a quick question about lightroom

[djslyda]

hi, i have been admiring some of the work on flickr by guys that say stuff like "90% lightroom 10%photoshop" (http://flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2393432141/) what can you do on lightroom that you cannot on photoshop?
thanx!

[HuBBa]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

Basically nothing. But a lot of photographers (me included) like to work with Lightroom to "develop" the photographs as far as possible, then switch to Photoshop for just the stuff you can't do in Lightroom.

But there are no tools in Lightroom that you do not have in Photoshop, just maybe a bit more intuitive.

[djslyda]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

ok, but why split the work between 2 programs when it can all be done in one?

[DJSoulglo]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

Bulk Processing + Easy adjustments + Library management + Quick Previewing is all easier in Lightroom. The more advanced editing you can't do in Lightroom, so you switch to Photoshop for that.

You don't HAVE to use both, but each has it's own advantages over the other one.

[retouchn00b]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

Lightroom is supposed to work better with RAW images than Photoshop.

The primary difference is that Lightroom doesn't actually edit the images; it edits a file describing the changes you make--non-destructive editing. This makes editing a lot safer and means you don't lose data when you run a filter, as you would in Photoshop.

Lightroom provides a more intuitive interface for "developing" images than does Photoshop. Photoshop is a bit of a sledgehammer approach when it comes to developing photos--it does the job but may not be the best tool.

[HuBBa]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

Im not so sure about LR doing a better job with the RAW than photoshop since both use ACR engine for raw handling.

But as retouchn00b pointed out, the fact that all LR changes are stored either in their internal database (bad idea or in a xml file together with the raw (better idea is worth a lot.

And as DjSoulglo said, LR is perfect to organize and handle loads and loads of photos. Photoshop has batch capabilities and bridge can be used as a catalogue, but me personally prefere Lightroom for this.

For me its a question about fast workflow. I can really quickly after a shoot get images fixed (not fully retouched) and get the client to review them and select the shot or shots they want to work with. We're talking minutes from shooting to having a online web based gallery for the client to go in and have a look. Of course, this can be done inside photoshop aswell. but LR is a lot faster to use for that.

Then when the client have decided on images, i take those into Photoshop for final retouching. Simple, fast, and each program has it's place in the workflow.

[garynh]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

djslyda:
Think of this, you shoot 50 photos and realize you had your camera set to the wrong white balance. Now using photoshop, you have to go in and change each and every photo, one at a time. Using Lightroom, one click and they are all corrected.
But the main reason Lightroom was developed, as was eluded to in the earlier posts, is for the terrific management of your photos. With keywords, quick catalogs and everything else, I can find a photo I took last year in about 5 seconds. Try that in Photoshop. Now I do still use Photoshop for my major enhancements, bluring the background, removing artifacts, adding misc. lighting effects etc. etc. So it's not a matter of which one do you use. You pretty much have to use them both to get the full benifit out of the programs.

[djslyda]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

but if you are not someone who would NOT leave their "white balance" on the wrong setting (which is most people) and you are not batch processing photo's then why will a person use lightroom rather than photoshop, as for finding photo's i took (even) 2 years ago, i can find them within 5 secs also because i folder them all by date so I PERSONALLY cannot see any advantage to using lightroom, i hope someone can tell me that i am wrong and that lightroom is better at certain "things" than photoshop but if the only difference is batch processing and speed of processing then please enlighten me, many thanx for the replies.

[pixelzombie]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

you can also batch process and search by keyword with bridge...

[djslyda]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

you can also batch process and search by keyword with bridge...

exactly, so why use lightroom for this?

[pixelzombie]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

i've been told lightroom is bridge on steroids, so i can see why some photogs would prefer it...

[Verywierd]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

exactly, so why use lightroom for this?

