Thread: First "outing" with Lightroom second time around

I tried LR about 4 years ago, did not like it at all and chose to stick with CaptureOne Pro (at a comparable monthly rate) and Affinity Photo 2 (outright purchase and free updates for at least 2 years going by what happened with the 1.xx release). However, while V1 of AP was stable and as close to Photoshop as I could wish for and C1 was as good as LR and added a DAM to my portfolio, I have found V2 of AP too unstable and too short of the functionality of the latest version of PS. Add that C1 has had quite price hike and it was time to take another look so I downloaded the free trial of Adobe Photo and began by using just PS, round tripping from C1 - which was as good as I expected and more. Fast forward a couple of months and the inevitable decision to look at LR ... After an exchange here with DanK, I opted for LR Classic - wow, that was a very pleasant surprise.

Here are few from just 10 minutes in LrC, one shooting into the sun at a family outing to the archery area in a local games park and a few from a model shoot in a church. All were hand held and available light (and with the archers the only shooting was from my camera, the arrows were safely parked).

Oh, and the icing on the cake is I can publish photos directly to my flickr account which not only saves a bit of bother but gives me another backup.


The Archers




Elegant




Not so elegant




Red

I don't try to persuade people to use one thing or another. Whatever works well for anyone is what they should use. However, for the sake of people without experience, it would be helpful to have a comparison of pros and cons. Here are a few thoughts about that:

The ACR processing engine in Photoshop and the processing engine on Lightroom Classic are for all intents and purposes identical. All that differs is the user interface, and the interfaces are more similar now then they used to be.

AFAIK, the only big difference in the processing engines is that ACR can only work on raw files, requiring you to move to Photoshop for anything else. LR can handle edits of images in any format. This includes images that you've passed from LR into Photoshop. If you save them correctly in Photoshop, they automatically appear in your LR catalog. E.g., a lot of what I post here is finished in Photoshop, but then I switch to LR, create a JPEG and send it to Smugmug with two or three mouse clicks.

The one thing that makes LR harder to learn is needing to import into the catalog and remembering to make changes to things like folder names from within the catalog. Once the basics are learned, it's easy most of the time, but even experienced users have to think about it sometimes, for example, when moving the catalog to another drive.

IMHO, that's the only disadvantage of LR, and it offers a lot of advantages. The one most people rely on is the database management--the ability to tag photos by keywords, ratings of different kinds, and so on. The ability to create virtual copies (not sure if that's in ACR) is also valuable, at least for me. Ditto, virtual collections. This too too takes a little time to learn, but it is very handy, even if you only use it at the basic level.

LR also has a great many plugins available. I don't use many, but the ones I use save me a great deal of time. I've mentioned Friedl's plugins that allow me to export directly to Smugmug and Flicker without creating and storing JPEGs. I do my stacking with Zerene, and it has a plugin that allows me to execute the program and load files into it directly from within LR.

LR also makes it simple to replicate edits across multiple photos. You can edit one, select a bunch of others, and with a couple of keystrokes apply the settings from the first to the others. Even for simple things, this can save time. E.g., in some circumstances, I'll shoot one photo with a neutral card, set the WB using that, and then sync WB to all the others.

I make no use of LR's slideshow module, and I haven't yet used its book designing module. However, I do almost all of my printing from LR.

So it seems to me that the calculation is how much those additional features are worth to any particular photographer and whether that's worth it to them to learn how to deal with the mechanics of the catalog. The answer clearly differs from person to person. Manfred much prefers working with Bridge and ACR; I much prefer working with LR.

Originally Posted by Geoff F

I also tried Lightroom a few times but couldn't understand it at all so I deleted it from my computer and just use Photoshop now. But, if just using Photoshop, you really need to include Bridge which is a free optional extra which makes viewing and opening images a lot easier then trying to do this directly from Photoshop.

It has been suggested that Lightroom was originally developed for "retail" photographers; i.e. wedding photographers, portrait photographers, baby photographers, event photographers (including sports photographers), etc. who dealt with a large number of similar images, usually for a relatively unsophisticated clientele. Photoshop was aimed at the commercial industry like publications and advertising, that had larger budgets and a more knowledgeable clientele (a.k.a. an art director).

Since its release in 2007, Lightroom's editing capabilities have been expanded to meet the needs of its user base, with ever more sophisticated functionality. The digital asset management component (i.e. the catalog) has always been a key feature of the software.

The underlying "engine" in Lightroom Develop Module and its older sibling (Adobe Camera Raw - ACR) are identical. The "look and feel" of these two tools were harmonized a few years ago, so their appearance and functionality are very similar, but not identical. When Photoshop CC was introduced, Adobe implemented the Camera Raw Filter into the software, again, with similar, but not identical functionality, including the user interface. That eliminated the need for "round tripping" where users would jump back and forth between Lightroom and Photoshop (and the associated problems that could cause).

