The Vette Barn

The Vette Barn (https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/index.php)
-   Picture Perfect (https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=95)
-   -   Adobe Lightroom (https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44279)

TR6speed 12-05-2012 7:07pm

Adobe Lightroom
 
I shoot all my photo's in RAW and then load them into Photoshop CS5. I have been contemplating get Lightroom, but was wondering if it is worth the investment. Anyone using it along with PS?

Grey Ghost 12-05-2012 9:22pm

I think...(I haven't used it, but heard many others talking about it) it's strength is if you shoot hundreds or thousands of pics. It is great for naming, organization, filtering good shots from bad, image management, etc...not so much for the editing of the pic.

beadist 12-06-2012 12:42am

I've had it for 4+ years and I can't stand it, but others love it.

I use Photo Mechanic to edit, and a couple different versions of PS to work on the edits.

Yamma 12-06-2012 6:36am

My parents bought it for me last Christmas - I feel awful, but I haven't even loaded it on my computer. I've got 60-70k photos spread out over multiple external hard drives, and don't even have the space on my computer to install the software.

TripleBlack 12-06-2012 7:18pm

I'm cheap when it comes to software... don't have PS but use Gimp instead. But last year about 6 months before LR4 came out, there was a fire sale on LR3. I ordered and I love it. I'll definitely upgrade to LR4 soon.

First, it's a great tool to organize your catalog of photos. Quick and easy to adjust exposure, white balance, etc. on raws. It does a good job of noise reduction too and some say the noise reduction feature alone is as good as Nik or some of the other utilities that cost the same as LR.

I rarely use Gimp anymore unless I need to clone something out. LR3 doesn't do a very good job of that.

Check out some of the tutorials on the Adobe site... good stuff IMO.

Giraffe (He/Him) 12-10-2012 4:48pm

Quote:

It is superior to Camera RAW in Adobe Bridge.
I have no issues with Camera RAW. My version of Camera RAW will not handle RAW files from my MKIII. I convert to DNG files, then start editing in Camera RAW first.

Giraffe (He/Him) 12-12-2012 10:56am

Quote:

I shoot all my photo's in RAW
Just curious, Why?

TR6speed 12-12-2012 7:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas (Post 833909)
Just curious, Why?

I just seem to have more control over any editing in the RAW format compared to JPEG.

Giraffe (He/Him) 12-13-2012 8:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TR6speed (Post 834211)
I just seem to have more control over any editing in the RAW format compared to JPEG.

Have you tried opening your jpeg in Camera RAW and editing that way? Once in a great while I'll shoot RAW, but not too often.

TR6speed 12-13-2012 8:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TxAg (Post 834293)
:iagree:

The adjustments available are vastly superior and in quantity to those with JPEG.

I also always shot RAW also.

I understand why people like sports photographers shoot in JPEG due more shots when in a continuous shooting mode but since I don't do that, RAW has more advantages than JPEG.

In regards to Camera RAW (ie Bridge/Photoshop) vs. Lightroom:
Learning Center – 100 Ways Adobe Lightroom Kicks Adobe Bridge’s A$$ For Photographers

Later. :seeya:

Thanks, and I will look at the link you gave me a little later. By the way, my brother-in-law and both nieces are Aggies.

TR6speed 12-13-2012 8:59am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas (Post 834475)
Have you tried opening your jpeg in Camera RAW and editing that way? Once in a great while I'll shoot RAW, but not too often.

No, never new you could do that. I was under the understanding, that the reason for shooting in RAW over JPEG was because you lost some of the color qualities in JPEG as compared to RAW.
I have only been playing around with the Lightroom for a couple of days, but I do like what I see. Only issue I have is I am stuck with version 3 (actually 3.6) because I am using XP and you need Windows 7 or Vista for Lightroom 4.

Giraffe (He/Him) 12-13-2012 9:46am

Quote:

that the reason for shooting in RAW over JPEG was because you lost some of the color qualities in JPEG as compared to RAW.
Give This a Read

My biggest bitch about RAW is the file sizes.

TR6speed 12-13-2012 11:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas (Post 834513)
Give This a Read

My biggest bitch about RAW is the file sizes.

The article seems to say what I was saying and why I shoot in RAW. I agree that RAW does use up a lot of space, but with the price of SD cards it is not a big issue.
I was at Sebring in March for the 12 hour race and I was able to shoot over 500 shots in RAW on one 8Gig card.

Giraffe (He/Him) 12-13-2012 11:51am

Quote:

The article seems to say what I was saying and why I shoot in RAW.
I did a little informal test with this RAW format. I shot the exact same scene in RAW and JPG. After editing and printing the difference was negligible.

FOR ME, the benefits of RAW are small. Too small to deal with. Many other's disagree, I'm aware.

Try 'em both out, do your editing and see what your thoughts are. Post up a few if you feel like it. :cert:

TR6speed 12-13-2012 5:42pm

I see about giving it a try this weekend and once I am done I will post the two.

Thanks again.

Grey Ghost 12-13-2012 8:43pm

I've read several debates on RAW vs JPG. JPG is a compressed file, and you do lose some information/data each time you save it. If only posting and viewing on the www. I doubt anyone would notice the difference between RAW and JPG edited file. IF you make a print, you might see a little difference.

Another explanation was to think of a JPG, as a piece of paper. The more times you open and save the file is analogous to wadding up a piece of paper and unfolding it. It gets worse each time you do it. With that in mind, I try my best to only open and save the JPG one time. With a RAW file, you never lose any of the information. Some people have gone back and re-edited RAW files once they got more familiar with their software. They were happier with the results, pulling some detail out of shadows, etc...I think they could have achieved the same results had they known their software better to start with though.

TR6speed 12-14-2012 11:47am

Now that I did not know. I knew when the camera processed a JEPG file it lost data in the process, but I never knew that every time it was opened you lost more data.

Giraffe (He/Him) 12-14-2012 2:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TR6speed (Post 835129)
Now that I did not know. I knew when the camera processed a JEPG file it lost data in the process, but I never knew that every time it was opened you lost more data.

Think of some of these jpg's that have been passed around the Internet a billion times.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:57am.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 - 2024 The Vette Barn