DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> To those hooked on Lightroom
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 29, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/06/2008 12:05:19 PM · #1
Not that it's a bad thing mind you, but I would like to poll those who are using it. I have one question.

Do you still use Adobe Camera Raw?
10/06/2008 12:07:18 PM · #2
No, i do my raw conversion in Lightroom. then if i need to do layers i use cs3 for that
 10/06/2008 12:10:16 PM · #3
I use both. I'll do my first pass in Lightroom - I delete about 1/3 to 1/2 in a lot of cases. I like the view in Lightroom far better than Adobe Camera Raw (and it's faster!) I'll play with presets in Lightroom sometimes, but still do most of my work in CS3.
 10/06/2008 12:11:13 PM · #4
Nope. I perform all of my RAW conversion in Lightroom, and then do any fine detail editing in CS3
 10/06/2008 12:35:20 PM · #5
Originally posted by chunky:
Nope. I perform all of my RAW conversion in Lightroom, and then do any fine detail editing in CS3

ditto
 10/06/2008 12:39:18 PM · #6
I rarely use ACR, because my MO is to go out, shoot, come home and use Lr to do my imports, moving them to HDD in Lr as well. I do occasionally use ACR when I've got just a few shots to deal with. This mostly happens at work, where most of my shooting is microscopy and dedicated to individual projects. I'm normally capturing directly to a laptop through EOS Capture.

ETA:
That said, when I do use ACR, I'm completely comfortable doing so, since the controls are pretty much the same as in Lr.

Message edited by author 2008-10-06 12:40:16.
 10/06/2008 12:42:27 PM · #7
Originally posted by griz210:
No, i do my raw conversion in Lightroom. then if i need to do layers i use cs3 for that

That's what I do. And I'd further answer the original question with a "Hell no."
 10/06/2008 12:47:57 PM · #8
So, I should give up Adobe Raw? :-) I think I still use it just because it's easier than moving stuff from LR to CS3, or at least seems that way.
 10/06/2008 12:50:57 PM · #9
Lightroom only then CS3.

I haven't used ACR since I got LR2.
 10/06/2008 12:52:37 PM · #10
Originally posted by Jac:
Not that it's a bad thing mind you, but I would like to poll those who are using it. I have one question.

Do you still use Adobe Camera Raw?


I choose ACR when required to implement some CS3 Extended edit choices & components. Selecting image stacking for example.
 10/06/2008 12:57:59 PM · #11
Originally posted by Melethia:
So, I should give up Adobe Raw? :-) I think I still use it just because it's easier than moving stuff from LR to CS3, or at least seems that way.


It's just a different mindset. You are in the "one image at a time" paradigm, and that's great if it works for you. Where Lr shines is in dealing with, and culling, large numbers of photos. But it forces a new paradigm, the "batch processing" mentality. First cull and convert, let it export groups in the background, then later go back and, if required, tweak the exports in PS. Much different way to operate, and not for everyone.
The big hole in the Lr workflow, IMO, is the lack of a compressed, 16-bit format. JPEG is lousy, no 16-bit support except for the never-used JPEG 2000. Microsoft's proposed HD Photo "standard" has gotten little adoption, and the old TIFF format has only limited options for compression.
 10/06/2008 01:02:52 PM · #12
Thanks for all the answers.

I haven't used it in a while either but I noticed something I do out of habit I presume. I let lightroom open a file in PS with the psd extension and then when I want to adjust the exposure, let's say, I immediately think of opening ACR but can't while in PS. I'll have to adjust my workflow to include all adjustments necessary in Lightroom before opening it in PS. I've always liked ACR and feel I'm missing out on something when I ignore it. lol

So then is this statement correct?

You can do everything with Lightroom that can be done in Adobe Camera Raw. Quality wise, everything will look the same.

