[Russell]

Any thoughts on Lightroom 3?

[AQ]

I had a quick look at it and came to the conclusion that as I have photoshop I did not need lightroom as well. Perhaps "professional" photographers have more use for it ??.

[stepheno]

Originally Posted by AQ

I had a quick look at it and came to the conclusion that as I have photoshop I did not need lightroom as well.

Funny.....I came to the conclusion that LR does most of what I need and, since CS takes an hour to load I ditched it, and use PhotoPlus X4 instead.

Russell - one could write a book in answer to your question, anything specific?

[Russell]

Currently I take photographs just for myself and as you can see from my gallery I will try most topics with varying results. I have Elements 8, which I haven't mastered, the software bundled with my Cannon and photomatix pro. That should cover RAW, basic processing, cataloguing, HDR and tethered shooting. Adobe, bless them, have offered me LR3, full version, for under £100. I have downloaded a trial 30 day version and I am a bit underwhelmed. Am I missing something. There is a huge amount of pre-sets and the RAW conversion appears better but no clone stamp. I will be classed as a student later this year and can get a discounted CS5 so no doubt I will ask about that. I guess my question really is who is LR3 really intended for?? Sorry for the waffle but I have confused myself.

PS Do you like Photoplus X4????

[dabhand16]

Lightroom is a cataloging sytem as well as a RAW converter with a lot of extras. A lot of people think that LR + Elements is good enough, but I have to say that I find PS easier to use and has some very handy features.

A lot of people also went for LR as it incorporated much of the revered RawShooter technology, but I suspect that this might now also be in PS too.

If you don't need the keywording/collections/and general limitless organising that LR offers you might well find that PS will do enough for you, but LR3 at £100 would be very tempting for me.

[stepheno]

Originally Posted by Russell

PS Do you like Photoplus X4????

Yes I do...at a fraction of the cost of CS. It does all that I need with an identical interface to CS - if any downside it might be that there are fewer plugins/actions than for CS but I don't use many of them anyway.

[fionaB]

I use both, I import and sort my shots and do raw conversion on LR. being able to quickly scroll thru them at the bottom of hte screen to me is a godsend i can bin and sort them so very much quicker than on PS. however the final processing and any cropping or layer work will get done in PS.

[VinnyP]

Another one who uses both. Lightroom is the only way I access Photoshop.
Lightroom is where the quick stuff gets done as part of the Raw conversion. Eg cropping, WB, Curves Noise reduction, sharpening and applying profiles. The images get sorted, scored and keyworded in there as well. Its ability to work with plugins that interface directly with stock libraries coupled with smart groups makes it very powerful. It saves me hours.

[colinmac]

I have Lightroom 2 and CS4 and work exactly the same as Fiona.
Colin.

[Markulous]

I tried LR3 and was indifferent to it - gave me very similar to Bridge/PS and since I need to use PS anyway to finish off my Sigma images (nothing processes them like the Sigma RAW software), I've stayed with Bridge/PS

[Russell]

Thanks guys I will play with the down load some more but from what you say for the price it is something that will become more useful as I get more proficient. Thanks for your comments. Regards

[Dave Canon]

I use LR3 and PS CS4. LR becomes the control centre and manages the overall workflow interfacing with PS, Photomatix, Oloneo and Topaz as well as providing output facilities for printing and web. The import/Export is also very powerful. I only use Raw and most editing is carried out on the Raw file in LR and it is certainly best to do all tonal corrections in Raw. The brush and gradulated tools can apply selective exposure changes (as well as other editing functions). For example selective exposure adjustments can be applied more strongly than you could ever apply dodging or burning in PS and furthermore it is non-destructive so can be changed at any time.

The only thing I really need PS for is for layers and cloning. If Adobe added layers and Cloning to LR, I doubt that I would ever need PS (which is why they may not do this).

If you are not managing catalogues of thousands of images and have to regularly search them, you may be able to manage with the Bridge and PS as I used to do. However, I have now used LR for 2 years and would not like to manage without it. I would doubt that a professional or regular wedding photographer would like to manage without LR.

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by Dave Canon

If you are not managing catalogues of thousands of images and have to regularly search them, you may be able to manage with the Bridge and PS as I used to do. However, I have now used LR for 2 years and would not like to manage without it. I would doubt that a professional or regular wedding photographer would like to manage without LR.

LOL! I seem to manage my 2TBs of photo files absolutely fine without - and that's output from about a dozen different cameras!

[stepheno]

Originally Posted by Dave Canon

If Adobe added layers and Cloning to LR, I doubt that I would ever need PS (which is why they may not do this).

I can relate to that.

[VinnyP]

You can get layers for Lightroom as a third party plug in.

[dabhand16]

Originally Posted by VinnyP

You can get layers for Lightroom as a third party plug in.

I ran a News story on that back in April

http://www.pixalo.com/community/news...tml#post329441

[stepheno]

Thank you kind sirs

[Dutchie]

I use both, same as Fiona. I don't use lightroom to edit my photo's as it hasn't got enough options. Lightroom is fab to go through your photo's and catalogue them. Photoshop is for me a must have to edit.

[Russell]

Tried LR3 for the 30 day trial and liked it. Now purchased new for £70 plus VAT. Now await a book to study. Will use alongside Elements 8. Regards