| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Lightroom Workflow for PJs
Mike Morones, Photographer
 |
Fredericksburg | VA | USA | Posted: 9:45 AM on 06.18.08 |
->> Hey everybody,
I've been looking into switching from PhotoMechanic/Photoshop to Lightroom and I'm interested in your workflows, especially if you are working on a deadline.
My current way of doing things is ingest through PM, edit and then crop/transmit through PM. I'll work on a picture in Photoshop if necessary, but I try to leave any post work to the image tech back at the paper.
I've only used Lightroom for a day or two and my initial impression is that it is a bit more cumbersome than PM to ingest & edit but I chalked that up to a learning curve. However, I do really like a lot of the Develop functions of LR. I should note that right now I predominantly shoot JPEGs.
How are you working,especially in deadline situations either in the field or from the office?
Thanks! -Mike |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 10:51 AM on 06.18.08 |
->> Mike, in my opinion Lightroom will slow your workflow, not speed it up. Photo Mechanic is THE program built for exactly what you are trying to do.
Lightroom is a RAW conversion program, that also happens to be able to handle jpegs. I have Lightroom on my computer, but I don't use it on deadline. I use it when I need to convert multiple RAW files to jpegs.
If I have several hundred RAW files to convert I'll usually start the import process, and then go eat dinner. When I come back they are usually done importing. After I've tweaked and cropped the photos I'll start the export process and surf the internet for a while. |
|
Jeffery Jones, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Gallup | NM | USA | Posted: 11:17 AM on 06.18.08 |
->> Mike -
Lightroom is an interesting program, but I am still using Photomechanic and/or Bridge for my daily news work flow.
Even when using Lightroom I still end up sending my images into CS3 so I can apply noise filters and do specific doges and burns.
The best way to determine if it is the right program for you, try it out. Adobe.com offers a 30-day free trial, which is the full version. Download it and give it a spin. Right now they have the version 2 Beta also available.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/
You do need to sign up for an Adobe membership, but it is free and also gives you access to online tutorials for most of their products. |
|
Jack Kurtz, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | United States | Posted: 11:35 AM on 06.18.08 |
->> Mike,
I use Lightroom everyday for about 80 percent of my work. I like it a lot. When I get back from an assignment I fire up LR and import the photos into my library then go ahead with selections, captions and conversions. But I work a day shift and my deadlines aren't anywhere near as tight as evening photographers' deadlines.
The problem for a PJ on tight deadline is that LR is significantly slower than PM/Photoshop or even Bridge/Photoshop. LR's importing process is much slower, almost painfully slow, than Bridge (PM leaves it in the dust) and that's where the bottle neck is. Once your work is imported LR is a little faster than Bridge/Photoshop or about the same speed as Bridge alone.
(It's so slow that I when start importing a card I take a break and get lunch or dinner or take care of other business. If you watch the computer and tap your toes during the import you'll end up screaming.)
What I like about LR is that I am building my archive as I work and when I am done with the day's work, I am done with the day's work. When I used Bridge (or PM) I took care of the day's assignments and then I went back to the files and imported them into the archive and cataloged them.
With LR, everything you do, from the moment you start importing, is done in your catalog, and LR's editing capabilities mean that you don't have to spend as much time in Photoshop (I only bring photos in Photoshop when I have to use Noise Ninja on them or they need significant local editing.)
Whether or not LR is right for you is hard to say. It requires a different work flow. I had it for months before I forced myself to use for anything but archive purposes. But now that I've moved my workflow over to LR, I can't imagine not using it. Finding photos, exporting photos is all quicker and easier (again everything except importing).
If you shoot raw and archive your work I think LR is worth considering. If you mostly shoot JPEGs and do not archive most of your stuff, LR may not be worth the expense or time.
On a scale of 1 - 10 for LR, I would give it a 7.5. If the import process were faster it would be a solid 9.5.
Jack |
|
Thomas Boyd, Photographer
|
Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 11:44 AM on 06.18.08 |
->> I think the decision to use Lightroom or Aperture on deadline depends largely on how much time you spend on an image in Photoshop. Or, to put it another way, how well you want your images to look when you send them.
I'm a newspaper photographer who shoots mostly RAW. I've managed to make my workflow much faster with Aperture than I ever was with PM and CS3. This won't be true for everyone, because I always spent a good deal of time tweaking images in PS. Now, shooting RAW and tweaking in Aperture gives me significantly better image quality much faster than I could ever do with PM and PS.
I guess if you're just captioning and sending images without taking them to PS, your current workflow would be faster than using Lightroom (or Aperture), but not by much. I think the only saving in time would be when you import and caption.
I personally like the idea of shooting raw, making quick meaningful adjustments, captioning and moving all in one program. That way, you're building your searchable archive as you go. If you use Apple computers, I recommend taking a serious look at Aperture as well. |
|
Jeffery Jones, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Gallup | NM | USA | Posted: 12:09 AM on 06.19.08 |
| ->> I shoot 99% Raw files. The real bottleneck in Lightroom comes in if you have it convert your images from NEF/RAW files to the Adobe open script DNG files. That's where I have real issues with speed. And as Jack said above, once the import process is complete, then it rocks. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 2:33 AM on 06.19.08 |
->> "LR's importing process is much slower, almost painfully slow, than Bridge (PM leaves it in the dust) and that's where the bottle neck is."
