# Talk me into doubling-down on Lightroom



## Peeb (Nov 15, 2015)

Downloaded Lightroom from creative cloud to try as I've heard so many good things.

I don't need a photo organizer, and I already edit with Photoshop Elements 13.  The program is so dissimilar from Elements that I'm finding the learning curve to be fairly steep.

Do I need to spend a lot of time getting this mastered, or is Elements all I need?

Thoughts from Lightroom veterans would be appreciated.


----------



## dcbear78 (Nov 15, 2015)

Lightroom is a different beast to elements. It does some of the same things, lots that elements can't and lots it can't do that elements can. 

If you are really only doing global adjustments with the odd local brush work Lightroom is great. And if you aren't using it for its cataloguing then you are missing out on a major strength of the program. 

It would be best to use it along side elements as each program has their own unique features. 

The Adobe CC package will give you both Lightroom and full Photoshop for a very reasonable price.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 15, 2015)

Tough call.

Do you plan to buy the standalone LR or start paying $10.00 per month till they raise the price? You do get PS for the subscription and that allows you to put Elements away.

Do you shoot and edit raw files or are you using Elements (and LR) to process JPEGs?

They're not an either/or choice. In many cases you need the functionality of both. Assume you shoot raw and use that 18-55mm Nikon zoom. You have a raw original that needs some CA correction and has an obstructing lamp post that you'd like to remove. You need both apps.

Elements can't deal with the CA and LR can't remove the lamp post.

Often LR will be able to do all the editing necessary for an image and you can rely on it to complete the entire job, but you'll still need Elements for the occasional lamp post type edit.

If you're working with raw files Elements is deficient. It lacks critical features that eventually leave you screwed. The version of ACR in Elements is frustratingly crippled.

Joe


----------



## Peeb (Nov 15, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Tough call.
> 
> Do you plan to buy the standalone LR or start paying $10.00 per month till they raise the price? You do get PS for the subscription and that allows you to put Elements away.
> 
> ...


I currently 'own' PS Elements 13- not the monthly plan.

Not a huge fan of the software subscription model, but that's the direction adobe is pushing.  I shoot raw, so I can have the most data available, and the ability to white balance as needed.

I guess since I have never owned the 'full' PS, I don't know what I don't have.  Lots of provocative info in your post.  Thanks!


----------



## Peeb (Nov 15, 2015)

dcbear78 said:


> Lightroom is a different beast to elements. It does some of the same things, lots that elements can't and lots it can't do that elements can.
> 
> If you are really only doing global adjustments with the odd local brush work Lightroom is great. *And if you aren't using it for its cataloguing then you are missing out on a major strength of the program. *
> 
> ...


I've tried several things over the years for cataloguing photos, and at the end of the day I just gave up and made folders for years, and sub-folders for the dates of photo shoots.

Having invested a considerable time into setting up this convention, I'm resistant to jumping ship and learning/implementing a new paradigm, but perhaps that's the medicine that needs to be taken?


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 15, 2015)

After a day-intensive with a mostly LR using photo-editor and reading (or starting to read) a book by David DuChemin (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321670094?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00), I have only just begun to see how powerful LR as an editor is.

However, whereas PS is a very procedural editing process with layers, filters, etc (that is actually quite kind and understandable to beginners) sort of like chess, LR is more like an object oriented program (or the board game Go) and to be really good at it requires an amount of understanding of concepts and a vision for your final image that most beginners don't have.
LR is easy to use at first but subtle manipulation of the relatively few tools (compared to PS) is much more difficult.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 15, 2015)

I bought LR years ago.  I also used PSE 8 and upgraded to 12.   

Due to LR's "confusing" workflow I tried to avoid it by using about anything else out there.
The problem is the "better" free stuff out there is based on workflows, and was just as confusing.

So from all the features I kept reading about LR compared to everything else I finally doubled down one weekend and decided to learn how to use it.

After It finally made sense.
And once you learn the file mgt / Collections of LR ... it just makes more sense too.

