opinions: Lightroom

Started Sep 18, 2012 | Discussions
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 831
opinions: Lightroom

I know a lot of people here use Lightroom 3 or 4. Thinking of getting it. I currently use PSPX4 and nothing else. What can I expect from LR? I'll probably buy the old version (3) to save some coin. I know it's great for organizing/batch processing, etc. Any other pros and cons to Lightroom?

Thanks
--
Dr. Lecter

RoelHendrickx
RoelHendrickx Forum Pro • Posts: 25,813
Re: opinions: Lightroom

Doctor Lecter wrote:

I know a lot of people here use Lightroom 3 or 4. Thinking of getting it. I currently use PSPX4 and nothing else. What can I expect from LR? I'll probably buy the old version (3) to save some coin. I know it's great for organizing/batch processing, etc. Any other pros and cons to Lightroom?

I can't compare to other software.
I've been using LR almost exclusively for ALL my editing tasks, since LR2.
Happy user. Don't know why, but the workflow just feels intuitive to me.

Just one thing : if you do go for LR, go for LR4. It's image processing (especially in the area of Dynamic Range (highlight and shadow recovery etc) is really superior to LR3. And I have always been happy with LR3 and doubted whether the upgrade was worth it. Now trust me: it is.

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

OP (unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 831
Re: 3 vs. 4

Thanks Roel... some reviewers mentioned that version 4 runs SLOWWWW... have you had any issues with that?
--
Dr. Lecter

Skeeterbytes Forum Pro • Posts: 13,621
Re: 3 vs. 4

V4 speed is no different from V3 on my computers (Win7). Confess I don't know what a "PSPX4" is.

For me, LR is indespensible because of the data base. Most of what it does WRT image processing can also be done in Camera RAW, but the latest improvements to both are quite welcome.

Cheers,

Rick

RoelHendrickx
RoelHendrickx Forum Pro • Posts: 25,813
Re: 3 vs. 4

Doctor Lecter wrote:

Thanks Roel... some reviewers mentioned that version 4 runs SLOWWWW... have you had any issues with that?

NO. About the same.

I did have to upgrade my computer to run LR4.
I was still at Windows XP because I did not like Vista one bit.
So I upgraded to Win7 and added some RAM.

Now I feel LR4 (64bit) is like LR3 used to be under XP.

The upgrade was worth it, even including the Win7 upgrade.

If you already run Win7, it's a no brainer to get LR4.
.
--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Steve Grooms Senior Member • Posts: 2,576
Re: opinions: Lightroom

LR is a strange program, as it is a database combined with an image developer. If you are a certain kind of person, you can use the database to simplify and speed up all sorts of procedures. But you can also learn to use that database on a primitive level and concentrate on using the Development Module to produce lovely images.

One thing I will say for LR4 is that it is an Adobe product that seems fairly priced. I like the way LR improvements have come out, with each new version being significantly better than the previous one. Recent improvements have made the noise reduction function superb, and as Roel mentioned the DR capabilities of LR4 are remarkable.

 Steve Grooms's gear list:Steve Grooms's gear list
Olympus XZ-2 iHS Olympus OM-D E-M10
Albino_BlacMan
Albino_BlacMan Senior Member • Posts: 1,006
Re: opinions: Lightroom

Buy it and don't look back.
--
Chris

http://s1215.photobucket.com/home/Albino_BlacMan/index

Bobbert Contributing Member • Posts: 570
Re: opinions: Lightroom

Everyone tells me that LR is great, but I have an aversion to Adobe in general. I use AcdSee Pro 5 (Pro 6 on the way) Databasing I think is superior and I find the image processing more intuitive than LR. Corel's Aftershot (used to be Bibble) is also pretty good.

The only asset manager that actually recognizes image files that are not Adobe's own is AcdSee... is "sees" all image types including some oddballs. Because I use PaintShop and save as .pspimage files, I can't use LR as a photo asset manager. If you use ACDSee you can catalogue all your jpg, psd, pspimage and any other file types. In addition you can non-destructively edit your psd and pspimage files... a neat trick.

Either way, trial versions of all of them are available and worth playing with...

-- hide signature --

Bob B
http://www.pbase.com/bbernstein

Olympus e30, e-510, 12~60, 50~200 ED, EC14, 18~180, 14~42, 40~150, 50mm macro, 9~18, fl36

Hans H. Siegrist
Hans H. Siegrist Senior Member • Posts: 2,426
Re: opinions: Lightroom

Go for it, you won't regret it!

Cheers!
--
Hans H. Siegrist
http://hhsiegrist.zenfolio.com/
Nature Photo Blog: http://hhsiegrist.wordpress.com

 Hans H. Siegrist's gear list:Hans H. Siegrist's gear list
Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH
Messier Object Veteran Member • Posts: 6,928
Re: 3 vs. 4

Hi Doctor L and others

I believe that the 4.0 version had some process bottlenecks that they ironed out in 4.1

The problem was only evident in Develop mode and most noticable if you ran the multiple monitor mode (F11)

I find version 4 has better highlight control, and as the owner of an OM300/4.5 I find the Color Finge/QA control extremely good and better then LR3.

Been trialing the Topaz Denoise plug-in. It gives better control of shadow noise, but I don't think I'll buy it when the trial is up

Peter

 Messier Object's gear list:Messier Object's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 7D Mark II Olympus E-5 Olympus Zuiko Digital 300mm 1:2.8 +12 more
Mike_PEAT Forum Pro • Posts: 13,213
nt)Download the free trial version from Adobe and try it yoursel!

nt=No text

Durm Regular Member • Posts: 152
Re: opinions: Lightroom

Doctor Lecter wrote:

I know a lot of people here use Lightroom 3 or 4. Thinking of getting it. I currently use PSPX4 and nothing else. What can I expect from LR? I'll probably buy the old version (3) to save some coin. I know it's great for organizing/batch processing, etc. Any other pros and cons to Lightroom?

Thanks
--
Dr. Lecter

Lightroom 4.# is probably the "best thing since sliced bread" for most digital photographers who are serious about getting the most out of their raw files..

When I first installed the upgrade from version 3 I did notice that the software ran very slowly..

Mostly it was slow while switching modes (into develop mode), but as time passed and I trimmed my catalog down below 40 thousand images, it got "speedier".

I think the BEST feature of Lightroom is the way it can "export" your file (as a tif or jpg or other type of file) directly into whatever editor you want..

The feature is located on the "export" dialogue page (down at the bottom). You cn steer it directly to your favorite editor (in your case, Paintshop Pro) and the file will open in Paintshop Pro at the end of the export for "finish work" if needed.

I think the "slowness" in version 4 might just go away after a few sessions (I know it did on my system).

-- hide signature --

Durm

I always know what I mean to say, but I dont always manage to say it clearly.

Owner & user of a bunch of E-series and m43 cameras.

SirSeth
SirSeth Veteran Member • Posts: 9,946
LR3 and PSP

Greetings,

PSP is a great bang for the buck. It's capable. I also have Serif PhotoPlus and PS Elements, but I prefer PSP.

For RAW conversion I moved from Pixmantec RawShooter to Lightroom 3 after Adobe bought them out. I miss the simplicity and speed of RawShooter, but Lightroom is a one stop shop. It's excellent when you have a good computer and does many of the tasks that I used to do in PSP like cropping, darkening, spot removal). I still use PSP for layers, blending, cloning...

I find it took me a while to get used the cataloge in LR. I think it's more complicated then it should be and that some of the features are more for professional photographers with hundreds of thousands of images. RawShooter just used my windows folder arrangment and didn't require imports and tagging. I think Adobe could learn something from Google Picasa as far as ease of organizaing and cataloging goes, but maybe that's just because I don't use all of the intense features of the LR cataloge.

Scarab Darkroom is worth a try. I don't know how development is going on that these days. Last year it looked promising, but results were variable. There are others I'm sure, but over all, I think it would be neglecting a very good option not to give LR trial a go.

Cheers,
Seth

-- hide signature --

What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 SirSeth's gear list:SirSeth's gear list
Olympus E-1 Sony Alpha a7 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS +4 more
zuikophile Regular Member • Posts: 203
Re: opinions: Lightroom

Put the pedal to the metal and do it. I started with 3 and it was great. LR4 offers much better raw adjustment and scales for sliders make more sense. Speed seems the same to me. There is a learning curve and the divide between library and develop seems artificial sometimes. These nits are small compared to features and world of plugins available, not to mention integration to PSE or CS. And, there is lots of tribal knowledge out there (and good help from Adobe) given the large user base. I am constantly amazed at what I can do with E-300 files from 3-4 years ago to overcome that camera's DR and noise limitations. Getting more from E3 files is easy.
--

'There is a spontaneous pure expression that is unique to photography.' - Yoshihisa Maitani 1933-2009

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads