Reading mode: Light Dark

5D and editing / converting software

Go to last post
T

tony field

Forum Pro
Messages
13,802
Solutions
2
Reaction score
7,459
Location
Calgary, CA
I am giving my son one of my old 5d-II cameras and lenses (in anticipation of picking up a 5D-III or 1DX). Obviously, he will need some editing/cataloguing software - so I purchased Lightroom and Elements to try to figure out what might be suitable for him. Lightroom, a ubiquitously popular tool for many folks, is an obvious choice and the low end Photoshop Elements was a second choice. However, when I recently evaluated the software (I normally use CS5) I was rather astounded at my personal conclusions. Here they are:

Lightroom : Lightroom is nothing more than a re-packaged interface for Adobe Camera raw and Bridge with a few extra toys (of course, you can disagree with what I consider a "toy" - surely some folks consider them to be very useful).

If you use use Photoshop/Bridge, there is very little that Lightroom does that Bridge/ACR cannot do. The only slight advantage to Lightroom is a better catalogue system that allows keywords to apply to the entire catalogue, the ability to have the image files off line but still be able to browse the catalogue, and the more convenient method of having multiple catalogues for selecting and manipulating them. Sadly, Lightroom does not understand networked drives, however that is easy to get around with 30 seconds of thought. I also find Lightroom to be slow processing compared to Bridge/ACR.

The only editing function NOT available in Bridge/ACR is the the ability to correct perspective - but that is obviously an available feature of Photoshop Free Transform. Effectively, Lightroom is nothing more than a GUI enhancement for Bridge/ACR. A significant downside to Lightroom Development module is the very coarse sliders which are very "narrow" and not smooth to use.

Photoshop Elemements 10 : Photoshop elements is a cut-back version of Photoshop. It does not have CMYK facilities, all of the fancy brushes, etc and surprisingly does not have a "curves" functionality (although that can be easily emulated with things like Levels, exposure, etc.

In addition, Elements has a full-blown Adobe Camera Raw. Since ACR can do essentially all of the functionality of Lightroom Developement module, there is no advantage what so ever to Lightroom editing. Since Elements is a somewhat cut-back version of Photoshop CS6, it has the full ability to do serious Lightroom style editing in ACR as well as all of the really essential features of photoshop.

The Catalogue facility of Lightroom is somewhat more flexible than Elements, however Elements is possibly sufficient for the majority of catalogue needs.

Observation : I am now completely surprised and the number of folks that have both Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom. If your first purchase for editing was Photoshop, I cannot imagine why anybody would even consider Lightroom as a useful package. There are many more workflow options in Bridge/ACR/Photoshop than presented by Lightroom.

IMHO, between Elements and Lightroom, Elements wins hands down for usable flexibility/power and is cheaper to boot. Of course YMMV - but you will have to prove it to me :)
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
 
I have Photoshop CS5, Elements, Capture One, and Lightroom. Elements came free with something or other.

My usage is 95% of the time Lightroom, 3% of the time Capture One (if I want to play with a different approach to a Lightroom image), about 1.5% Photoshop (because I basically don't want to manipulate my images that much), and I hardly ever open Elements. Many of the things you might consider toys on Lightroom are useful to me, although I do find the current release candidate has slowed it down horrendously.

However, for a beginner who wants to play with all the features that Elements offers it's a pretty good introductory software.

--
Some favourite pics:

http://garyp.zenfolio.com/p518883873/
 
GaryJP said:
I have Photoshop CS5, Elements, Capture One, and Lightroom. Elements came free with something or other.

My usage is 95% of the time Lightroom, 3% of the time Capture One
Click to expand...
Interesting comments. Why do you have a predilection for Lightroom when there is significantly more editing power in CS5 or Elements?
GaryJP said:
...

