Lightzone vs Lightroom?

[Manfred M]

For enthusiasts/hobbyists, Lightzone/GIMP is more than enough.

However, I noticed with pro/semi-pro photogs here (LA), they tend to use Lightroom more than PS.

When I asked them why, they replied, it's more a question of just enough good editing capabilities and with speed.

For instance, when they shoot live events/ fashion show/sports, because of the need for speed in transmitting to mags/tv/media editors, some even shoot in jpgs.

Those who shoot in RAW/NEF opt for Lightroom because it's faster for them.

True, PS is much better in editing, but for pros like them, beating the deadline is paramount.

Victor - I think it depends on the type of photography that is being done. I know about 8 professional photographers quite well. All of them use Photoshop and the majority also use Lightroom. The ones that use both are primarily wedding and portrait photographers. They use Lightroom for "run of the mill" images, but switch to Photoshop for larger (8"x10") prints or larger. As you put it, the need for speed is paramount. These people book weddings pretty well every weekend so they have no time to waste when they are cranking through hundreds of images that get burnt to a disk. Their workflow is quite similar, as they try to finish the job within a day or two of the wedding. The only exception here is one one them who has a fairly substantial wedding business in Europe, so travel time means she doesn't do all of her post processing until she gets home again.

The other three photographers never touch Lightroom. One is primarily a catalog / product photographer / corporate, the other is a (locally) well known wildlife and landscape photographer and the third is a "fine art" photographer. The work they turn out requires a lot of post production. All of them do a lot of prints (some are huge prints).

[nimitzbenedicto]

Victor - I think it depends on the type of photography that is being done. I know about 8 professional photographers quite well. All of them use Photoshop and the majority also use Lightroom. The ones that use both are primarily wedding and portrait photographers. They use Lightroom for "run of the mill" images, but switch to Photoshop for larger (8"x10") prints or larger. As you put it, the need for speed is paramount. These people book weddings pretty well every weekend so they have no time to waste when they are cranking through hundreds of images that get burnt to a disk. Their workflow is quite similar, as they try to finish the job within a day or two of the wedding. The only exception here is one one them who has a fairly substantial wedding business in Europe, so travel time means she doesn't do all of her post processing until she gets home again.

The other three photographers never touch Lightroom. One is primarily a catalog / product photographer / corporate, the other is a (locally) well known wildlife and landscape photographer and the third is a "fine art" photographer. The work they turn out requires a lot of post production. All of them do a lot of prints (some are huge prints).

Finally, we agree to agree.

Same, some photogs who do "fine art", product/corporate sessions also use PS and take time editing.

[revi]

For enthusiasts/hobbyists, Lightzone/GIMP is more than enough.

However, I noticed with pro/semi-pro photogs here (LA), they tend to use Lightroom more than PS.

When I asked them why, they replied, it's more a question of just enough good editing capabilities and with speed.

For instance, when they shoot live events/ fashion show/sports, because of the need for speed in transmitting to mags/tv/media editors, some even shoot in jpgs.

Those who shoot in RAW/NEF opt for Lightroom because it's faster for them.

True, PS is much better in editing, but for pros like them, beating the deadline is paramount.

So, for them and in that situation, PS is not the best tool...

[ajohnw]

So, for them and in that situation, PS is not the best tool...

I did find one good tutorial on Lightroom - touching up a ladies portrait. From that it seems to have a number of specialised brushes for working on faces ranging from reducing smile creases right down to various detail in the eyes including highlights if present. This appeared to be click on a crease and it would be selected type automation. Also a button to show what had been selected. If this is correct, need to try the package to find out, it's pretty clear that it would be quicker to use than some others and also wouldn't be so hard to use as say airbrushing in the GIMP or PS - not that these don't have other methods of achieving the same thing.

Another one I saw was working on a shot of a stadium that had a strong shadow cast across part of it. If all Lightroom could do with a situation like that is generate a GND via mouse dragging I would feel that was a serious limitation. Not the best of tutorials so hard to be sure.

John
-

[revi]

I did find one good tutorial on Lightroom - touching up a ladies portrait. From that it seems to have a number of specialised brushes for working on faces ranging from reducing smile creases right down to various detail in the eyes including highlights if present. This appeared to be click on a crease and it would be selected type automation. Also a button to show what had been selected. If this is correct, need to try the package to find out, it's pretty clear that it would be quicker to use than some others and also wouldn't be so hard to use as say airbrushing in the GIMP or PS - not that these don't have other methods of achieving the same thing.

Another one I saw was working on a shot of a stadium that had a strong shadow cast across part of it. If all Lightroom could do with a situation like that is generate a GND via mouse dragging I would feel that was a serious limitation. Not the best of tutorials so hard to be sure.

