Why Do I need Lightroom?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, May 29, 2007.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    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?
     
    Annika1980, May 29, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On May 29, 7:07 am, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > 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 down loaded the free trial of Lightroom and mostly I liked it. In
    most cases I could do everything in lightroom that I needed to get a
    final image ready for whatever, printing, putting on the web etc. I
    found the work flow a fair bit faster when I could do everything in
    lightroom compared to converting a film and editing it and then
    saving.

    In the end I deciding that whereas it was nice it was not worth the
    $200 for me, if I were a pro I would buy it without thinking.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, May 29, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Max Perl Guest

    "Annika1980" <> skrev i en meddelelse
    news:...
    >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?
    >


    The RAW converter in CS3 is very similar to Lightroom.......same
    functions......so probably same software.
    Lightroom has some default settings you can choose from. They can be a good
    starting point. There are also
    a good tool to see "before" and "after" you made some modifications. I have
    not used the library functions, but
    some people think they are useful. There is a backup function also.
    What I like is that when you have imported some RAW images and start make
    modifications......you can just
    close down the program and start again later from where you closed down the
    program. Like in rawshooter
    you can mark you images and put them into groups. Rawshooter has the
    possibility to make raw conversion
    in batch. One should think Lightroom has the same function. It was very
    useful. I use Lightroom but have not
    looked for this function yet :)

    Lightroom also have a very good history log so you are able to go back to a
    previous state. Also think the
    snapshot function is a function where you can store a current state of the
    image so you can go back quickly.
    So there are a number of small utilities which are nice to have.

    Yon can print directly from Lightroom.......never tried this.

    An expert user may come up with a lot more............


    Max
     
    Max Perl, May 29, 2007
    #3
  4. Annika1980 wrote:
    > 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.


    Only you can decide that; Scott is hard to take in doses of more than 20
    minutes!

    Were I you, I'd download the app immediately and give it a spin; that
    way if you do go, you'll absorb that much more and maybe have an
    intelligent question or two, above of course, the 18 all ready
    intelligent questions you surely have.
    ;)


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


    It's designed to be a photographer's tool, not a pixel editor. It makes
    importing, sorting, tagging and adjusting images easy, what with
    templates installed and ones you can make for batches.

    It is premised on shooting RAW, and then tweaking images in that format
    and then exporting as TIFF, JPEG and/or PSD files if they are needed for
    other. Templates are great to use here, also.

    It has a five module approach, but I barely look at the web interface
    nor slideshow. I've printed to an Epson 7800 with it, but most of my
    printing goes through PS, so I print from that.

    http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

    Does it do stuff PS cannot? I'm not fully sure, aside from being a
    Digital Photo Manager, but it does it differently, and much better for
    me than Bridge + PS.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, May 29, 2007
    #4
  5. Annika1980 wrote:
    > 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?
    >

    Cost You some more money.

    Väinö Louekari
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?V=E4in=F6_Louekari?=, May 29, 2007
    #5
  6. "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    >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 find that Lightroom is pretty much exactly what I want in a raw converter.
    The functionality is great. (C1 does a better job at minimizing color Moiré,
    and maybe extracting the most detail. Maybe. But is pricey if you need
    rotation, which I do.)

    The workflow is a bit nutty, and you do best if you submit to its view of
    the world, which involves allocating inordinate amounts of disk space for
    cached previews, and only looking at previews at 1:1 (100% pixels). It does
    image management. Rudely and intrusively. You WILL follow its model. Period.

    LR is painfully slow if you compare images in the Develop module at 1:1
    (100% pixel view), which I tend to do. I'm not interested in images that
    aren't critically sharp at the pixel level, so I get nervous and look and
    the world grinds to a halt. And the print module has defeated me.
    Completely.

    For free, it was a good deal. For US$300? ACR + CS3 + C1 may make more
    sense. (I'm still on PS7 until next month.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 29, 2007
    #6
  7. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    >> 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 find that Lightroom is pretty much exactly what I want in a raw converter.
    > The functionality is great. (C1 does a better job at minimizing color Moiré,
    > and maybe extracting the most detail. Maybe. But is pricey if you need
    > rotation, which I do.)
    >
    > The workflow is a bit nutty, and you do best if you submit to its view of
    > the world, which involves allocating inordinate amounts of disk space for
    > cached previews, and only looking at previews at 1:1 (100% pixels). It does
    > image management. Rudely and intrusively. You WILL follow its model. Period.


    I didn't find it either nutty nor excessively rigid. I use both 1:1
    previews and smaller sizes. I have my previews set to expire after 30 days.
    >
    > LR is painfully slow if you compare images in the Develop module at 1:1
    > (100% pixel view), which I tend to do. I'm not interested in images that
    > aren't critically sharp at the pixel level, so I get nervous and look and
    > the world grinds to a halt. And the print module has defeated me.
    > Completely.


    On my MacBookPro, images at full pixels are fast, but I tend to create
    the previews while I am reading usenet, for example.
    >
    > For free, it was a good deal. For US$300? ACR + CS3 + C1 may make more
    > sense. (I'm still on PS7 until next month.)


    I'm a professional student (!) as well as photographer, so mine cost me
    $99.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, May 29, 2007
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2007-05-29 10:07:10 -0700, Annika1980 <> said:

    > 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?


    It will manage your workflow. Granted, you do that already with
    Downloader and Breezebrowser, but Lightroom does manage to have a few
    features that those do not.

    It depends a little bit on what Kelby shows you. If he shows you the
    workflow aspects of Lightroom, you can see what it is for. Lightroom is
    there from image acquisition, either tethered or un-tethered, through
    organizing, rating, selecting, editing, publishing, and archiving your
    files. The whole point of view in Lightroom is workflow. Everything is
    labeled as a stage in workflow.

    You can do this in Aperture, but Aperture does not direct your workflow
    so overtly. It does not have separate screens for library and editing,
    for example. Nevertheless, it is the same sort of product. I tend to
    favor Aperture because of its cleaner look and simpler interface, but I
    like Lightroom a lot. The most recent updates of Aperture run as fast,
    if not faster, than Lightroom on an Intel processor.

    But the point is this: products like Lightroom and Aperture are popular
    because they fill a need -- a way to organize your work efficiently. If
    you are already well organized then you will find these programs can
    enhance that organization.
    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, May 29, 2007
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On May 29, 4:04 pm, C J Campbell <>
    wrote:
    > It depends a little bit on what Kelby shows you. If he shows you the
    > workflow aspects of Lightroom, you can see what it is for. Lightroom is
    > there from image acquisition, either tethered or un-tethered, through
    > organizing, rating, selecting, editing, publishing, and archiving your
    > files. The whole point of view in Lightroom is workflow.


    It looks like that's the way it will be presented ... from the actual
    shoot to the print. Here are some details of the program for anyone
    who might be interested:
    http://www.photoshopseminars.com/class/161/

    I've been to a few seminars at that location before, but don't recall
    any of them selling out a 500-seat room. They had to move into a
    bigger hall to accomodate all the attendees. I suppose I might just
    go although listening to Kelby for a whole day might make me a little
    violent. At least I'll have a good lunch (at the KFC just down the
    street).
     
    Annika1980, May 29, 2007
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Ryadiia Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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?
    >


    Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter.
    It's main claim to fame is a somewhat questionable ability to recover blown
    highlights. The underlying technology is provide you the ability to use
    plugins which produce different results based on someone's idea of what a
    certain type of picture is supposed to look like. You can make your own.
    There are a set of WOW filters with pre-sets available free. I used them
    once or twice but after making my own, discarded them.

    The original raw shooter required the purchase of separate "colour engines"
    for different cameras. With the amount of fiddling you enjoy, it's highly
    likely you will have no use for it. I use it to process 600 or 700 shots in
    one batch, all with the low contrast style people here don't like. I still
    need to use PS for HDR and various touch ups but you do that with ACR
    anyway.

    I got it free because I had bought raw shooter pro when it was released.
    Based on RS's performance I never would have bought it. Based on how it
    manages to mangle some images it shouldn't, I still wouldn't have bought it.
    I certainly won't upgrade it. For developing Canon images I firmly believe
    you can't go past Canon's own Digital Photo Professional. Each to their own.

    Douglas
     
    Ryadiia, May 29, 2007
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    Ryadiia wrote:
    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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?
    >>

    >
    > Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter.


    That's fairly close. Lightroom came only after Adobe bought the company
    that made RawShooter, so the similarity isn't a coincidence. I got my copy
    of Lightroom for free, as a result of already owning RawShooter
    remium... -A pretty good deal, seeing as Premium cost about $99, and
    Lightroom runs twice that.

    It has similar tools to RawShooter, but adds quite a bit to it.
    I find the dropper tool in Lightroom extremely helpful under the color/sat
    section, because it lets you adjust individual colors independently, and
    very intuitively/easily. While Photoshop lets you do this, it is far more
    intuitive here. This is also an unbelievably useful tool for black & white
    photos. -A very friendly way of adjusting things akin to the channel mixer
    in PS...but again...more intuitive.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², May 30, 2007
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > On May 29, 4:04 pm, C J Campbell <>
    > wrote:
    >> It depends a little bit on what Kelby shows you. If he shows you the
    >> workflow aspects of Lightroom, you can see what it is for. Lightroom
    >> is there from image acquisition, either tethered or un-tethered,
    >> through organizing, rating, selecting, editing, publishing, and
    >> archiving your files. The whole point of view in Lightroom is
    >> workflow.

    >
    > It looks like that's the way it will be presented ... from the actual
    > shoot to the print. Here are some details of the program for anyone
    > who might be interested:
    > http://www.photoshopseminars.com/class/161/
    >
    > I've been to a few seminars at that location before, but don't recall
    > any of them selling out a 500-seat room. They had to move into a
    > bigger hall to accomodate all the attendees. I suppose I might just
    > go although listening to Kelby for a whole day might make me a little
    > violent. At least I'll have a good lunch (at the KFC just down the
    > street).


