"lightroom" software good?

Lightroom is excellent, especially if you shoot RAW. It provides a much quicker workflow than photoshop. I do 90% in Lightroom and use photoshop elements for the other 10% if and when necessary

--
Confused of Malvern
'The greatest fool can ask more than the wisest man can answer'
 
You can do everything that lightroom do in Photoshop but with more mouse clicks.
Perhaps editing wise and even that is arguable. But PS can't do any image management no matter how many clicks of the mouse you have!
 
LR is good, but If you're already a PS user, than I'd suggest you to stay with PS.
 
LR is good, but If you're already a PS user, than I'd suggest you to stay with PS.
I've been using Photoshop since before it had a number and once I switched to Lightroom I hardly use CS5 anymore. It's much easier to work with RAW files in Lightroom and, of course, the file management is terrific. I only switch to Photoshop if I have to do layer stuff or otherwise feel a need to maul my images.
--
Leonard Migliore
 
Of course, everyone has its own opinion and it's perfectly fine. I find LR limiting for my work.

Btw, I used PS before it was PS. So what?
 
Lightroom was designed for photographers. Photoshop is really for more serious graphic work or serious photo manipulation. I used photoshop up to CS2 but after I started using LR I soon stopped using Photoshop altogether.
 
Lightroom functions as a cataloging program and as a non-destructive editor. The program does a great deal, and for most instances will be sufficient. Lightroom has a steep learning curve because it is a powerful program with a lot of options.

There are simpler editors out there.

Steer clear of the very complex and very expensive Photoshop CS5 editor, unless you like an even steeper learning curve than Lightroom. Photoshop Elements has most of the features needed by an amateur and is easier to learn. Some free editors are popular, Picasa being the most commonly cited.
 
Of course, everyone has its own opinion and it's perfectly fine. I find LR limiting for my work.

Btw, I used PS before it was PS. So what?
My intent in noting my relatively long experience with Photoshop was to indicate that I did switch to Lightroom despite being reasonably familiar with Photoshop and found it to be a good move for me. In no way did I suggest that your advice was unreasonable.
--
Leonard Migliore
 
For most photographers, Lightroom is arguably more useful than Photoshop. There are a lot of photographers who used to work primarily in Photoshop who now work primarily in Lightroom—and people who have abandoned Photoshop for Lightroom.
 
I'm new to post processing and bought LR 3 after a lot of research at this and other sites. The catalog features are what sold me. There was (and still) a steep learning curve for me. I work in IT, but did not find LR 3 intuitive to use. I did find a great set of video tutorials at slrlounge. In summary -great software, but be prepared to invest some time in learning how to use it.
 
I have recently started using LR3 and being relatively new at this and doing some research I did take the plunge and I'm very happy with it. However, there is a series of tutorials on LR3 from slrlounge.com you should review. It's excellent and it's very much follow by example. They also provide some dng's to experiment with. Also Scott Kelby has some good stuff.
 
Some questions from a total newbie to PP.

If I have a raw file of a subject with wrinkles, would most software packages allow me to either remove or lessen them?

I have the Olympus E-PL2. Can its raw files be used directly by most software?

How does the free Olympus Viewer 2 software rate in comparison to the packages already mentioned?

Thanks.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top