John
-

The situation referred to was: a certain number of images to edit against a hard deadline.

Of course, PS can do a lot more, but using those extra functions would have taken time the photographer didn't have (or would have needed him/her to skip meals/sleep).

[ajohnw]

The situation referred to was: a certain number of images to edit against a hard deadline.

Of course, PS can do a lot more, but using those extra functions would have taken time the photographer didn't have (or would have needed him/her to skip meals/sleep).

Very true but the original question was one package vs the other. The part of my post that you quoted does state one very distinct difference. I feel this is more in line with what the original question asked and info on that score is sadly lacking even from lightroom users.

John
-

[davidedric]

I am a Lightroom user. It does what I need, and I have spent many months using and learning it, and there is still a lot I don't know. It is an extraordinarily deep and sophisticated product (have a read of Jeff Schewe's The Digital Negative to get an idea). I have no opinion on Lightzone. Why would I?

[nimitzbenedicto]

I have no opinion on Lightzone. Why would I?

Errr.................. Ahem, ahem..

If it's not obvious yet, just a reminder ,

this is the -> "Lightzone vs Lightroom? " thread.

[Manfred M]

Very true but the original question was one package vs the other. The part of my post that you quoted does state one very distinct difference. I feel this is more in line with what the original question asked and info on that score is sadly lacking even from lightroom users.

John
-

Unfortunately, the Lightroom users (unless they are also Photoshop users) wouldn't be able to answer the question. The only place where Lightroom might be viewed as having an advantage over Photoshop is the ability to identical adjustments from one file to another very quickly. Anyplace else (outside of the catalguing functions), I would give the clear advantage to Photoshop.

[nimitzbenedicto]

I hope Adobe will give their loyal fans ( comes from the word "fanatics"?)
some discount or freebie.

Especially to those who doggedly , bull-headedly force into any thread their adoration of PS.

[davidedric]

Errr.................. Ahem, ahem..

If it's not obvious yet, just a reminder ,

this is the -> "Lightzone vs Lightroom? " thread.

OK I'll try again. I know that Lightroom is a rich product that takes a long time and much effort to master. I'll assume that Lightzone is the same. I doubt there are many who have spent sufficient time with BOTH products to be able to offer a sensible opinion on their relative merits. I certainly haven't heard from anyone here who can.

[Colin Southern]

Unfortunately, the Lightroom users (unless they are also Photoshop users) wouldn't be able to answer the question. The only place where Lightroom might be viewed as having an advantage over Photoshop is the ability to identical adjustments from one file to another very quickly. Anyplace else (outside of the catalguing functions), I would give the clear advantage to Photoshop.

I came across this yesterday - I think it shows the sheer raw power of some of Photoshop's tools, used in competent hands. These kinds of brutal adjustments may (or may not) be possible with other packages, but I challenge ANY other package to produce tools that can make such significant adjustments - efficiently - and still produce a class-leading result.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/be...ormation-video

If Photoshop were a Swiss army knife it would be made of surgical steel and be at least 6 feet wide. Nothing to do with fan(atical) loyalty; it's not the right set of tools for everyone -- but for sheer ability in the right hands, nothing else comes close.

[Manfred M]

I hope Adobe will give their loyal fans ( comes from the word "fanatics"?)
some discount or freebie.

Especially to those who doggedly , bull-headedly force into any thread their adoration of PS.

Victor - why do you have an almost pathalogical dislike of Adobe products?

This was a response to a comment that John put up in response to Revi's comment; no more, no less.

I answered a question in a manner that is consistent with my experience; i.e. I know quite a few people that use Lightroom, but a fairly limited number that know Photoshop fairly well , so it is no great surprise that Lightroom users did not respond.

Millions of pros and amatuers can't be wrong (with 38 million Adobe user accounts being hacked; although clearly many of these are likely not PS users).

[Glenn NK]

Another one I saw was working on a shot of a stadium that had a strong shadow cast across part of it. If all Lightroom could do with a situation like that is generate a GND via mouse dragging I would feel that was a serious limitation. Not the best of tutorials so hard to be sure.

John
-

John;

This is a very difficult editing task. The difference in exposure is simple to fix - the difficult part is changing the WB as the WB of shadows and direct light are very different.

A while back someone posted a photo of a lady with a strong shadow under her chin - I tried to fix it and that's when it really hit me how difficult it was.

I would be very surprised if any software could easily fix that one. If the image was B/W it would be much easier.

Glenn

[nimitzbenedicto]

Victor - why do you have an almost pathalogical dislike of Adobe products?

Come on Manfred. Just joking.

Seriously, I do have and use PS. Used lightroom from long ago and still using the latest version.
(Used Adobe Premiere & Aftereffects also.)

[nimitzbenedicto]

Manfred,

Almost forgot.

