[spacepacker]

I have had Lightroom for some time now, never used it.
Today I thought I would have a play.
How the hell do you SAVE/SAVE AS?. Yes I know I'm dim...Kenny

[Dabhand16]

I've always gone to the 'edit image in (in my case Photoshop) editing programe' in the photo menu, and then saved from CS3.

[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by spacepacker

I have had Lightroom for some time now, never used it.
Today I thought I would have a play.
How the hell do you SAVE/SAVE AS?. Yes I know I'm dim...Kenny

Not dim at all, it's not obvious. You export from any of the library views. This gives you more options than save as.

[JMitchell]

Yeah you have to right click (or go to 'File') and export, then you can choose the options, and even save settings for something you'll be doing a lot.

[spacepacker]

Thanks for your replies, another reason for not liking Lightroom...Kenny

[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by spacepacker

Thanks for your replies, another reason for not liking Lightroom...Kenny

Why not liking? I think it's amazing it's saves me hours on my workflow and I can't mess things up. It doesn't save or save as because it is non destructive.

You only export if you want to send them to someone or upload them.

Using Snapshots you can have infinite different edits or crops of the same image (stcked together if you like) but take up hardly any more space than the original file. Plus from each of those snapshots you can go back through all the steps you made. A bit like Photoshop History BUT it's always there and you can have as many different history trails as you like.

This shows briefly what version 2 can do.

[john crossley]

Originally Posted by VinnyP

I think it's amazing it's saves me hours on my workflow and I can't mess things up. It doesn't save or save as because it is non destructive.

You only export if you want to send them to someone or upload them.

Using Snapshots you can have infinite different edits or crops of the same image (stcked together if you like) but take up hardly any more space than the original file. Plus from each of those snapshots you can go back through all the steps you made. A bit like Photoshop History BUT it's always there and you can have as many different history trails as you like.

Totally agree.

[Markulous]

Must admit that I haven't got on with it - maybe I need to give it another go but find it took me far longer to process my shots with nothing like as good a result (but I only stuck it for a couple of outings worth - still had to reprocess all the shots )

[John F]

Markulous, I was glad to read your reply because like you I can't get on with LR. In fact, I dislike it intensely; I much prefer "Bridge." Sometimes I think its me and keep telling myself I'll give it another go but I never get round to it.

[LJR69]

I tried Lightroom 2 beta and I didn't really get on with it although I do appreciate it's quite powerful. I'm sticking with Aperture and Capture NX though.

[P-E]

I'm another that doesn't get on/like Lightroom.

[M1ke A]

Having previously used Raw Shooter Pro, I initialled struggled with LR.

Now I love it to bits. The inbuilt filters and quick adjustment options are great. It'd be nice if these were in PS2. Dunno if they're in CS3?

Now if we were discussing Picasa, I'd heartily agree it's unfriendly. Unfortunately I have to use it for quick IPTC captioning though.......

[latoga]

For those who don't agree with lightroom, keep in mind that it's not the same thing as bridge, it's purpose is totally different (I use both at the appropriate time). Bridge is great for browsing my collection of photos, but it does take time and gets quite slow when I try to open a folder with 3k images...

Lightroom is primarily for speeding up your workflow. Browsing the images is the first step of this, but also performing processing on the images. Lightroom is much faster at browsing than Bridge, but that's because it's designed to do more than just browse. So it loads a preview of your photos in it's library when you "import" photos. You can then sort through photos, and do processing of photos in a non-destructive way. All changes are saved in a meta data file, not applied to the original image. Thus, you need to "export" the photos to get an image file that you can use (i.e., upload to the web, share).

But, your original "digital negative" is still there, safe and sound. I now spend about 85-90% of my time in Lightroom and it allows me to quickly sort thru and process 2000 files from a shoot in 4-5 hours, where before it would have taken me days using Bridge and Photoshop.

[VinnyP]

Originally Posted by M1ke A

Now I love it to bits. The inbuilt filters and quick adjustment options are great. It'd be nice if these were in PS2. Dunno if they're in CS3?

Almost all of the 1.4 ones are in ACR 4 with CS3

The lightroom 2.0 ones are not in CS3 since that has ACR 5 so they may be relased for CS3 but may well be for CS4 which has been announced.

[silkstone]

Like many others, I got LR free as a Rawshooter Premium user, and I did use it extensively for about six months. In the end I moved elsewhere - not because of the Import/Export and Library issues which I could work around, but because I could get better results elsewhere.

Some of the issues may have been cured with later releases, but, for example, I found that LR's noise reduction (enabled by default) created fringing which was particularly noticeable in overhead cables etc. Also I wanted something that, at least most of the time, could produce a finished product without second-stage processing, so it had to include things like perspective correction and lens distortion correction, plus noise reduction and a choice of sharpening methods.

I'm not knocking LR - each to his own and all that - and LR's highlight recovery is the best I've seen so far in any RAW converter - but I wonder whether the original LR paradigm of an all-in-one application will be hamstrung by Adobe's commercially understandable wish not to take sales away from CS3/4/etc.