Message edited by author 2008-10-06 13:04:01.
 10/06/2008 01:11:59 PM · #13
I started using LR about 2 weeks ago and before that I used DPP for RAW conversion, WB, and initial culling of images. Except for weddings I'm in LR for everything now except if I need to clone or do selective color then I use CS3.
I'm still learning LR and for selecting images I'm still slower in it - not an issue for portraiture or even seniors, but I'm more comfortable dealing with 1000 wedding images in DPP, for now anyway.

It's speeded up my portrait work tremendously!
 10/06/2008 01:12:15 PM · #14
Is this a trick question? ;) If you are using LR, you are using ACR, it's just a little "under the covers."
10/06/2008 01:14:56 PM · #15
If I'm loading my own images (which generally number from hundreds to even a thousand or more images from a given shoot), then it's Lightroom all the way!

If someone emails me a raw file and asks me to look at it, then it's ACR because it's quick and easy and I don't load it into my LR catalog.


10/06/2008 01:21:50 PM · #16
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Melethia:
So, I should give up Adobe Raw? :-) I think I still use it just because it's easier than moving stuff from LR to CS3, or at least seems that way.


It's just a different mindset. You are in the "one image at a time" paradigm, and that's great if it works for you. Where Lr shines is in dealing with, and culling, large numbers of photos. But it forces a new paradigm, the "batch processing" mentality. First cull and convert, let it export groups in the background, then later go back and, if required, tweak the exports in PS. Much different way to operate, and not for everyone.

That makes great sense! I rarely do anything that would require batch conversion since I am kind of a one image at a time person. But I can see where I should learn the process for silly things I do for work, like promotion ceremonies in horrible light - that sort of thing. I hate editing those.
 10/06/2008 01:28:03 PM · #17
Originally posted by Melethia:
I rarely do anything that would require batch conversion since I am kind of a one image at a time person.


You never shoot more than one image of a specific person or scene?
You never load more than one image off your card at a time?

Unless you really don't shoot very much, I'm willing to bet that you are "batching" a lot more than you think. You just aren't thinking in terms of a batch.

When I do a simple portrait session with a client I may only shoot about 10-20 images (and that's probably overkill for what they are going to get), but all 10-20 are in the same light with the same camera settings. It's very easy to use LR to load all of them up, adjust one image, apply it to the rest, and I'm done.

When I do a much larger outdoor session, there may be a lot of different settings, but there are still usually 10-20 within the same location with pretty much the same light, etc. The only difference is that now I may have 5 or 6 runs of these 10-20 images. Still the same idea. I load everything into LR once. Find the first of the series, change it and apply it to the rest of that series. Go to the first of the next series, ditto.

My point is .. unless you shoot ONE image and walk away, chances are good you are "batching your images" but just processing them one at a time.

10/06/2008 01:42:17 PM · #18
Originally posted by Jac:
Thanks for all the answers.

I haven't used it in a while either but I noticed something I do out of habit I presume. I let lightroom open a file in PS with the psd extension and then when I want to adjust the exposure, let's say, I immediately think of opening ACR but can't while in PS. I'll have to adjust my workflow to include all adjustments necessary in Lightroom before opening it in PS. I've always liked ACR and feel I'm missing out on something when I ignore it. lol


BTW, LR2 gives you the option of opening up the file as a smart object. By doing so you can jump back to LR and adjust the exposure and have the results show up in PS.

Originally posted by Jac:
You can do everything with Lightroom that can be done in Adobe Camera Raw. Quality wise, everything will look the same.


Yes, Lightroom is using the exact same ACR engine.
 10/06/2008 02:11:20 PM · #19
Originally posted by Moose408:
Originally posted by Jac:
Thanks for all the answers.

I haven't used it in a while either but I noticed something I do out of habit I presume. I let lightroom open a file in PS with the psd extension and then when I want to adjust the exposure, let's say, I immediately think of opening ACR but can't while in PS. I'll have to adjust my workflow to include all adjustments necessary in Lightroom before opening it in PS. I've always liked ACR and feel I'm missing out on something when I ignore it. lol


BTW, LR2 gives you the option of opening up the file as a smart object. By doing so you can jump back to LR and adjust the exposure and have the results show up in PS.

