Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              6       7       end
  

Archive 2014 · Why Use Lightroom?

  
 
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Why Use Lightroom?


Ya know… It occurs to me… There's an awful lot of time and energy being spent on these forums in consideration of getting the most out of LR when the best solution or certainly the easiest answer seems to plainly be just ditching LR in favor of another app. It's not like there's a shortage of alternatives out there and LR scores extremely low if not the very worst among them. More than a few people in recent threads have proclaimed their need and dependency for/on fast post processing. So I'm confused as to why those guys or anyone really, would choose the very slowest app and then spend so much of their free time here talking about how slow it is and analyzing all the bits and pieces which make it so.

So, honest question…. If you're an LR user, why?




Jan 22, 2014 at 07:45 PM
frdjohns
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Why Use Lightroom?


wow - you really have an axe to grind against LR, huh?

If it is even remotely as bad as you say, why spend time running a poll on it while griping about people griping about it?

I like it, I use it all the time, and none of your listed poll answers comes close to a reason for it.



Jan 22, 2014 at 07:54 PM
Nancy Asquith
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Why Use Lightroom?


I really like Lightroom. It is way faster than Photoshop for processing most photos.

If you have other apps to recommend, what are they and what makes them better?

Also, instead of just saying LR scores poorly, could you be more specific about who scored LR poorly and what their criteria were?



Jan 22, 2014 at 08:13 PM
John Caldwell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Why Use Lightroom?


LR is fine, the best software I know of for my needs. Been with LR since version 1, and can't imagine not continuing given the rate of improvements we enjoy with ongoing development. Cannot identify with the anti-LR sentiment you appear to harbor. Why not just use something else if LR is not satisfying you?


Jan 22, 2014 at 08:43 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Why Use Lightroom?


The combination of image management along with some great image processing abilities, LR gets me 75% of what I need for my images...the rest comes from PS. Why look elsewhere when the two best are right there in front of your face.


Jan 22, 2014 at 08:45 PM
butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Why Use Lightroom?


I used Lr from the very first public beta up until 9 months ago. I was frustrated that it seems Adobe only really cares about Develop module. Granted, the Develop module is key to the app and I always appreciated their efforts in that area ... but I figured if they are going to include the other modules and charge me for the whole application ... I would like to see further advancement and greater usability of the other modules.

Specifically, I was concerned about the Slideshow and Book modules. The first is a sad excuse of wasted effort and the latter is a cruel joke considering you can only create books with page dimensions, margins a bleeds for only one specific print house. Sure you can export as PDF to send for printing elsewhere ... but if the resulting document does not meet you preferred print house requirements ... it's a pure exercise in futility.

Slideshows and books/albums are a considerable portion of my workflow. I design my own as well as work for several other shooters, in all I average 150-200 books/albums per year. Of course I could use other software options by exporting the images I need ... but we are talking many tens of thousands of images in the span of a year. I was crushed under a mountain of derivative files to organize and house clean.

Prior to leaving Lr, I was using Aperture to do my slideshows and book projects because it would allow me to work directly with my RAW images and avoid exporting all those needless files. I've owned and used InDesign since v1 ... I really like the app and it has many special qualities ... but for photo books and albums it is very much overkill. Then I realized something, in side-by-side comparisons ... Aperture really wasn't all that inferior in RAW rendering I had once believed.

Armed with proper presets and taking the time to become more proficient with Aperture, I realized that Lr really wasn't all that "superior" ... Yes, Aperture doesn't have lens correction ... but I use very expensive lenses that don't yield much if any color fringing ... I keep an eye on distortion at the point of capture, thus avoiding the need to "fix it" after the fact ... for the few images that do need a little TLC, it is far less effort to run them through ACR/Ps than to have to export an entire shoot to finish a project in other specialized software.

Likewise for noise reduction. I have found the more accurately I expose the image at the time of capture ... there is much less need to rely upon further noise reduction in post processing.

Aperture is definitely not perfect. I do miss the Print module in Lr, though, when considering I do very little printing in-house, I can get by without it.

Then there is the speed advantage of Aperture over Lr ... if you set your preferences properly, you can speed through an import and first cull of a new shoot as quickly as using Photo Mechanic ... plus, Aperture doesn't waste your time rebuilding thumbnails EVERY time you scroll though a folder of images.