However, for a beginner who wants to play with all the features that Elements offers it's a pretty good introductory software.
Click to expand...
Why would Elements be a beginners tool? There are many more advanced features in Elements for photo manipulation (I interpret this as "more advanced"). Certainly the GUI is not as slick overall as Lightroom - but that is just smoke and mirrors.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
 
Wow, you do have a high opinion of yourself and you obviously don't know Lightroom at all. It is BY FAR the most powerful and versatile converter package ever made and far far far more than an interface for camera raw
tony field said:
Lightroom : Lightroom is nothing more than a re-packaged interface for Adobe > Camera raw and Bridge with a few extra toys (of course, you can disagree with > what I consider a "toy" - surely some folks consider them to be very useful).
Click to expand...
 
tony field said:
GaryJP said:
I have Photoshop CS5, Elements, Capture One, and Lightroom. Elements came free with something or other.

My usage is 95% of the time Lightroom, 3% of the time Capture One
Click to expand...
Interesting comments. Why do you have a predilection for Lightroom when there is significantly more editing power in CS5 or Elements?
Click to expand...
I very rarely do photo editing beyond cropping, and getting the tonal range and sharpness I like. I almost never want to remove a component from an images I've shot. I sometimes do a little "dodging" or "burning" in Lightroom. But when I have about 1,000 shots of a subject to process I just find it ungainly to open one after another in PS.

Undoubtedly I'll upgrade to PS 6, but I am not sure, with current use, how much I'll use it.
tony field said:
tony field said:
However, for a beginner who wants to play with all the features that Elements offers it's a pretty good introductory software.
Click to expand...
Why would Elements be a beginners tool? There are many more advanced features in Elements for photo manipulation (I interpret this as "more advanced"). Certainly the GUI is not as slick overall as Lightroom - but that is just smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...
It's just that for me many of those "advanced features" in Elements are features I'd only have ever used as a beginner. ;-)

Not claiming it's anything other than personal preference. But I used to move between three or four RAW converters, and in the end I decided to focus on one and learn how to make the best of it. (I find I get on better with the sliders in Lightroom than Capture One, but I'm sure other don't).

But I do find that the more I use Lightroom, the deeper it gets.

--
Some favourite pics:

http://garyp.zenfolio.com/p518883873/
 
bigdaddave said:
Wow, you do have a high opinion of yourself and you obviously don't know Lightroom at all. It is BY FAR the most powerful and versatile converter package ever made and far far far more than an interface for camera raw
Click to expand...
No, I am not an expert in Lightroom. Please tell me in what way the converter/editing "Develop" module is BY FAR better than the editing features of ACR. The only editing feature I can think of that is interesting is the virtual copy - everything else can be done in almost exactly the same way in ACR with the same controls. Granted, the catalogue features are better than Bridge.

--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
 
Tony, as far as Lightroom vs Photoshop+Bridge is concerned, I definitely agree with you. Since I have maintained two other sophisticated photo database programs in my business since 1996, and since, aside from my photography work, I absolutely need Photoshop, if for no other reaon than the extensive retouching I often get paid to do, I find Lightroom to be superfluous for my needs. Even though I have owned Lightroom from its beginning through V3 so far, I rarely use it at all, preferring to use DPP and ACR for my conversions and Bridge for my browsing. Without the cataloging feature, which I don't really need at this point, Lightroom seems like a big bloated reiteration of ACR, and often, for many Canon cameras like the current 5D3, ACR/Lightroom is not as good at its base job of file conversion as is DPP. As far as interface is concerned, yes, Lightroom and ACR are better, but, if you have knowledge and imagination, they can almost never do anything more than can DPP in conveeting a file. In the rare circumstance that they can, I just use ACR instead. I'm not sure I'll upgrade to LR4, but I'm sure to upgrade to CS6.

Two last things, LR is huge, too big. And, by default, it's intrusiveness reminds me of the worst habits of Quicktime, trying to catalog any new file it senses on your hard drive for which it has a built-in woorkflow - good if LR is all you use, but tremendously annoying if it isn't.

Regards,
David
--
Keep learning; share knowledge; think seriously about outcomes; seek wisdom.
 