FYI, you can still buy LR as a standalone buy once from Adobe.  They just don't make it very apparent.  

One their main screen it's on the bottom (very bottom) right ==> Digital photography software | Download free Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC trial

The teacher version is no longer standalone .. I'd have to buy CC but I get everything or pay full price for LR


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 15, 2015)

Peeb said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Tough call.
> ...



If you work from raw files and do so in order to have the most data available then Elements is not your friend. The crippled version of ACR lacks critical features: CA correction and the HSL panel to note some glaring problems.

Furthermore, although the Elements ACR module will output a 16 bit RGB file, Elements can't edit it. You have to sample down to an 8 bit file for Elements editing tools to function. The gist of that is: to use Elements somewhat defeats the reason you're working from raw files. LR is certainly the obvious and easy solution then. Keep Elements around for the odd cloning job.

Joe

P.S. If you don't like the subscription program from Adobe, LR is still available standalone however Adobe has begun to add features to LR CC that are not being added to the standalone version (writing on that wall). There are also non-Adobe alternatives, both modestly priced and free, but it is a pain to find a non-Adobe solution that you like and that offers everything you need -- possible however.

Edit: I've never tried one of these but there are 3rd party Elements "unlocking" additions. Here's the one I encounter the most: About Elements+


----------



## Peeb (Nov 15, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


Thanks! What about just going from PSE to full blown PS?


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 15, 2015)

Peeb said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Peeb said:
> ...



Sure but that puts you back into the $10.00 monthly subscription and LR comes with PS so you'd have LR anyway. Likewise PS comes with LR so you'd have PS anyway. Makes Elements unnecessary. PS is a new learning curve but you'd have everything you need.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Nov 15, 2015)

I would consider simply purchasing a late version of Lightroom, one that will definitely handle the raw files your camera shoots, and learning how to use it. Lightroom is not all that difficult to use, and it works rapidly, and can handle files easily. I still use my own folders system with Lightroom--I just download "manually", and then point Lightroom to the folder I've downloaded and then command it to Import. This keeps my file storage and archiving system the same way it has always been...year, underscore, month, date, and a brief identifier.


----------



## Dave442 (Nov 15, 2015)

I am still using the  stand-alone LR and my old CS4 and newer On1. It took me a bit to find how to best implement and use LR file management, but now it makes me cringe when someone starts looking for a photo with explorer or similar. The good thing with managing the photos with LR is you have a chance to use it very frequently and therefore can explore a bit more each time you use it.  I especially like all the ways that batch actions can be applied and the virtual copy.


----------



## Peeb (Nov 15, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


Just downloaded trial Photoshop CC.

The ACR is markedly better!  Dumb question:  in PSE, there are 'modes' of use (basic to advanced).  No such option for Photoshop CC?


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 15, 2015)

Peeb said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Peeb said:
> ...



Nope -- it's advanced all the way.

Joe


----------



## Peeb (Nov 15, 2015)

Yeah- fortunately, my time in PSE has made it relatively familiar.  Learning curve isn't overly steep for most things...


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 16, 2015)

In PSE I found the modes to just be "in the way"
I always have to go to Advanced to do the things I want to do anyways.

I think it's time you take the time needed to learn LR.
After I made the leap it has been sooooooo much better.
I wasted so much time trying to find something else that LR makes easy to do once you understand the workflow.  The main difference is it's not "menu based" like programs of old.  The "menu" moves around the screen dependent upon what you are doing, but once you get it, you then start learning a lot.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 16, 2015)

LR should not be tough to learn at all.  For the most part, I've found a video that can get you through almost anything.   You can remove things like twigs cutting through a bird etc. but you can't select nearly as easy as drawing a circle around things like you can with PS.





Lightroom Tutorials by Julieanne Kost


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 16, 2015)

Depends I guess if you feel a need to do more than you can do now with what you have.

