About Lightroom

[Bob Michaels]

If all that usually takes 3-4 minutes per file, I would say you are not going to save any time.

Thanks. The speed of my workflow if helped considerably from using the same workflow consistently for many years. I never have to stop and think what to do next or search for a command. I can create a custom S shaped contrast curve in seconds because I look at the image and already know what it needs. I know what sharpening attributes to apply to a iso 400 neg printed 9x13 1/2 or 10x12 1/2 with no trial and error. It also helps that I use complete color management for scanner, monitor and printer. I look at the screen and know exactly what the JPG or print will look like.

it is that old situation of finding out what works then doing it over and over. Eventually you will get quick at it.

 

[MCTuomey]

Can anyone suggest a good tutorial explaining the current version of Lightroom to experienced Photoshop users?

Scott Kelby's LR3 book is a winner imho:

http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-Lightroom-Digital-Photographers-Voices/dp/0321700910

 

[MCTuomey]

Do I think I will save time or improve output using LR when my basic Photoshop workflow for my normal b&w files is:

1) open scan .TIF file in Photoshop
2) immediately save as a .PSD file
3) manually adjust levels
4) manually crop to exact required aspect ratio
5) create custom S shaped contrast curve in separate layer
6) create any required local contrast adjustments in separate layer
6a) adjust opacity of local contrast adjustments layer
7) save .PSD file with all layers intact
8) flatten layers
9) adjust size for proof print
10) sharpen
11) make proof print
12) undo sharpening
13) resize for small .JPG
14) sharpen .JPG
15) save .JPG
16) close file without saving any changes from 7) forward

So could I do this any better in LR than in PS with every step involving artistic judgement rather than application of some standard?

No, LR3 would probably not improve your workflow, especially if you are happy with your upload and filing system. Where I find LR3 wonderful is for processing multiple files having similar requirements for basic exposure, contrast, sharpening adjustments. There are other features like keywording, tagging, and rating that can be useful for cataloging and sorting. The presets in LR3 are similar to PS "actions" but are simpler to set up and use, imho. Presets work well if you find yourself responding to multiple files in repetitive ways, e.g. the same color burn for a large set of files, the same B&W conversion for a certain set of files, etc.

Bob, you can't "save" anything in LR3 because the equivalent command in Lightroom is "export." (One of the initially maddening terminology uses in LR3 that takes some soak time before acclimation.)

 

[lynnb]

Hi Gary,

I used CS2 + Bridge for a long time, creating my own workflow - which worked for me. After reading about LR I took the plunge with LR2, and now I use LR3 + CS4.

I couldn't be happier. Like others have said LR complements CS - I now use CS only as a pixel editor or where I want to work in layers; LR is a workflow tool with a powerful development module, which I find more intuitive and easier to use than CS4. As a bonus its image database ("library") functionality is very useful if you have large numbers of image files.

LR has given me a faster workflow and better UI. I spend most of my time in LR and leave the pixel finessing to CS4. The two products are designed to work together that way, and I found it easy once I understood it. If you download the trial version, LR has a tutorial built in, which explains the concept and use of the program very well. It just doesn't go into a lot of detail - see next para:

I recently attended a printing demo at an imaging show and was surprised to learn that I wasn't using anything like the full potential of LR's development, pixel editing and local adjustment capabilities. I saw local adjustments being done that I'd always assumed were better and more efficiently done in CS4. Not necessarily the case!

Its other modules (Slideshow, Print, Web) are intuitive and easy to use.

I have Martin Evening's LR book (ISBN 978-0321680709) which I really need to study some more - it's well written and illustrated but I haven't systematically worked through it, mainly because once you get the hang of LR it's so easy and efficient. I can see now that that effort may be worthwhile.

Michael Reichmann also has 9 hours of LR3 video tutorials http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/lr3.shtml if you prefer that learning style. He also has a lot of other LR info and tips in free articles on his site.

Bottom line for me: I've ditched Bridge, and now use LR as my preferred tool for almost all my image processing, save for things that need layers or cloning. It's saved me a lot of time (better UI, faster workflow, simple to copy development settings to multiple images shot in the same lighting conditions), and also a lot of disk space, because LR's non-destructive edits are saved in a small sidecar file. It's easy to export different versions of the one image as new files if you need to.

Cheers,

 

[Bob Michaels]

............................
Bob, you can't "save" anything in LR3 because the equivalent command in Lightroom is "export." (One of the initially maddening terminology uses in LR3 that takes some soak time before acclimation.)

yeah, that is what I want in a LR tutorial. Something with a chart of terminology conversions that tells you what you always knew as "save" is now called "export" and all the others.

I am a bit of an old fart who is quickly dissuaded when common commands like "open" and "save" are not apparent.

 

[Doug]

Yes, the terminology and interface were hurdles to get over. "Import" is just "Open" but it took some trials to establish that, as to me Import implies moving something... As imported goods are moved from their sources in China or wherever to their destinations in Wal-Mart or wherever. 🙂

In LR, oddly one can closely examine files in a folder without opening/importing them, so you can select which to open (into the Catalog for work) and which to ignore.

 

[SciAggie]

I appreciate all of the information and opinions offered so far. My experience with Adobe products is that they are generally very good, but they can be a PITA to learn - so again I thank y'all for taking the time to comment. Like Bob, I have a workflow I have become comfortable with. I also have a file naming system I'm happy with - BUT - I think I will try Adobe's free trial. I might just like it.

 

[hteasley]

I appreciate all of the information and opinions offered so far. My experience with Adobe products is that they are generally very good, but they can be a PITA to learn - so again I thank y'all for taking the time to comment. Like Bob, I have a workflow I have become comfortable with. I also have a file naming system I'm happy with - BUT - I think I will try Adobe's free trial. I might just like it.

One big thing to note: you don't have to have Lightroom reorganize things for you, or convert or rename things. Even when it does, it doesn't put everything into a single-file pseudo-DB, like Aperture and iPhoto. They're just files in directories.

I found that, once I was using it, I no longer cared about filenames and locations, content to only access the files through Lightroom.

 

[f6andBthere]

ACDSee Pro pretty well has everything that Lightroom offers but with a far superior cloning and healing function IMO ... I also find the user interface far easier to deal with.

Peer pressure has caused me to attempt to switch to Lightroom several times now because I keep reading about how great it is ... I invariably go back to ACDSee very rapidly after battling Lightroom's user interface which feels very cramped by comparison.

If you're a film shooter with a hybrid work flow ACDSee is way superior IMO.

 

[bobbyrab]

ACDSee Pro pretty well has everything that Lightroom offers but with a far superior cloning and healing function IMO ... I also find the user interface far easier to deal with.

Peer pressure has caused me to attempt to switch to Lightroom several times now because I keep reading about how great it is ... I invariably go back to ACDSee very rapidly after battling Lightroom's user interface which feels very cramped by comparison.

If you're a film shooter with a hybrid work flow ACDSee is way superior IMO.

I've never seen ACDSee before, or indeed heard of it, but certainly the clone/heal tool in LR has limited use. One of the most useful tools in LR is the localised paintbrush, for those that have never used it, you paint an area of your image with the adjustable brush, and you can then apply to the painted area +- exposure, contrast, clarity, saturation and sharpness without any of the hoops you'd have to jump through in photoshop. Can this be done in ACDSee? And how does it compare price wise.

 

[f6andBthere]

I've never seen ACDSee before, or indeed heard of it, but certainly the clone/heal tool in LR has limited use. One of the most useful tools in LR is the localised paintbrush, for those that have never used it, you paint an area of your image with the adjustable brush, and you can then apply to the painted area +- exposure, contrast, clarity, saturation and sharpness without any of the hoops you'd have to jump through in photoshop. Can this be done in ACDSee? And how does it compare price wise.

Ahhh ... ACDSee's weak point. It does have a similar function but Lightroom is superior with it's brush. ACDSee has a lasso tool with a very defined edge that's hard to control. They may have improved that in the new version 4 which I don't have ... I'm still using 3.

From memory it's under $200.00

I very seldom do localised adjustments so it hasn't bothered me.

 

[willie_901]

yeah, that is what I want in a LR tutorial. Something with a chart of terminology conversions that tells you what you always knew as "save" is now called "export" and all the others.

I am a bit of an old fart who is quickly dissuaded when common commands like "open" and "save" are not apparent.

Bob,

Actually in LR every image is always open and every image is always saved.

Import doesn't open anything, it just adds the image into LR's database. Export doen't save, it just generates a version of the image and removes it from LR's control.

LR is fundamentally different from PS. LR has two main functions.

1. LR lets you organize of your original images and any way you'd like to. It lets you organize your edits (not processing) and processed versions of the originals anyway you need to.

2. LR adjusts images with powerful, intuitive tools to improve their aesthetics. Any number of versions an image can be rendered differently and organized to meet your needs. New images are never created until you Export a rendered version outside of LR.

Unlike PS, LR is a just a large powerful database. LR calls this database the Catalog. One's original images are never modified. Instead, LR's database remembers every adjustment one makes to the image as it is processed (adjusted). These rendered images are called virtual copies. A new version of the image doesn't exist. Instead, a record of how the image was modified is recorded in a database. You can make numerous virtual copies from the same original. Each would have it's own adjustments (crops, noise filering, color or lack of color, contrast, etc.). Upon Export a real copy is generated and saved. This copy is no longer available to LR (but it's virtual copy is retained).

Your computer only contains:

o original images

o LR's database of image processing adjustments and how you organize your edited and processed work

o images you exported to print or share electronically

Note that virtual copies take a small fraction of the disk space an original or exported image uses because the virtual copies are created on the fly when you use LR.

I hope this helps.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Bob,

Actually in LR every image is always open and every image is always saved.

Import doesn't open anything, it just adds the image into LR's database. Export doen't save, it just generates a version of the image and removes it from LR's control.

LR is fundamentally different from PS. LR has two main functions.

1. LR lets you organize of your original images and any way you'd like to. It lets you organize your edits (not processing) and processed versions of the originals anyway you need to.

2. LR adjusts images with powerful, intuitive tools to improve their aesthetics. Any number of versions an image can be rendered differently and organized to meet your needs. New images are never created until you Export a rendered version outside of LR.

Unlike PS, LR is a just a large powerful database. ....................................

Willie: many thanks. Unfortunately, most of the things you described are things I really don't want. I don't want a database as I have my own way of retaining originals and adjusted files. And I sure don't want any "intuitive" tools as I do everything specific to my images. I have never used any of those standard adjustments in PS. And disk space is not a problem for me even though I have very large files (sometimes 160MB each for a PSD file plus a 100 MB TIF from the scan) Unlike most people, 96% of what I shoot gets edited out and never makes it to my hard drive. My total for 12 years of serious photography takes us just over 200 GB of disk space.

Thanks to everyone in this thread, I can see where Lightroom is ideal for 98% of you. I am just in the other 2%. Think of the photographer who makes 4-8 photos per week. That is me. Actually I shoot 100-120 photos per week but edit out all but 4-8 immediately.

 

[willie_901]

You do want those same exact things.

You just achieve them using a different methodology.

Most importantly you have no problems getting your work done. So any advantages you would realize by switching would be trivial to what you would gain from the change.

 

[venchka]

...

Like Bob and others, I have a long-established cataloging and file system for photos, and don't want LR messing around with it! In fact, at the outset I examined the LR library and catalog features with suspicion, and found that it can safely be ignored, so I am pleased to carry on with my own system as before, and use LR for editing photos. 🙂

Amen! I file them. LR prcesses them.

I'm not sure where the notion came from, but Lightroom doesn't make up the file structure.

 

[Doug]

Amen! I file them. LR prcesses them.

I'm not sure where the notion came from, but Lightroom doesn't make up the file structure.

At the dawn of time, each computer application provided its own user interface, proprietary fonts if any, proprietary graphics if any, and handled its own files. That was before my time, which started with the Mac in 1984. 😀 The revolution was in the common user interface, universal file structure, resources like fonts and graphics used in common. The “dark side” has been playing catchup ever since. And Adobe seems to have stepped back away from this philosophy with Lightroom, don’t you think?

FWIW, my filing system is the Mac Finder, and data with commentary is kept with FileMaker. I make small uploadable jpegs of my chosen files, all placed in one folder and opened in a browser window of GraphicConverter. I believe PS has a similar browser. In this browser I can visually pick out individual files, often with direction from the FileMaker database.

Had I started my photography with a digital camera, I might have done it differently, relying more on embedded Metadata. I started having processed film scanned in 1999, but of course the scanner’s metadata is not so relevant. I used a Canon G3 starting in 2004 for work documentation, but hobby photography has been digital only since 2008 with the M8 and Pentax K100D. My film filing system goes back to 1963, so there is a great deal of inertia there, as the image numbering system and data recording continue now with digital files.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I'm not sure where the notion came from, but Lightroom doesn't make up the file structure.

First, I have to admit to not being good at reading or following directions. I have to try something first.

I bought a new digital camera and Lightroom earlier this year. I shot a weekend worth of unimportant photos, installed LR and stuck the memory card in the computer. LR opened up and grabbed the images from the card. I played with LR and thought that was cool. And LR saved the photos automatically.

I have not seen those photo files since. They are somewhere in new directories titled "Lightroom" in the "my photos" folder. But I apparently cannot get to them using normal MS Windows functions. It appears I need Lightroom running to find them. I am just used to specifying where I want to save a series of files.

I am sure I can spend some time with instructions and figure out how to retrieve these files.

But that is where I got the idea LR has it own file management system.

 

[lynnb]

Bob,

When you insert a memory card with LR open, LR does two processes:
1. Imports the photos to your computer to a folder you nominate (or two folders simultaneously - you can specify a backup folder at the same time, and it can be on a different drive like an external HDD). If you didn't nominate a destination folder, it would have gone with whatever the default was.
2. Adds the location of the imported photos to the LR library (file management system). LR's library doesn't physically put the photos into its database, it only tells the database the folder where the photo has been uploaded to.

During the import you can also tell LR to rename the files. This is really handy if you potentially will have files with the same name, eg. if you are shooting with 2 digital camera bodies and sets of memory cards where the files are numbered sequentially - the sort of thing that happens if you shoot events or simply take a lot of photos. Can also happen with just 1 camera if the file numbers reset to 0001 after reaching 9999. For this reason I always rename during import to append the date shot with the file number, but LR allows you to do custom renames and sequence numbers as well, eg. Mary_wedding_0001 etc.

Check to see if the file rename settings were somehow set to something different from the original camera file name.

To find your photos go to the library module and look in the folder tree on the left hand panel. Select a drive/folder to see thumbnails of the uploaded/imported images in the centre panel. If you know the file name (or even part of it) you can search using the Library Filters at the top of the central thumbnails panel. The Library Filters allows you to search using many criteria including dates and metadata as well.

LR's Library is just a database that lists the location of the files that LR is aware of, ie. that have been uploaded from a memory card via LR, or you have told LR to go look and import photos in a particular drive or folder. The files always remain in their original location. Adding them to LR doesn't shift them around, it just tells LR where they are located.

Once they're in the LR Library it makes sense to move them via LR if you want to change their locations - otherwise LR will lose track of them.

Hope this helps.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Lynn: thanks. I shoot very little digital but when I do I simply close LR (which open automatically when it senses a memory card) and use Windows Explorer to copy the files into a specific subdirectory of my choosing. That way I can use Windows Explorer to find them again, just like all the other photo files over some 12 years.

I have just figured out how to select a file (using windows explorer) and open it in LR. Except LR wants to open every file in that subdirectory, not just the one I want to work on.

 

[ashfaque]

For tutorial you can try YouTube. Sometimes I use when I get stuck with MATLAB. An amazing place for useful & free tutorials. 🙂

I use LR3, wanted to to use PS but decided against it as it's too taxing for my laptop (T9300 and nVidia). IIRC, at least of the members already mentioned that PS is more flexible (and thus more complicated). But if one needs to tweak things that he can't do it on LR3 or not satisfied, then PS is the way to go.

Since I'm a sucker for B&W, I should mention that I really like Silver Efex Pro 2. They have quite a few nice tutorials. IIRC, it works with PS, LR3 and other editing tools. 🙂