Lightroom vs Photoshop CS3

[barP]

it's simple:

lightroom is the best for working on lots of images.

photoshop is the best for working on lots of layers.

as for bridge, i use it, too. for a large batch of files:

first i take out the trash in bridge. i basically use it as a quick way to look at stuff and decide what to toss without having to wait on an import.

then i use lightroom to work on the batch operations, tag images, and make some adjustments to individual images. i also use it to export jpg, for web, and print. much faster than doing it in cs3.

finially, IF there are images that i have more complex plans for, then i take only those to photoshop.

and, if i understand correctly, acr is the same in both lr and ps.

wp.

[a2rob]

Okay I am still scratching me head on LR.

Is there a way to select say 4 pictures that I want WB, Saturation, Color to be all the same, I do the select/shift all 4 are highlighted, however only the first selected image will change.
I want the selected 4 to change and be able to save them in .jpeg.

I did the select 4 went to image procesing, copied the first setting, and pasted on the remaing 3 selected, but only the first selected change. Do I make any sense?

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by a2rob

Okay I am still scratching me head on LR.

Is there a way to select say 4 pictures that I want WB, Saturation, Color to be all the same, I do the select/shift all 4 are highlighted, however only the first selected image will change.
I want the selected 4 to change and be able to save them in .jpeg.

Work on one of the images, make the WB, sat/ colour etc changes you want. ctrl-select the other 3, or select all 4 and have the main focus be on the first one, then hit 'sync...' and select what features you want to sync. There's also an 'autosync' way to copy these sorts of things around too.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Even when I come back from a longer trip with a couple thousand images, I don't find the tagging and selection process to be at all problematic with Bridge CS3. I guess it just depends on what you know and are comfortable with.

Yup, its good to have the choice. I just find LR far faster and more intuitive than ACR/ bridge/ PS. It just feels more elegant and less clunky. I still use CS3 for more complex work, but most of my images don't need much in the way of tweaking to get what I want.

[a2rob]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Work on one of the images, make the WB, sat/ colour etc changes you want. ctrl-select the other 3, or select all 4 and have the main focus be on the first one, then hit 'sync...' and select what features you want to sync. There's also an 'autosync' way to copy these sorts of things around too.

Thanks Gordon, works perfectly!!

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Bridge can't do the side-by-side comparison. I used to think that was an attractive feature in Lightroom until I realized you couldn't zoom in on the side-by-side images. So it would be useless for me if I want to judge sharpness/focus. What Bridge _can_ do zoom to 100% while in slideshow, giving you a high quality preview just like LR. And while you're zoomed in, you can move from image to image, keeping your zoom and relative position so that you can compare shots at 100%.

This bothered me when I read it yesterday, because I didn't think it was right about LR. You can zoom in on the side by side view in lightroom. Any size you like, up to 300%

It zooms both images equally, lets you pan around on them, change the ones you are looking at and so on. It is in the 'compare view ( press C )' in the library mode.

It may be new in version 1.1, which was a huge improvement over 1.0 in terms of features (e.g., the added the heal and clone brushes, plus some other stuff)

[Wil_Bloodworth]

This is really not a fair comparison. And as Jeff pointed out, if you're not a "high volume" shooter... or for a certain event, you're not shooting a ton of photos, it may be easy to "get'r done" in PS*. However, Lightroom is totally different than PS* and really shouldn't even be compared. PS* is a seriously powerful photo "manipulation" tool. I can do ANYTHING. Lightroom was designed directly for photographers and is truly amazing on the "efficiency" scale.

Almost everything you would ever want to do is in Lightroom. Now, you can even get the DxO plug-in for LR. And you can always choose to "jump" into CS* and then back to LR when you're finished doing something you couldn't do in LR.

For those times when I have to do a lot (600+ photos) of processing and it isn't absolutely necessary that I have the best image possible, I still revert to BibblePro because of its speed and massive batch processing abilities.

When I ABSOLUTELY have to have a single image processed perfectly, I use Nikon Capture NX (because I currently shoot Nikon). It has a couple of really awesome features that are simply amazing and I can't get them done in LR.

But since LR came out... I spend roughly 90%+ of my time in there because it is so smooth and comfortable. Once you get used to it, all the other RAW converters seem very painful.

- Wil

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Gordon

This bothered me when I read it yesterday, because I didn't think it was right about LR. You can zoom in on the side by side view in lightroom. Any size you like, up to 300%

It zooms both images equally, lets you pan around on them, change the ones you are looking at and so on. It is in the 'compare view ( press C )' in the library mode.

It may be new in version 1.1, which was a huge improvement over 1.0 in terms of features (e.g., the added the heal and clone brushes, plus some other stuff)

Must be a new feature, because I couldn't figure out how to do it in the betas or when I demoed 1.0.

[jeffkohn]

Almost everything you would ever want to do is in Lightroom.

For some people that's probably true, and buying LR may save them the cost of having to purchase Photoshop. But it's not even remotely true for me, every keeper of mine will get edited in PS because even for something as basic as sharpening I can get better results in PS than I could in LR. So what it boils down to for me is that LR would cost an extra $200 (or is it $300 now), and not really bring me anything substantial over Bridge/PS.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Must be a new feature, because I couldn't figure out how to do it in the betas or when I demoed 1.0.

Can't remember. I do know that the semi-equivalent tab on the 'develop' page does something slightly different (preview/postview of adjustments) so the feature might be overlooked

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Jeff,

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my first post... but I don't consider LR and CS to even be competitors. I don't know why one would TRY to compare the two. They're not the same type of application and they shouldn't be compared.

LR shines for the professional photographer (meaning people who have to do a considerable amount of processing) each day through its workflow. One can get very nice results with it. And it also shines when you need to review photos with clients because of the "ease of use" features... such as the great zooming, the slideshow, et cetera.

Personally, the cost isn't really an issue so I have several RAW converters and will occasionally use each of them. I simply find my needs for CS to be lessened now that I have LR to handle my workflow.

CS really has no equal... unless you're one of those guys who likes the Corel stuff. CS is, IMO, an image creation and manipulation tool. LR isn't so much... IMO.

- Wil

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by ParkImaging

CS really has no equal... unless you're one of those guys who likes the Corel stuff. CS is, IMO, an image creation and manipulation tool. LR isn't so much... IMO.- Wil

I think Adobe describe it pretty well when they say 'Lightroom is for the many, photoshop is for the one'