As I am not a "high volume" photographer, taking thousands of shots over a day or two, Lightroom does little for me other than adding its bloated catalogue database to my system. Capture One (C1) also uses a catalog system, is more flexible and less bloated than Lightroom's. I mainly use C1 when I shoot tethered, but their expensive (for what you get) and emphasis on subscription means I will likely switch to Lightroom for tethering when my new camera arrives.

In terms of post-processing, most of my work (90% - 95%) is making selections of small areas of the image for dodging, burning and other local adjustments. Lightroom simply cannot compete with Photoshop here, in terms of the tools available. That means my time in the raw processor, is usually less than a minute. I could do zone / area adjustments in either the raw processor or Photoshop, and either works, but this is something that generally takes only 3 - 4 minutes. I tend to use Photoshop, as it fits better into the rest of the workflow as going back and tweaking the area edits is easy to do.

As Dan as mentioned, the tools really don't matter. The final results do...

Manfred's posting and mine are a very good illustration of the general point: different photographers do different things, and the best software for each depends in part on what they do.

A trivial example: the image of Japanese peonies I posted earlier is a focus-stacked composite of 12 images. I find the "texture" adjustment in LR to be more subtle than my standard local contrast settings in Photoshop, so I boosted texture on the first of these. I then set WB on that first image by synching from a test shot with a whiBal card. Then I noticed that I had made a mistake: I had forgotten to set WB to a fixed value before starting the stack! AWB on my R6 II is uncannily good; the shots were taken under halogen lighting, and it automatically set the WB close to 3000K--but NOT the same on all 12 images. No matter, because I synched the WB and texture setting from the first image to the other 11 with a few mouse clicks. Satisfied with that, I chose "export to Zerene," and Zerene opened up with all 12 edited images ready to be composited.

In this case, almost all of the subsequent edits were in Photoshop. The image has 15 layers not counting the background, including numerous dodging and burning layers, two hue/saturation layers, a duplicate for the multiply blend mode, a cloning layer, two levels adjustments to create black areas, and a smart sharpen layer. The only additional edits I did in LR were the change in green luminosity and cropping. So if I were asked, I would say that this image was edited in Photoshop. However, the LR functions saved me time and tedium.

I don't do many events, but that's another case where the multiple-photos functions of LR can be useful. It's often the case that lighting is different from room to room. I have sometimes started by taking a whiBal shot in several different places. I can then sync WB from those to other images in seconds, as appropriate.

Geoff,

You're right, of course, that you can open all manner of files using the Adobe Camera Raw filter. My error.

Using the catalog function with Lightroom is one of the main problems which have confused me. Just finding an image and opening it for editing is a real struggle. It seems that if you use Lightroom you have to do everything the Lightroom way which doesn't work well with the way I like to organise my images/folders etc.

I think you may misunderstand the way the catalog works. Lightroom can exactly mirror your directory structure.

For example, I decided that I wanted to place all of my photos under a parent directory called just "Photos". The details after that don't matter, but under that, I have categories like "Old family photos" and "dessicated flowers". Under those, I have subdirectories for each shoot, labeled with a date and a few words of description.

Lightroom imported all of that into the catalog, and what I see in the left panel of Lightroom is exactly what I see in a file manager.

You can make this more complex if you want, e.g., importing two top level folders rather than one, but the point is that if you sync these top level directories, everything underneath them is automatically brought into the catalog, in exactly the same form as it shows in the operating system.

There are fine points, of course. For example, if I create a new subfolder at the lowest level, I don't have to sync the whole thing to import the new photos; I just go one level up to the directory the new stuff is nested in and sync that.

The mechanics of how to operate this (like the last point I mentioned) take some learning, but it's important for people considering LR to realize that the catalog is based on your directory structure and follows it, simply adding more information to it.

Dan

I want to pick up on Dan's comment about the Lightroom catalog. Once I had figured out how the catalogue works, I've had my photos organized exactly as they would be if I wasn't using Lightroom.

I'm tempted to explain how I personally have my photo folders and subfolders organized but that is irrelevant for the purposes of this topic. As Dan says, you can do whatever you want. But the mechanics of doing this do have to follow Lightroom's rules.

As an aside, as time goes on, I find that I'm doing a greater percentage of general editing work in Lightroom and switch to Photoshop only when specifically necessary. But as others have explained, the degree to which Photoshop needs to be used depends on the type of photography one is doing.

Originally Posted by Cantab

I want to pick up on Dan's comment about the Lightroom catalog. Once I had figured out how the catalogue works, I've had my photos organized exactly as they would be if I wasn't using Lightroom.

