# Help with Statistics (Lightroom)



## Ysarex (Dec 13, 2016)

OK, I know that Lightroom is the most used photo editing software -- no contest. My problem is how do I know that. I need to reference some stats from some where and Google is not helping me. No matter how I word the search all Google will do is give me cr*p like PC Mag's 10 best photo apps.

Any one who knows a source I can reference, than you very much.

Joe


----------



## alexis.alvarez (Dec 13, 2016)

Try using this to search: "most popular photo editor software -best"


----------



## JonA_CT (Dec 13, 2016)

I tried looking on my academic databases and couldn't find sales or usage data either. I'm sort of not surprised...especially as far as subscription rates go for CC, it's probably proprietary information.

I know it depends on definitions, but I think someone could probably argue that Instagram is the most used photo editor, as it's usage probably blows away Lightroom, although I know that's not what you mean.


----------



## KmH (Dec 14, 2016)

I would be astonished if Lightroom was the most used photo editing application, period.
Unless you add a qualifier like - most used photo editing application by people that ..........


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 14, 2016)

KmH said:


> I would be astonished if Lightroom was the most used photo editing application, period.
> Unless you add a qualifier like - most used photo editing application by people that ..........



Sorry, I meant Pro-level photo editing application. I wasn't referring to things like phone software, etc.

Joe


----------



## KmH (Dec 14, 2016)

Yes, Adobe's Lr and Ps are the pretty much recognized as the industry standard but as mentioned I doubt Adobe has ever published such proprietary info.

I know a lot of pros that _have_ Lr but instead regularly use an enterprise grade Raw converter/image database management application other than Lr.
Lr's inability to open more than 1 catalog at a time, or to be simultaneously accessed by a network of computers are serious shortfalls.
Someone may have conducted a survey, but surveys are easily manipulated to deliver a predetermined outcome.


----------



## freddy21 (Dec 23, 2016)

Try this.  Percentage of pro users of Lightroom by a verifiable source.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 23, 2016)

freddy21 said:


> Try this.  Percentage of pro users of Lightroom by a verifiable source.



Thanks, but that was then -- I needed now.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> freddy21 said:
> 
> 
> > Try this.  Percentage of pro users of Lightroom by a verifiable source.
> ...


Yes I would agree with that. 2009 was a long time ago in photographic terms. Lightroom really gained a lot of steam after 2009. I got my first copy of Lightroom back in 2012.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 23, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > freddy21 said:
> ...



My need has passed (I was involved in an argument). I think I have a fairly good sense of what's going on in the industry and I can't believe that LR isn't the dominant photographer's go to application for both image management as well as image processing. And I'd argue that LR merits that position which it achieved in 10 years. LR was released in 2007. No other single application comes close (among photographers) and that includes LR's big brother Photoshop.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



This forum has one particular member who constantly uses every opportunity to bash Lightroom, and to incessantly repeat a misleading half-truth about the parity between ACR, Photoshop,Adobe Bridge, and Lightroom. Constantly repeating that the development engine in a ACR is the same one used in Lightroom is disingenuous at best. Omitting the many easy-to-use quick fast and efficient image correction and adjustment tools that Lightroom has developed does no-one a favor. My feeling is that the industry as a whole has shifted from Photoshop and its emphasis of adjusting at the pixel level, to quick, easy, efficient adjustment of large numbers of images, using Lightroom.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 23, 2016)

Derrel said:


> My feeling is that the industry as a whole has shifted from Photoshop and its emphasis of adjusting at the pixel level, to quick, easy, efficient adjustment of large numbers of images, using Lightroom.



That was basically the argument I was having. And that was my position. And with very good reason as it's the better (more effective and efficient) way to work. Yes, we will always still need to clone out an occasional lamppost.

LR's dominance in the industry validates that position. And with Derrel backing me up; that settles that

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2016)

KmH said:


> I would be astonished if Lightroom was the most used photo editing application, period.
> Unless you add a qualifier like - most used photo editing application by people that ..........



....are invited to do educational seminars on CreativeLive.com,every week, 52 weeks a year
.....Speak at huge photo conventions, like WPPA
.....give seminars, talks, and lectures at PPA events across the United States
.....have large YouTube channels with hundreds of thousands of loyal subscribers
.....have a mindset that revolves around the twenty-teens,and are not ostalgiac for the 1990's

There is MUCH, much more to Lightroom than the "development engine" aspect that the one poster constantly references in attempt to disparage Lightroom or to cast doubt on the app. What about Lightroom presets? What about the adjustment brush tools Lightroom has? What about the actual on-screen windows and interface options that LR has, and that each individual user can custom-tailor?

