Adobe Lightroom

donbga · Nov 17, 2006

Hi Folks,

Recently I downloaded Adobe Lightroom Beta to give it a test drive and I'm not sure I see a great benefit to using this app when compared to PS CS. The interface seems quite alien to me compared to PS.

I really don't have tons of images to track since I scan sheet film almost exclusively.

So my question is what is it good for?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

Keith Taylor · Nov 17, 2006

Don Bryant said:
Hi Folks,

Recently I downloaded Adobe Lightroom Beta to give it a test drive and I'm not sure I see a great benefit to using this app when compared to PS CS. The interface seems quite alien to me compared to PS.

I really don't have tons of images to track since I scan sheet film almost exclusively.

So my question is what is it good for?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

Hi Don,

We're fortunate enough to have the Adobe team that's developing Lightroom here in the Twin Cities and once every couple of months the lead developers host a Photoshop Users Group. As part of every meeting they outline some of the things they've changed in the app. The audience is quite a varied one, pre-press, printers, designers, pro-photographers, amateurs. Some still working with film (a minority) and others having switched completely to digital.

The audience does seem to be very divided although everyone I've spoken with seems to have the same reaction - why not incorporate it all into Photoshop? The people that do seem to like it are those that shoot digitally and like its image management features. I confess that I've worked with it on and off since it was released and although I like some of the features (black and white conversions) I really can't see it playing a big part of my life. Everything I need to do to an image, I can do easily enough in CS2. I guess it's aimed as a competitor to Apple's Aperture, but I haven't used that and can't make any comparisons. If I shot more work digitally, then it would make more sense.

The website for the Twin Cities Photoshop Users Group is here http://www.photoshopusersgroup.com/twin_cities/index.html

jd callow · Nov 17, 2006

What is it good for
If you read what adobe has to say about the app you'll discover that it is currently incomplete and that they are asking for feedback. So it is, by Adobe's own words, not as good/usable as they'd like it to be and would like to make it better/ more useable. I can only imagine that anyone working with digital negs, who shoot in quantity and or for those in a small production environment would want to test this software and offer feedback. This is a pretty rare opportunity; one I hope it is not lost on the folks doing work in greyscale and those who shoot or handle a great many images.

Why is Adobe Building it...
Adobe's reasons for producing the app may be so that they can sell an inexpensive, full featured app to a small market. At one time HP sold a greyscale only image editing application. This application also ran against the mainstream, as it was being sold just as the DTP world was moving into colour. The HP application was exceedingly good for the time.

There is also a possibility that the application is a bit of a skunk works. It could be they have a number of benched developers and someone was able to promote the idea to the powers that be.

It might also be that they are using it as a test bed for future image applications. In as much as Adobe has labeled PS as being in version 9 (CS2) some might argue that there has only been about 3 major revisions of the application. This means that there are a good many legacy bits and pieces in the app that only a complete redesign and build could fix. Better to test their ideas on a small scale rather than on one of their flagships -- they don’t want to re live the Pagemaker/indesign fiasco.

As mentioned in another thread the link to this application and other goodies by Adobe is http://labs.adobe.com/

donbga · Nov 17, 2006

jd callow said:
What is it good for
If you read what adobe has to say about the app you'll discover that it is currently incomplete and that they are asking for feedback. So it is, by Adobe's own words, not as good/usable as they'd like it to be and would like to make it better/ more useable. I can only imagine that anyone working with digital negs, who shoot in quantity and or for those in a small production environment would want to test this software and offer feedback. This is a pretty rare opportunity; one I hope it is not lost on the folks doing work in greyscale and those who shoot or handle a great many images.

Why is Adobe Building it...
Adobe's reasons for producing the app may be so that they can sell an inexpensive, full featured app to a small market. At one time HP sold a greyscale only image editing application. This application also ran against the mainstream, as it was being sold just as the DTP world was moving into colour. The HP application was exceedingly good for the time.

There is also a possibility that the application is a bit of a skunk works. It could be they have a number of benched developers and someone was able to promote the idea to the powers that be.