This is still a "Lightzone vs Lightroom? thread.

So, if you want to discuss PS further, maybe we can take it up in the "Challenge: PS is not the golden standard" thread.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

Almost forgot.

This is still a "Lightzone vs Lightroom? thread.

So, if you want to discuss PS further, maybe we can take it up in the "Challenge: PS is not the golden standard" thread.

Would agree if different questions regarding different PP tools handn't come up.

Again, to paraphrase what I wrote before. Lightroom has a very large user base; Lightzone likely does not, hence that is likely why there is a limited amount of knowledge regarding this product out there amongst the users.

[davidedric]

John;

This is a very difficult editing task. The difference in exposure is simple to fix - the difficult part is changing the WB as the WB of shadows and direct light are very different.

A while back someone posted a photo of a lady with a strong shadow under her chin - I tried to fix it and that's when it really hit me how difficult it was.

I would be very surprised if any software could easily fix that one. If the image was B/W it would be much easier.

Glenn

Hi Glenn,

You are right it is difficult (though I expect a PS hotshot could sort it!). The Nik Viveza plugin to Lightroom can be a help though, since it allows you to selectively adjust both exposure and WB. On a different forum, someone posted a photograph of a football team half in shade and half in sun. I couldn't turn it into a work of art, but could do sufficient to rescue a hopeless picture into something usable.

I would like to have a crack at a chin-shadow photo.

Incidentally, another plus for Lightroom is that there ARE a huge range of plugins available.

Dave

[ajohnw]

The thing I find slightly (understatement) ODD about this thread is that if I used Lightroom I would still be interested in what the other packages could do and would try them. Not just discount them. Rather than why should I why shouldn't I try them is a more rational response. Unless some one is prepared to do that there isn't much of a point just posting I use Lightroom as they have no idea what the other packages can do anyway.

My knowledge of Lightroom just comes from curiosity as desktop wise I have no way of running it - going to try it in an emulator though - curiosity again. Going on various tutorials I have watched it wont match what I currently use. Yes we do have some windoze laptops. My wife is a teacher so little choice.

As some who does use several packages even if mostly from a single application one thing I can state for sure is that each has it's strengths and weaknesses in terms of doing this or that fairly quickly/easily. So in my view the topic of this thread isn't as much use as it might be. Of the packages I use I see them like this

Fotoxx - PS /GIMP with a limp as it looks after layers without a user being aware of it. Nice to be able to use other applications as plugins but it can insist on cataloguing too. It's optional but then looses some EXIF facilities.

Lightzone - Basically relighting and in my view limited selection. The presence of the colour sampling eye droppers means it could take rather a long time to explore all of it's capabilities but in general the relighting does what it states on the can.

Rawtherapee - I did just use this for defringing until that was added to Photivo but it's evolved from that now. LAB curves type adjustments - interesting.

Photivo - all sorts of enhancement filters and LAB adjustments. Some selection ability now.

Hugin - best look at the tutorials as this package will do a number of other things apart from stitch panoramas even taken with different lenses. It will also generate lens correction factors.

Ufraw - Just raw conversion. Very handy for generating images for fake hdr and also offers complete conversion control. Some of the above may not.

Darktable - a number of things particularly raw conversion curves - shows the scope available in the shot which of course changes as the adjustments are made. I have this one because it's unusual. No need to use it really but doesn't take up much disk space.

Luminance HDR - speaks for itself but I also use MacroFusionEnfuse as it was quicker. Not an area I have done much in yet. Other applications can do this as well.

GIMP - Colin would be lost in this. So far where PS has something Colin has used I have found GIMP can do the same. I have a long way to go with this package. Just looking at layer maths - hard light, soft light a few others fine but the rest ????????? It appears to sometimes need more layers and masks than PS to achieve the same thing. Not really a problem for some one that is fully up and running with it. I feel it's still a bit grapics artist orientated but that is set to change. Plugins - so many it's a problem to obtain a list. PS brushes and some other aspects will work in it too - or so it seems. It has a plugin to allow PS plugins to be used - pass - i haven't used that..

Argll colour management plus DispCalGui. Full featured calibration software unlike what comes with most calibrators and will work with most of them.

All of these are Open Source so most get extended regularly.

John
-

[Old Fart At Play]

On the subject of lightroom vs lightzone.

I'm newly interested in digital photography so I am just starting out with software. I downloaded lightroom trial and it looked very good - but it costs 100 quid. I found lightzone, tried that, and it looks great too and is free.
For a beginner the main difference seems to be the absence of an organisational database in lightzone.

I'm not worried about starting out with one product and then having to change later, because everything is new to me (eg adjusting white balance). It makes sense to me to learn the ropes with a free product, and move to something else if/ when necessary.
Cheers