Any point in adding Lightroom?

[Tannin]

For those of us who have (however reluctantly) signed up to the Adobe photographer package (both Photoshop and Lightroom for $10 a month - note that the special price ends today), is there a point in having both?

Now apart from photo processing, Lightroom also offers a file management environment and some nice printing stuff. If you want either of those things, it's a no-brainer. Read no further.

But what if you:

(a) don't intend to use the Lightroom walled garden file management interface (because you already have better and much faster and more flexible third-party alternatives), and
(b) don't print?

Given (a) and (b), is there any advantage to installing Lightroom? Does it offer anything that you don't already have in Photoshop?

(I am installing it right now to try out - why not? I've already paid for it - but I'm not sure what, if anything, I'd use it for. And, truth be told, I probably won't have the patience to play with it for very long if it doesn't seem to offer any immediate benefit.)

[landyvlad]

Both are still available as stand alone: ps elements anyway and lr

[agb]

I decided to discontinue my Adobe subscription, I already had Lighroom and PS6 so decided that for the time being that would be enough for me.
Re the Lightroom isn't it a matter of its there for no extra cost so why would you not do it. For some images it is a very quick and easy program to do some adjustments without using photoshop. On the other hand you could also do most of it in ACR.
But unless you import the images to the catalogue you cant use is and if you already have a better file management system you may not want to be bothered.
Not much help am I

[macmich]

tannin
i already had lightroom on my desktop, and installed the lightroom from the cloud on my laptop, so in that way its worked for me
cheers macca

[Tannin]

Thanks Landyvlad. That's good information. For a Photoshop user like me, it's actually cheaper to subscribe to both PS and LR than it is to have PS alone. (Yup: go figure.) Looking at my newly-installed Lightroom, it seems that the only likely area to find some use is the development module. I'll explore that a bit when I get a moment spare.

I remember years ago when LR was new thinking that the LR develop module was very much nicer to use than PS, but that was a long time ago when CS3 or maybe CS4 was current, and Camera Raw since that time seems to have learned a lot from the (long-overdue and desperately needed) interface improvements Lightroom 1's development module brought. Is Lightroom in its current form substantially better to use than Camera Raw & Photoshop? Or are they pretty much the same? (Agb's comment is relevant here too.)

As you say, Agv, Lightroom imposes that bizarre and horribly resource-consumptive file-handling design, where you can't simply say "here is a file I want to process with Lightroom, I will open it the same way I'd open any other file in any other program", no, you have to go down that mad import every-damn-thing route, which makes LR very difficult and frustrating to use. (Unless you only use LR, of course - which seems to be the main purpose of the overall design.) It is, in short, horribly jealous and refuses to admit the existence or worth of all your other image processing software. But I imagine that one could work around that by designating a particular folder for Lightroom to use and simply dumping copies of anything you want to open with Lightroom into that folder. Hell, I work that way already, more or less: I use a "scratch" folder into which I drop any files I want to image-process. Much easier: the file I want to open with Neat Image or Photoshop or whatever is always in that folder before I start and, from time to time, I archive off the finished work.) Will Lightroom work that way? I'll try it and see. And does the LR develop module offer anything that Camera Raw + Photoshop does not? I'd be surprised to find it offers any actual extra functions, but an existing function which has a better user interface and is easier to use is just as useful. More useful, maybe.

Some add-in software (Neat Image is an example, from memory) is a lot cheaper for LR than for PS - alas, I've already bought the PS versions of most things I want. But this might be useful info for someone else reading the thread.

[ricktas]

I would say, for me, other than using it as my DAM, would be the TAT tool. I love the ease of what the TAT tool allows. There is an old video of what it can do on luminous landscape, but it gives you the idea.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/lightroom-tat.shtml

Would I buy LR purely for this feature, probably not, but it is something that is not available elsewhere.

[Tannin]

Very interesting, Rick. Photoshop's Camera Raw has a TAT also, but (on quickly checking) it seems to be much less flexible and powerful than the Lightroom one. That's a good tip!