And I don't like and rarely do subscriptions that have companies billing credit cards monthly; yeah, 'everybody' 's doing it, but if customers go along with it and don't stop subscribing I suppose companies will keep pushing it.


edit - And why have people talk you into doing something that it sounds like you don't really want or need but feel like you _should_ be doing? Just because 'everybody' talks about Lightroom, who cares? lol If it works for people, fine, if you feel like you need it, then maybe get it, or otherwise I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## cgw (Nov 16, 2015)

First, if you're thinking about LR6, buy it now. I suspect this may be the last stand alone "perpetual license" non-Elements PS product we'll see before the CC absorbs all.

Once you get over the intimidation/bullying about getting and staying organized in LR manuals and cookbooks, the parts of the program you're after are not ridiculously difficult.


----------



## Jim Walczak (Nov 16, 2015)

This is just my own .02¢ worth so please treat is as such...

These days, the debate between Photoshop and Lightroom is getting nearly as bad as that of Canon and Nikon or Chevy & Ford...some folks prefer one, some the other.  Personally, I've been using Photoshop since version 4 came out in the mid 90's (I used Aldus PhotoStyler before that) and as such, yes, I'm a bit biased towards Phothshop.  That said, knowing Photoshop as well as I do, I think this was an advantage when I started learning other Adobe programs as well, such as Illustrator, InDesign and even Premiere...they call had that Adobe commonality to them that was immediately familiar.   In any case, for what I do and how I do it, I honestly see no advantage_ at all_ in using Lightroom.  While some will argue that LR is a great "cataloging program" or argue it's virtues regarding workflow, while this is just my own not so humble opinion, I think the only two _real_ advantages that LR has over PS is simply price and learning curve...LR was cheaper than the full blown version of PS (don't know about this CC stuff they do now a days) and I've read where LR is_ supposedly_ easier to learn (Photoshop admittedly does have something of a learning curve).  I'm sure some folks could nit pick this and I will even go so far as to suggest that it depends on what you do...everyone's needs are different, however when comparing the two programs, LR just doesn't really give you anything worthwhile that PS doesn't.

I know a lot of people prefer to use LR however, while I don't wish to offend anyone, the simple truth is that Photoshop is a FAR more powerful program than Lightroom...hands down, no comparison.  Lightroom is decent enough for some production and commercial work", however as far as serious image editing goes, it's VERY limited to say the least.  If the OP is already used to working with Essentials, unless there's a very specific reason to switch, my suggestion would be to stick with either Essentials or go full Photoshop.  

Just my own opinions as always.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 16, 2015)

Just for general knowledge, can someone list what LR can't do in the way of importing files,  creating folders ,  naming or renaming folders etc?  I'm curious to see what Adobe has neglected.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 16, 2015)

Peeb said:


> dcbear78 said:
> 
> 
> > Lightroom is a different beast to elements. It does some of the same things, lots that elements can't and lots it can't do that elements can.
> ...


You won't have to change anything from the way you have been doing it.  LR can handle that very easily.  


Peeb said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Tough call.
> ...


----------



## tirediron (Nov 16, 2015)

Jim Walczak said:


> This is just my own .02¢ worth so please treat is as such...
> 
> These days, the debate between Photoshop and Lightroom is getting nearly as bad as that of Canon and Nikon or Chevy & Ford...some folks prefer one, some the other.  Personally, I've been using Photoshop since version 4 came out in the mid 90's (I used Aldus PhotoStyler before that) and as such, yes, I'm a bit biased towards Phothshop.  That said, knowing Photoshop as well as I do, I think this was an advantage when I started learning other Adobe programs as well, such as Illustrator, InDesign and even Premiere...they call had that Adobe commonality to them that was immediately familiar.   In any case, for what I do and how I do it, I honestly see no advantage_ at all_ in using Lightroom.  While some will argue that LR is a great "cataloging program" or argue it's virtues regarding workflow, while this is just my own not so humble opinion, I think the only two _real_ advantages that LR has over PS is simply price and learning curve...LR was cheaper than the full blown version of PS (don't know about this CC stuff they do now a days) and I've read where LR is_ supposedly_ easier to learn (Photoshop admittedly does have something of a learning curve).  I'm sure some folks could nit pick this and I will even go so far as to suggest that it depends on what you do...everyone's needs are different, however when comparing the two programs, LR just doesn't really give you anything worthwhile that PS doesn't.
> 
> ...


