How useful is Adobe's Lightroom?

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I'm not much with PP, I use PSE 8 and Nikon NX2. I have an offer from Adorama for Lightroom 5 for $99 which is a $50 savings. What would I gain compared to what I'm currently using?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>What do you shoot? How do you shoot? What do you need to do with the photos after you shoot?</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>For me I don't shoot that much really even on overseas maybe 25/day on digital. To me it organises my pix so well .. .it's my one stop shop file browser. But there is no issue with traditional folder structure if you ok with that. You can try download the free trial ....</p>

<p>Edit I am not a total fan of PP either, I edit my shots in LR maybe 1 or 2min pulling some bars for many of them and then hit export to JPEG. </p>

[peter_perry]

<p>Mark, when I went to Lightroom 4 (from an old version of ACDSee) and switched to shooting in RAW format, it revolutionized my experience of photography. I shoot primary for my own enjoyment and the creation of art, and secondarily for snapshots for the family album. I love using Lightroom (and extensions) to process the RAW files and perfect the images I've captured in camera. Definitely download the trial and play with it, but play with it not just in Library mode to organize files, but in develop mode with some RAW images and see if it is for you.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I liked Lightroom 4 so well I bought it. I'm a cheapskate and usually prefer freeware and inexpensive shareware. So it takes a lot to persuade me to buy anything from Adobe. Lightroom is that good. It has streamlined my workflow and facilitated greater visual consistency within multi-photo projects.</p>

<p>But I didn't buy it immediately. Nope, I tried it for a month in the spring of 2012 and was very impressed, but decided I could find something cheaper. I tried Raw Therapee for a few months. Finally I bought LR4 in late 2012. I'll probably upgrade to LR5 for the enhanced brush and gradient tools and other improvements.</p>

<p>I use other brands in addition to Nikon, so I wouldn't buy Capture. I don't do enough manipulation to need Photoshop but might eventually add PSE.</p>

<p>Lightroom isn't perfect. Picasa is quicker for sorting through lots of photos to locate or delete photos. But this tends to mess up Lightroom's catalog so I force myself to use LR for deleting photos. I wish the sidebars were more compact - they waste screen real estate. And there are always a handful of photos that LR just can't seem to find even when Picasa and other viewers have no trouble finding and organizing photos. There's probably a way to fix that but I'm too impatient to figure it out.</p>

<p>Overall LR is very intuitive and the editing tools emulate familiar wet darkroom techniques, without being unnecessarily slavish toward mimicking the physical tools of the traditional darkroom.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Lightroom is great. I bought it this year after using capture one 6 express for a few years. I'll probably upgrade to LR5.</p>

[pge]

<p>Mark, this is a very interesting question. I think the short answer is, if you are asking if you need a piece of software you probably do not. Lightroom is great, but you say you aren't into PP so why complicate things for yourself.</p>

<p>I have been really interested to read how others use Lightroom. I don't use it at all like Ray and Peter, not better or worse, just different. Peter gave up ACDsee to use Lightroom. I use both. My workflow is that I shoot Raw only, I import into Lightroom converting all my Raw files to adobe's raw format DNG. In Lightroom I choose the keepers, I do all adjustments and then I export JPEG's to my photo collection. I use ACDsee to view my photo collection, and I use Photoshop to work on any JPEG's that I want to, Liquify, etc.</p>

<p>If you do decide to get Lightroom I would recommend that you take an online course. I have been using Adobe products since 1997 and although they are wonderful pieces of software, I do not consider them to be very user friendly. To take full advantage of Lightroom you need some knowledge. Lynda.com has great courses. I think they are $25 a month and you only need a few days to take a Lightroom course. I am sure they also have an Elements course. Well worth it.</p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>I wish the sidebars were more compact - they waste screen real estate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am somewhat confused by this. The sidebars resize to some degree and can disappear or reappear with a single click as needed. I am thinking you have quite a small monitor.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I am somewhat confused by this. The sidebars resize to some degree and can disappear or reappear with a single click as needed."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I prefer to have the sidebars continuously visible during editing on my desktop rig, but narrower than the narrowest available width now in LR4. When using the laptop with smaller display, tho', I toggle the sidebars on and off.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I am thinking you have quite a small monitor."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am thinking my e-penor is a quite satisfactory 22".</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>Lex, would you consider an unsupported hack? You use Windows (not Mac), right?</p>

<p>Put the following string (including the quotes) into a file called TranslatedStrings.txt:</p>

<blockquote>"$$$/locale_metric/Win/Panel/minWidth=200"</blockquote>

<p>The default is 250. Adjust to taste.</p>

<p>Put the file in:<br /> \Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom\Resources\en<br /> (I'm not a Windows guy, I might have the path slightly wrong, hopefully you can figure it out.)</p>

<p>Disclaimer: The use of unsupported hacks may increase the risk of head lice.</p>

<p>Warning: Future Lightroom updates may overwrite this file.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Hey, thanks, Mark, I may give that a try on the laptop's install of LR4. I don't see the \en folder but there are folders for several other languages so I can use those as a reference. Looks like the default is 298 in the German version, and I'll check the others later.</p>

[stephen_doldric]

<p>Coming from NX2 and a completely different workflow it took me a while to adjust to LR. The first time I downloaded the trial, I gave up after a few days and went back to my old way. But the reality is a LOT of photographers use it and they use it for a good reason. So I bought a copy of it and decided to power through it. There is a learning curve, but once you get through it, there is a substantial payoff. For event type shoots, I do all my work in Lightroom. For portraits that need heavy editing, I start in lightroom, get my exposure, white balance, etc, then edit in Photoshop (via lighroom), then back to Lightroom for final output and cropping, etc.</p>

