| 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
Who's using Lightroom instead of PS?
Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Santa Fe/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 2:25 PM on 12.01.10 |
| ->> I was wondering about making a change from PS to Lightroom...especially, if I understand correctly, that LS also cand catalog your files... |
|
Mike Burley, Photographer
|
Dubuque | IA | USA | Posted: 2:30 PM on 12.01.10 |
| ->> I use LR for the most part, but I have to say its no replacement. For files that have generally good overall even lighting I can crank them into LR and do some quick levels adjustments. For files that need more in depth selective toning PS is way better. LR has some kind of selection tool for selective levels adjustments and so on, but its a bit clunky. I never got used to it, and will at times use both programs. |
|
Danny Munson, Photographer
|
San Dimas | Ca | United States | Posted: 3:27 PM on 12.01.10 |
| ->> I never touch PS anymore except for extreme edits. LightRoom's noise reduction, sharpening and watermarking are quite nice now and were about the only reason I was using PS for. |
|
Matt Barton, Photographer
|
Lexington | KY | USA | Posted: 4:02 PM on 12.01.10 |
| ->> Agree with Danny. I rarely open PhotoShop anymore. Lightroom 3.2 almost does it all. If LR ever adds usable spot cloning, I'd abandon PS all together. It's basically IllustratorShop these days anyway. |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 4:20 PM on 12.01.10 |
->> With each new edition of LR, the time I spend in PS has reduced dramatically. I only use it now for design, compositing and extensive portrait retouching which only amounts to about 5-10% of my work.
Even though I don't really NEED PS for ,much of what I do, I still find it valuable. For working multiple layes and creative processing it still has a place in my workflow. LR is by far a more efficient workflow vs. Bridge/ACR/PS when working on large numbers of images.
Since the introduction of the improved NR capabilities in LR3, I hardly ever use Noise Ninja or Topaz Denoise for my sports work ... saves a ton of time and reduces the number of files created. I can now shoot an event, import the images into LR and FTP images to publications and/or my online shopping cart and never have to leave LR. |
|
Jack Kurtz, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | United States | Posted: 5:14 PM on 12.01.10 |
->> I am a huge fan of Lightroom and use it for almost all of my work. LR 2 brought us localized corrections, and vers 3 brought improved localized corrections along with hugely improved sharpening and noise reduction. The noise reduction (using the Noise Ninja plug-in) was the main reason I used Photoshop. With LR3's improved noise reduction I hardly ever use Photoshop anymore. LR's cataloging feature meets my needs perfectly.
I think that if you shoot raw, LR is slightly faster than PhotoMechanic/Photoshop and much faster than Bridge/Photoshop. If you shoot JPEG, it's probably faster to use PM/PS. That said, the slowest part of LR (like Bridge) is the thumbnail building.
There are some times though that LR is not the best choice - I find that for sports on tight deadline, LR is too slow (that's the only time I use PhotoMechanic/Photoshop) and if you're working with a networked library LR won't work. But for a single photographer it's excellent.
Also, LR won't do CMYK conversions, so if you need it for pre-press work, you'll want to stay with Photoshop. |
|
Dave Einsel, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Houston | TX | United States | Posted: 7:03 PM on 12.01.10 |
->> Lightroom here.
I only use Photoshop for layers, pano stitching and super intense cloning like the time I had a really dirty sensor. |
|
Mick Motor, Photographer
|
Honolulu | Hawaii | USA | Posted: 7:18 PM on 12.01.10 |
->> I would image it all depends on what style of photography you produce.
I use both hand in hand. Although I spend much more time in PS. |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 8:22 PM on 12.01.10 |
| ->> Yes to LR. I'm not doing pre-press much anymore. Get it right in LR for the output of RGB tif files and the designers have to do the rest. With video responsibilities now, I just can't give individualized attention to publications. Get it right in RGB and leave the rest to them. They need to know this aspect just as badly as anything. |
|
Gerry Maceda, Photographer
|
La Quinta | CA | | Posted: 8:48 PM on 12.01.10 |
| ->> I use PM because of its speed to seclect photos, then LR to crop, tone, sharpen, noise reduction, lens correction, etc. and PS to run Auto Color to double check color shifts on the exported images. Thanks to Jim Redman of Maxpreps for showing me Auto Color. If anybody knows the equivalent of Auto Color in LR please let me know. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 11:36 PM on 12.01.10 |
| ->> LR only for me. To easy and quick these days to not use it |
|
Aleksi Lepisto, Photographer
|
Port Angeles | WA | United States | Posted: 12:58 AM on 12.02.10 |
->> Another for Lightroom.