What about the sheer speed, ease, and efficiency that LR is built around and geared toward? I used Photoshop since version 2.5 in the late 1990's...I "got into ACR" and automated image batch processing in 2007, and even bought "THE book" about ACR....I got the British fellow's software and used Automator software to record multi-step processes, so I could automatedly do complex import and adjustment and re-sizing routines using Photoshop: using routines I built myself, or borrowed from other Automator users.

But...once in 2012 I got Lightroom, within weeks, I was avoiding Photoshop's work flow ideas, and the PS app itself, for weeks at a time. Both apps are made by Adobe. I do not understand this continued denial of how fantastic Lightroom has become, and what it can do for actual "photographers".


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 23, 2016)

Being new to LR, PS and Bridge (I had avoided them because of a bad experience with Adobe previously), I found LR a little confusing. PS was more in line with the Corel PS version I had been using, so I drifted more toward it. Once I learned to use Bridge for file management and quick view, I just found myself unwilling to explore LR.  Especially since I've developed a pretty good working library of Actions, Scripts, and Batch operations  in PS.  

I'm  still trying  to use LR, though I find it confusing, and the ability to make adjustments on a non-destructive layer in PS has a lot of advantage for me.  Maybe once I become more familiar with it, I'll think it's the greatest, but for now I have a workflow that works for me.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 23, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> Being new to LR, PS and Bridge (I had avoided them because of a bad experience with Adobe previously), I found LR a little confusing. PS was more in line with the Corel PS version I had been using, so I drifted more toward it. Once I learned to use Bridge for file management and quick view, I just found myself unwilling to explore LR.  Especially since I've developed a pretty good working library of Actions, Scripts, and Batch operations  in PS.
> 
> I'm  still trying  to use LR, though I find it confusing, and the ability to make adjustments on a non-destructive layer in PS has a lot of advantage for me.  Maybe once I become more familiar with it, I'll think it's the greatest, but for now I have a workflow that works for me.



LR is a parametric editor. Parametric editing takes the concept of non-destructive editing further than PS. With a parametric editor non-destructive editing is fully realized such that anything done in the way of an edit can be surgically and singly undone. And this is accomplished without the need to save huge secondary files that consume resources. If you can do it parametrically it's the better way to go.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 24, 2016)

@Ysare and @Derrel snapped several Christmas shots today, and decided to try some in LR. Won't say I'm converted but I did find some parts of it quicker than ACR/PS workflow. The file management part still seems confusing, but I was able to learn enough about it that I think I need to explore it in more detail.


----------



## JonA_CT (Dec 24, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> @Ysare and @Derrel snapped several Christmas shots today, and decided to try some in LR. Won't say I'm converted but I did find some parts of it quicker than ACR/PS workflow. The file management part still seems confusing, but I was able to learn enough about it that I think I need to explore it in more detail.



Scott Kelby explains the file management well, imo. I read his book on LR, and it definitely got me started in the right direction. Youtube and specific help from here have continued that progression.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 24, 2016)

Yes Lightroom can be a little bit odd in the way it interfaces with the photographer. Once in the development rule one of the best techniques is to create a virtual copy every time you undertake a major change. The best part of a parametric editing program like Lightroom is that each virtual copy is just a small set of instructions and not a huge 168 megabyte PSD or Tiff file.

For me the adjustment brush tool is one of the keys to light rooms efficiency and speed. I do not know  what version of Lightroom you have-- mine is old, but for me the ability to use the adjustment brush to adjust exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, Clarity, darkness, and to do burning in, dodging, Iris enhancement, and skin softening and teeth whitening with a very fast,easy-to-use adjustment brush,well that's just remarkable to me.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 24, 2016)

Derrel said:


> I do not know what version of Lightroom you have



On the monthly plan so the latest and greatest. Really doesn't make sense to not use all the tools I'm paying for.


----------



## Desert Rose (Dec 25, 2016)

Lr is ok but is no where near the best or most powerful editing software out there but because it is so cheap it's pretty popular among people not spending a lot on photography like hobbyists  and amateurs. But I doubt it's number one with professionals making over 6 figures a year in the business.


----------



## JacaRanda (Dec 25, 2016)

The file management capabilities are seemingly endless.  The editing keeps getting better and more useful even since I started dabbling with photography 5 years ago.  

Lightroom is the reason I haven't learned PS well. 


Sent from my SM-N930V using Tapatalk


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 25, 2016)

@JacaRanda  the one thing I've learned in PS is that there's more than one way to make an adjustment and like that flexibility each module likely  holds advantages for different tasks.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 25, 2016)

Not sure if you are "into" the use of Lightroom Presets yet: they can be used as-is, or modified, and also saved and named by their user/creator/borrower. Lightroom Presets are fantastic tools, and can be created on-the-spot, for a specific type of shot, and can easily be saved, and then pasted-on, to entire series' worth of photos, if needed. There are many Lightroom presets for sale, from well-known shooters who specialize in portraiture,weddings, landscapes, etc.

