Adobe Lightroom----Whats your opinion

[bob williams]

I am considering purchasing Lightroom, but wanted to hear your opinion before I indulge. I have downloaded the 30 day trial and it seems to offer the best of many worlds. Easy organization, healthy editing capabilities and printing and presentation. I already own PS 4 and Bridge, but workflow is difficult and cumbersome. So whats your opinion?

[Maleko]

I personally love CS4 and Bridge, but thats me :P

[quattrophinia]

I love it and so do many pros. If you get it, make sure you get Scott Kelby's Lightroom 2 book, it's a blast to read and a must to learn the program completely.

[hotsecretary]

I'm just learning how to use LR2.4 more and more.. and it's honestly an amazing little piece of software!



I'd highly recommend it, and there's many sources out there for tips/tricks/etc.


http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/

[crosbyharbison]

If you have a pc there is no competition, if your on a mac aperture is at least as good. If you shoot RAW go buy it.

[Daniel Browning]

So whats your opinion?

When it comes to ease of use, speed, simplicity, and integration, Lightroom is the best thing out there. That's why I bought it. I can jet through a thousand photos in a single sitting, and that's very helpful for event photography. (I was a Bibble owner before Lightroom, and that was fast and easy too.)

The biggest drawbacks are the lack of control and poor quality from high ISO (underexposed) images. For example, Lightroom lacks a simple linear raw exposure compensation slider. The slider they do provide is not raw, not linear, and is not simple. It also activates the highlight recovery tool behind the scenes. Worst of all, the results just look terrible.

High ISO shots are rendered very poorly, with blotchy and smeared color, even when NR is completely disabled. Other converters render the image with full detail and no blotches, just fine, film-like grain.

If I want to put a little time into the image (e.g. 30 minutes instead of 30 seconds), I'll load it in a raw converter with higher quality and more control over the image, such as RPP or RawTherapee. But when I have 25 GB from a wedding to wade through, there's no time for that. Less than 1% of the photos will go through the quality treatment.

[lculpin]

High ISO shots are rendered very poorly, with blotchy and smeared color, even when NR is completely disabled. Other converters render the image with full detail and no blotches, just fine, film-like grain
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Sad but true. That aside, LR is a wicked tool and I spend way more time with it than with photoshop. Id also say that while I REALLY love a few things about Aperture over LR, LR's seamless integration w/ PS and bridge made it the choice for me

[Keith B]

Aperture.

[hotsecretary]

Aperture.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Darn it, at times I wish I had a MAC to at least try these things

[Keith B]

Aperture.

Darn it, at times I wish I had a MAC to at least try these things

I have never used Lightroom. I would love to hear from another Mac person who has used both. I have rendered RAW file with "as near" settings as possible in Adobe Raw and Aperture and have definitely seen better results from Aperture. My biggest gripe with Aperture (maybe Lightroom is like this too) is that you have to create a project, import the images and then process them. You can't just open one image on the fly and process it.


I'd love to drop an image on the Aperture icon and just edit it lickity split.


Oh yeah and I like ACR's Orange channel in the color correction. Aperture just has Red and Yellow.