Esp with the new refinement to the noise reduction!
There really isn't a need to use Photoshop unless you need some serious tools. There are even ways to do HDR and other things in LR, so really, I never have a need to use PS because LR simply does them...
Combine that with the addition of code replacements and once you get used to the meta stuff, the fact you can use it to manage and sort your images and display them nicely and it's really a wonder. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 7:55 AM on 12.02.10 |
| ->> Can anyone suggest a LR tutorial, perhaps a book? |
|
Joshua Brown, Photographer
|
Raeford | NC | USA | Posted: 8:45 AM on 12.02.10 |
| ->> I used (and still reference) the Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 book for digital photographers by Scott Kelby. Despite any negative connotations his name may have in SportsShooter land, my entire base of knowledge is this book and some monkeying around. I would recommend it. |
|
Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Fe/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 9:47 AM on 12.02.10 |
| ->> I'll definitely need some help, but I may play around with it and see what I think...thanks so much, everyone, for your input! |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 10:02 AM on 12.02.10 |
->> If you want some quick, free insight as to the nuts and bolts of LR try Julianne Kosts videos ...
http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 10:43 AM on 12.02.10 |
->> With LR3 on sale now for $150 at various places, I'm thinking about making the big switch.
I use Photoshop CS2 for all my work and the only limitation that version has in my workflow is its outdated Adobe Camera RAW that won't open RAW files for the newer cameras on the market.
With Lightroom, do users still have to pay the "Adobe Tax" (having to pay to upgrade Photoshop versions when versions of ACR are updated), or will LR3 allow future upgrades of ACR? |
|
Beck Diefenbach, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 12:41 PM on 12.02.10 |
->> Tried LR 3 but it was far too slow for me. Couldn't stand to wait for each image to load during my first edit.
Sticking with PM and PS for pretty much everything. |
|
Jack Kurtz, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | United States | Posted: 1:48 PM on 12.02.10 |
->> Curtis,
LR uses the same raw converter as Photoshop, but it's better integrated into the program, so there may not be a need to use Photoshop at all (depends on your workflow). That said, a camera not supported by CS2 won't be supported in LR1.
The current ACR in Bridge/Photoshop CS5 is on par with LR3. Adobe has indicated that they plan to keep LR and Photoshop concurrent (i.e. the raw converter CS6 will equal LR4). Cameras introduced after LR3 is replaced by LR4 (whenever that happens, I have no insider knowledge) will not be supported in LR3 so in that way you will have to pay the "Adobe Tax." But one huge difference, IMO, is that Adobe has made each version of LR much, much better than the previous, so upgrading was worth it. Plus, LR upgrades are cheaper (so far $99) than Photoshop upgrades ($200).
For me, LR1 was essentially a cataloging app with a raw converter. Every photo still had to go to Photoshop for finishing up. LR2 brought localized corrections which hugely reduced the amount of time in Photoshop and just those photos that needed heavy duty noise removal went to Photoshop. LR3 brought noise removal and has essentially eliminated my need for Photoshop.
jack |
|
Chris Peterson, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbia Falls | MT | USA | Posted: 1:52 PM on 12.02.10 |
| ->> I've tried using Lightroom on a couple of occasions. It came free with a camera. The whole input and export interface is super annoying and slow. I'd take Photoshop and browse any day. It's worth the extra cash. I'd try a beta version before you buy it. |
|
Chris Wilson, Student/Intern
|
Bowling Green | Ky. | US | Posted: 2:19 PM on 12.02.10 |
| ->> I still use Photo Mechanic for editing and Photoshop for toning. CS5 with Camera Raw works great, plus PS levels and curves for lightening/darkening areas that need it. |
|
Tim Lester, Photographer
|
Edwards | IL | USA | Posted: 8:47 AM on 12.03.10 |
->> I use Lightroom 95% of the time, Photoshop is used for extreme cases and stitching of pano images.
I second Jack's comments about the Scott Kelby books are very good and Lightroom Killer Tips website is very useful. |
|
Robert Smith, Photographer
|
Brandon | MS | USA | Posted: 10:01 AM on 12.03.10 |
->> "I've tried using Lightroom on a couple of occasions. It came free with a camera. The whole input and export interface is super annoying and slow. I'd take Photoshop and browse any day. It's worth the extra cash. I'd try a beta version before you buy it."
Chris: I'm not sure what version that you're using but with decent resources and memory, LR3 is amazingly fast. I flies on my MBPro with 4gb memory and 256 Graphics card. It is routine for me to input 500-1000 raw files in under a minute and there is no hesitation in the "Develop" suite.
I was using Aperture and I did like it but it is not nearly as fast in the adjustment or input phase as LR3. The raw conversions from LR3 are really good as well.
Having said that, There is no substitute for PS when you need to do extensive editing of any file.
Bob |
|
Will Powers, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 12:25 PM on 12.03.10 |
| ->> I read through most of the posts and have a question for those who have responded. What is your business model? I mean are you shooting a portrait session and choosing LR or are you shooting an event like a t ball league where you might have several thousand shots? Are you shooting landscapes where you have 50 shots of Yosemite Falls and they can all be captioned similarly? What are you finding better in your work flow that makes PS, PM or LR more useful? |
|
Chris Peterson, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbia Falls | MT | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 12.03.10 |
| ->> Robert, since I have to edit and tone photos to CMYK, Lightroom just doesn't cut it. And admittedly, I'm using a G5 dual processor, but Photoshop CS3 hums along just fine. Lightroom? Not so much... |
|
Robert Smith, Photographer
|
Brandon | MS | USA | Posted: 2:07 PM on 12.03.10 |
->> Admittedly Chris....a smaller percentage of my work is done on deadline so I understand your where you are coming from. And the CMYK thing is a dealbreaker.
Most of my work is event work and LR3 really makes things speed along for that... |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 2:48 PM on 12.03.10 |
->> I just started using LR about a week ago and overall find that it's a very nice package. I haven't gotten into any of the cataloging aspects of it, but in terms of image adjustments it's very nice to have localized corrections. However, I would like to see something more like layers as found in PS where one could do a tone curve or levels adjustment in each layer and set layers to luminance, hue, color, etc. I've installed it on an i7 quad core iMac and also on an 11" 1.4GHz MacBook Air. It's surprisingly responsive and usable on the MBA.
I still have a copy of PS CS2 for those times when I might need to do work in a bunch of layers, but for most images can get to what I feel is a finished level of quality in LR.
On the ingest side I'm still using Photo Mechanic because I'm super familiar with it for editing, captioning and those times I need to use code replacement. I also like to have the caption info embedded directly in my files instead of in a database in case I move to another RAW converter in the future.
I don't shoot much on deadline, but would ingest with PM, pulling in all the tagged images first, doing a fast cull and copying those files to a separate folder which I'd then import into LR for toning. But on super tight deadline, I'd just ingest JPEGs, cull, caption and ftp all within PM, totally bypassing the toning stage (prepress departments and/or automated publication scripts can take care of toning). |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 8:42 PM on 12.03.10 |
->> I use LR for everything ... from a business H&S portrait shoot with only a dozen or so images ... up to events and weddings with thousands of images ... as well as 3-5 deadline sporting events per week .with 150-300 images per to import and process ..
I worked a 4k image shoot in April, a trial running event with over a thousand participants ... and had 3,965 images on my website in under four hours ... most of that time was LR crunching out jpegs and uploading via FTP ...
There are speedier options ... but with each iteration of LR ... it's getting quite easy to work an assignment from start to finish right within LR ... if you keep your exposure and WB consistent, syncing sets of images for minor color and tone adjustments is a breeze and really keeps the workflow simple and smooth ... |
|
Douglas Young, Photographer
|
Mission/McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 4:17 PM on 12.04.10 |
->> Hi Michael - weird seeing you on another forum than the TPF.
Another one for LR - but for me the cataloging is a big plus for editorial work. It doesn't set everything up in folders, but rather builds a catalog as you need it. You may be working on a project and want some files from last year, some files from two months ago and today's batch. LR doesn't move them - you may have some older files on an external drive and other on your Drive C, but LR puts them all together in one catalog.
Even though Friday Night football is over (at least for me), LR really kicks your workflow into high gear because you can make all those noise adjustments from your ISO 3200 shots at once. As others have said, I don't use any other NR software anymore.
Best - |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|