I downloaded the LR trial a week ago and have been trying since then to figure out what the attraction is.
I currently use PS CS4 and find that LR really doesn't do much that Bridge and Camera Raw don't already do. And of course, Photoshop is so much more powerful for image editing. Yes, there are a couple of minor tools in LR that ACR doesn't have and the interface is very nice looking, but for me, that doesn't compensate for the annoyance of the database structure.
If I make changes to an image in PS after processing in LR then LR doesn't know about it. I guess I have to reimport the image but I sure don't have to do that in Bridge.
LR just doesn't seem to do anything that PS, Bridge and ACR don't do. I've heard it said that the workflow is more intuitive in LR than it is in PS, but I don't see that, frankly, and $300 USD for a slightly more intuitive workflow doesn't work for me. It may be helpful to state here that I'm an amateur and I don't need to process huge numbers of photos on a regular basis and I don't mind spending lots of time on one image in PS.
Before the trial expires, I'm hoping that someone can tell me what it is that makes LR so attractive to so many people. I'm thinking that I must be missing something basic here and I would like to give LR a fair shake during the trial period.
LR is a LOT of things! All aimed to a photographic end!
One of them, You have ALWAYS your originals intact! There is no a save command The pics in library are siple command lines!
Keywording
Develop mudule
LR it's only at version 2, tray to imagine at version 6 or 9....
LR to me is "THE PROGRAM"
Unless you actively delete your RAWs, you always have them in Bridge too.
You can keyword and assign star/label ratings with equal ease in Bridge.
The Develop Module is ACR with a different interface.
I'm sure you're right, it will continue to improve over succeeding versions, but right now, I don't see what it offers over and above what PS and Bridge offers. This is my quandary.
I grew to hate Bridge in CS2 and CS3... too buggy. Maybe CS4 is better.
The attraction of LR for me is that it streamlines the PP process, providing the essential PP tools, DAM and web publishing all in one. I found it actually speeds up my PP system compared to PS/Bridge. I only use PS now when I need to do more complex tweaking of an image.
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.
Adobe Bridge CS3 sent me to Lightroom. I did like it, although the OP might not prefer the cramped view relative to Bridge.
BTW, Bridge CS4 brought me back. I still have Lightroom and fully understand why busy photographers love it - Bridge and ACR just function differently in practice for some users.
This is a case where everyone wins. Adobe has provided its users with two outstanding product options. Each user has the opportunity to find 'their' best workflow. Neither option is better - one just fits better and one just doesn't.
This is helpful. I'm not, in fact, missing anything. LR doesn't do anything additional to PS and Bridge, it simply presents the workflow in a manner that you (and many others, it seems) prefer.
By the way, I agree with you about Bridge in CS2 and 3; it was buggy and not all that useful. However, Bridge in CS4 is hugely improved and once I learned how to use all that it offers, I was shocked to find that LR doesn't really improve on it much.
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?
LR doesn't really offer much in the ways of abilities that you cant's accomplish in a Bridge/ACR/PS workflow ... that said, for a high volume workflow ... LR is by far a much smoother and logical flow to achieving the end result.
Both methods are fine .... it is a personal preference as to which works best ... like someone else said ... it really great to have options.
On your re-importing issues ... if you open an image to edit in PS from within LR ... it will be added to your library automatically if you have your preferences set to do so .... conversely ... if you open the images for editing in PS from outside LR ... It has no way of knowing you did so ...
It's simple. Based on how you described the way you use Photoshop and Bridge, it offers you nothing. Simplistically, one can say, Photoshop can do anything imaginable to a few images. Lightroom can do a few things to an a nearly unimaginable number of images.
It's designed for photographers. People who have to manage a few hundred to a few thousand images per shoot. If you spend hours or days on a single image in photoshop. You're not a photographer, your a graphic artist. Maybe you blur the line and are a photographic artist, but your still not merely a photographer. Lightroom isn't for you.
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.
1. It has a DAM. Usefull if you don't already have one. A pain if you do. You can take your entire database with you and leave the actualfiles safely at home. It will also find, sort and keyword images, even when they are offline. I have 200,000 images in my database(s) yet I can find any image on a netbook while on the road.
2. Virtual copies. Have more than one version of the same raw file.
3. History for RAW file settings.
4. Web templates and generator.
5. Collections. Reference the same file in more than one collection.
There are others. These may not matter to you. But virtual copies and the improved workflow make it worth every penny for me.
I used to take almost a month to cull 5000+ images from an Africa shoot. Now, using LR, I can process the same in just a few days. Like the OP, I used to use Bridge and CS3, and couldn't understand the need for LR. Now, after the pain of converting and key wording all of my images (25,000+) I know that I can get my hands on any picture that I've ever taken with just a few keystrokes. Aside from the big boost in work flow speed, the greatest asset of LR is the database functionality and the ability to find any image through a multitude of search options. With digital capture, all of us, including amateurs, can expect to have thousands of images at some point soon. Getting on board with some type of database or DAM solution will minimize the pain of converting to it down the road. Bride and CS3 work okay, but it's only a matter of time before we get too many images and our file folder method of organization falls apart. LR keeps things straight and provides a singular interface to import, process, locate and organize my images. I also use PS to tweak things when the need permits, but LR also manages these files as well. If it isn't obvious already, I'm a big fan. I couldn't live without it... even if I wasn't shooting thousands of images at a time!
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.
Can you explain what the advantage of using a database approach is? I don't think I understand this approach very well and am seeing the disadvantages pretty clearly but not the advantages.
I have a membership at Lynda.com but the LR courses there are by Chris Orwig and I find him annoying to start with and when I watched the section on why to use LR, he essentially said that it made him feel good. Not a very compelling reason. However, for so many people to feel so positively about LR, clearly there are benefits. Perhaps the DAM aspect alone will justify the time and cost associated with learning and using another program.
And the supporting forum the author, Peter Krogh has set up .... very informative and a logical process for keeping a mountain of images organized and useful.
DIS Ottawa wrote:
If I make changes to an image in PS after processing in LR then LR doesn't know about it. I guess I have to reimport the image but I sure don't have to do that in Bridge.
If you select your image(s) in Lightroom, then use the Edit in Photoshop (CTRL+E) command then Lightroom will certainly know about those images. It will stack the edited TIFF or PSD along side the original RAW file after editing is completed in Photoshop and the file is saved.
LR just doesn't seem to do anything that PS, Bridge and ACR don't do. I've heard it said that the workflow is more intuitive in LR than it is in PS, but I don't see that, frankly, and $300 USD for a slightly more intuitive workflow doesn't work for me. It may be helpful to state here that I'm an amateur and I don't need to process huge numbers of photos on a regular basis and I don't mind spending lots of time on one image in PS.
Obviously you aren't shooting large numbers of photos nor do you have deadlines. If you did you would find a function like Match Total Exposure to be a life saver. ACR/Bridge has nothing that compares to that function.
Also, Bridge cannot perform offline searches. Many people have multiple hard drives, or DVD/CDs, and Lightroom can keep track off all those images even when the drives are not connected or the DVD/CD is not in a player.
The pics in library are siple command lines!