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?
|
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.
|
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
My biggest bitch about RAW is the file sizes. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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: |
I see about giving it a try this weekend and once I am done I will post the two.
Thanks again. |
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
|
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