I don't like Lightroom

[loosecanon]

I was unsure of lightroom at first, but now its indespensible

I set it to import only new files - no accidental duplicates. Most files I rename on import, sometimes add keywords. I place the files in a year/subject directory structure that works for me, but then lightrrrom will quickly find files by search filters.
I also use the map module to add GPS data quickly, an also use this to add address information by the built in google lookup. the ability to add gps data easily from gpx files or just drag and drop on the google earth image is great.

The great advantage of the catalogue system is the speed by which one can visually scan 1000's of images , or find by the map function, or find by searching the filename, keywords or location if added.

The develop module and its ability to select parts of the image and then adjust is much quicker for quite advanced image adjustment.

The ability to scan many images and select individual ones to add to a collection, then export the collection at set image sizes, colour space, file type and so on for use in publications or presentations is a huge time saver.

The integration with photoshop also works well.

Finally if as sometimes happens when multiple versions of images are saved it is easy to add them into the lightroom catalogue.

Personally I find Lightroom quite intuitive, and now would really miss it.

[chauncey]

FWIW...I got this in my mail...http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/t...out-lightroom/

[rpcrowe]

I once used Photoshop Elements and got all befuddled where my images ended up (operator error I am sure). As I mentioned earlier, I am quite happy with Adobe Bridge. It does everything that I want it to do with my images.

I do enjoy using Adobe Camera RAW and I do some minimal corrections in ACR.

My major corrections are done with Photoshop (I am now using CC) ably assisted with the NIK Software Plug In.

BTW: My wife hates Bridge. I cannot make head nor tail how she files her images but, she seems to know what she is doing because she can usually find an image when she needs it...

[davidedric]

FWIW...I got this in my mail...http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/t...out-lightroom/

A helpful summary. I've read so many posts, over the three years or so since I've been using Lightroom, from folks who just jump in without understanding these simple facts.

If you use Lightroom, I think it is essential that you adapt your workflow to Lightroom. Trying to adapt Lightroom to your workflow pretty much guarantees tears before bedtime.

Dave

[Thlayle]

I switched from Aperture on my Mac to LR after Adobe started offering their 'photography' packaging of LR and PS as part of the Creative Cloud.

The switch was easy for me since LR and Aperture are very similar in how they work. I tried Bridge for a short time, but abandoned it right away since LR could do the editing I was used to doing already -- and as a catalog of my work, it preserved original files and my processing separately. For those who like to do their own file management apart from the editing software/catalog (primarily the management of file locations), LR will seem to be a nightmare if they charge in that way.

I would also like to note this one HUGE difference between LR and Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) that I learned the hard way: in LR you are essentially applying ACR but all changes are nondestructive and remain that way. This is NOT SO with ACR when used in PS. Once closing ACR, the changes made are 'baked in' -- so you cannot redo your work in some cases without starting all over. For example, when using ACR in PS, if the highlights are mismanaged, they may not be able to be recovered. This is an issue you do not face when working in LR. And that is why LR is my first round of major changes to my images and PS is reserved for work I just can't accomplish in LR.

[Black Pearl]

When you save the file from ACR the changes you have made ARE NOT baked in, they are stored in a sidecar file so when you open the raw file again everything you have done is still live and is still available for further manipulation or even a full reset. This is also the case if you open the file from ACR into Photoshop though if you then start to work on it further those changes are not stored within the original ACR attachment but you can save the file as a PSD with your layers still active.

[NorthernFocus]

Most people forget or aren't aware that LR started as DAM software and later began adding editing functions. Recent revs have been all about enhanced editing features (and mobility). If one's primary need is PP then LR is a poor choice UNLESS bulk editing is needed.

[Polar01]

To add something to what Robin as stated. If you open the raw file into Photoshop as a smart object you can in Photoshop reopen the raw file and make any adjustments to the raw file.

Cheers: Allan

[Dave Humphries]

I would also like to note this one HUGE difference between LR and Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) that I learned the hard way: in LR you are essentially applying ACR but all changes are nondestructive and remain that way. This is NOT SO with ACR when used in PS. Once closing ACR, the changes made are 'baked in' -- so you cannot redo your work in some cases without starting all over. For example, when using ACR in PS, if the highlights are mismanaged, they may not be able to be recovered.~

Well, that used to be the case, but (as Alan also notes) if you "Open Object" to get to PS from ACR instead of "Open Image", you can maintain the ability to go back to ACR and re-do those highlights (or whatever). Research 'Smart Object' in PS.

I can't say much more because I don't use it that often myself, but I have done it.
Yes there are some limitations to what you can do with Smart Objects in PS, but there are workarounds too.

If anyone is a member of Lynda.com, Ben Long has made a video as part of his 'Practising Photographer' series; "Working with Smart Objects in Photoshop", originally made in May 2013, but updated in September 2016.