GaryJP said:
I very rarely do photo editing beyond cropping, and getting the tonal range and sharpness I like. I almost never want to remove a component from an images I've shot. I sometimes do a little "dodging" or "burning" in Lightroom. But when I have about 1,000 shots of a subject to process I just find it ungainly to open one after another in PS.
Click to expand...
With minimal editing requirements as you describe, Lightroom is extremely well put together - in particular, the GUI beautifully done. I can certainly see why you prefer the Lightroom style.

However, in terms of your "actual processing", the identical processing can be done in bridge/ACR and, in fact, Photoshop itself never has to be accessed. When processing your 1000 image selection, simply load the entire selection into ACR and do the selective editing, assign ratings, do any batch processing, deleted the "junk", etc. and never touch photoshop. The ACR GUI is just a bit clunky compared to Lightroom - but is functionally virtually identical.
GaryJP said:
It's just that for me many of those "advanced features" in Elements are features I'd only have ever used as a beginner. ;-)
Click to expand...
This is certainly true, and, in your case, with the availability of all of the tools, you can invoke them as you choose conveniently from Lighroom and do any complex editing needed.
GaryJP said:
Not claiming it's anything other than personal preference. But I used to move between three or four RAW converters, and in the end I decided to focus on one and learn how to make the best of it. (I find I get on better with the sliders in Lightroom than Capture One, but I'm sure other don't).

But I do find that the more I use Lightroom, the deeper it gets.
Click to expand...
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
 
David Franklin said:
Two last things, LR is huge, too big. And, by default, it's intrusiveness reminds me of the worst habits of Quicktime, trying to catalog any new file it senses on your hard drive for which it has a built-in woorkflow - good if LR is all you use, but tremendously annoying if it isn't.
Click to expand...
Huh?

The way I use Lightroom it does not attempt to catalogue a single directory or even file unless I tell it to import it.

Unless you set file associations to do this, it won't.

--
Some favourite pics:

http://garyp.zenfolio.com/p518883873/
 
I started out with Picture Window Pro as my editor, and Capture One as my conversion software. I avoided PS. Expensive - and software that generates an industry around educating users is intimidating. I have enough of that in other realms of my life.

As I accumulated files, I went to LR for cataloging and the vast majority of editing. I dropped Capture One and just don't need most of what PS can do. For things that LR can't do, or if I don't like how something is implemented (perspective correction and cloning). I turn to trusty old PWP. If it's good enough for Norman Koren, it's good enough for me. However, given recent threads, and my soon to arrive MK III, I'm going to investigate re-introducing DPP into my workflow.

Best
--
'There is no un-suck filter.'
  • David duChemin
Which is too bad, because I could sure use one.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasper_rubin/
 
I shoot professional dance and after a show can have 3,000 RAW images from two or three bodies. I have CS5.5 Production Premium (CS6 ordered), LR 4, and Capture One Pro 6. I use Photoshop for all sorts of tweaks and creative modifications, but the first program used is LR4.

You try and review/adjust 3,000 RAW images with Adobe Bridge and CS5 ACR. I think not....

Plus there are many tool and presets in Lightroom that can be quickly applied to multiple images that would take MUCH longer in CS5. You can add watermarks, resize, .... A lot of CS5 plug-ins also work in LR. Yes they use the same ACR, but for multiple images, no comparison.

Don't get me wrong I use CS5 as a major tool, but life would be miserable without LR4. I occasionally use CO Pro on individual shots. If you think of LR as just a Camera Raw application, you really don't know Lightroom.

I use it to upload from a card reader to two external locations simultaneously - nice backup. I shoot theater shows, and the gradient brush which will even the lighting, saves me so much time and can be transferred to multiple shots.

If you don't see the difference, stick with what you are happy with. When I got my 5DMkIII, I was miserable having to convert to DNG until LR4.1 was released...
 
Does Camera Raw allow localised adjustments, gradients, retouching, masking, web galleries, slideshows, books, direct uploads and much more?

