Lightroom 3, Lightroom 4, or neither

[steve_t.1]

<p>So we're watching the retailers dump Lightroom 3 inventories. Adorama yesterday, B&H today, LR4 Beta is available...</p>

<p>I have CS5, bought it 1.5 years ago as a sweetheart deal from Adobe to upgrade from Elements 6. I'll admit, I don't even scratch the surface of utilizing CS5. Over the past year ACR in CS5 has been my workhorse tool, showing me the advantage of shooting raw (the only way I shoot now), and doing probably in excess of 95% of my editing tasks. I really like ACR for its ease of use and non-destructive workflow. And I'd stick with CS5 just to keep the full-function ACR that Elements does not have. I'm no programing wizard and I don't know the science behind it, but if Elements could support the full-function version of ACR, I may still be in Elements right now. And Elements works in a smaller bit-size world, so there's another advantage to staying with something of greater power.</p>

<p>I also do not maintain a complex file management system. I create daily folders (2-4 each month) within monthly folders within yearly folders and keep my file storage simple that way. I don't have subject catagories with landscape in one folder and people in another, etc. This is a fun hobby for me. I'm not managing tens of thousands of files that I access through time for the purposes of making a living.</p>

<p>I'm also on the verge of investing in the Nik software suite, to satisfy my creative appetite.</p>

<p>But I'll admit to being weak when a good deal on something comes along. Lightroom 3 for $70 at B&H today. Sure, they'll hook me with hopes that I'll upgrade to LR4 when it's released. But if someone can give me some rational, objective reasons to either buy, or not buy, Lightroom (3 or 4), I'd be thankful for your thoughts and ideas.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>I think the main thing to consider is whether or not LR3 meets your needs. If so, I'd say go for it. If nothing else, if you decide later that you want LR4, you'll pay the upgrade price, not the full list price...</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Lightroom has many advantages over Photoshop. (1) It is much faster to have all the images from a session at your fingertips than one at a time in Photoshop. (2) The corrections are all soft, and do not affect the original image. Thus, you can change them at any time, or revert to the original, without loss. (3) This feature works for JPEG and TIFF (all formats), not just RAW files. (4) You can mark images in software for selection and add key words for searches. One image can occupy as many categories as you wish, without duplication. (5) Lightroom maintains high-quality thumbnails, even if the original image is off line.</p>

<p>Photoshop is clearly superior for detailed editing and printing, but this gap is shrinking with each new edition of Lightroom. I resort to Photoshop less than 25% of the time, and that too is shrinking.</p>

[ed_v.]

 

<p>Steve, I'd been using CS4 (with Bridge and ACR) for a while and finally bought Lightroom 3 since I could take advantage of education pricing. I'm a casual photographer also, shooting about as frequently as yourself. Here are some things I noticed about using Lightroom over ACR:</p>

<p>Snappier import/export<br>

More flexible controls for color, B&W, cropping, etc.<br>

Excellent noise reduction (I often shoot at high ISO settings for indoor sports)<br>

Automatic lens corrections with lens profiles<br>

Faster and more powerful file management (I'm learning the benefits of keywords, ratings and flags since I got Lighroom)</p>

<p>It's been awhile since I've used ACR in CS4, and most or all of the above could be in CS5, I don't know, but I do enjoy working on my RAW files more since I got Lightroom. There are also probably a whole host of features in Lightroom that I haven't ventured into yet, but I'd say it was worth the $80 I paid at the time.</p>

 

[michael_elenko]

<p>Hi Steve,<br>

Since you use ACR, most of the development value of Lightroom would be redundant. The added value of Lightroom then becomes the asset/file management piece and the printing. As you currently don't employ a more sophisticated metadata-based image filing system, the question is whether LR would be worth it for you?<br>

If you are satisfied with your current practices, then stay happy and save money.<br>

Personally, I think you would be better served in the long run by implementing a modern image file management system instead of using Explorer or the Finder or whatever. Lightroom is great for that. I also strongly prefer the interface of Lightroom over ACR. And it would set you up a little better for using version 4 when it comes out.<br>