[DanK]

Most people forget or aren't aware that LR started as DAM software and later began adding editing functions. Recent revs have been all about enhanced editing features (and mobility). If one's primary need is PP then LR is a poor choice UNLESS bulk editing is needed.

Dan,

I don't agree. How LR started isn't particularly relevant to what it now does or doesn't do well. For a fairly substantial portion of my editing that doesn't require selections, I find LR an excellent editor--fast, intuitive (once you are used to it), fairly capable, entirely nondestructive, and easily tied to external editors for things it won't do. It also has a very capable print module, coupled with good softproofing. I go to PS when I want to select areas, when I want to work on luminance only (e.g., to avoid increasing saturation when I increase contrast), and for the better cloning/healing/patching tools, but a majority of my images never see anything but Lightroom. I print entirely from LR, even when the image in question has been edited in PS or something else.

Dan

[davidedric]

Most people forget or aren't aware that LR started as DAM software and later began adding editing functions. Recent revs have been all about enhanced editing features (and mobility). If one's primary need is PP then LR is a poor choice UNLESS bulk editing is needed.

Can't really agree about Lightroom and PP. Of course it can't do everything that Photoshop can, but if what you want to do falls within its capabilities, then I think it is easy and effective, though of course you have to put in study and practice. Its Virtual Copies, for example, I find very useful. If you do print, it's an excellent engine. I also enjoy the way that plugins integrate into its workflow and image management.

Horses for courses, but for many of us, it gets the job done.

Dave

[NorthernFocus]

...How LR started isn't particularly relevant to what it now does or doesn't do well....

Agreed. I was just making the (poorly articulated) point that the reason for LR's seemingly convoluted catalog structure is a result of its pedigree.

I'm not discounting LR as an editor. I use it on every image that I shoot. My point is that if you don't need/want the DAM functions, why bother with learning LR's nuances and taking on the associated overhead on your machine? There are plenty of other options that are just as intuitive, have more tools, don't have the DAM baggage, and don't marry you to Adobe

People seem to be pretty black and white in their opinions of LR. Those of us who take the time/effort to learn it like it. And more so with each rev. Those who can't get over the DAM hurdle move on. And rightfully so. Many people simply buy LR because some pro/blogger says it's the thing to do. Or now because it comes linked at the hip with PS. If not for the need to handle hundreds of photos at a time I'd never have taken the time to get started with LR. Now that I'm here I have no plans to go back. But it does require some supplemental editor for detailed work.

[DanK]

Agreed. I was just making the (poorly articulated) point that the reason for LR's seemingly convoluted catalog structure is a result of its pedigree.

I'm not discounting LR as an editor. I use it on every image that I shoot. My point is that if you don't need/want the DAM functions, why bother with learning LR's nuances and taking on the associated overhead on your machine? There are plenty of other options that are just as intuitive, have more tools, don't have the DAM baggage, and don't marry you to Adobe

People seem to be pretty black and white in their opinions of LR. Those of us who take the time/effort to learn it like it. And more so with each rev. Those who can't get over the DAM hurdle move on. And rightfully so. Many people simply buy LR because some pro/blogger says it's the thing to do. Or now because it comes linked at the hip with PS. If not for the need to handle hundreds of photos at a time I'd never have taken the time to get started with LR. Now that I'm here I have no plans to go back. But it does require some supplemental editor for detailed work.

We're on the same page.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

Agreed. I was just making the (poorly articulated) point that the reason for LR's seemingly convoluted catalog structure is a result of its pedigree.

Dan - I've used every version of Lightroom that was around including the original beta (that was about 10 years ago). The original version (Beta) had very limited editing capabilities and seemed to primarily be a DAM tool that allowed keyword assignment. I remember remarking to someone that I felt it was little more than a tool to get professionals into the Adobe family and ultimately to get them to purchase Photoshop because editing in Lightroom was so darn basic and in fact downright frustrating.

Where there have been improvements (especially with regards to database integrity) the place were things have gone since the original DAM direction is really been in the parametric editing functionality. This has definitely strengthened over the years to the point where a substantial amount of basic editing can be done in Lightroom, and Photoshop is really only required for some pretty advanced work. The same can be said for ACR, as it has come a long way as well. The Lightroom Develop Module and ACR engines are identical, only the user interface is a bit different. Whatever one can do in the Lightroom Develop module, you can also do in ACR.

This is not the only raw converter that has evolved in this way. If you look at Phase One Capture One, it started out as a tethered capture tool for the Phase One line of cameras / digital backs. They added a raw converter /editing functionality to it, that adherents suggest is a bit better than Adobe's; I tend to be on the fence here - the design philosophies were driven by different needs. The Adobe product was built around photography, whereas the Phase One product was built around the publishing industry and is largely driven by icc profiles. The most recent release of Capture One include DAM functionality and keyword support.