Set LR to use the minimum preview size during import. Then tell it to create standard or 1:1 previews for selected images when you've picked the ones you want to view at a larger size.
That will put LR on a more even ground with PM during importing as that's how PM does it.
http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb400808 |
|
Mike Morones, Photographer
|
Fredericksburg | VA | USA | Posted: 11:22 AM on 06.20.08 |
| ->> thanks everybody for the input. i'll probably stick with PM/P-shop though experiment with LR for raw files |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 2:07 AM on 06.21.08 |
| ->> I too am a LR convert. My workflow is as such (while feeling the deadline crunch)...ingest through PM, make my picks, and them import only the picks to LR. In LR, I adjust the contrast and WB, then convert the RAW's and convert to J's. A quick trip into PS to caption (still can't find the category codes and supp category codes in LR). Then the whole thing is off to the FTP. Sounds long, but when you have to move quick, importing just a few images rather than several gb's, it saves you tons of time. |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
 |
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 7:14 AM on 06.21.08 |
->> I use a PM/Lightroom combo. When it comes to importing if you need it imported quickly I would suggest PM because of the speed. But as soon as I ingest, I quickly scan through my images and place those of which I choose inside a separate folder. Then I ingest just those of which I selected inside that separate folder into Lightroom. If I already have a preset of things like white balance, fill light, noise reduction and brightness of a venue I already shot at like the Verizon Center. When I import those selected images into Lightroom, the preset is applied during the import. All I have to do then is make minor adjustments and do some cropping if needed and the image is finished. That is what makes a program like Lightroom a perfect dream for any Photographer and that combination blows using the PM/Photoshop combo away.
Besides, Lightroom is made specifically for the photographer where you can do just about anything you need to any image and if you need to do anything else in Photoshop once you are finished with that particular image, you can set it up to open that image in Photoshop and run any action or droplet you already created inside Photoshop. I used to run a action which included the Noise Ninja before I started trusting the noise reduction slider in Lightroom, which was improved in one of the 4 updates it's had since going public. And they are set to release Lightroom 2 in August.
Hope this helps...
http://suttonm.wordpress.com/ |
|
Ben Smidt, Photographer
|
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 9:28 AM on 06.23.08 |
->> Hey Mike,
I used to use PM exclusively, but within the last year I use Lightroom for nearly all of my editing, with exceptions to work related to Icon and the AP (presets). I love Lightroom, I have figured out the workflow that is best for me and now can breeze through huge assignments in minutes.
A couple notes:
It is much faster than Aperture, but an Intel Mac machine still helps on speed. (We have the newest versions of desktop Macs and have had zero problems)
The ability to clone out dust spots is the worst feature on Lightroom, but it is possible. I believe the LR Beta2 version will fix that issue.
Printing from LR is amazing with color matching techniques. We no longer print from Photoshop.
RAW conversion and editing is far better than Photoshop
Library automatic backup to save your files
Sync option is awesome
My suggestion would be to stick with LR and/or LR & Photoshop combo only if you have the computer speed needed to run the program properly. Otherwise it can become frustrating and a little slow. I have LR on my personal Laptop (Power Book G4) and it does take some patience at times. Otherwise it is a great program that I hated at first and now love. |
|
Thomas Boyd, Photographer
|
Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 12:02 PM on 06.23.08 |
->> Ben:
It may not be correct to say Lightroom is much faster than Aperture.
The lastest version of Aperture is much faster than the last. Most users report similar speed performance from the latest versions of both programs, and I've seen some users report Aperture being faster.
You also have to decide how much time your spending cloning out dust spots in Lightroom. Aperture can nuke dust spots out of thousands of images in seconds with the lift and stamp tool.
tom |
|
Daniel Brayack, Photographer
|
Charleston | WV | USA | Posted: 12:16 PM on 06.23.08 |
->> I love Lightroom - for me its Fast - I can catalog stuff - tone/white balance - keyword - rename...the two bottle necks for me are - Import and Convert to DNG - but its really fast and especially fast to sort images - the Batch stuff is FAST.
For assignement stuff - I can blow through - rifle through images and by quick glance make my picks easily (hit 'p') - then sort by pick - make a quick webpage, upload and voila...
I tried Bridge - after working with Lightroom and didn't think it was near as fast - of course, I didn't really dive into it, so I cannot fairly compare.
I do very little PS work these days - and with the additions in Lightroom 2 - I can see PS going the "way of the lan-line phone" in no time (at least for me.) |
|
Craig Glaspell, Photographer, Assistant
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 11:18 PM on 06.23.08 |
->> Greg posted above about making the previews minimal during import-can't believe I never did that, much improved. I have been using LR now for 8 months or so, I really could not stand it at first, but I can not see going back. I was a longtime C1 user and tried aperture.
Jamming through a folder in PM though is still the fastest to 'quickly' jam through images-but I find myself doing that less and less too. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|