I know I am an odd duck in my personal preferences ... but since moving my workflow to Aperture, I have seen a considerable increase in productivity, a huge time savings with little if any discernible loss in the quality of finished product. Those savings in my time and effort have made me more profitable ... and much more relaxed at the end of the day.

YMMV.

Edited on Jan 22, 2014 at 09:28 PM · View previous versions



Jan 22, 2014 at 08:54 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Why Use Lightroom?


frdjohns wrote:
wow - you really have an axe to grind against LR, huh?


No, it's an honest question as I said. Why not choose to believe what I said instead of going for the conflict?


Nancy Asquith wrote:
a) I really like Lightroom. It is way faster than Photoshop for processing most photos.

b) If you have other apps to recommend, what are they and what makes them better?

c) Also, instead of just saying LR scores poorly, could you be more specific about who scored LR poorly and what their criteria were?


a) Hmm, I guess this comes to usage style or something. The ACR part of PS can be much faster than LR could hope for. Also if using PS Actions, PS again takes a huge leap in front of LR in terms of both speed and function. And of course Bridge is both more capable and about twice the speed of LR last I tested. But we're still just comparing Adobe products to each other. How about any of the others?

b) To answer that would require a lot more typing than I'm willing to do - but for me, I was mainly only talking about speed. The time it takes from memory card insertion to final output. I keep current with a lot of different apps so to me this is just common knowledge. I assume most other people know that LR is dog-slow as well. At least when I go searching on the internet with such a topic I never once have read someone saying LR is faster and I very often read users saying it's terribly slow. In my own tests which are extensive, LR scores fairly low indeed. Again talking about speed.

c) Yeah, this thread is mostly about speed. IQ results vary from app to app and LR isn't too bad in that regard. Maybe 4th or 5th place among the capable editors I've pitted it against. What other apps am I comparing it too? Here's a list of alternatives I created about a month or two ago which was mostly compiled by reading off names from my own HDD:


    Almost all of these have free timed trial versions you can download in order to evaluate their use for yourself:

    Aperture - Download / Site - Good/average but a little slow, OS X only AFAIK.
    CaptureOne Pro - Download / Site - Probably the best there is.
    The Gimp - Download / Site - The last 2 or 3 point releases are excellent!
    CinePaint - Download / Site - Very powerful but used to have stability problems on Mac/Win - I dunno current.
    PS Plugins 4 Gimp - Download / Site - Haven't tried it but used similar for LightWave3D which worked well!
    Matlab - Download / Site - Excellent but very technical and not good for photo editing.
    PaintShop Pro - Download / Site - Excellent tool but some experience a lot of crashes.
    Photo Impact - Download / Site - I have no experience with this one.
    AfterShot Pro - Download / Site - Extremely promising but needs a few bug fixes!
    Pixelmator - Download / Site - Sexy and fun now with 16bit support!!
    GraphicConverter - Download / Site - Excellent but better for web and game graphics than photography, OS X only AFAIK.
    RAW Therapee - Download / Site - Haven't really tested any of the latest versions.
    ImageJ - Download / Site - Never used it but it looks web and game centric.
    PhotoLine - Download / Site - Excellent, I dunno why I don't use it more.
    PhotoShop Elements - Download / Site - Scaled Down cheaper version of Photoshop.
    PhotoShop CC - Download / Site - Excellent, this is what I use most, that and CS6.
    LightRoom - Download / Site - Excellent, scaled down Photoshop with workflow streamlined GUI - slow.
    Acorn - Download / Site - Very simple features - I never used it - it's supposed to be fast.
    AVS Photo Editor - Download / Site - I dunno but older versions were OK-ish - no Mac.
    ACDSee Pro - Download / Site - Excellent but not worth the asking price IMO!
    F-Spot - Download / Site - Excellent, there may be Mac or Windows compiles of it.
    PhotoStudio - Download / Site - Excellent.
    Silkypix Dev Studio - Download / Site - I think excellent but I only really feature-checked it.
    ArtRage Studio Pro - Download / Site - Excellent unique PSD compatible editor - no RAW support last I checked.
    Photogenics - Download / Site - Raw support but mostly just good for HDRI editing.
    Photo Mechanic - Download / Site - Excellent, simple editing, good cataloging.
    DigiKam - Download / Site - Looks excellent, it's strengths are DB interfacing and organizing.
    Erdas Imagine - Download / Site - Never used it - the dox say it's good for geospatial image processing and analysis.
    Krita - Download / Site - Haven't used it much.
    PhotoPerfect - Download / Site Looks nice. I've not tested this one.
    Photo Plus - Download / Site - It's supposed to be good, <shrug>
    Zoner Photo Studio - Download / Site - Excellent, shareware.
    Project DogWaffle - Download / Site - Awesome but really more of an animator's paintbox than a photo editor.
    UF-Raw - Download / Site - I've heard of this but never tried it.
    RawStudio - Download / Site - Very Good IMO.
    DxO Optics Pro - Download / Site - Excellent, very structured workflow - fairly fast.
    Forografix - Download / Site - Ultra simplistic, pretty average results.
    Photo Filtre - Download / Site - Looks very powerful, Windows only.
    Paint.NET - Download / Site - Windows only I think. Looks nice.
    Photo Ninja - Download / Site - Looks OK… I think worth it's HDD space!
    LightZone - Download / Site - Excellent and still FREE too.


John Caldwell wrote:
LR is fine, the best software I know of for my needs. Been with LR since version 1, and can't imagine not continuing given the rate of improvements we enjoy with ongoing development. Cannot identify with the anti-LR sentiment you appear to harbor. Why not just use something else if LR is not satisfying you?


No, please don't read into my remarks that which isn't there. There's no anti-LR sentiment. In fact there's no sentiments about any software for me - at all - good or bad. Well, other than Lightwave3D but that's because I developed parts of it… And Yeah, I don't personally use LR on a regular basis. For me it's too slow and I dislike the overly structured "guided" workflow of LR and some others like it. But I already know what I like. The purpose of this thread is to find out why others are using LR. Nothing to do with me - other than to satisfy a curiosity…



Edited on Feb 27, 2014 at 04:43 AM · View previous versions



Jan 22, 2014 at 09:11 PM
colinm
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Why Use Lightroom?


Bifurcator wrote:
No, please don't read into my remarks that which isn't there. There's no anti-LR sentiment.


Have you read your own poll options?



Jan 22, 2014 at 09:30 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Why Use Lightroom?


Bifurcator wrote:
No, please don't read into my remarks that which isn't there. There's no anti-LR sentiment.

colinm wrote:
Have you read your own poll options?

Yes. They're discussion starters and assume everyone already knows that LR is among the slowest RAW processing packages available. I guess if people don't already know that then those poll options could sound a little inflammatory - which is why I request readers here just accept that I'm not about mud-slinging and rather have an honest curiosity. If someone /thinks/ LR isn't slow they're welcome to say so.


Here's a recent example of LR's speed from another thread:

  1. AfterShot Pro (On the same MacPro and listed blow - this is a MacPro1,1 with 8 physical cores of Xeon x5355 and 32GB RAM)
    Import: 00:11.95
    Create 1:1 Previews: 02:22.63
    Export 100% size 100 Quality JPeg (with added processing) 02:48.01
    Export 3600px size 80 Quality JPeg Sharpened (with added processing) 02:33.78

  2. LightRoom
    Import Test - {Trash HPE-380 - 02:02.23} - ( MacPro1,1 - 00:43.55) - [XPS-12 - 00:04.52]
    Render 1:1 Previews - {Trash HPE-380 - 06:53.91} - ( MacPro1,1 - 10:21.21) - [XPS-12 - 09:31.72]
    Export Test - Resized/Optimised - {Trash HPE-380 - 07:03.35} - ( MacPro1,1 - 10:21.58) - [XPS-12 - 09:32.14]
    Export Test - Unadulterated JPEG - {Trash HPE-380 - 06:36.00} - ( MacPro1,1 - 10:06.74) - [XPS-12 - 09:08.20]


In that test ASP was about 4x faster than LR. Typically my tests show LR to be about half speed tho - not one quarter speed. Anyway, again, I was assuming this was just common knowledge and that everyone already knew it.

Edited on Jan 22, 2014 at 10:04 PM · View previous versions



Jan 22, 2014 at 09:44 PM
wtlloyd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Why Use Lightroom?


Every app will have it's shortcomings.

Except Lightroom. It's perfect.

I use it as a tool to get work done. Testing other software and finding some things better and some things lacking is a waste of time - unless you have nothing better to do.

Busy now, buh-bye.



Jan 22, 2014 at 09:57 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Why Use Lightroom?


I don't use it, but only because I use photoshop. That gives you a lot more power than LR. As for quick sorting and stuff, LR is wayy too slow and it's crazy that it insists on rendering previews first! So I use photomechanic fastpicviewer or basically anything else for that.



Jan 22, 2014 at 11:01 PM
Mirek Elsner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Why Use Lightroom?


When I used Photoshop and Bridge, I did basic edits anyways. The principles I learned were from Martin Evening, Jeff Schewe and Bruce Fraser. LR is based on these principles already and I don't have to apply clumsy actions or plugins. They are part of the LR DNA.

In PS, if I applied an action on a bunch of images and in the middle of the batch found that the action did not work well on some of these, it was always a PITA to revert back. Reverting is a piece of cake with LR and I can aways easily redo images that do not look great with the initial batch processing.

With PS I had several images with different sharpening for small print, large print and web. With LR I have one raw file and several processing versions, LR takes care of the rest. It may be less effective than competition measured in CPU effectiveness, but I found the workflow to be fast. I can get the edits I need faster.

As far as the non-Adobe apps, I tried C1, DxO, RPP and perhaps couple others, I liked some of the results better, some I did not care for.



Jan 23, 2014 at 12:27 AM
Mirek Elsner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Why Use Lightroom?


Bifurcator wrote:
Here's a recent example of LR's speed from another thread:

  1. AfterShot Pro (On the same MacPro and listed blow - this is a MacPro1,1 with 8 physical cores of Xeon x5355 and 32GB RAM)
    Import: 00:11.95
    Create 1:1 Previews: 02:22.63
    Export 100% size 100 Quality JPeg (with added processing) 02:48.01
    Export 3600px size 80 Quality JPeg Sharpened (with added processing) 02:33.78

  2. LightRoom
    Import Test - {Trash HPE-380 - 02:02.23} - ( MacPro1,1 - 00:43.55) - [XPS-12 - 00:04.52]
    Render 1:1 Previews - {Trash HPE-380 - 06:53.91} - ( MacPro1,1 - 10:21.21) - [XPS-12 - 09:31.72]
    Export Test - Resized/Optimised - {Trash HPE-380 - 07:03.35} - ( MacPro1,1 - 10:21.58) - [XPS-12 -


In that test ASP was about 4x faster than LR. Typically my tests show LR to be about half speed tho - not one quarter speed. Anyway, again, I was assuming this was just common knowledge and that everyone already knew it.
...Show more


If AfterShot Pro uses OpenCL as they say on their web site, it makes sense that it is faster. I would not expect OpenCL support in LR before next major release, if at all.


Jan 23, 2014 at 12:47 AM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Why Use Lightroom?


Yes, ASP uses OpenCL as advertised but in my test times (posted) there was only an 8800GT installed so I'm not sure there was much horsepower being added. I do hope Adobe speeds up LR by adding OpenCL support, but like you I have doubts if or when they might.

Also on your #12 post above, I respect and acknowledge that our workflows must be radically different but I don't think I could bring myself to call actions with or without plugins, clumsy. Certainly they cut the time I spend on edits. Typically in LR I spend an average of about 12min. per image whipping them into shape. Using actions that's cut to about 1.5min (nearly ten times faster). And of course PS CC now also supports automatic multiple outputs from a single source file with different setting for each. I don't use that feature myself but if I become like you where I want Print+Web+Local renditions of many many files then it's there waiting for me.




Jan 23, 2014 at 01:23 AM
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Why Use Lightroom?


Bif, I use Aperture, have played with C1Pro7, but just never gelled with it. All my work's for the web these days pretty much, and Aperture's workflow is pretty fast on a quad-core MBP. I echo much of what butchM wrote above re. taking care at the time of the actual exposure; this is ingrained as an ex pro. who shot advertising for years when (miracle, but I didn't realise it at the time!) the job was done when you handed over the just-exposed canisters of 'chrome at the end of the day. No computers in those days...

Anyhow, I alway shoot RAW and jpegs together; always have, and most often the jpegs are good enough. I do have sharpening and NR turned down in camera though, and use Aperture's brushes for adjustments. I was considering switching to Lr at one time but even after spending time over at LL, just could not find the evidence of any real benefit to the learning of a new software. When Adobe's new subscription model surfaced, I am glad I stuck with Aperture. I realising I am not really addressing your core concerns, but I can say that Aperture is capable of working a professional workflow. I once sorted and edited 35GB of Raw images for John Deere in a hotel foyer a couple of years ago in a couple of hours with the art director. That's a lot of data, and no hiccups at all.



Jan 23, 2014 at 01:42 AM
P.F.
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Why Use Lightroom?


For me Lightroom is the more convenient to process hundreds of pictures at once. For fewer images I use sometimes C1.

Your main issue seems to be the speed but I don't wait in front of the computer during import/export so it's not a problem for me.

Bifurcator wrote:
Here's a list of alternatives...

Alternatives? Yes, all these applications are related to images but very few are real alternatives to LR.

And don't forget the organizing part of LR.



Jan 23, 2014 at 02:06 AM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Why Use Lightroom?


Kit, that's cool, it's a discussion and your opinions are valued and welcome! Yeah, I'm mostly interested in the reasons why people choose LR. Not so much what they don't like about other wares but what it was that drove them to embrace LR. So far most peopler's reason for using it (as posted here) can be boiled down to "I haven't tried anything else enough to know the difference". But that's only what I'm looking for here. It's good to also discuss why someone doesn't use LR too or what they do like about Software-X, etc.. Mostly what prompted me to ask were the results in Mirek Elsner's "Which raw developer" thread where currently LR is the vast majority, in relationship with my test results and the other head-to-heads I've read on-line.



Jan 23, 2014 at 02:22 AM
butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Why Use Lightroom?


P.F. wrote:


Your main issue seems to be the speed but I don't wait in front of the computer during import/export so it's not a problem for me.


You forget we all have different workflow constraints. I can't afford the time to go grab a coffee while Lr churns out previews. That's fine for portraiture, weddings and some commercial work I do during the day ... but for other genres ... time is extremely important.

Many nights, I have to export images post haste to meet deadlines. Most of the night sporting events I shoot, the presses start rolling before the game is actually over in some cases. Halftime break isn't long enough for Lr to keep up the pace. Especially considering Lr won't give you the option to only import selects made in-camera ... while you can cherry pick images to import into Lr ... the culling process is just too time consuming because it doesn't recognize the flagged images. Something that has been requested since v1.

More than a few sports shooters employ both Photo Mechanic and Lr to gain back some speed ... which I find confusing. Two $150 apps to do the job I can accomplish with one $80 app? All that switching to and fro just seems redundant to me.

I simply set Aperture to only import my selects and not to build previews until I am ready to apply any processing ... easy, peasy ... when I get back to the studio, I merge my shoot library from my MBP with my main library on my iMac, import the balance of the images, sync the overall processing and keywords ... cataloging us pretty much finished until I receive orders for any subsequent images. Much more efficient workflow.



Jan 23, 2014 at 02:44 AM
Kit Laughlin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Why Use Lightroom?


butchM:
when I get back to the studio, I merge my shoot library from my MBP with my main library on my iMac, import the balance of the images, sync the overall processing and keywords ...

Poetry, really: a succinct description of how to get the job done. For a working stiff (no offence meant) this IS what it's all about.

@Bif: let me look at that thread and if I have anything useful to say, will post. Need to eat now.



Jan 23, 2014 at 03:32 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Why Use Lightroom?


why do I use Lightroom ?

I find it the single easiest bit of software to use .it does 95% of what i need (and 100% most of the time ) I find the UI easy.
For me it just works

yes at times it can be slower than other software . but for most of the things its slower for (ie importing , preview generating, exporting etc) you can work quite happily on images that have already been done . you dont HAVE to wait for it to generate all 1:1 previews in your just imported work to be able to start to scan thru and start to cull .

I came from the program that became LR (was it RAW Essential? ) so ive grown along with LR from V1 so i guess it just feels natural .

Now I have tried other software . I gave Aperture a go but just cant get on with it . also the big downside to Aperture is your stuck on a Mac which while im now mac convert I can at least run LR on a windows machine and still be able to edit my images (smart previews are the nuts ! )



Jan 23, 2014 at 06:26 AM
1
       2       3              6       7       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.