[arthurking83]

I still can't get past the infuriating import BS methodology, nor the saving function(save image as ideology).

If I wanted to Import/Export stuff I'd buy myself a shipping port(there's going to be plenty of them for sale soon).

Hopefully, one day Adobe will seer the error in their ways and come good with a user friendly way to open a single damned file .. and then quickly allow the use to save it as any other file type .. without having to go through 20 hoops.

That's what all other software vendors allows you to do efficiently and effortlessly, yet the Adobe geniuses can't manage to achieve such a simple concept!

[landyvlad]

Tannin when I say "stand alone" I mean can be purchased as actual software packages as opposed to renting them on the creative cloud system.

The difference beyween LR and PS is astounding given they are both Adobe products (unless Adobe just purchased LR from someone else?) The advice I've been gioven is ignore one exists (eg PS) and learn to use the other one first (eg LR) or the confusion will kill me.

A lot of people I have spoken to are big fans of LR in that the bulk of PP they would do can be readily and quickly accomplished, with PS required when more detail or fantasy constructed images etc may be required. FWIW I've decided to buy both PS Elements and LR. (By the way PS Elements comes packaged with Premiere Elements - video editing which si a good bonus.)

The import and export of LR isnt as intuitive as open and save as, but it doesn't take long to figure it out. I used LR for the first time yesterday (downloaded 30 day trial) and deliberatelty tried to figure out that aspect of it without reading anything as tedious as a book or help file or watching you tube...... and I managed.... and I'm thicker than average.

[Tannin]

The thing is, Landyvlad, you can buy Lightroom but you can't buy Photoshop. Not at any price: they refuse to sell it. You rent it or go without. You can rent Photoshop for $20, or Photoshop and Lightroom for $10.

[ricktas]

The difference beyween LR and PS is astounding given they are both Adobe products (unless Adobe just purchased LR from someone else?)

Many years back, there was a lovely bit of software called Raw Shooter, made by a company called Pixmantec. Adobe bought it out and used the engine behind Raw Shooter, to make Lightroom. Those of us who were Raw Shooter Premium users got LR for free. So whilst LR itself is an Adobe product it is built upon software created by another company.

But in today's market, Adobe will only be releasing rental versions into the future and the option to have it all in your computer, disconnected from the net, will be gone the way of the Dodo.

[RJD]

Yes, the import/export process is a bit clunky, but it's an inconvenience rather than a deal breaker. I know file management is a fair chunk of the interface in LR, but I delete everything I have finished with from the LR library and only have the files I am currently using in there at any time. I prefer PS for processing, although I haven't really experimented much in LR. Where it comes into its own is when you want to apply the same action to batches. For example, it makes resizing a heap of photos at once a breeze - something I frequently do and an action that is not straightforward in PS. It also has better noise reduction than PS, I think, although the NIK package includes a good one too if you have that.

[agb]

I still can't get past the infuriating import BS methodology, nor the saving function(save image as ideology).

If I wanted to Import/Export stuff I'd buy myself a shipping port(there's going to be plenty of them for sale soon).

Hopefully, one day Adobe will seer the error in their ways and come good with a user friendly way to open a single damned file .. and then quickly allow the use to save it as any other file type .. without having to go through 20 hoops.

That's what all other software vendors allows you to do efficiently and effortlessly, yet the Adobe geniuses can't manage to achieve such a simple concept!
I don't have any problem with the way Lightroom does the catalogue. I think of it a bit like a library. You can put the books on the shelves where you like but if you do not have the catalogue done then it is a bit hard to find them.
So I always copy images to the location on the hard drive that I want and then "import"( catalogue) them later so that I can find them with lightroom.

[arthurking83]

The problem isn't so much the cataloging system .. each to their own, and there are better alternatives to Lr for cataloging(my opinion only tho!)

The problem is if you simply want to open an image quickly to review it, edit it, or whatever it!

Most software allows you to just open the image simply, that is, find the file, whether via your software's browser, or via your OS's built in file browser, or via a thirdparty software.