Lindsay Adler has a nice, short video on how to create/modify, and then save and name one's very own Lightroom Preset. Once you "get into" the idea that a well-chosen preset can save huge amounts of time, and can actually improve certain types of photos on a consistent basis, it becomes a massive time-saver AND an artistic improvement.

A Lightroom preset offers the option for the user to simply "Scroll Down the List" on the left, and to literally SEE/preview the effects of various presets on the image being worked on. The B&W color filter effects that come with Lightroom are very,very good. Former Lightroom guru Matt K (spelling on K is multi, silent-syllable type name) used to offer a large set of his pre-sets, about 15 of which I find indispensable. He had some great vignettes, and some nice "color effects" that people actually LIKE. Again, the user can custom-modify ANY preset!!!

You can also select on, and then modify it: you can save that, or just copy it to the clipboard, and "paste it on". A preset is not locked-in: it can be modified, then saved, or just copied and pasted, and then discarded.

Watch Lindsay Adler's video on how to create a custom preset. Once you have tried LR presets, and saved or borrowed or bought a few, you will begin to understand how much space, time, and disk space parametric editing saves.


----------



## crimbo2047 (Dec 25, 2016)

Hmm Industry Standard ... How about Capture One ? 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 25, 2016)

crimbo2047 said:


> Hmm Industry Standard ... How about Capture One ?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


I originally said most used which is subtly different than industry standard. In any case go to Amazon and search the Books department first with "Lightroom" and then with "Capture One Pro" and if you still think Capture One is the industry's most used Pro-processing software rather than LR then I think you're way out further than left field. And let's not take this into which you think may be better or not -- that wasn't the question.

Joe


----------



## crimbo2047 (Dec 25, 2016)

Interesting Sampling method ... okay someone else said Industry Standard ... 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 25, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Not sure if you are "into" the use of Lightroom Presets yet:



I have a working library of LR Presets, from free to paid and custom created. I have tried to learn LR this past year, and from an editing standpoint, feel comfortable enough to use it.

With that said, I find adjustments created in PS with Actions equally workable, (I also have a library of PS Actions, free, paid and custom). All of the adjustments you talk of in the LR adjustment brush,  from exposure to teeth whitening are also available in PS as a layer adjustment or Action with the added advantage of selectivity of masking. Part of the reason I'm more comfortable in PS may be the fact that Adjustments/Actions create  editable layers with the ability to not only modify those layer but turn off the view of a layer to fine tune other layers. PS allows me to compartmentalize editing (which makes it less confusing for me), if that makes sense, rather than using the sliders in LR.

I will admit the ability to sync settings across multiple images is a lot slicker in LR than in PS, and the files in PS can become monstrous but the file management "collections" aspect still confuses me. I'm sure your experience both length of time, and from a production standpoint is far superior to mine so I'm remaining open minded, as I delve into LR more.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 25, 2016)

crimbo2047 said:


> Interesting Sampling method ... okay someone else said Industry Standard ...
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk



For what it's worth, Capture One is my go to raw converter and has been for many years. I use it daily for most of my work. But I'm not blind to the behavior I see around me. LR is so popular that it's nearly reached the same stage as MS Word where everyone just assumes you can send someone a .docx file and if they can't read it something must be wrong with them. Nearly the same thing now with LR presets.

Joe


----------



## crimbo2047 (Dec 25, 2016)

Do not disagree 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Dec 25, 2016)

With the shift to shooting on digital we now tend to have large numbers of photos that need to be edited. We are no longer working from one, single film slide or film roll that was scanned and brought into our computers and which we now need to edit. 

The simple fact is that the new Lightroom has noise reduction, skin smoothing,cloning, and sharpening, as well as burning and dodging capabilities, built into one simple handy tool that is much much faster to use than the old fashioned tool set Photoshop originally used to address all these common issues.

It is no longer the year 1999. Lightroom has far surpassed Photoshop in terms of common, widespread, everyday use among the entire industry of people involved in photography. Capture One? Maybe one in a thousand use it. Photoshop? It's lost its position. Adobe created Lightroom as a way to handle the increased volume of images that all-digital shooting has brought. The vast majority of Adobe customers need speed and ease-of-use and efficiency. And that is what they get when they use Lightroom.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 25, 2016)

Outdated ideas and methods in photography do tend to " die hard ".


----------



## table1349 (Dec 25, 2016)

We have entered the age when the truth no longer matters.  Make up your own statistics.  Stick to them and call the other guy crooked. Argument over.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 26, 2016)

@Derrel rather than hijack Joe's thread I'm starting a new one that I'd appreciate yours and others comments.


----------