I don't get the concept of a debate between LR and PS... to me they're two complimentary tools in the same box.  Each one has different applications, different strengths and different weaknesses, and can do some things the other can't.  One with out the other is like a cheeseburger without bacon!


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 16, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> I bought LR years ago.  I also used PSE 8 and upgraded to 12.
> 
> Due to LR's "confusing" workflow I tried to avoid it by using about anything else out there.
> The problem is the "better" free stuff out there is based on workflows, and was just as confusing.
> ...


I have my own workflow; do you mean their develop module is layed out funky?  

My somewhat normal workflow is: Import from, tell it what drive, folder or subfolder to go to, place duplicate in a backup folder, convertv or rename file to basically any naming convention I choose, add keywords, use preset I created. Walk away while all that is done.  Once imported, I cull by tagging each file by tapping the letter x.  Once complete,  all those files can be deleted from the hard drive or just the catalog.  

Then I crop if needed,  make wb change if needed,  brush in adjustments as needed. Some brushes I've created have several adjustments in one brush.  Spot removal brush to remove branches or twigs or telephone poll.  Radial button to dodge or burn areas/vignettes etc. (also other adjustments can be added to that filter).  

Basically that's the workflow.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 16, 2015)

Some naming conventions on import.  Pretty much anything you would ever want to name your files. Creating a Custom File Renaming Templates in Lightroom


----------



## Jim Walczak (Nov 17, 2015)

tirediron said:


> I don't get the concept of a debate between LR and PS... to me they're two complimentary tools in the same box.  Each one has different applications, different strengths and different weaknesses, and can do some things the other can't.  One with out the other is like a cheeseburger without bacon!




In essence, I would actually agree...both programs do have their strengths and weaknesses.  I will also go so far as to admit that I don't have _that_ much experience with LR.  I've messed with it a number of times over the years and never found any real advantage in terms of how I do my own work...my own work flow (as far as photography is concerned) has always incorporated Adobe Bridge and ACR, which does much of the same work LR does (and I've always been able to setup batch files or actions for the rest).   I will also admit that it's been a few years since I bought Photoshop and what's more, I got my current version at the college I was attending a few years back, essentially as a stand alone (at that time I had upgraded to CS 5.5 because that's what the college was using and I was able to use my funding to pay for it)...at that time, Lightroom was a separate purchase and again I just didn't see the point.

That said however, I've noticed both here on TPF and other photo forums where yea...there does seem to be something of a division in the masses regarding these programs.  Perhaps it has something to do with these newer versions of Windows and Mac and how they store files(?)...personally I'm STILL running XP64 and I have no problems with issues such as "file management" and such (it's just a matter of keeping your harddrive organized).  Regardless, Lightroom does indeed seem to have a rather loyal following...just going back and thumbing thru this thread alone, it looks like there are people suggesting Lightroom, regardless of the OP's previous experience with PSE, which to me at least, equally doesn't make a lot of sense.

Ultimately I think it's really just a matter of using whatever you need that gets you where you need to go.  I do have to stand by my original comment however in that there's just sooooo many things you can do with Photoshop that you just can't do with Lightroom.  

That said...I don't really care for bacon either .


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 17, 2015)

Jim Walczak said:


> and other photo forums where yea...there does seem to be something of a division in the masses regarding these programs. Perhaps it has something to do with these newer versions of Windows and Mac and how they store files(?)...personally I'm STILL running XP64 and I have no problems with issues such as "file management" and such (it's just a matter of keeping your harddrive organized).