I'm tempted to explain how I personally have my photo folders and subfolders organized but that is irrelevant for the purposes of this topic. As Dan says, you can do whatever you want. But the mechanics of doing this do have to follow Lightroom's rules.

As an aside, as time goes on, I find that I'm doing a greater percentage of general editing work in Lightroom and switch to Photoshop only when specifically necessary. But as others have explained, the degree to which Photoshop needs to be used depends on the type of photography one is doing.

I started using Photoshop over 20 years ago, well before Bridge and Lightroom had been invented. At that time I developed a system of using folders and sub-folders to store my images, by project. While I can still do this with Lightroom / Capture One, their catalogs add a layer of complexity that I really don't need. I also dislike having to use Lightroom to rearrange how and where I store and back-up my files (I have my data in two different backup locations). So all in all, I find the Lightroom catalog is more of a hindrance than help for my workflow.

If Adobe allowed for the use of multiple catalogs (something that Capture One does more elegantly), rather than in one monolithic structure, it would be more useful. Right now I have to load a different catalog in Lightroom and restart the software to load a new catalog, which is a bit of a pain. As I also use other Adobe software in my workflow (Illustrator, Premiere Pro, InDesign, etc.), Bridge allows me access to all of these components with a single piece of software.

These (and other) issues mean that Photoshop / Adobe Camera Raw / Bridge are a better working combination for me. When I shoot tethered, I use a temporary catalog, that gets deleted at the end of the shoot. I store my captured images (from Capture One) using Dropbox, so I can see what I am doing on my laptop and the files show up on my desktop, ready to be edited. If I switch to Lightroom, I am going to have to figure out a way of sending the images, rather than just updating the catalog on both machines.

I'm puzzled by this:

I also dislike having to use Lightroom to rearrange how and where I store and back-up my files (I have my data in two different backup locations).

Lightroom doesn't back up one's image files. It does back up the catalog to a location that you can change if you want. I back up my image files twice: by synching to an external drive--which gives me the identical directory structure I have both on my primary drive and in the Lightroom catalog--and to an online incremental backup. Lightroom plays no role at all in either of those backups.

I agree that it would be nice if Lightroom handled multiple catalogs better. As it is, if you open a second catalog, it will close the first. That makes it complex (but not impossible) to move photos between catalogs.

Like Bruce, I do a larger percentage of my editing in Lightroom now than I used to. There are some types of editing for which it is clearly inferior to Photoshop, and there are some kinds of editing it simply can't do, but it can do far more than it could do only a few years ago. To take only a two examples: its selection capabilities are vastly better than they used to be, and the range of functions one can access via the adjustment brush has been expanded.

Originally Posted by DanK

I'm puzzled by this:



Lightroom doesn't back up one's image files. It does back up the catalog to a location that you can change if you want. I back up my image files twice: by synching to an external drive--which gives me the identical directory structure I have both on my primary drive and in the Lightroom catalog--and to an online incremental backup. Lightroom plays no role at all in either of those backups.

I agree that it would be nice if Lightroom handled multiple catalogs better. As it is, if you open a second catalog, it will close the first. That makes it complex (but not impossible) to move photos between catalogs.

Like Bruce, I do a larger percentage of my editing in Lightroom now than I used to. There are some types of editing for which it is clearly inferior to Photoshop, and there are some kinds of editing it simply can't do, but it can do far more than it could do only a few years ago. To take only a two examples: its selection capabilities are vastly better than they used to be, and the range of functions one can access via the adjustment brush has been expanded.

What I was suggesting (not all that clearly) is that some of these issues with Lightroom are commonly cited by people that use Capture One.

That piece of software started off life as the tethered capture tool (hence the name Capture One) for the very high end Phase One cameras that sell for more money than many mid-range cars ($40k - $60k for the camera body). The capture process for these commercial shooters also involved using a digital technician setting up some basic edits at the capture stage to help the photographer visualize what the final product could look like. Capture One is not nearly as talented as Photoshop, but has a lot more functionality than Lightroom, including layers. The DAM(digital asset management) was added later. The target audience was always the high end advertising and publications market, where those 100MP and 150MP Phase One cameras were used.

Lightroom started out as a DAM and things like tethering were added later. The map (one thing I do use Lightroom for), books, slideshow and web functions are something "professional" photographers who do weddings, portraiture, events, etc. would use. I have been exposed to / used Lightroom since the original beta version, so I have seen it evolve. Adobe has always catered to the high end commercial market as well and the differences we see between Lightroom and Camera Raw still carry that legacy. As an example, a lot of top end pro retouchers work exclusively in the L*a*b* colour space and Camera Raw supports that natively.