[NorthernFocus]

... a substantial amount of basic editing can be done in Lightroom, and Photoshop is really only required for some pretty advanced work...

If they'd make the sharpening tool a simple USM interface, improve the NR, and add content aware cloning, that would cover 95 percent(or more) of my needs.

[Acorn]

Got to agree with you Dave. I found Lightroom much more logical to understand and operate than Photoshop and it allows me to do all I want. And unlike Photoshop, Lightroom is available as a one-off purchase without committing to monthly subscriptions to Adobe.

[Thlayle]

Robin,

Agreed the Raw files are intact in those cases. But in the Photoshop file itself, once ACR has been closed, you can make more changes there once you go in to ACR again, but the previous changes can completely alter the image quality in ways that can not be undone without going back to the Raw file and starting over. This is very different than how ACR within LR works.

And...yes, it is true that the use of smart objects avoids this problem. That was an overlooked option and lesson for me with this issue with ACR within PS.

I brought up an example of this problem in a previous post. I will try to find that to show what I mean.

My main point is that in LR, you can work with ACR right there without worrying about smart objects or anything like that. Bridge cannot do that kind of work. For me, LR is my 'bridge', but it's Bridge with file editing capabilities.

[GrahamS]

“If I have Lightroom, why on earth would I need Photoshop?”


I have seen this written here many many times but I don't know why so many folk just don't seem to grasp the fact that Lightroom is designed as a primary asset cataloging and image management system for commercial use in high volume production environments. To use it to the full extent of it's capability, it has to be used exclusively and from the start, as the only cataloging and file import tool, preferably in conjunction with Photoshop CS. Every image you download to your PC should be downloaded via Lightroom, with no exceptions, and thus be entered in Lightroom's catalogue, tagged and allocated to a specific collection. Lightroom's greatest power lies in it's cataloguing, tagging and batch processing functions. It is designed to be used primarily with RAW files, as it's image editing is non-destructive. This means that all of your editing actions are not applied to the actual image file, but are appended to the file as a separate "recipe" or log file. If the RAW file is a proprietary file (NEF, CR2 etc) the edits take the form of a separate "sidecar" file with the attribute XMP, which is stored alongside the original RAW file (or if Lightroom CC, can be virtually embedded in the original RAW file). If you shoot in or convert your RAW files to DNG format, the edit info is stored within the DNG file, not as a separate file. In this case, the edit info can never be separated from the RAW file and be lost. In both cases the original RAW file is never altered. If the RAW file is opened and edited in Photoshop CS, from within Lightroom, the result can be saved as a new Tiff or Jpg or even PSD file and it will be automatically stored alongside the original RAW file and entered into the Lightroom catalogue. If you use Lightroom as a management system for your entire workflow you will benefit from it's power and elegance.


All of the professional photographers who use it, that I have spoken to, have no, or few issues with Lightroom and most have a dedicated member of staff who has received training in it's use. When used correctly, it saves a lot of time and effort which means more profit and better customer service.


Lightroom does not and cannot replace Photoshop CS or PaintShop Pro for image editing and manipulation. It will only do the relatively simple things that a commercial wedding or portrait photographer may need to do to lots of images, quickly. It cannot do the things that Photoshop et al can do for image manipulation and illustration and graphics.


If it is used as a stand-alone application, as no more than an image editor, with little or no regard to it's workflow management and cataloguing features, there will be times when it will seem problematical or clunky. Most people who complain about it's user interface, menus or methodology should not be using it, but would probably be better served by using Photoshop Elements and Adobe Bridge or some other image editor.Lightroom's image editing features are designed to provide a quick and simple way of correcting minor anomalies prior to the RAW file being exported downstream, singly or in batches. This is why the editing module is so similar to Adobe Camera Raw and why there are no features such as layers or masks unless you use the subscription version or CC. To purchase Lightroom only to do image editing is like purchasing a stretch limo to take the kids to school. It'll get you there but parking will be tough....


This is how I see it. Your perspective may differ.

[NorthernFocus]

...If it is used as a stand-alone application, as no more than an image editor, with little or no regard to it's workflow management and cataloguing features, there will be times when it will seem problematical or clunky. Most people who complain about it's user interface, menus or methodology should not be using it, but would probably be better served by using Photoshop Elements and Adobe Bridge or some other image editor.... To purchase Lightroom only to do image editing is like purchasing a stretch limo to take the kids to school. It'll get you there but parking will be tough....

Just so...

[Mike Buckley]

If the RAW file is a proprietary file

Are there any raw file formats that are not proprietary?