This is not right. The reasons for using LR have nothing to do with the strengths of the underlying operating system and there is no way to use a file system to organize and retrieve in the same way LR does.
You can organize files in any way you want on your drive; LR uses your filing structure and adds an interface for sophisticated management on top of that.



Jim Walczak said:


> Regardless, Lightroom does indeed seem to have a rather loyal following...just going back and thumbing thru this thread alone, it looks like there are people suggesting Lightroom, regardless of the OP's previous experience with PSE, which to me at least, equally doesn't make a lot of sense.



Yet, you are saying the PS is better than LR with little or no experience of LR - and that small experience being with an older version.



Jim Walczak said:


> Ultimately I think it's really just a matter of using whatever you need that gets you where you need to go. I do have to stand by my original comment however in that there's just sooooo many things you can do with Photoshop that you just can't do with Lightroom.



Since you have so very little or no experience with LR, you really don't know this.

I have a good deal of experience with both (using LR since version 1 and PS since 2002):

where LR is much better than PS is the managing and retrieval of images in many different and useful ways (LR is essentially a relational database ), batch processing of images -(invaluable for sorting and culling of images and synchronizing characteristics across a set of like images), in certain methods of editing that I can't generalize into a topic and anything to do with disseminating or publishing images.

One of the neater and most useful abilities of LR is to create various versions of the same image with the only added impact is a single sidecar file; in PS, additional 'versions' incur multiple versions of large files (or single huge files with many layers).
LR is a much more economical way to store work extensively edited or duplicated in LR because the only added data burden is an xmp sidecar file.​

Where PS is better than LR is in bit level edits, layering and compositing and the ability to do many types of creative sharpening.  At this time, PS has many more creative and utility plugins available.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 17, 2015)

Jim Walczak said:


> That said...I don't really care for bacon either .



Blasphemy !!

Have you noticed how much a roll of film looks like a rolled up piece of bacon?
They are one in the same ... nearly !!


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 17, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> I have my own workflow; do you mean their develop module is layed out funky?



I mean the screens are layed out funky.

To import file you go to "Library"
then you have to go to the bottom left to the "Import" button
instead of a menu LIbrary, which would then have a submenu on it with the options.

BUT, when you do Library it's broken down into segments
at the top is the Main Menu - Library, Develop, Map, etc

Then it breaks the screen up in Functional Segments
For LIbrary on the left is the "file handling" functions for Catalog, Folder, Collections and the Import and Export buttons.  On the Right is Photo information for Histogram, Quick Develop, Keywording, Meta Data and the ability to Sync settings etc
The middle has the pictures with option on the bottom.
Of course on the bottom you have the bottom strip where you can select, Identify, Mark various ways (stars, colors, etc), filters, 

So the screen "layout" to me was non-intuitive initially.  Until you understood the screen was broken down into different segments

Might make more sense to the OP if I do a screen shot of the Develop screen.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 17, 2015)

Since some screens have changed in LR CC since LR 4 (which came out in 2011 or 2012), you might use those for more understanding.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 19, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Since some screens have changed in LR CC since LR 4 (which came out in 2011 or 2012), you might use those for more understanding.



I had not opened your first link and therefore did not realize there was an update that caused a lot of anger and frustration.  

Lightroom 6.2 Release Update and Apology


----------



## Alexr25 (Nov 20, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Since some screens have changed in LR CC since LR 4 (which came out in 2011 or 2012), you might use those for more understanding.





JacaRanda said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Since some screens have changed in LR CC since LR 4 (which came out in 2011 or 2012), you might use those for more understanding.
> ...


I wouldn't worry about it, Lightroom 6.3 is out and the import dialog screen has revereted to the pre-lightroom 6.2 format.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 21, 2015)

Alexr25 said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Since some screens have changed in LR CC since LR 4 (which came out in 2011 or 2012), you might use those for more understanding.
> ...



Yup, one of the rare times I didn't rush to do an update (by pure luck).


----------