It might also be that they are using it as a test bed for future image applications. In as much as Adobe has labeled PS as being in version 9 (CS2) some might argue that there has only been about 3 major revisions of the application. This means that there are a good many legacy bits and pieces in the app that only a complete redesign and build could fix. Better to test their ideas on a small scale rather than on one of their flagships -- they dont want to re live the Pagemaker/indesign fiasco.

As mentioned in another thread the link to this application and other goodies by Adobe is http://labs.adobe.com/

Well, on a positive note if the functionality could be restricted to photography only types of functions it may be a good app for me, which by and large it seems to be, though a bit paired down.

It certainly appears that Lightroom is really targeted to digital users that work with raw file format.

OTOH, I can see the possibility that it could probably never substitute entirely for PS. In my mind it would be nice to be able to launch Lightroom from within PS or vice versa. Time will tell howLightroom evolves.

Don Bryant

jd callow · Nov 17, 2006

I think you are correct that it is meant to be used by the digital capture folks.

AllenR · Nov 18, 2006

Don Bryant said:
In my mind it would be nice to be able to launch Lightroom from within PS or vice versa.
Don Bryant

Don,

You can already launch PS from Lightroom. The option is under the "Photo" drop down menu. Also, as an option of the Export function you can have the image(s) opened in PS.

Joe Lipka · Nov 21, 2006

I've played with Lightroom a little bit and it seems to me Lightroom would be a dandy application if all you were considering was "straight" photography. That is making digital pictures and printing them with only the basic tonal and contrast adjustments.

If you were going beyond basic printer output to web design, book design and other endeavors where photographic images were just a part of the final product, then you would be a photoshop user.

A big tech advantage to lightroom is that all editing is non destructive. No pixels are harmed in your editing process.

Michael Slade · Nov 21, 2006

I attended a Lightroom workshop with Julianne, and before the workshop I hadn't given it the time of day. Now...it's replaced my tried-and-true raw converter and given me some more powerful tools for presentations, web galleries and printing.

Lightroom was explained to me as NOT replacing PS, but it will replace Bridge and Camera Raw(thank God).

I am working on a project which is all digital capture right now, and all of the printing is in greyscale. Lightroom is giving me some greyscale conversion tools that were not possible prior to it's release.

I've started 'evangelizing' about it myself to my students, and so far the reviews are very very positive. Yes, some functionality needs to be added, some of the terms are a little 'swanky' for everyday users, but IMO, Lightroom is headed in a good direction.

Michael Slade
www.tawayama.com

Papa Tango · Dec 16, 2006

I think that the label "standalone" in the filename for the .msi tells all. This is likely going to be packaged as a platform for the "intermediate" digital crew (who know the advantages of RAW, but will not delve into intracies), and workflow management for the high-volume pro. Chop pre-production volume from hundreds to dozens, and then do the final deed in PS or another app.

The disclaimer of standalone seems to indicate an intent to provide an integrated version. If this replaces Bridge, it certainly will not break my heart. The experience I have had there is of a slow loading, clunky program that does nothing for batch experience...

jd callow · Dec 16, 2006

Pragmatist said:
If this replaces Bridge, it certainly will not break my heart. The experience I have had there is of a slow loading, clunky program that does nothing for batch experience...

I can not agree more. Bridge is just a file manager with some extra capabilities, yet it is really a pig. A few moths ago I built a new machine capable of video editing (dual core 64 bit, 4 gigs a ram 1.2 TB raids 0 and 0+1, etc...) and I am just now, finally getting a decent response from the app.

Papa Tango · Dec 16, 2006

You said it John. My previous machine was an Athlon 2800+ running 1GB of PC2700. I thought that it was just in need of upgrading. Went pretty much the same route you did, with Athlon 64 X2 5000+, 3GB DDR-2, SATA drives, the whole optimization routine. Still a slow pig. When PS comes up in a flash, that tells you something....

Adobe Lightroom

donbga

Keith Taylor

jd callow

Moderator

donbga

jd callow

Moderator

AllenR

Joe Lipka

Michael Slade

Papa Tango

jd callow

Moderator

Papa Tango

Adobe Lightroom

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency