pipspeak wrote:
LR offers nothing additional to PS and Bridge, that's true. Indeed PS and Bridge are a far more powerful image editing combo. But the attraction of LR to me is that it offers just the right combination of features in a package that's far more streamlined that the PS/Bridge combo.
I disagree but I suppose it depends on how you work. I can shoot hundreds of RAW images, process them, and upload proofs to my website without ever having to leave Lightroom. No FTP, or any other software used. My clients can then identify the photos they want and I can then open them up in Photoshop for detailed processing.
Does Bridge/Photoshop have the ability to upload directly to a website?
Any other comments? My primary concerns with LR are that if doesn't offer much in the way of improvements over PS and Bridge and the annoyance of dealing with database files, i.e. constantly importing, reimporting, etc.
Is it just a matter of using it more and adjusting to its quirks?
What exactly are the database files you're having to work with?
You don't have to reimport images...if you're doing that then you aren't using the software correctly.
Thank you for your comments and strong opinion. As I indicated in an earlier post, I am an amateur photographer. I am not a graphic artist.
I understand the utility of LR for professional photographers. I am not questioning this.
I downloaded the LR trial to see if it could prove useful to me in what I do. I do sometimes come home from a days shooting with several hundred images and need to cull, sort, assign keywords, star ratings, etc. I had hoped that LR would provide an enhanced way of doing this, as well as perhaps improving the processing of RAW files.
So far, I am not seeing that it does this.
ButchM,
Thank you for your considered opinion and useful information. ...Show more →
Take a look at the P, U, and X keys.
And if you turn on your CAPS LOCK, Lightroom will automatically advance to the next image after flagging or rating.
What exactly are the database files you're having to work with?
You don't have to reimport images...if you're doing that then you aren't using the software correctly.
Using PS and Bridge I'm not using databases but in the past week with LR I've processed RAWs then opened the file in PS, done my processing, added filters, sharpening, etc. and then saved them.
When I go back to LR, they aren't there! I don't doubt that I'm not using LR correctly, but shouldn't it be set up from the get go to find these files?
If you're going to use Lightroom you have to use it as your front-end to processing; just like you'd use ACR/Bridge to open a RAW file into Photoshop for further editing.
WIth Lightroom, you do your general processing, the press CTRL+E to open the image directly in Photoshop. You do not open it from outside of Lightroom otherwise the program will not automatically know you made changes to an image.
How would Lightroom know where on your hard drive you saved the Photoshop edited file?
Depending on where you saved it you can use the "Sync Folder" command to make the file appear in Lightroom. However its much more efficient to simply use the CTRL+E command.
What do you mean when you say that you can take the database with you and leave the actual files at home? Now that sounds intriguing!
Can you take a relatively small file/database and actually see the images?
When you import an image into LR it creates a thumbnail and preview of the raw file. These are stored in the .LRCAT files and LR previews folder, respectively. On import you nominate the preview size from none to 1:1.
Once you have these you can then disconnect any drives that contain the original raw images and if you use a portable computer (or store your catalogue/previews on a portable drive) you can then search, keyword, organise and rate images without needing to access the original files. If you have 1:1 previews you can also generate proof sheets and web sites directly from the previews. You CANNOT, however work in the develop module. You need access to the RAW data for that. My 2009 catalogue has 76,219 images in it and the preview files take up 22GB. It's a big folder, but nowhere near the size of all the originals. (nearly 1TB).
When LR was announced I was really against the database. I had a program to do that. But now, with nearly 200,000 images in my databases i really appreciate how it takes less than 10 seconds to get to any single image. I have some images in four or five collections but only need on physical copy. I also use stacks a lot, and virtual copies. I often have a monochrome and colour version of a file next to each other.
As was said, very well, above. If you shoot digital images, eventually you're going to need a better system for finding them than your brain. Loading images with 1:1 previews is slow, but it's quicker than using a separate DAM and RAW developer.
It's all starting to make sense now! I have been having difficulty finding older images, as I no longer remember exactly where I put that image from three years ago that my sister wants a copy of, for example.
With LR, I can find it (once everything is keyworded) and even take a preview with me on my laptop.
I understand Adobe allows LR (like all its products) to be loaded onto two computers. If I do all the keywording and organizing on my desktop, I then transfer the newly created database to a portable hard drive and either take that with me or load it onto the laptop, which has LR. Correct?
once a directory ages out of the Bridge cache, Bridge will have to reload the directory the next time you visit it. you get to wait. there isn't a way to search across folders and with 700GB images, you certainly have more than one folder. if all you can see is "somewhat more easily" you don't know just how limited you are by Bridge.
Herb...
DIS Ottawa wrote:
I have about 700 GBs of images currently and am realizing the need for a better filing system than I've been using, which is file folders. I've recently started going through the images and adding star ratings and keywords. In Bridge CS4, which is a great improvement over previous versions. I can see that LR will do that somewhat more easily, but in the end they do the same thing, I think.
I am currently at 280,000 images in my LR database. I don't know what I would do without it because the organizational and pp functionality is exactly what I need for my job.
PS/Bridge CS3 was just not as easy to manage when dealing with the number of images I work with at any time.
If you simply need to quickly ingest, cull, caption, keyword, file, rate, and backup images quickly then you probably don't need LR. If you're comfortable using Bridge and PS for images processing, I would suggest you download the Photo Mechanic trial and see if that might enhance/streamline your workflow.
I typically shoot sporting events, coming away with several hundred images from one event. I use Photo Mechanic to ingest, keyword, caption, rate, and file everything. It is probably the fastest application for getting those basics done that I've ever tried. If I then need to adjust any images for WB, saturation, contrast, sharpening, etc. I open in Bridge. All my captions, keywords and rating show up in Bridge from PM so there's no repetition.
The one thing that LR does do more effectively than either Bridge or PM, and it's already been discussed at length here, is to catalog your images more effectively. However, in my case most of the functionality of LR would be redundant for me aside from creating a searchable database so all I need is an application dedicated to organizing and cataloging my images. There are plenty of applications on the market solely dedicated to that.
i have about 140K images in one catalog. it helps me immensely in finding something when i need it.
Herb...
Kevin Bickmore wrote:
I am currently at 280,000 images in my LR database. I don't know what I would do without it because the organizational and pp functionality is exactly what I need for my job.
80% of my image editing needs are met by LR itself. Photoshop is for the times when i need to do more than the basics. having to go into Bridge after Lightroom would be a significant additional amount of time. going into Photoshop directly from Lightroom for final image polishing isn't such a big deal.
Herb...
Steve Ickes wrote:
However, in my case most of the functionality of LR would be redundant for me aside from creating a searchable database so all I need is an application dedicated to organizing and cataloging my images. There are plenty of applications on the market solely dedicated to that.
DIS,Everyone has given you good insight into Lightroom so there's not much for me to add. However one thing caught my eye. You said you would create some catalogS. Most, if not all, of the "experts" decommend only ONE catalog. Reasons mainly being that it kind of defeats the purpose of a database to organize everything if it's all broken up into different databases. It's kind of like your file folders, trying to remember which catalog you put something in.
You can only work in one catalog (database) at a time. So if you're searching for something you'd have to open each catalog and do a separate search in each one.
And speaking of searching, you have about a jillion choices of things to search for. Check out the metadata search area at the top of library module. Click on the little up/down arrow by each catagory and see a lot more choices.
Good luck. Ernie
When it comes to catalogs ... fewer is always better ... but in some instances ... more than one can be beneficial ... I split my catalogs into two categories. One for all my sports images, the other for portrait, wedding and commercial. Once the commercial images get to a large enough quantity .... I may go to three.
I have found doing so really eases up the load when searching, sorting and seeking out specific files as compared to an all-in-one catalog. Of course ... YMMV.