I would download the version 4 beta and play with it intensively. That should help you decide whether to go that way in the long run.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[robert_martin5]

<p>I use Photoshop CS5 and process all my NEF files using ACR. I downloaded Lightroom 3 and did not like it because of the file management required to use it - I don't need the database capability and like the flexibility I get with Bridge and ACR. I also downloaded Lightroom 4 Beta because I wanted to see what Adobe did with the RAW converter. I like the modification to the RAW converter and these will also be in Photoshop CS6 with ACR7 when it is released. I plan on upgrading CS5 to CS6 when it is available and do not plan on purchasing Lightroom.</p>

<p>I also have Nikon Capture NX2, but don't use it because I find the workflow not acceptable for processing large number of images and find ACR much more acceptable. I find the camera profile available in ACR do an excellent job matching Nikon Picture control profiles. I have a Nikon D700 and the new version 4 camera profiles with ACR 6.6 give excellent results. </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p><em>"Photoshop is clearly superior for detailed editing and printing"...</em></p>

<p>for seriour editing yes, even Elelement is better than Lightroom.. but for printing?.. Lightroom is light years in front of Photoshop.. not even a close match. Im talking about page layout and option.. the visual print quality is the same of course.</p>

<p>Think of Lightroom as a bridge / ACR on steroid.. all you can do in ACR is doen the same in Lightroom. Why would you use Lr vs ACR.. if you dont need a file amnegement system, if you dont really need keyword, and you are not shoothing lots of images and feel that right now you are doing all you wish with ACR.. dont get Lr.</p>

<p>For me, i wouldtn go back to bridge and acr after using Lightroom for so many years.. but im using it every day of the week..</p>

[klsphoto]

<p>Also, ACR in CS5 is the same as the develop module in LR3, albeit with slightly different user imputs--making it more user-friendly. LR4's develop module is supposed to be even more intuitive for a novice user. The catalog features of LR3 are far beyond "keywording" in Bridge. Another vote for LR3, especially at the great deals out there now.</p>

[stp]

<p>I've been using PS for a number of years, but I don't claim to be an expert by any means. I tried Lightroom for several months, but I saw it only as yet another software program to learn. I didn't need to duplicate my editing program. I have a filing system based on geography and a series of nested folders that works very well for me -- I never have trouble finding a particular photograph. I never want to do batch processing. I save versions of edited photographs so that I always have the original. For me personally, Lightroom isn't necessary.</p>

[chris_letts]

<p>You also say you're on the verge of going for NIK software.<br>

As I've said before on such posts:<br>

1. the way Capture NX2 works is very different to Adobe products etc so you have to be sure you like its methods.<br>

2. always download trial versions of the software and give them a really good tryout before you decide.</p>

[richard__]

<p>I bought Lightroom 3 on one of the half price deals a while ago. I have yet to use it.</p>

<p>First off the main thing that it would do better for me than Bridge / Photoshop is file management.</p>

<p>Well, since I didn't set up an overly organized stucture to begin with years ago, I find I had better do so to implement Lightroom. So that cuts both ways, as what I have works for me now especially using Collections in Bridge.</p>

<p>Also because I shoot film I'm still not generating an unreasonable number of shots which have to be managed. My sense is that Lightroom helps best when you are shooting more than a small number of images a month.</p>

<p>Then there's the issue of those new feature sets in Lightroom 4. Because the Blurb Lightroom plugin has been pulled into the next version, and they have introduced softproofing into Lightroom I figured that could be a winning combination.</p>

<p>Well upon looking at this <a href="http://forums.adobe.com/community/labs/lightroom4/">closer</a> before installing I find that Lightroom doesn't and won't use the CMYK colorspace, and so the Blurb PDF workflow instructions become rather confusing when you understand that it's likely to be more misleading to consider them than not. (In addition the default LR Blurb templates are too limiting for some.)</p>

<p>So I think it's great you want to help the economy grow, but I'm not finding that in all cases it's worth much time to actually setup and use the software, when one could use the time to actually be generating new images. Lightroom's utility is largely a matter of how many images you expect to be post processing in any given time period.</p>

