Lightroom or CS3 for RAW processing

bumbleb3

6

22 Mar 2009 - 7:39 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

I always take my shots in raw and I've been processing them using CS3.
I have been offered lightroom and I wondered what the advantages are if any
At the moment I open in raw then do the final adjustments in CS

joolsb (e2 Member)

7

22 Mar 2009 - 8:21 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: LR has immense advantages over CS3 in terms of RAW processing - that is why it was developed. By comparison, CS3 is very 'basic' when it comes to what it offers in terms of RAW processing when compared to LR.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't ACR in Lightroom the same as ACR in Photoshop? If so, how can LR be any better or any worse than PS for raw-processing?

davereet

7

22 Mar 2009 - 8:42 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

What Mike says is true I hardly use Photoshop since getting Lightroom.
dave

PMeldrum

7

23 Mar 2009 - 7:23 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Joolsb
Can you do localised adjustments to your RAW files in CS3?

I suggest you check out the different concept of RAW processing that Lr offers. May also save you on file space for images that only need a bit of adjustment (unless you chose to edit further in PS as a TIFF or PSD).

stevie (e2 Member)

8

23 Mar 2009 - 7:48 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Isn't the easiest thing just to download the trial version of Lightroom and actually use it for a week or two? It's really the only way to start understanding what it's all about and deciding whether it's for you.

joolsb (e2 Member)

7

23 Mar 2009 - 8:59 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: The local adjustment tools on their own put it streets ahead of Photoshop.

It can use layers, can it? How about layer masks? Blending modes?


Quote: Download the trial version and use it for a while - you won't go back to PS!!

Well, I just might. Wasn' overly impressed with v1, though.

And what's everyone got against PS? It's still the most flexible tool out there for photo-editing. LR adds a few bells and whistles for DAM but PS is still streets ahead for image-editing and always will be.

miptog

6

23 Mar 2009 - 9:16 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: It can use layers, can it? How about layer masks? Blending modes?

The local adjustment brush has similar functionality but is not as sophisticated as PS.


Quote: And what's everyone got against PS? It's still the most flexible tool out there for photo-editing. LR adds a few bells and whistles for DAM but PS is still streets ahead for image-editing and always will be.

I don't think LR was designed to compete with LR just with Image Editing. It is a RAW processor. A better comparison might be ACR with LR. Most people I suspect send their processed files to PS for final manipulation, regardless of what RAW processor they use.

PMeldrum

7

23 Mar 2009 - 9:37 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: Most people I suspect send their processed files to PS for final manipulation, regardless of what RAW processor they use.

Only if I am in need of Layers or some actions which are not replicable in Lr (usually based on layers).

Form the photographers I have spoken with who use Lr, the need to use PS has reduced considerably and I only use PS on about 10-15% of my clients images.