<p>I highly suggest switching to RAW (if you are not already) when you start using Lightroom as RAW has a lot of benefits such as white balance and more leeway in exposure and many more.</p>

 

[mark_sirota1]

<p>Lex, if the \en folder doesn't exist, just create it and stick the TranslatedStrings.txt file in there.</p>

<p>On the Mac you can put the TranslatedStrings.txt file in the parent \Resources folder and an entries in it will override settings in the localized file, but I'm told that's not true on Windows.</p>

<p>Please let me know what you find!</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Invaluable for organising and for large amounts of pictures to work on but for me it's mostly a RAW converter on steroids for the type of work I produce. I wouldn't be without it though.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>RAW + Lightroom + Photoshop for me, highly flexible combo, I still use ACDsee for file management, I think because that's what I've been used to for ages and can't be bothered trying to get the hang of Adobe.</p>

<p>Re: Lightroom, it is unbelievably flexible and more you use it the more you find that it can do. I don't think of PP as some kind of special effects/art filters tool but as the best way to make any picture come out as I think it should. I think this is particularly important because often you do have to fight against what Nikon (and all camera manufacturers) in their wisdom have decided is, on average, the best "look".</p>

<p>Quite often my first Lightroom development "click"is Auto tone, it is rarely better than the unchanged picture or how I would want things but it can give great clues to which direction you may go by via slider values. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>I do just about everything in Lightroom. The workflow is vastly superior to any other program that I have used. I haven't worked with Photoshop CS once this year. </p>

<p>I have specialized program for Panoramas and HDR Efx Pro for the rare occasions when I work with HDR, but everything else - and I mean everything - is done in Lightroom. My website is a virtual advertisement for the program. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p> What would I gain compared to what I'm currently using?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You gain:</p>

<ul>

<li>An end-to-end workflow process; from import -> catalog -> organization -> development -> book -> slideshow -> print -> web -> customized export to wherever in whatever format</li>

<li>100% non-destructive processing. It keeps track of everything you do/did and you can go back to whichever state in the history.</li>

<li>Apply presets easily</li>

<li>LR is particularly useful if you have many images. Develop a strategy and you will select and discard images quickly </li>

<li>Virtual copies and collections do not take up additional space on your drive</li>

<li>Interaction with Adobe Photoshop</li>

<li>Other features which may be of particular interest to you</li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I have LR 4 and I much prefer using Photoshop and Bridge! I'm a control freak when it comes to my files, and LR seems to create folders I don't want all over the place. I have particular folders and subfolders for my raw files, and separate folders for various subjects which are arranged by date. LR just messes up my system. I use ACR for raw conversion (I shoot everything in raw) and go directly to PS for post production. For me, LR has just too many bells and whistles and makes my own system more complicated. Go figure. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Steve, PS/Bridge are nice. But they are different.</p>

<p>Actually you can pretty much create the folder locations the same way you normally do. Then when you import, choose "Add" (i.e., do not copy/move to other locations). Then the source and destination would be the same.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> LR seems to create folders I don't want all over the place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

LR can't do that. You need to take some time to understand how it works. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>LR creates its own "catalog previews" in Users/owner/my pictures/lightroom/lightroom4preview catalog. I didn't tell it to do that. I simply want to place my raw files in a single folder in a different location called "images/raw2013" without a bunch of "previews" somewhere else on my hard drive!</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>Steve, a single previews database package doesn't quite line up with "all over the place".</p>

<p>Lots of programs that you use create caches, temporary files, lock files, and the like "all over" your hard drive. Does every program that does this bother you? (You're using a web browser right now. It does this too; there is almost certainly a cache of all the images on this page, and possibly the text content, style sheets, and more somewhere on your hard drive.)</p>

<p>You can't use Lightroom without the previews. If that model bothers you, then Lightroom isn't for you; it's the nature of a database-driven design. You might prefer a file browser like Bridge.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>True what Mark says. But Steve,<strong> you can actually decide where you want to place the LR catalog</strong> as well: File->New Catalog ->navigate to wherever you wish to place the catalog, create a folder name of your choice. LR catalog will be created within your folder with the name you gave it. It will also create a subfolder where preview data will be placed. </p>

<p>Tip: <strong> Backup</strong> and<strong> Optimize</strong> your catalog after major processing. In fact, for extra security - because the catalog keeps track of your processing data - it's a good idea to keep one backup copy in another drive. In order not mess up LR's memory, once the images are imported, it is important to avoid handling them outside of LR (e.g., avoid copying, moving, deleting, etc. using Windows Explorer or other apps). Hwvr, no fear even if you inadvertently "mess up". LR will show a "?" when it cannot find your file, and you can navigate LR to the proper location and have it included again.</p>

<p>Recommended: Lynda.com's LR courses.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>You can also set things up so that Lightroom automatically discards large previews after a period of time. This keeps the file creep down.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Yeah, I still can't just get LR to place my raw files in the directory where I want them. I don't have catalog files with ACR and Bridge. I like to copy files to a back up hard drive easily as well without having to deal with the catalog files as well. Bridge doesn't need to "know" where my original file is, I simply go there. I think the fact that I have been using a system for over 10 years now that doesn't include catalog files and so forth, and that works very smoothly for me, the conversion to LR is just more trouble that it is worth for me. The tools are great, but I do just fine and very efficiently with Bridge/ACR. I still have the original raw files from my D70 from 2004 just where I put them. ACR does not alter the raw files when making jpgs or tiffs either, same as LR. </p>

<p>I think for someone who is getting started with file organization and especially with raw files, LR may be the way to go. For old timer's like me who have a well running system, it introduces a whole "nuther" system that just conflicts with my existing one. <br>

</p>