Why Do I need Lightroom?

I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
quickly view them.
Then I use Photoshop to edit them.

So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on Friday
given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.


So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?

On May 29, 7:07 am, Annika1980 wrote:
I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
quickly view them.
Then I use Photoshop to edit them.

So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on Friday
given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.

So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?

I down loaded the free trial of Lightroom and mostly I liked it. In
most cases I could do everything in lightroom that I needed to get a
final image ready for whatever, printing, putting on the web etc. I
found the work flow a fair bit faster when I could do everything in
lightroom compared to converting a film and editing it and then
saving.

In the end I deciding that whereas it was nice it was not worth the
$200 for me, if I were a pro I would buy it without thinking.

Scott

"Annika1980" skrev i en meddelelse
ps.com...
I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
quickly view them.
Then I use Photoshop to edit them.

So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on Friday
given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.


So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?


The RAW converter in CS3 is very similar to Lightroom.......same
functions......so probably same software.
Lightroom has some default settings you can choose from. They can be a good
starting point. There are also
a good tool to see "before" and "after" you made some modifications. I have
not used the library functions, but
some people think they are useful. There is a backup function also.
What I like is that when you have imported some RAW images and start make
modifications......you can just
close down the program and start again later from where you closed down the
program. Like in rawshooter
you can mark you images and put them into groups. Rawshooter has the
possibility to make raw conversion
in batch. One should think Lightroom has the same function. It was very
useful. I use Lightroom but have not
looked for this function yet :-)

Lightroom also have a very good history log so you are able to go back to a
previous state. Also think the
snapshot function is a function where you can store a current state of the
image so you can go back quickly.
So there are a number of small utilities which are nice to have.

Yon can print directly from Lightroom.......never tried this.

An expert user may come up with a lot more............


Max

Annika1980 wrote:
I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
quickly view them.
Then I use Photoshop to edit them.

So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on Friday
given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.

Only you can decide that; Scott is hard to take in doses of more than 20
minutes!

Were I you, I'd download the app immediately and give it a spin; that
way if you do go, you'll absorb that much more and maybe have an
intelligent question or two, above of course, the 18 all ready
intelligent questions you surely have.



So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?

It's designed to be a photographer's tool, not a pixel editor. It makes
importing, sorting, tagging and adjusting images easy, what with
templates installed and ones you can make for batches.

It is premised on shooting RAW, and then tweaking images in that format
and then exporting as TIFF, JPEG and/or PSD files if they are needed for
other. Templates are great to use here, also.

It has a five module approach, but I barely look at the web interface
nor slideshow. I've printed to an Epson 7800 with it, but most of my
printing goes through PS, so I print from that.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

Does it do stuff PS cannot? I'm not fully sure, aside from being a
Digital Photo Manager, but it does it differently, and much better for
me than Bridge + PS.

--
john mcwilliams

Annika1980 wrote:
I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
quickly view them.
Then I use Photoshop to edit them.

So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on Friday
given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.


So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?

Cost You some more money.

Väinö Louekari

"Annika1980" wrote:
I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
quickly view them.
Then I use Photoshop to edit them.

So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on Friday
given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.


So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?

I find that Lightroom is pretty much exactly what I want in a raw converter.
The functionality is great. (C1 does a better job at minimizing color Moiré,
and maybe extracting the most detail. Maybe. But is pricey if you need
rotation, which I do.)

The workflow is a bit nutty, and you do best if you submit to its view of
the world, which involves allocating inordinate amounts of disk space for
cached previews, and only looking at previews at 1:1 (100% pixels). It does
image management. Rudely and intrusively. You WILL follow its model. Period.

LR is painfully slow if you compare images in the Develop module at 1:1
(100% pixel view), which I tend to do. I'm not interested in images that
aren't critically sharp at the pixel level, so I get nervous and look and
the world grinds to a halt. And the print module has defeated me.
Completely.

For free, it was a good deal. For US$300? ACR + CS3 + C1 may make more
sense. (I'm still on PS7 until next month.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote:
I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
quickly view them.
Then I use Photoshop to edit them.

So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on Friday
given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.


So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?

