Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Lightroom 4


28 Aug 2012 4:12PM
can anyone tell me what has lightroom got thats different from CS5.1 what is lightroom for? i see such a lot of mentions of it that i wonder if i am missing something.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

28 Aug 2012 4:26PM
It would take far too long to explain in detail but you will find the information on the Adobe site.

Briefly, Photoshop is an editor designed for professional illustrators and is the industry standard for this purpose. It can be used just for photography but this will only use a limited range of its features.

Lightroom is a high quality image processor and image database management system in one designed for photographers. It is an integrated suite of easy to use applications. Raw file users will get the most from Lightroom.

Dave
lemmy e2
7 2.1k United Kingdom
28 Aug 2012 5:04PM
As Dave says but I'd add the detail that Lightroom is not for people who want to do a great deal of picture manipulation.

You import your RAW file, correct verticals, correct colour temperature, noise etc, until you have what amounts to the best your RAW file can be. You then keyword it. No corrections are made on the RAW file itself, they are stored as database entries and applied when you look at the file next time in LR. Thus, you RAW file is never changed. If in 5 years, some super duper new means of noise elimination comes along, you can reset the image noise correction originally applied and use the new one on it.

When you want to make pictures from that digital negative, your corrected RAW file, you have LR export them in the form you wish. It is analogous to having a negative and making prints from it.

If you want to take your output and manipulate it pictorially, remove objects and so on, you will still need Photoshop or a graphics program. The analogy would be that you use Lightroom to make your print. If you want to retouch it, you need Photoshop or some such.

Essentially, Lightroom isn't much use if you shoot jpg because the technical decisions are made in the camera. Since I've used Lightroom, I hardly use Photoshop.

I've used Photoshop professionally since version 1 and as Dave implies. it is massive overkill for most photographers, including professionals. Adobe have done a sterling job on making photographers feel second rate if they don't have it, I have to say. Great marketing by any standards.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
28 Aug 2012 5:19PM

Quote:
No corrections are made on the RAW file itself, they are stored as database entries and applied when you look at the file next time in LR. Thus, you RAW file is never changed.


Agreed - this is a huge advantage and rather like using layers in PS


Quote:If you want to take your output and manipulate it pictorially, remove objects and so on, you will still need Photoshop or a graphics program.

You can clone out objects in LR though more expansive editing will need PS.


Quote:Essentially, Lightroom isn't much use if you shoot jpg because the technical decisions are made in the camera.

You can edit JPEG in LR. Even if you shoot JPEG you can still use tha very powerful cataloguing.


Quote:Since I've used Lightroom, I hardly use Photoshop.

Same here (though in my case, I have hardly used Elements)
Pete e2
13 18.7k 96 England
28 Aug 2012 5:24PM
I bought Lightroom for its image management having previously used Extensis Portfolio but soon found I was using it as my first base image editor. I then use Photoshop when Layers and Mask or detailed cloning is required. Like many I rarely touch the sides of Photoshop's vast professional feature set.
lemmy e2
7 2.1k United Kingdom
28 Aug 2012 5:33PM

Quote:You can edit JPEG in LR. Even if you shoot JPEG you can still use tha very powerful cataloguing.


That's true but I wouldn't advise Lightroom if all you wanted was the cataloguing. It's good for a catalogue but there are better dedicated cataloguing programs.

And used with jpg it doesn't do anything better (maybe not as well) as Elements or Photoshop. For example, your sharpening, colour temperature, noise reduction and so on have all been done in camera. You can't remove them, only add to them. You can export to tif or psd or png but you can't get rid of any jpg artifacts, of course.

In my opinion LR only makes sense with RAW - for example, taking advantage of the .dng files to write your data to the image itself making it portable.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
28 Aug 2012 5:38PM
If you convert JPEG to TIFF prior to editing is there any advantage to LR over PSE? I have never followed this route so just interested.
JJGEE
10 6.4k 18 England
28 Aug 2012 8:31PM

Quote:You can clone out objects in LR though more expansive editing will need PS.

Not very easily and when you can it is very basic.

A small cigarette end would be OK as the size would be about that of a sensor dust spot, which LR is extremely good at getting rid of.

Now if the CS5 or is it CS6 feature of content aware fill came to LR that would be great Wink
RoyBoy e2
10 173 2 United Kingdom
28 Aug 2012 9:43PM
Both are brilliant programmes.

In addition to the above I would add that Lightroom excels in cataloging, image management, easy application of keywords (a big plus as your library of images grow, great batch processing functionality, terrific and quick export to to other file types including resizing and change of colour space, etc. Absolutely great value at less than 100.

However, as above, if you want to undertake image manipulation on a image by image basis Photoshop/Elements is what you need.

Hope this helps
colin beeley e2
12 1.1k 10 England
29 Aug 2012 6:31AM
i use lightroom because it is quick & easy to knock up a website Wink
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
29 Aug 2012 11:25AM

Quote:As Dave says but I'd add the detail that Lightroom is not for people who want to do a great deal of picture manipulation.


That's maybe a wee bit misleading.

In Lightroom you can manipulate the following aspects of pictures:

Temperature
Tint
Exposure
Contrast
Highlights
Shadows
Whites
Blacks
Clarity
Presence
Saturation
Sharpening
Noise Reduction
(most of the above both globally and locally)
Mono conversion
Split Toning
Lens Correction
Vignetting
Grain
.....and a host more

....and you can add effects such as graduated filters, clone out unwanted artefacts, etc.

What you can't do, without plug-ins, is manipulation requiring layers - such as substituting a new sky in a picture.

Although I have Photoshop CS6 available, most of my photo manipulation is done either solely within Lightroom or using Nik's ColourEfexPro, SilverEfexPro and HDREfexPro from within Lightroom. Lightroom 4 together with those Nik programs still costs less than Photoshop CS6.

.
29 Aug 2012 11:34AM
I have yet to upgrade my PS CS4 simply because I can do all I want with LR4.1, Topaz Plug-ins, Oloneo and CS4 all from Lightroom. I will upgrade to CS6 before the 31st Dec simply because it is the last opportunity at an acceptable price. I probably do not need any of the features that CS6 has over and above CS4. I actually have two full PS licences CS3 and a CS4 but I can only upgrade one of them.

Dave
cats_123 e2
10 4.3k 25 Northern Ireland
29 Aug 2012 11:47AM

Quote:What you can't do, without plug-ins, is manipulation requiring layers - such as substituting a new sky in a picture.


there are some half decent presets though, which will enhance what you already have Smile

I tend to wait a few weeks after `Beta' releases before committing, but it will come automatically anyway when it's been user testedSmile

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.