    Luminous Landscape has prepared a very detailed Lightroom course that is 4.5
    hours in length, and downloadable, for $14.95. I watched a preview and was
    impressed. It's nearly 800MB, and high-quality video, which I'll start
    downloading in a few minutes...

    The seminar sounds interesting, but to me, I'd rather have something like
    LL's course...because it means I can re-visit any portion at any time.
    Here's a link to it if you're interested:

    TinyUrl: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gvgkd

    Or...here's the whole enchelada, for the paranoid among us:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/z...id=126&zenid=4ad11dba15bfc574d20cd04a1a95e850

    -Mark²
    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², May 30, 2007
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    gowanoh Guest

    For what you do you need Lightroom like you need a hole in your wallet.
     
    gowanoh, May 30, 2007
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    nospam Guest

    In article <bT27i.412936$>, Mark² <
    here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > > Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter.

    >
    > That's fairly close. Lightroom came only after Adobe bought the company
    > that made RawShooter, so the similarity isn't a coincidence.


    what ever gave you that idea? lightroom has been in development for a
    number of years. it was first released to the public in january, 2006
    as a public beta, and adobe's aquisition of pixmantec was in june,
    2006.

    <http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-
    story>
    <http://www.adobe.com/special/pixmantec/>
     
    nospam, May 30, 2007
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > 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 tried the beta (or whatever) and found it would be useful for a lot of
    images in the same lighting, same general theme. Get a lot done on a
    lot of images quicker.

    Will I buy it? No.

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, May 30, 2007
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > In article <bT27i.412936$>, Mark² <
    > here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >>> Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter.

    >>
    >> That's fairly close. Lightroom came only after Adobe bought the
    >> company that made RawShooter, so the similarity isn't a coincidence.

    >
    > what ever gave you that idea? lightroom has been in development for a
    > number of years. it was first released to the public in january, 2006
    > as a public beta, and adobe's aquisition of pixmantec was in june,
    > 2006.
    >
    > <http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-
    > story>
    > <http://www.adobe.com/special/pixmantec/>


    My understanding was that Adobe bought them out in order to utilize some of
    their tech in Lightroom without encroaching. I'm not emotionally involved,
    so if that is shown to be wrong...great!


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², May 30, 2007
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Ryadiia Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:290520071703425289%...
    > In article <bT27i.412936$>, Mark² <
    > here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> > Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter.

    >>
    >> That's fairly close. Lightroom came only after Adobe bought the company
    >> that made RawShooter, so the similarity isn't a coincidence.

    >
    > what ever gave you that idea? lightroom has been in development for a
    > number of years. it was first released to the public in january, 2006
    > as a public beta, and adobe's aquisition of pixmantec was in june,
    > 2006.
    >
    > <http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-
    > story>
    > <http://www.adobe.com/special/pixmantec/>


    Why would they give a free copy out to every registered RawShooter Pro owner
    if LR had no relationship to RS?
    --
    Douglas,
    Those who can, just do it.
    Those who can't become bullies.
    http://www.bullyonline.org
     
    Ryadiia, May 30, 2007
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    Mark² Guest

    Ryadiia wrote:
    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    > news:290520071703425289%...
    >> In article <bT27i.412936$>, Mark² <
    >> here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter.
    >>>
    >>> That's fairly close. Lightroom came only after Adobe bought the
    >>> company that made RawShooter, so the similarity isn't a coincidence.

    >>
    >> what ever gave you that idea? lightroom has been in development for
    >> a number of years. it was first released to the public in january,
    >> 2006 as a public beta, and adobe's aquisition of pixmantec was in
    >> june, 2006.
    >>
    >> <http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-
    >> story>
    >> <http://www.adobe.com/special/pixmantec/>

    >
    > Why would they give a free copy out to every registered RawShooter
    > Pro owner if LR had no relationship to RS?


    Because it does have a relation to it.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², May 30, 2007
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    nospam Guest

    In article <IG37i.396423$>, Mark² <
    here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > My understanding was that Adobe bought them out in order to utilize some of
    > their tech in Lightroom without encroaching. I'm not emotionally involved,
    > so if that is shown to be wrong...great!


    they definitely incorporated rawshooter in lightroom and adobe camera
    raw. however, the lightroom project began long before that occured.
    that's all. :)
     
    nospam, May 30, 2007
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    nospam Guest

    In article <f3ihfs$aln$>, Ryadiia
    <> wrote:

    > Why would they give a free copy out to every registered RawShooter Pro owner
    > if LR had no relationship to RS?


    i didn't say no relation at all, only that lightroom isn't rawshooter
    reborn.
     
    nospam, May 30, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,343
  2. You HAVE NO IDEA

    Why Why Why

    You HAVE NO IDEA, Apr 22, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,551
    billyw
    Apr 24, 2004
  3. Velvet Whore

    Why? why? why?

    Velvet Whore, Nov 18, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    433
    Fakename
    Nov 20, 2005
  4. Peter Jason

    I just need to tag and catalogue; Lightroom or Elements5?

    Peter Jason, May 4, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    347
    Peter Jason
    May 5, 2007
  5. Jack
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,380
Loading...

Share This Page