<p>Or maybe you have a digital camera and lenses that are well supported in LR. For the old film, and manual lenses I find I need to generate the Lens Profiles that LR and Camera Raw would need to use, even though the suggestion is that the Automatic profiling in LR4 beats that approach now. But some are suggesting otherwise, and I wouldn't know how well this could work until I spend time checking it out.</p>

<p>So far I'd rather do something else than deal with yet another piece of software which is designed for a 'newer' approach to shooting than mine.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>I use both, I use LR as an ACR on steroids as Patrick said then I go off to PS and then back to Lightroon to tone, I prefer toning an image in Lightroom, it also keeps my PDS's a little smaller. Noise reduction in LR is excellent.</p>

[jean_b.]

<p>I've been using LR for about 6 months now and absolutely love it (except that I paid twice what it is currently going for ;-). I bought it thinking that I would use it only for editing (I did not want something as complicated as Photoshop), but I have come to LOVE the image management. However, there was a bit of a learning curve for me. When I first launched LR I thought: Oh sh*t, this is too complicated. So I bought a book (author: Martin Evening), and after reading a few chapters I still thought: Oh sh*t, this is too complicated. But then I stopped being lazy and took a little time to study the book and watch a few online tutorials and now I don't know how to live without it. Pop is a memory card, the import window pops up with my import presets, and boom: the files get sucked into where I want them to go. In fact, I find that I get to my images much sooner than before, when they used to languish on my memory cards for a while, because it is so easy to get them into my computer and so easy to start browsing through them. I really like the easy way in which I can compare photos, the user interface for editing, being able to easily see the before and after of changes that I make, etc. And while I have never used another application for printing, I can say that printing with LR is an absolute snap. So another thumbs-up vote from me.</p>

[brianhall]

<p>One reason to get it might be: the new LR4 develop engine might not be an update for ACR in CS5... I know CS5 is getting long in the tooth, they may only release the new ACR with the next version of photoshop. I'd almost say go ahead and get LR3, upgrade it to LR4 for a hundred bucks when it's released, and you're still way ahead of buying LR4 outright. And a lot cheaper than the next version of photoshop.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Thanks, Everyone, for your input. After reading all the replies and even doing a test drive download of LR3, I've decided to stick with what I've got. Besides, I'll be needing the purchase price of LR3 for the Nik package.</p>

<p>Chris- I wasn't planning on the Capture NX2 program, just the plug-ins (HDR Efex, Silver Efex, etc), and probably as the entire suite of plug-ins, and host them through CS5. I've been attending the Nik webinars almost daily for the past few weeks, viewing all of the plug-in webinars 2-3 times each, and I really like what I see with these programs.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>I use LR3 all the time, but since I am running it on an old computer, and do not want to buy a new before I have to, I am stuck with LR3 since I'm running WinXP. (No, I don't want to upgrade XP until I have finished scanning my old slides and negatives with my Coolscan V, and I'm too lazy to learn a new scanning program).</p>

[richard__]

<blockquote>

<p>(No, I don't want to upgrade XP until I have finished scanning my old slides and negatives with my Coolscan V, and I'm too lazy to learn a new scanning program).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This statement makes no sense. Nikon Scan works fine on Vista & Win7, on the <a href="00Ryck">x64</a> platforms you have to help it's installation out, but it works fine there too.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<blockquote>

<p>This statement makes no sense. Nikon Scan works fine on Vista & Win7, on the <a href="00Ryck" rel="nofollow">x64</a> platforms you have to help it's installation out, but it works fine there too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then I am misinformed. I have been told that the Coolscan V cannot be run with NikonScan under Win7...</p>

[robert_martin5]

<p>If you want to use Nikon Scan 4.0.3 on a computer running Windows 7 64 bit follow instruction on this site.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sevenforums.com/drivers/44994-getting-your-nikon-coolscan-work-w7-x64.html">http://www.sevenforums.com/drivers/44994-getting-your-nikon-coolscan-work-w7-x64.html</a></p>

<p>I used this to get my Nikon 9000 scanner working on my Windows 7 64 bit professional computer. </p>