I find that Lightroom is pretty much exactly what I want in a raw converter.
The functionality is great. (C1 does a better job at minimizing color Moiré,
and maybe extracting the most detail. Maybe. But is pricey if you need
rotation, which I do.)

The workflow is a bit nutty, and you do best if you submit to its view of
the world, which involves allocating inordinate amounts of disk space for
cached previews, and only looking at previews at 1:1 (100% pixels). It does
image management. Rudely and intrusively. You WILL follow its model. Period.

I didn't find it either nutty nor excessively rigid. I use both 1:1
previews and smaller sizes. I have my previews set to expire after 30 days.

LR is painfully slow if you compare images in the Develop module at 1:1
(100% pixel view), which I tend to do. I'm not interested in images that
aren't critically sharp at the pixel level, so I get nervous and look and
the world grinds to a halt. And the print module has defeated me.
Completely.

On my MacBookPro, images at full pixels are fast, but I tend to create
the previews while I am reading usenet, for example.

For free, it was a good deal. For US$300? ACR + CS3 + C1 may make more
sense. (I'm still on PS7 until next month.)

I'm a professional student (!) as well as photographer, so mine cost me
$99.

--
john mcwilliams

On 2007-05-29 10:07:10 -0700, Annika1980 said:

I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
quickly view them.
Then I use Photoshop to edit them.

So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on Friday
given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.


So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?

It will manage your workflow. Granted, you do that already with
Downloader and Breezebrowser, but Lightroom does manage to have a few
features that those do not.

It depends a little bit on what Kelby shows you. If he shows you the
workflow aspects of Lightroom, you can see what it is for. Lightroom is
there from image acquisition, either tethered or un-tethered, through
organizing, rating, selecting, editing, publishing, and archiving your
files. The whole point of view in Lightroom is workflow. Everything is
labeled as a stage in workflow.

You can do this in Aperture, but Aperture does not direct your workflow
so overtly. It does not have separate screens for library and editing,
for example. Nevertheless, it is the same sort of product. I tend to
favor Aperture because of its cleaner look and simpler interface, but I
like Lightroom a lot. The most recent updates of Aperture run as fast,
if not faster, than Lightroom on an Intel processor.

But the point is this: products like Lightroom and Aperture are popular
because they fill a need -- a way to organize your work efficiently. If
you are already well organized then you will find these programs can
enhance that organization.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On May 29, 4:04 pm, C J Campbell
wrote:
It depends a little bit on what Kelby shows you. If he shows you the
workflow aspects of Lightroom, you can see what it is for. Lightroom is
there from image acquisition, either tethered or un-tethered, through
organizing, rating, selecting, editing, publishing, and archiving your
files. The whole point of view in Lightroom is workflow.

It looks like that's the way it will be presented ... from the actual
shoot to the print. Here are some details of the program for anyone
who might be interested:
http://www.photoshopseminars.com/class/161/

I've been to a few seminars at that location before, but don't recall
any of them selling out a 500-seat room. They had to move into a
bigger hall to accomodate all the attendees. I suppose I might just
go although listening to Kelby for a whole day might make me a little
violent. At least I'll have a good lunch (at the KFC just down the
street).

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ps.com...
I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to
quickly view them.
Then I use Photoshop to edit them.

So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom?
I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on Friday
given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time.


So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't?


Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter.
It's main claim to fame is a somewhat questionable ability to recover blown
highlights. The underlying technology is provide you the ability to use
plugins which produce different results based on someone's idea of what a
certain type of picture is supposed to look like. You can make your own.
There are a set of WOW filters with pre-sets available free. I used them
once or twice but after making my own, discarded them.

The original raw shooter required the purchase of separate "colour engines"
for different cameras. With the amount of fiddling you enjoy, it's highly
likely you will have no use for it. I use it to process 600 or 700 shots in
one batch, all with the low contrast style people here don't like. I still
need to use PS for HDR and various touch ups but you do that with ACR
anyway.

I got it free because I had bought raw shooter pro when it was released.
Based on RS's performance I never would have bought it. Based on how it
manages to mangle some images it shouldn't, I still wouldn't have bought it.
I certainly won't upgrade it. For developing Canon images I firmly believe
you can't go past Canon's own Digital Photo Professional. Each to their own.

Douglas