Reading mode: Light Dark

Lightroom Vs. other DAM Progs?

Go to last post
G

Gideon01

Senior Member
Messages
4,176
Reaction score
2
Location
Kiryat-Ono, IL
Would be interesting to hear people's thoughts about Adobe Lightroom's DAM functionalities compared to other DAM progs: iView Media Pro, IDimager, iMatch, Extensis Portfolio and the like. Does Lightroom have any significant advantages over the others (apart from RAW conversion, of course)?
Would you now switch to Lightroom from, say, a Bridge-ACR-CS2-iView workflow?

--
Gideon



PAW - Week 15
 
Gideon01 said:
Would be interesting to hear people's thoughts about Adobe
Lightroom's DAM functionalities compared to other DAM progs: iView
Media Pro, IDimager, iMatch, Extensis Portfolio and the like. Does
Lightroom have any significant advantages over the others (apart
from RAW conversion, of course)?
Click to expand...
As an iMatch user I was wondering the same thing. I don't make use of much of what iMatch is about, mainly categorising my images and usually an image will fall into several categories. That is it.

For example I have not written (and don't intend to write) any clever little scripts for doing anything - well clever! I do not have the need.

Is anyone contemplating switching from iMatch to Lightroom and of so why? And how will you convert your iMatch categories to Lightroom's equivalent?

Dave
 
I would switch from iMatch to Lightroom based on the interface, and the integration with other basic workflow items (e.g. raw conversion) within the same program. That's provided the same DAM functionality is present, particularly the ability to move files to a DVD and/or external hard drive for archiving and have the database track this. Can't tell for sure, but Lightroom may be able to do this.

DJB
 
I've yet to play with it fully but Lightroom does not sound like it has the same DAM capabilities as iMatch and Extensis, which can keep track of multiple file types all over the place. Personally I'd rather keep DAM and image processing separate.

I'm also no longer a great fan of Adobe, which is why I'm not jumping up and down with joy at Lightroom. Some of their recent offerings seem to be heading down the overpriced/underperforming/bloatware path IMO.

I dread to think what Adobe will have done to the Macromedia products when updates are released this year. Dreamweaver had better not morph into something as awful as GoLive.
 
DaleB82 said:
particularly the ability to move files to
a DVD and/or external hard drive for archiving and have the
database track this. Can't tell for sure, but Lightroom may be able
to do this.

DJB
Click to expand...
Lightroom can do this.

--
Sid
 
pipspeak wrote:
Snip
pipspeak said:
I'm also no longer a great fan of Adobe, which is why I'm not
jumping up and down with joy at Lightroom. Some of their recent
offerings seem to be heading down the
overpriced/underperforming/bloatware path IMO.
Click to expand...
At a Photoshop seminar I attended some time ago, what I took from some of the comment on Lightroom

was that Adobe wanted to try to put more of the photographer's needs into a separate standalone product rather than continue to add to an ever increasing in size CS2 type of product.

As I understand it CS2 is as much a graphics program as it is a photographers program if not more so.

For a large segment of the market I would ventue to say that a Lightroom/Elements combination would meet most needs. Note I do not say all, especially many who frequent these Forums but most here are much more involved than the hobby user.
 
Adobe Lightroom seems to be more focused on the needs of the RAW user & it does appear to be a good start with a lot of promise. It allows a lot of control & flexibility over the conversion of RAW files & as such is a welcome new addition to the growing number of programs which serve the RAW user.

This is a powerful program which takes some time to explore to get the maximum power which it offers & it promises a lot for the future. I would urge the sceptics to view the various video presentations which go into some detail over its use.

Keith-C
 
KEITH-C said:
Adobe Lightroom seems to be more focused on the needs of the RAW
user & it does appear to be a good start with a lot of promise. It
allows a lot of control & flexibility over the conversion of RAW
files & as such is a welcome new addition to the growing number of
programs which serve the RAW user.

This is a powerful program which takes some time to explore to get
the maximum power which it offers & it promises a lot for the
future. I would urge the sceptics to view the various video
presentations which go into some detail over its use.

Keith-C
Click to expand...
Well said, I think most addicted photographer's will love it. I'm also wondering if we'll see plugins like Noise Ninja.
--
Fred, KM A2 and F30
'Your best Photo should be viewed with a biased eye'
http://coolsiggy.smugmug.com/
 
James C. Murray said:
At a Photoshop seminar I attended some time ago, what I took from
some of the comment on Lightroom
was that Adobe wanted to try to put more of the photographer's
needs into a separate standalone product rather than continue to
add to an ever increasing in size CS2 type of product.
Click to expand...
Sounds interesting. I feel that photoshop in particular has been trying to be all things to all people in the last few releases, so perhaps a new approach would be good.

However, the cynic in me says that Adobe would dearly love people to buy two products at, say, $500 rather than one product at $800, which is about as high as prices can really go without putting software into the high-end pro category (like autocad, for example).

I always love how companies make it sound like they really have the best interests of their users at heart when rejiggering products. Really it's all about getting more money out of us and shifting more units.
 
pipspeak said:
James C. Murray said:
At a Photoshop seminar I attended some time ago, what I took from
some of the comment on Lightroom
was that Adobe wanted to try to put more of the photographer's
needs into a separate standalone product rather than continue to
add to an ever increasing in size CS2 type of product.
Click to expand...
Sounds interesting. I feel that photoshop in particular has been
trying to be all things to all people in the last few releases, so
perhaps a new approach would be good.

However, the cynic in me says that Adobe would dearly love people
to buy two products at, say, $500 rather than one product at $800,
which is about as high as prices can really go without putting
software into the high-end pro category (like autocad, for example).

I always love how companies make it sound like they really have the
best interests of their users at heart when rejiggering products.
Really it's all about getting more money out of us and shifting
more units.
Click to expand...
That , if I may say, is rather cynical. Companies are in business to make money & cannot be entirely philanthropic but they can do well if they offer interesting products which the consumer actually wants.

In the final analysis the consumer is King - they can always refuse to buy ! Not many companies succeed long term by ignoring this principle.

Keith-C
 
One thing Adobe products have going for them is the huge network of training for users. That's unbelievably attractive to those of us who aren't experts. It doesn't mean their products are necessarily better but their dominant market share ensures third-party support. I've been interested in other photo and web software programs such as iView, Digital Railroad, etc. and would like to find training classes but they aren't widely available. And that plays a large role in what I buy and use.
 
I agree. Just have a look in the graphics section of most bookstores and see the ratio of Adobe PSE/CS to say Paint Shop Pro how to books, and PSP is a very capable program at a good price.
I guess once you have the momentum it tends to feed on itself.
 
I have ordered a copy of Lightroom which ships on the 20th. I've played with the beta version, but have not seen the final functionality of the released version, which has changed, I am told.

Regarding using it as a DAM and the objections to the Library, I can understand as many of us are used to a flat-file environment (filebrowser), but it does have its limitations. Lightroom has a database and imports the meta-data only, not the images themselves. They stay in the location they are in. This should give extraordinary flexibility AND should allow the management of large numbers of images, on-line as well as offline (on CDs and DVDs for example). However, I'll reserve judgement until I have received my copy and have put it through its paces.
--
AdB
http://www.albertdebruijn.com
 
I used Imatch for a short time over a year ago.

I was excited at forst at all it said it could do. But when I noticed more people spent hours of time in the forums trying to find out how to write scripts for what they needed it to do, I knew it was the wrong choice for me.

I dont need a program that takes me more time than needed just to categorize my photos.

I've used ACDSee Pro and like some of the features but downloading Lightroom now to see if it has anything beter.

I also use Capture NX and love the editing capabilities.

Will check out more on this thread to see others inputs on Lightroom

--
--
http://www.pbase.com/reflectionsbyruth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top