Advantages/disadvantages of Lightroom

[Spokagrapher]

I'm trying to decide if I want or should buy Lightroom. I currently use DXO Optics Pro 10 Elite and Photoshop CS5 Extended. I don't know much about Lightroom, and I'd like to hear from Lightroom users on what they see as the advantages and disadvantages of Lightroom.

I'd especially like to understand how people use Lightroom in their workflows. I like DXO, and it may be redundant to have both DXO and Lightroom. I typically send DXO-processed images to the Adobe Camera Raw editor and then into Photoshop. If there's a place for Lightroom in that workflow, please help me understand it. Thanks

Scott

 

[Hector1970]

This is a difficult question to answer in a way.
I have DXO Optic Pro 10.
I don't use it because I have Lightroom 6.
It might be the case if I was used to DXO I might not bother with Lightroom 6.

Lightroom is easy to learn.
It's good at it's job.
You can make nice colour enhancements and shadows and bright.
It's good for noise reduction.
The local adjustment brush is great.
I like the filter, I think it works very effectively.
The print module is frustrating initially but fine once you figure it out.
Its good for cataloging your pictures.
I'd do about 80% of my processing in Lightroom, 10% in Nik Silver Efex Pro / Viveza and about 10% Photoshop CC
Photoshop CC has Camera Raw Filter which is quite good.
Even with Canon DPP is pretty good.

So I would recommend Lightroom for someone who has nothing.
You can't go wrong with it.
If it had content aware as clever as Photoshop CC it might be all you even need for straight photographs.
You however have a good piece of software in DXO and Photoshop.
You may not see the point of Lightroom straight away - you would eventually.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

It is cheaper, easier to learn, easier to use, and does what the majority of photographers want to do.

I found the learning curve on PS to be too steep, especially for a program I don't use often.

It really comes down to what you want to do with your photographs. Each photographer has different needs/desires. For me, Lightroom does what I need it to do and I can do it quickly.

I like to draw the line of imagery enhancement and image manipulation. Light room is good at the first, but if you really want to manipulate the image, you need something more capable.

 

[martti]

The way to find out is tho download the test version free for one month, chack one or two how-to videos on Youtube and see if it talks to you. It is not as much an artists's tool that a tradesman's. You get stuff done rapidly and you can still take the problematic shops to PS for pixel tweaking. My guess is you would adapt to it pretty soon.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm trying to decide if I want or should buy Lightroom. I currently use DXO Optics Pro 10 Elite and Photoshop CS5 Extended. I don't know much about Lightroom, and I'd like to hear from Lightroom users on what they see as the advantages and disadvantages of Lightroom.

I'd especially like to understand how people use Lightroom in their workflows. I like DXO, and it may be redundant to have both DXO and Lightroom. I typically send DXO-processed images to the Adobe Camera Raw editor and then into Photoshop. If there's a place for Lightroom in that workflow, please help me understand it. Thanks

Scott

DXO does a fair job out of the box, but you need another editor and, if you have a large number of photos, a photo organization tool. Lightroom can do more than DXO, but like most powerful tools, it is not as easy to learn. I'd never recommend that a user download it and start cold, you should first view at least the first few of Adobe's Training videos by Julieann Kost. Then, if you like what she describes, install it and work along with the tutorials. Plan to spend serious effort.

A seriously valuable part is the photo organization database. It stores all the settings of your edit tools for each video you edit as well as key words and a host of other things that can be specified in the preferences. The first thing you do is to import photos into the database. You cannot skip this step. At the time you import them, assign keywords. This means do some training for this first. Key words are the key to unlocking the power of the photo organization tool. You do not organize by folder, but you can if you wish.

I hope that gives you a little glimpse into how to get started. The actual photo editing is simple and easy on the surface, but like a iceberg, there is more underneath than shows on top. More training to unlock the more powerful features that can simplify editing 2500 photos from a big shoot.

 

[LDS]

My 2c:

Advantages:

* Image management & photo editing tools in a single product
* Images can be "tagged" and searched in several ways, including EXIF and IPTC metadata.
* Collections are useful to associate images from different folders without copying/moving them
* Editing tools are designed specifically for the photographer's needs, less to learn and master, simpler interface.
* Non destructive editing without any need to create separate layers. Virtual copies simplify different editing.
* Can apply the same changes to more than one image at once, presets help to speed up editing tasks.
* Very good support for cameras and lenses, custom profiles can be created when needed.
* Printing is designed with the photographer needs in mind (although it's not one of the more intuitive modules in LR...)
* Printing uses PixelGenius sharpening technology, available as a separate plug-in in PS.
* Not expensive
* Third party support, plug-ins are available i.e. from printers and calibration tools manufacturer.

Disadvantages:

* Not as powerful as PS for some more complex editing
* Not as versatile as PS, most editing techniques are "built-in", layers, masks, etc. can't be create manually and manipulated manually, and of course many of the tools available in PS are not available in LR
* Some other products may be better than LR at some processing tasks (although overall LR does an excellent job)
* LR uses only its own internal color space for editing. Different color spaces can be only selected for output (prints, exports).
* Little or no support for CMYK printing, separations, etc.
* Besides many RAW formats, LR supports only a limited number of other image file types.
* Images need to be imported into a catalog before being available for editing.
* GPU support has just been added to LR6, and still needs some polishing.
* The image management features are single-user only, doesn't scale to a multi-user environment (it's not a full Digital Asset Management solution).

Usually a workflow may be:

* Optional: pre-process RAW images in an external tool if needed, and export them in a LR supported format.
* Import images (RAW, or non RAW) into LR (applying presets if needed)
* Use its "Library" module to quickly tag, rate, reject, etc. images
* Use the "Library" module to select the images to work with, using its filter/search capabilities
* Use the "Develop" module to edit one ore more images
* If needed, export the an image to an external tool (PS, or others) for further processing
* Import the processed images in LR so they are available in the catalog for later searches, etc.
* If needed, soft-proofing and exporting/printing can be performed from LR, but also from other tools.

DXO Optics surely overlaps many of the LR features, and the only way to exchange images between the two AFAIK is using TIFFs or JPEGs losing the "non destructive editing" advantages (original images are still untouched, tough).

If your workflow already "works", probably you don't need LR. If you feel "something is missing", you should understand if LR could help you to fill those specific needs, or if you need another different tool. Sure, LR is widely adopted, but it doesn't mean everybody needs to use it.

 

[agierke]

Disadvantages:

* Not as versatile as PS, most editing techniques are "built-in", layers, masks, etc. can't be create manually and manipulated manually, and of course many of the tools available in PS are not available in LR

You actually can manually create and edit masks in LR.

 

[candc]

I use dxo, lr, and Ps.

I prefer to just use dxo if possible. I think its the best raw converter and the lens modules and geometric corrections are great. The problem is you can't make local adjustments in dxo, there is no masking. I used to pass off to Ps if I wanted to do that but now I send to lr instead.

 

[Spokagrapher]

Thank you all for your comments

 

[jrista]

This comes from the astrophotographer point of view, as I've had the opportunity to work with a variety of very cutting edge noise reduction features. Lightroom is WELL behind the times when it comes to noise reduction. It's NR feature is primitive and prone to artifacting, does not handle banding, does not perform any kind of multi-scale noise reduction, and in general is about as bare-bones as noise reduction gets.

Lightroom uses AHD for demosaicing, and it handles some camera data fine, other camera data it just doesn't handle well. Canon data is one of those it does not handle well, and some of the banding that you see with Canon images is due to LR's form of AHD. VNG seems to be a superior demosaicing algorithm for Canon data.

I have used DXO on a couple of occasions. While I actually do not like how DXO demosaics my images, as I think that actually increases noise to start with, it's NR features are better than Lightroom's. Similarly, CaptureOne handles demosaicing SUPERBLY (it seems to use a variety of VNG), and it's noise reduction routines seem to be more effective and less prone to artifacting than Lightroom's.

Personally, I use Lightroom for my basic processing, then I bring my images into PixInsight, an astrophotography tool, for more advanced and fine tuned noise reduction. Nothing compares to PI for NR, but LR is basically at the back of the pack as far as NR goes. It's rather sad, as the rest of the program, it's library management, it's workflow...but best of all, it's very broad compatibility with pretty much every digital camera out there, is all wonderful.

 

[Ryan_]

This comes from the astrophotographer point of view, as I've had the opportunity to work with a variety of very cutting edge noise reduction features. Lightroom is WELL behind the times when it comes to noise reduction. It's NR feature is primitive and prone to artifacting, does not handle banding, does not perform any kind of multi-scale noise reduction, and in general is about as bare-bones as noise reduction gets.

Lightroom uses AHD for demosaicing, and it handles some camera data fine, other camera data it just doesn't handle well. Canon data is one of those it does not handle well, and some of the banding that you see with Canon images is due to LR's form of AHD. VNG seems to be a superior demosaicing algorithm for Canon data.

I have used DXO on a couple of occasions. While I actually do not like how DXO demosaics my images, as I think that actually increases noise to start with, it's NR features are better than Lightroom's. Similarly, CaptureOne handles demosaicing SUPERBLY (it seems to use a variety of VNG), and it's noise reduction routines seem to be more effective and less prone to artifacting than Lightroom's.

Personally, I use Lightroom for my basic processing, then I bring my images into PixInsight, an astrophotography tool, for more advanced and fine tuned noise reduction. Nothing compares to PI for NR, but LR is basically at the back of the pack as far as NR goes. It's rather sad, as the rest of the program, it's library management, it's workflow...but best of all, it's very broad compatibility with pretty much every digital camera out there, is all wonderful.

If you use Lightroom for basic processing doesnt that demosaic the image before bringing it into your other tools? (probably dumb question, I don't really understand the demosaicing yet, but I'm interested in trying the different methods of demosaicing you describe to see how it effects my images)

PS: To OP. I've been using Lightroom for over a year now and I love it. However prior to that I was shooting JPGS and going straight OOC. So once I got into shooting RAW I did a little research and grabbed Lightroom and the control for me was amazing.
As others have pointed out, if you're more into image processing rather than full out manipulation then its great. From the catalog organizing to the quick workflow it offers me, I would definitely recommend you at least try the 30 day free trial. Give it a chance because at first it was daunting for me, but quickly I realized it was exactly what I needed.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This comes from the astrophotographer point of view, as I've had the opportunity to work with a variety of very cutting edge noise reduction features. Lightroom is WELL behind the times when it comes to noise reduction. It's NR feature is primitive and prone to artifacting, does not handle banding, does not perform any kind of multi-scale noise reduction, and in general is about as bare-bones as noise reduction gets.

Lightroom uses AHD for demosaicing, and it handles some camera data fine, other camera data it just doesn't handle well. Canon data is one of those it does not handle well, and some of the banding that you see with Canon images is due to LR's form of AHD. VNG seems to be a superior demosaicing algorithm for Canon data.

I have used DXO on a couple of occasions. While I actually do not like how DXO demosaics my images, as I think that actually increases noise to start with, it's NR features are better than Lightroom's. Similarly, CaptureOne handles demosaicing SUPERBLY (it seems to use a variety of VNG), and it's noise reduction routines seem to be more effective and less prone to artifacting than Lightroom's.

Personally, I use Lightroom for my basic processing, then I bring my images into PixInsight, an astrophotography tool, for more advanced and fine tuned noise reduction. Nothing compares to PI for NR, but LR is basically at the back of the pack as far as NR goes. It's rather sad, as the rest of the program, it's library management, it's workflow...but best of all, it's very broad compatibility with pretty much every digital camera out there, is all wonderful.

I think you hit it right on. I generally am not really picky about getting the last bit of quality from demosaicing, but Iightroom NR is not the best. They have helped by allowing NR to be applied to selected areas via brush.


I've tried Capture One several times, wanting to like it, but I hate the lack of a good database and all the sidecar files, which I tend to lose or get mixed up. Same issue with DXO

Since you mentioned it, I may try Capture One yet again since I just shot almost 2000 images, many at ISO 12800 and 25600 and noise is a issue. Of course, they will be narrowed down and eventually only a few will be printed at small sizes, with one at 24 X 30 (its already printed). Lightroom is a good tool for handling a large number of images in a short time and sorting out the best ones.

 

[jrista]

This comes from the astrophotographer point of view, as I've had the opportunity to work with a variety of very cutting edge noise reduction features. Lightroom is WELL behind the times when it comes to noise reduction. It's NR feature is primitive and prone to artifacting, does not handle banding, does not perform any kind of multi-scale noise reduction, and in general is about as bare-bones as noise reduction gets.

Lightroom uses AHD for demosaicing, and it handles some camera data fine, other camera data it just doesn't handle well. Canon data is one of those it does not handle well, and some of the banding that you see with Canon images is due to LR's form of AHD. VNG seems to be a superior demosaicing algorithm for Canon data.

I have used DXO on a couple of occasions. While I actually do not like how DXO demosaics my images, as I think that actually increases noise to start with, it's NR features are better than Lightroom's. Similarly, CaptureOne handles demosaicing SUPERBLY (it seems to use a variety of VNG), and it's noise reduction routines seem to be more effective and less prone to artifacting than Lightroom's.

Personally, I use Lightroom for my basic processing, then I bring my images into PixInsight, an astrophotography tool, for more advanced and fine tuned noise reduction. Nothing compares to PI for NR, but LR is basically at the back of the pack as far as NR goes. It's rather sad, as the rest of the program, it's library management, it's workflow...but best of all, it's very broad compatibility with pretty much every digital camera out there, is all wonderful.

I think you hit it right on. I generally am not really picky about getting the last bit of quality from demosaicing, but Iightroom NR is not the best. They have helped by allowing NR to be applied to selected areas via brush.


I've tried Capture One several times, wanting to like it, but I hate the lack of a good database and all the sidecar files, which I tend to lose or get mixed up. Same issue with DXO

Since you mentioned it, I may try Capture One yet again since I just shot almost 2000 images, many at ISO 12800 and 25600 and noise is a issue. Of course, they will be narrowed down and eventually only a few will be printed at small sizes, with one at 24 X 30 (its already printed). Lightroom is a good tool for handling a large number of images in a short time and sorting out the best ones.

CaptureOne produces great quality, but it really lacks all the other features of LR that make LR great. No real catalog, no real library management. It has significantly less camera compatibility, it only supports a few key brands, and is late to get updates to new brand releases. Too many downsides...put me in exactly the same boat, I wanted to like it, but just couldn't! I never liked the IQ I got out of DXO. It has better NR, but it does something with the data that...it just felt "scratchy" to me...I couldn't get results as I could with LR+PS+Topaz.

I wouldn't dismiss demosaicing though. You might want to give RawThearapee, a free OSS raw editor, a try. It supports a variety of demosaicing algorithms. You can see which ones produce better results. It doesn't use exactly the same AHD as LR, and it's AHD does better, but I still prefer the look of VNG over AHD for Canon files.