No.

Get your fact sstraight before you pontificate
tony field said:
bigdaddave said:
Wow, you do have a high opinion of yourself and you obviously don't know Lightroom at all. It is BY FAR the most powerful and versatile converter package ever made and far far far more than an interface for camera raw
Click to expand...
No, I am not an expert in Lightroom. Please tell me in what way the converter/editing "Develop" module is BY FAR better than the editing features of ACR. The only editing feature I can think of that is interesting is the virtual copy - everything else can be done in almost exactly the same way in ACR with the same controls. Granted, the catalogue features are better than Bridge.

--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
Click to expand...
 
Shamus1 said:
I shoot professional dance and after a show can have 3,000 RAW images from two or three bodies. I have CS5.5 Production Premium (CS6 ordered), LR 4, and Capture One Pro 6. I use Photoshop for all sorts of tweaks and creative modifications, but the first program used is LR4.
Click to expand...
Like you, I shoot dance productions. Typically, less than 2000 images per show on multiple bodies.
Shamus1 said:
You try and review/adjust 3,000 RAW images with Adobe Bridge and CS5 ACR. I think not....
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. The workflow is very fast and virtually identical to lightroom. I find no functional nor speed advantage of either system in substantive way (however, you can argue about the details).

Typically I use the bridge browser to cull the images. As I fly through the images I one-star rate all of the useful images. This is the identical process when working with lighroom. Typically I get the selection down to 200 to 400 for the images I like.

Subsequently the one-star images are selected. For bridge, I open them all in ACR. Lightroom automatically "does" this the minute you make the selection.

In ACR, the images are presented for editing - and the editing features are identical to Lightroom - anything you can do in one can be done in the other. The edit tools only differ in how they are presented in the GUI - Lightroom is a bit prettier.

At this point, there is no functional difference between the two systems and both operate with "the same number of keystrokes".
Shamus1 said:
Plus there are many tool and presets in Lightroom that can be quickly applied to multiple images that would take MUCH longer in CS5. You can add watermarks, resize, .... A lot of CS5 plug-ins also work in LR. Yes they use the same ACR, but for multiple images, no comparison.
Click to expand...
Presets work in the same way in both ACR and Lightroom (almost). I can instantly apply a preset to one or more selected images in ACR. In lightroom, I have to apply a preset to each image - one at a time and cannot choose say 5 images of the 400 to apply a preset as I can in ACR (maybe there is a way but I cannot figure out how)

In addition, within ACR, I can select two or more images and apply the identical ACR adjustments to the selected group without "having a preset". I cannot find a way in Lightroom to do this. To me, because of this, the batch processing in ACR is easier and faster than with Lightroom.

Indeed, there is no direct method of applying a watermark in Bridge/ACR. This would have to be done with an external programme or a Photoshop script/action that would be needed to be invoked by batch processing. (now that you mention "watermarking", I think I will do just that as a script to be applied when I resize the images and dispense with the external programme -- thanks for the idea).

Image resize is trivial from bridge for the selected images by using the Photoshop Image Processor. There does not seem to be any execution time penalty since both Photoshop and Lightroom have to read the raw file, apply editing, and generate the output. This is an extra keyboard step but the elapsed time is the same as done by Lightroom (well, faster, I find Lightroom to be generally slower - but I say that with caution since I have configured the photshop disk utilization to be as efficient as possible but have not done that with Lightroom yet).
Shamus1 said:
Don't get me wrong I use CS5 as a major tool, but life would be miserable without LR4. I occasionally use CO Pro on individual shots. If you think of LR as just a Camera Raw application, you really don't know Lightroom.
Click to expand...
I am not familiar with CO PRO. I am not saying I really know Lightroom. It is just that I cannot find any functional difference at all between Bridge/ACR and Lightroom - other than the differences I have noted above.