Originally posted by Jac:
You can do everything with Lightroom that can be done in Adobe Camera Raw. Quality wise, everything will look the same.


Yes, Lightroom is using the exact same ACR engine.


Thank you sir.
 10/06/2008 02:25:49 PM · #20
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by Melethia:
I rarely do anything that would require batch conversion since I am kind of a one image at a time person.


You never shoot more than one image of a specific person or scene?
You never load more than one image off your card at a time?

Unless you really don't shoot very much, I'm willing to bet that you are "batching" a lot more than you think. You just aren't thinking in terms of a batch.

When I do a simple portrait session with a client I may only shoot about 10-20 images (and that's probably overkill for what they are going to get), but all 10-20 are in the same light with the same camera settings. It's very easy to use LR to load all of them up, adjust one image, apply it to the rest, and I'm done.

When I do a much larger outdoor session, there may be a lot of different settings, but there are still usually 10-20 within the same location with pretty much the same light, etc. The only difference is that now I may have 5 or 6 runs of these 10-20 images. Still the same idea. I load everything into LR once. Find the first of the series, change it and apply it to the rest of that series. Go to the first of the next series, ditto.

My point is .. unless you shoot ONE image and walk away, chances are good you are "batching your images" but just processing them one at a time.


Good points. I will take more than one shot of a scene or subject, but I often use LR to narrow that down to one shot, maybe two, before I process at all. I can see instances where I might use it - and should probably learn anyway. But yeah, I wander around a lot taking shots in different lighting conditions - even so, there may be some advantage to batch processing some stuff.
 10/06/2008 02:46:02 PM · #21
Lightroom's cataloguing and keywording capabilities make it most appealing to me. It would be virtually impossible for me to organize many thousands of files without it.
 10/06/2008 04:19:54 PM · #22
Originally posted by Louis:
Lightroom's cataloguing and keywording capabilities make it most appealing to me. It would be virtually impossible for me to organize many thousands of files without it.


It can organize??? Who knew? ;-)
I'm a "organzational anarchist", and it will catch up with me in the end (in other words, bite me in the a**!)
That said, I'm really looking forward to taking advantage of Lr more, now that it will run faster than molasses, given my new hardware. Doing more and better keywording is something I need to pay more attention to.
 10/06/2008 04:53:21 PM · #23
I use Lightroom to batch convert and tweak raw images, then CS3 to edit the jpgs. I don't use the organizational aspects of LR because I archive my photos to an external drive after I finish editing them. This move confuses LR and so I just "Remove" the photos from the master catalog when I'm done batching them.
 10/06/2008 05:16:09 PM · #24
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
I use Lightroom to batch convert and tweak raw images, then CS3 to edit the jpgs. I don't use the organizational aspects of LR because I archive my photos to an external drive after I finish editing them. This move confuses LR and so I just "Remove" the photos from the master catalog when I'm done batching them.


The new LR 2.0 handles external drives very well. It will show you a thumbnail of the photo even when the drive is off line.

Also you will get better results by editing in PS from LR. Press CTRL-E and it will convert them to a PSD or TIFF file prior to sending them to CS3. Converting them to jpgs and THEN editing in CS3 will degrade the image due to compression in the jpg image.
 10/06/2008 06:14:01 PM · #25
I use to delete my LR catalog every few thousand images in order to keep the performance level up. I believe there were two reasons for the slowdown I was experiencing at the time: 1) catalog size, 2) off line files (my theory is that LR was spending inordinate amounts of time trying to find files I had moved off line).

Since the upgrade to LR 2.0 I have not yet deleted my catalog. I just checked yesterday and I now have over 26,000 images in Lightroom (those are all since LR 2.0 came out). So far so good. I have not had any complaints about the database speed of LR 2.0.

So maybe my catalog-deleting-days are over? We shall see...


Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:36:40 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:36:40 PM EDT.