Reading mode: Light Dark

I don't like lightroom

Go to last post
C

CadGuru

Senior Member
Messages
1,206
Reaction score
1
Location
US
Call me crazy, I just don't "get" lightroom. I am pretty computer literate, etc. I just don't like the interface. I find using CS3 and ACR are fine for me and using acdsee pro2 to catalog everthing works fine.

I will admit I do run into issues where Adobe's file info layout puts stuff in a different location than Acdsee and my way isn't streamlined, but wondered if others felt the same way.
--
-Anthony
 
that's why Adobe makes both!

I have no issues with LR and that's probably due to the fact that I've been using it since ß.

If you're pleased with CS3 and ACR, use it! AFAIK, most Lightroom functions are available in ACR.
--
Bill Turner
Eschew Obfuscation, Espouse Elucidation
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Infrared Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131/ir_photos
 
I am with you. I can't stand lightroom, but I can use ACR ok.

I started using Olympus Studio. It's slower, but I really dig the color and lens geometry correction.
 
CadGuru said:
Call me crazy, I just don't "get" lightroom. I am pretty computer
literate, etc. I just don't like the interface. I find using CS3 and
ACR are fine for me and using acdsee pro2 to catalog everthing works
fine.
I will admit I do run into issues where Adobe's file info layout puts
stuff in a different location than Acdsee and my way isn't
streamlined, but wondered if others felt the same way.
--
-Anthony
Click to expand...
But the ability to edit in batches, copy settings, auto synchronize selected images, create your own presets and install 3rd party ones, install so many plugins has made me realize how versatile this application really is!

ACR is very nice, especially 5.3, but LR is like ACR on steroids and then some! I'd strongly encourage you to give it another shot and give it some time. Also, I don't import all my pictures into LR, my catalogue only includes images that I've worked on, this helps to prevent your catalogue from bloating with too many pictures.

--
Raj Sarma
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rssarma
 
I have loved LR since the original Beta and would not go back to my old workflow. I can do 90-95% of my postprocessing in LR and have PSCS3 for the balance. (Though I am considering trying out Elements again to replace PSCS - don't ask me why because I probably could not come up with a really good answer.)
Steve
 
I think lightroom is love it or hate it in many ways. From the moment I opened lightroom, things just clicked for me. It's got things laid out the way my mind thinks so it's very intuitive for me. I love how the modules are laid out and how customizable the interface is to allow you to hide pretty much any and all aspects of the interface while you work. Once you get comfortable with the keyboard shortcuts things are really quick. People like me will love it immediately, other will take time to warm up to it and get used to it, but will ultimately feel it's indispensable.. the remaining people will never get it and that's why there are other solid alternatives being on the market.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daletreadway/
 
I understand your feelings as I felt the same way in the beginning. Having had to learn so many different software packages over the years (proprietary and off the shelf) I figured that if I didn't like it after trying it on my own that I just wouldn't like it. Well, I have a lynda.com subscription and I decided to watch a Lightroom tutorial. I have to admit that I was won over. If you have an open mind and would like to view it I think they have a trial membership. The tutorial I watched was by Chris Orwig and they're always divided into small sections.

Here's my workflow:

I load up my CF card and lightroom opens automatically. I upload all of the images and do a quick edit deleting photos that are unusable and rate the keepers (1-5 stars) this allows me to filter them so if I only want to look at the top shots I can quickly locate all of them from a particular shoot. I then do my basic processing like level, contrast, etc. I find I'm still a creature of habit when it comes to more involved things like healing brush activities so I still tend to do those more in depth edit in Photoshop. After I have a grouping done I'm able to go back in to Lightroom and export the collection. It's working nicely for me now but it took me a while to adapt to it. I find myself more organized now too.

--
Beth
http://www.artsydots.com
http://www.flickr.com/bkapi
 
I could never figure out anything that I could do in LR that I couldn't do in ACR/PS and therefore couldn't justify the price tag. I also don't care for the interface.
--
Theresa K
E-3, E-300, 8mm fisheye, 14-54, 50-200 and 50mm lenses, FL-50, FL-36R
http://theresak.smugmug.com/

 
...hate other parts. I like the develop part and batch editing but hate the way you have to deal with files. I was so used to PSE's organizer/editor (simple) that this just throws me for a loop and I can't wrap my head around it yet (only using it for a week). The one thing that really drives me nuts is that I can't just save a file. Why do you have to go through exporting to save a file as a .jpg and have it just appear with your other files of the same image? If someone knows something I don't would appreciate any advice.
Jolene
--



My galleries-- http://www.zenfolio.com/jolieo
 
Theresa K said:
I could never figure out anything that I could do in LR that I
couldn't do in ACR/PS and therefore couldn't justify the price tag.
Click to expand...
One thing provided by Lightroom is the use of the latest ACR engine--which otherwise might require purchase of a Photoshop upgrade to use. This situation helps to justify LR's price tag for those who are trying to get along with "old" versions of PS.

Then, too, there are those (like me) who use both a Mac and PC. I have PS on my Mac, but I can't justify the cost of another copy of it for my Windows laptop; so since LR provides a dual platform license (at no extra cost) I have good image processing capability for my Windows laptop at a fraction of Photoshop's cost.
Theresa K said:
I also don't care for the interface.
Click to expand...
Yep, there are some questionable "idiosyncrasies" in LR's interface, but I'm surprised when I hear that some people simply don't like it. The interface is considered its strongest point and it's what got me "hooked". Different strokes, as they say...

Phil

http://folio.phil-rose.com
 
Same as you - I use Capture One 4 along with ACDSee Pro, and it all works logically & fine.

Capture One 4 also works with D-Lux 4 and all Oly ORF's.

Rich Simpson
 
It lets me organise and edit files in a much better fashion. I really like it now it supports 64bit OS' :-)

I find that I now do the majority of my editing in LR, only going into PS to apply noise reduction and sharpening (i still prefer the smart sharpen filter in PS to that in LR, dunno why). And to apply to occasional border/special effect.

Printing is also much more intuitive with LR, and I find that I am now getting prints which match the screen about 95% of the time.
--
Cheers, Neil
http://www.nwilsonphoto.co.uk
 
Well, it is simply not true. You can update to any version of ACR in PE and you can also add dozens of plugins.

Personally In like the interface in development, but cannot stand the file management so I decided instead for PE with plenty of plugins.

I think that ACR does a good job with Oly colours, and PE 6 has also at last an efficient lens distortion tool.

So even if I'd like to have the curve drag feature of LR I prefer to stick with PE, and manage my files from the OS. Perhaps if I had batches of files to correct in the same way I would do things differently.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
One of the problems with LR is that it has a superficial level of capability (where I am with it) and much more ... and I am stuck (admittedly only after a couple of weeks) at level 1.

What would be useful (to me) is a 'SIMPLE' DVD or CD that I could learn the DEEPER parts of LR. I have the books but seem to get on better with short 'visual tutorials' ... any recommendations... even websites perhaps??
--
Jerry
 
Phil Rose said:
Theresa K said:
I could never figure out anything that I could do in LR that I
couldn't do in ACR/PS and therefore couldn't justify the price tag.
Click to expand...
One thing provided by Lightroom is the use of the latest ACR
engine--which otherwise might require purchase of a Photoshop upgrade
to use. This situation helps to justify LR's price tag for those who
are trying to get along with "old" versions of PS.
Click to expand...
Except the upgrade to PS is cheaper than buying LR....
Phil Rose said:
Then, too, there are those (like me) who use both a Mac and PC. I
have PS on my Mac, but I can't justify the cost of another copy of it
for my Windows laptop; so since LR provides a dual platform license
(at no extra cost) I have good image processing capability for my
Windows laptop at a fraction of Photoshop's cost.
Click to expand...
What about everyone saying that you can run Windows programs on a MAC these days? Is that just BS?
Phil Rose said:
Phil Rose said:
I also don't care for the interface.
Click to expand...
Yep, there are some questionable "idiosyncrasies" in LR's interface,
but I'm surprised when I hear that some people simply don't like it.
The interface is considered its strongest point and it's what got me
"hooked". Different strokes, as they say...
Click to expand...
I guess it's because I got hooked on ACR/PS first. You know what they say about old dogs... ;)
--
Theresa K
E-3, E-300, 8mm fisheye, 14-54, 50-200 and 50mm lenses, FL-50, FL-36R
http://theresak.smugmug.com/

 
Give Apple Aperture a try - I just love this App.

I don't like LR as well.

Timi

--
iThink, therefore iMac
 
While I admit that LR doesn't process Olympus RAW files as great as other programs without more involvement, it does save me time. The payoffs are especially great when working with 100+ photos from a the same shoot. And since I've done shoots where I've used both my Olympus and Canon cameras in RAW mode ... as much as 1,800 photos to run through, it has paid for itself in saving time and frustration.

I will admit that I've only used LR on a regular basis.

--



Alan

'It's not enough that I succeed -- others must fail.' - Genghis Khan
 
Zalllon said:
While I admit that LR doesn't process Olympus RAW files as great as
other programs without more involvement, it does save me time. The
payoffs are especially great when working with 100+ photos from a the
same shoot. And since I've done shoots where I've used both my
Olympus and Canon cameras in RAW mode ... as much as 1,800 photos to
run through, it has paid for itself in saving time and frustration.

I will admit that I've only used LR on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
Well, if you use ACR, you can adjust the first shot, then set those as your 'default settings'. Then, all of your other shots are set the same..
--
Theresa K
E-3, E-300, 8mm fisheye, 14-54, 50-200 and 50mm lenses, FL-50, FL-36R
http://theresak.smugmug.com/

 
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