera...to me, it's a textbook Rube Goldberg idea if there ever was one. Some Mac users prefer Aperture, but I think that's because they don't get LR's DAM capability.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess my biggest question is... will I outgrow lightroom?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Highly</em> unlikely. There are full-time pros that teach it, and regularly find new useful ways to do new things with it. You may find the occasional need for more intensive local edits, and might want to get the current version of Elements (a pretty powerful prog these days) or Photoshop. I use Nik Software's <a href="http://www.niksoftware.com/completecollection/usa/entry.php">Complete Collection for LR</a>...it turns LR into a 'global editor on steroids'. People are constantly finding new ways to work with LR, and LR interfaces very well with Elements, PS, and a variety of other external editors, plugins, etc, so there should be plenty to keep you challenged and interested between updates.</p>

<p>As for LR's other functions, you might find another web gallery generator that's a little better for making slide shows with music, if that's your thing. If you ever do outgrow LR, though, please do let us know...you'd be the first one I'd heard of. There's loads of free <a href="http://lightroomkillertips.com/">indispensable information</a> and <a href="http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html">terrific tutorials</a> available online, too. Good luck, and have fun! Post a gallery, and let's see some of your pics after you run them through LR!</p>

<p> </p>

Your perceptions are correct. Get it... :)

<p>im not happy with it, it save me so much time in development and management that i have to find new things to do.. dont recommend it ; P</p>

<p>* i client of mine have more than 75 000 in is library, you should be Ok for some time, or simply create another catalogu in need.</p>

<p>Highly recommend LR and you can keep Element for any pixel manipulation you will not do in LR (<5% in my experience) and skip using the Organizer.</p>