Basically, it's as several of the posters have said. Lightroom is meant as a tool for pro photographers who have to quickly batch correct and sort large numbers of images. Once they get into a standard workflow, it is probably more efficient for them to go >lightroom > photoshop even when dealing with only a few shots (or even one), because they are used to doing it that way, especially when dealing with RAW images.

[garynh]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

I just opened Adobe Bridge, which I do not use, but I don't see anywhere in Bridge where I can correct color, exposure, remove dust spots, crop a photo or a miriad of other things I can do in Lightroom. When I'm in LR I can do all of the above to multiple photos at once, and the best part is, it's non-destructive. It does not permanetly alter the original file. I can always go back to the photos original state it need be. I'm not wanting to argue with you, I'm just saying if you want to use LR fine, if you don't fine also. Why don't you tell us why you don't want to use LR and PS as a duo workflow.
I'm sure if you use LR for a while, you'll wonder how you got by without it.
I'm a professional wedding photographer and after I download 800 to 1200 RAW images, I thank Adobe all night long for LR. It has cut my workflow in
half, because of the speed in which I can file, correct, keyword, and crop all my photos. Not only that, but you have a terrific print - slidshow & Web modules.
I can correct all the photos from a particular shoot, and produce a great slideshow all in LR.

[Wolfman]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

I just opened Adobe Bridge, which I do not use, but I don't see anywhere in Bridge where I can correct color, exposure, remove dust spots, crop a photo or a miriad of other things I can do in Lightroom. When I'm in LR I can do all of the above to multiple photos at once, and the best part is, it's non-destructive. It does not permanetly alter the original file. I can always go back to the photos original state it need be. I'm not wanting to argue with you, I'm just saying if you want to use LR fine, if you don't fine also. Why don't you tell us why you don't want to use LR and PS as a duo workflow.
I'm sure if you use LR for a while, you'll wonder how you got by without it.
I'm a professional wedding photographer and after I download 800 to 1200 RAW images, I thank Adobe all night long for LR. It has cut my workflow in
half, because of the speed in which I can file, correct, keyword, and crop all my photos. Not only that, but you have a terrific print - slidshow & Web modules.
I can correct all the photos from a particular shoot, and produce a great slideshow all in LR.

You have to double click on a thumbnail in Bridge and it opens in Camera Raw with all the tools you need for the corrections you mentioned... same as Lightroom and you can do batch corrections and not jump through all the hoops you do in Lightroom with collections,etc. I'm not putting Lightroom down.... if it works for you, that's all that counts.

[Michael Bonner]

Re: a quick question about lightroom

Lightrooom is absolutely indispensable for me:

First, I use it for library management- I have close to 50,000 photos in my library and when I get back from an extensive shoot, I may have as many as 500-1000 photos to go through. Lightroom handles the import beautifully, organizing my photos by their EXIF data. I sort by date and start selecting photos to edit.

Lightroom excels in its filtering system. 3 levels deep, there are nearly 100 different combinations for filtering your photos. This feature helps me enormously by letting me flip through hundreds of photos, separating them into flagged/unflagged/rejected photos, and then 5 different star ratings. I can edit down from 1000 photos to 100 in about half an hour and finding photos is a breeze, especially when you start assigning keywords to them. Sorting by date may be good if you only have a few hundred photos from most days, but when I have to find the 30 photos that I *really* liked out of the 400 that I shot 4 months ago, Lightroom's filtering system becomes more of a necessity than a perk. Add to that the ability to sort out every photo I've ever taken of a certain model by keyword, or the ability to group background resources for compositing the same way and I think you'll really start to see where the benefits of Lightroom lie.

I also enjoy the exporting capability of Lightroom- my website (http://michaelbonnerphoto.com) was created entirely in lightroom and when I need to update it, it's as easy as adding the 'website portfolio' keyword to the photos I want included, going to the web module, and clicking upload. Granted it's more of a slideshow of my portfolio than the fully functioning website of a professional photographer, but when I have the time to sit down and design an actual website, I see the Flash gallery capabilities of Lightroom as quite a positive.