As far as I can see, I would be completely happy to process a dance production in either system. No gains of any importance on either side.
Shamus1 said:
I use it to upload from a card reader to two external locations simultaneously - nice backup. I shoot theater shows, and the gradient brush which will even the lighting, saves me so much time and can be transferred to multiple shots.
Click to expand...
For image download and time-interleaving of images from multiple cameras, I choose to use Photo Mechanic which handles all of the file rename, concurrent download from multiple cards, duplication, metadata, etc that neither Lightroom nor Bridge can do. The ability to handle multiple cards concurrently is an incredible time saver - it also means that I don't drink as much scotch waiting on the download - and that also save money :)
Shamus1 said:
If you don't see the difference, stick with what you are happy with. When I got my 5DMkIII, I was miserable having to convert to DNG until LR4.1 was released...
Click to expand...
DNG was a pain (but at least in was an available work-around :).

In terms of seeing a difference, I see effectively none. The points you have made are equivalently handled in either system and, except for the issues of water marks or the apparent inability of Lightroom to apply a preset to selected images.

I actually tried to identically process part of a dance production in both systems. There was no speed nor functionality differential. I would be completely happy with either for production work. The only difference is in the GUI presentation.

Here is a typical production that was entire processed in Bridg/ACR - elapsed time from starting the review of about 1500 images, editing, and creating "customer web page" was about 2 hours of pain. The degree and colour of blood would be identical for either system :)

http://tphoto.myphotos.cc/bara/harmful/index.html

In other words, I stick to my original contention that, if you have Bridge/ACR/Photoshop, then Lightroom is superfluous. :) If you can provide specific examples of the superiority of Lightroom, I would be delighted to know about them.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
 
bigdaddave said:
Does Camera Raw allow localised adjustments, gradients, retouching, masking, web galleries, slideshows, books, direct uploads and much more?

No.

Get your fact sstraight before you pontificate
Click to expand...
Humm get your "fact sstraight" before you wave your arms.

To be more precise, "localised adjustments, gradients, retouching, masking" are all available in ACR. "web galleries, slideshows, books, direct uploads and much more" are available in Bridge. The only difference is difference in the GUI presentation. The functionality and use of the tools are identically.

All of the things you mention are completely available in Bridge/ACR with the possible exception of "books", and "map" which is a new feature in Lightroom but may or may not be in the forthcoming release of CS6.

Maybe you should actually use the software before you make claims. I am still waiting for your explanation of why Lightroom is "far far better".
bigdaddave said:
tony field said:
bigdaddave said:
Wow, you do have a high opinion of yourself and you obviously don't know Lightroom at all. It is BY FAR the most powerful and versatile converter package ever made and far far far more than an interface for camera raw
Click to expand...
No, I am not an expert in Lightroom. Please tell me in what way the converter/editing "Develop" module is BY FAR better than the editing features of ACR. The only editing feature I can think of that is interesting is the virtual copy - everything else can be done in almost exactly the same way in ACR with the same controls. Granted, the catalogue features are better than Bridge.

--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
 
I did find that you can process only the selected images desired and apply a preset/filter/development setting to a group of images in the same way that is done in ACR. My error in this case is caused by not knowing the Lightroom GUI features as well as my knowledge of ACR/Bridge.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
 
Tony, never meant to imply one gave better results than the other, as you are correct, they both use the same ACR. You are obviously very comfortable with Bridge (I use it also) and I also like ACDSee Pro 5 which allows quick loads to CS5.

I use twin monitors and in CS5, have the second set up with all the tools and adjustments. In LR, the second monitor is used for full screen view, when the primary is zoomed. I started using LR when it first came out, and tried a lot of converters, including SILKYPIX, Bibble Pro and Captur One. I like Adobe the best and the new process 2012., although CO Pro has some very good results, but not fond of some things.

It comes down to what works best for you. I am very comfortable using ACR and bridge for a small number of shots, but prefer LR for its extras and Ease of use. Yes you can get the same results, but I personally find LR much quicker.

p.s. I think I commented before on another thread ref very nice dance shots, so your methods and workflow obviously works well for you.
 
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