Open with, and normal software has the image loaded in a few seconds which you can review.

The image may be any .. even a throwaway image .. but you may still want to look at it and just review or maybe try a quick tweak to see if it's worth keeping or not ... before you decide to dump it.

Lr needs to catalog it even tho you may want to delete it.
So the process is convoluted and painful compared to all other software I've used.

All they need to do is separate the catalog system from the review/edit/manage system.

So for my case, where I already have a cataloging software, Lr's cataloging system is both redundant and infuriating, in that it delays the process of review/edit/manage.

What takes a couple of seconds to do in other software, takes a few minutes and multiple clicks to achieve in Lr.
For this reason I barely use it.

It's almost good software.

FWIW, and in a Nikon centric workflow, I'm tending to use CaptureNX-D more which is slow and infuriating to a degree too, but as it's still only in beta stage, is a lot better than Lr is for quick reviewing and editing files.

Lastly about Lightroom's cataloging system. One of my major issues is that any user entered data for raw files, for example keywording, requires the use of Lr to search the image database to retrieve the file you are searching. The additional data added for the purpose of finding the file at a later date, is only understood by Lr.
One issue is that the database it creates is not an open source type, meaning that you need to use Lr to find the image you're searching for.
Although I think there are some software vendors that have software that can read and understand Lr's catalog system .. not sure.
The other issue is that the searchable tags you've entered into the image are not in fact in the image, but in the catalog that Lr creates.
This is fine for Lr, but if you're browsing your images via any other software, that tagging/keywording is not present.

Nikon's software(and I assume other manufacturer's software) writes the keyword/tag) is written to the file itself.
All my raw files, once tagged with data, have the information I've entered embedded in the file.
if I view a set of images in Windows Explorer, this info is available for viewing. If I open the file now in Lr I see the info added as keywording.

Do that in Lr on a raw file, and only Lr can see this info in the raw file.
The implication here is that once you've tied yourself to their system, you're basically locked into it unless you're willing to do all the hard work all over again .... if you can!

My cataloging/searching software of choice is (still) IDImager.
As I enter all my keywording via Nikon's software, creating my DAM database was as simple as pointing IDImager to the directory I wanted it to work on.
It created a MySQL database, which I've also subsequently used when trialling another DAM software(DBGallery).
That is, I didn't have to create the database all over again, as I just pointed the new software(which I didn't end up keeping .. yet) to the IDImager database.

Note tho that IDImager has been discontinued as a software, and replaced with a less powerful version by it's creator(Photosupreme), which I also didn't like compared to IDImager.

Apologies for running off on a tangent here, but I'm hoping there's a point to this.

Lets say you're totally reliant on Lr's cataloging system for all your files(which I believe many will be).
All your raw files will have been tagged using Lr's system, and embedded into it's catalog.
if there is any data corruption on the hard drive/pc/network, or where ever you have your catalog stored too, you potentially lose all of your entered information.
Of course you have backed up the catalog!

With the alternative method of having the tagged data embedded in each file, no matter if you have accidentally deleted all three backups of the database, you have lost nothing at all .. other than a day or two to rebuild the catalog again.
That is, even tho I have made a backup of the Db in my Nikon software+IDImager scenario, I don't necessarily need too, as the info is present to build/create a new database all over again.
Again, I spent many years building the catalog, and I finally tire of software X(actually, I need to use a totally new system now as software X has been discontinued/made worse ... so as my database is an open source type, I use any software that can read this database effectively(DBGallery almost did!) .. or I teach myself to program so that I can create my own front end to access my database info.

I still haven't got past the understanding phase of the programming that I'm trying to teaching myself ... to build the software I'm trying to replace! :p

[MissionMan]

Maybe I'm one of those people that is not the norm, but I don't mind Lightroom for cataloguing. I've got used to the keywords so it's not much of a major for me to import information. I agree that it's frustrating if you want to add a single file, but the majority of loads I do are in bulk and if I want to do a single file (like a photo manipulation for another user on Ausphotography), I'll just download and open it with Photoshop.

I guess the question is what are the alternatives? I've tried the nikon software and I find it incredibly slow and frustrating so I haven't bothered with it more than my initial test (for both Nikon View and Capture). I tried NX-D and it was very unintuitive and frustrating. From a user friendly perspective, Aperture was probably the best but it's outdated from a functionality perspective compared to Lightroom. Nikon is great for the ability to edit raw, and sometimes I may still use but 99% of what I do is in lightroom or photoshop.

I've heard of photo director but I haven't heard too much about it so I guess, for pure file management and basic editing, what are the real alternatives?

[mikew09]

Used LR and PSE for some time as it was a financial choice and as a enthusiast that made sense. But when the $10 deal came about I was happen to jump on it as it was far cheaper that even just an upgrade to LR. LR has become my viewing, catalogue and basically organization tool for managing my images. I still find it better than bridge to manage my files to be honest but that could be because thats what I grew up with when I started out and just haven't spent the time to go to bridge in depth . I also find LR a great raw editor for those images that just need a touch in PP etc but still find PS the tool I got to as I do a far bit of cloning, dodge & burn, like the non destructive editing, graduated tools, levels and curves tools depending on the set I am editing.
Having said that there also quote some time spent in LR only when I have no need for these or associated tools. I think maybe if layers were introduced into LR I may use it a fair bit more actually.

Note: I am far from a power user in either :-|

[MissionMan]

What is everyone's thoughts on Phase One Capture One?

[arthurking83]

Maybe I'm one of those people that is not the norm, but I don't mind Lightroom for cataloguing. I've got used to the keywords so it's not much of a major for me to import information. .....

I'm getting the feeling that you may be more the norm than the exception MM .. I think I'm more the exception here.

Just so it's clear.
I'm not against Lr's cataloging ability per se.
If I didn't already have a system, I'd probably use it, in some way myself.

The problem is you can't get around it!

if the catalog/library module was less integral(or forced), just like the print module is, or the book module.

The primary focus should be(in an ideal world) to develop first, and catalog later.

That is, why would you want to catalog images that you may not even keep .. or want to catalog.
Makes perfectly good sense to add info into images that are important to you, but any non keepers get added into the catalog too .. it's wasteful more than anything else.
So for those of us who may just want to use it to ... quickly review some images already loaded onto the PC, or quickly edit an image already edited, and cataloged in another program ....
It's quite frustrating to have to go through their workflow.
if the catalog/library module was an independent tool, used when called, instead of being forced on the user, Lr would be a very good program, and I'd probably use it a lot more myself.


I tried Phase One's Capture One many years ago and didn't particularly like it, but I've seen many folks use it very effectively.

But this topic is going away from what the OP originally started the thread about .. is it worth installing Lr, when you technically have it already(via the subscription thingy Adobe has).
I dunno anything about PS to be honest, so can't comment directly on the worth of having it on the computer as well as CC, but it may well be.
But as a quick method of editing a single image if you want to 'Open with' or 'Send to', it's not an ideal workflow.

[MissionMan]

I'm getting the feeling that you may be more the norm than the exception MM .. I think I'm more the exception here.

Just so it's clear.
I'm not against Lr's cataloging ability per se.
If I didn't already have a system, I'd probably use it, in some way myself.

The problem is you can't get around it!

if the catalog/library module was less integral(or forced), just like the print module is, or the book module.

The primary focus should be(in an ideal world) to develop first, and catalog later.

That is, why would you want to catalog images that you may not even keep .. or want to catalog.
Makes perfectly good sense to add info into images that are important to you, but any non keepers get added into the catalog too .. it's wasteful more than anything else.
So for those of us who may just want to use it to ... quickly review some images already loaded onto the PC, or quickly edit an image already edited, and cataloged in another program ....
It's quite frustrating to have to go through their workflow.
if the catalog/library module was an independent tool, used when called, instead of being forced on the user, Lr would be a very good program, and I'd probably use it a lot more myself.


I tried Phase One's Capture One many years ago and didn't particularly like it, but I've seen many folks use it very effectively.

But this topic is going away from what the OP originally started the thread about .. is it worth installing Lr, when you technically have it already(via the subscription thingy Adobe has).
I dunno anything about PS to be honest, so can't comment directly on the worth of having it on the computer as well as CC, but it may well be.
But as a quick method of editing a single image if you want to 'Open with' or 'Send to', it's not an ideal workflow.

Ah, don't get me wrong. I am happy with it but I also think it could be improved a lot. Ultimately, I do agree that Lightroom's import is one of the less user friendly features (or lack there of) of the product.

This topic was a bit of an eye opener though in terms of considering other tools though and perhaps that's a good thing. As someone on a subscription basis, I have the flexibility to end my subscription if I believe lightroom is subpar and I can always convert a large portion of my raw adjustments to JPG so I have a record of my original editing along with the RAW file for re-editing.

[Tannin]

The thing about Lightroom and cataloging is that it is compulsory. (Well, more or less - if you want to use the Lightroom develop or print modules, you are pretty much forced to use its cataloging as well, which sucks. Yes, you can use workarounds, but they remain slow and clunky and it is daylight lunacy that you are forced into this clumsy stuff just to open a single file.)

The second thing going on here, I think, is that people who like Lightroom's cataloging are missing the point raised by Arthur and others. The complaints aren't to the effect that Lightroom's cataloging is bad (it may well be very good indeed, I wouldn't know), and it isn't that Lightroom's cataloging is inferior to that of some other cataloging program (another question I'm neither qualified to answer nor interested in), the point is that Lightroom's cataloging imposes such a burden of slow and clumsy make-work on people who do their own cataloging, using whatever other method they prefer - typically a lightning-fast dedicated image viewer like PMView or XNView or any of dozens of others in conjunction with the computer's own file system. (Which of course is designed for fast, secure storage and arrangement of vast amounts of data, and is typically better at that task than any add-in grafted onto the top of it.) Similarly, if you have a different cataloging program, Lightroom makes loadiong an image to edit needlessly slow and cumbersome.

The question isn't "is Lightroom a good cataloger?", it's "why does Lightroom make itself so needlessly difficult to use unless you happen to also want to use its cataloger?"

Meanwhile, I've had a bit more of a play with the develop module and quite like it, but (not least because of the brain-dead file-handling) it looks like being consigned to duty as my last-resort raw converter, for use only when I can't get what I want with Photoshop and the Nic Collection on top of either Camera Raw or DPP. Still, I haven't already uninstalled it - something I do ruthlessly with bad or unsuited-to-purpose software - and that in itself is a significant step forward.

[Cage]

I'm like you Tannin. I got it with CS6 Cloud.

I'm sneaking up on it, it has some useful 'quick fix' tools, but I haven't really got my head around it.

Bottom line, I feel it will be a very useful adjunct to CS6.

[Hamster]

Anyone who wants to use their own cataloguing system should stay clear of LR IMHO. Don't think of LR as an editing/PP tool, think of it as a cataloguing tool that includes an editor.
Use your own catalogue plus PS (or elements for example if you never need layers) or use LR plus whatever plug in/add on/PS. You have to take the plunge and use LR from the starting point of down loading your images from a card. Then it becomes easy. I insert the card, it puts the files in a dated folder in the route directory of my pictures until I shift them elsewhere after editing. I do all my shifting, editing, naming, editing in other programs, through LR so it always knows where stuff is. Should I ever want to do something in a program without going via LR that's fine, my images are kept in a file structure that works for my brain. I find the image, play, and the next time I'm in LR I tell it to sync the folder with the image I played with, hey presto, up it pops. I could even dump another bunch of images into a folder and then tell LR to sync. But I rarely do this, the doorway to my photos is via LR as it is my CATALOGUE first and my editor second. An important mental distinction. I just happen to do 80% of my PP on it.