If I use Bridge and Photoshop CS3, why would I want lightroom?

[boxofrocks]

Never tried it, but always wondered.

What am I missing?

[picman]

Get the free demo at Adobe and try it out.

Many cool things here: www.lightroomkillertips.com

Got to search around a bit, but many useful Lightroom topics here:
http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/

[SaSha]

Can't say exactly if you would be missing much, would depend on how much processing you do, your style of processing, number of images you shoot, how comfortable you have become with bridge and photoshop.
Try the 30 day demo. I liked it. When the demo runs out it will force you to do what you did in lightroom in photoshop.
However I will still continue to use Bridge and Photoshop.

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Tom,

It is really a time-saver. If you've ever used PhotoMechanic, it really combines a lot of that functionality along with both Bridge and (with version 2.0) quite a lot of things that you'd normally use Photoshop for. You don't have to leave LR unless you need to do something really special and thus you don't have to degrade the image by converting to a PSD (or whatever format you choose).

It is really slick and fast. It saves me a ton of time. Even compared to BibblePro, I find that I am much more productive and can get a lot of images "done" in less time than it would have taken with Bridge+PS*.

Also, WRT workflow, with LR, you "feel" like you've got everything in one spot. With bridge, I never got that feeling and I always had to work with three different applications (Bridge, ACR, and PS*). LR = Bridge + ACR + PS3 (for the most part).

- Wil

[JohnT]

Definitely give the trial a spin. I think one of the strongest features of LR is the cataloging of images. I'm more organized in that respect than I've ever been.

Let me add that I still use PS for final retouching and such of the best images, but everything else pretty much gets handled in LR. Plus, it's so easy going back and forth between the two programs.

[Emma]

that's how I felt until I started doing batch processing in ACR and then LR, and now I kinda wonder what I need Photoshop for! I find myself using it less and less as LR is so much faster, only PS the signature images, and not on the entire batch. I LOVE creating graphics, but I hate retouching photos, so most of my PS time lately is back to my first love, graphics.

So I have the same question in reverse if anyone cares to enlighten me!

[texxter]

The paradigm for LR is different from the one PS offers - it's a non-destructive, fast, batch image processor to get one or more renditions of a digital negative. You can apply the same transformation to many images, then render them as a "version" of your negatives. It also has better metadata management. LR designed for photographers whereas PS is a general purpose, powerful, pixel manipulation tool, one image at a time.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by texxter

LR designed for photographers...

By photographers. What can I say? I love it!

[andyz]

Does LR have the same learning curve as PS? I know I probably touch 3% of PS, but I have a process and it works for me but I'm sure it could do much more. But who has the time, or the time times two?

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by andyz

Does LR have the same learning curve as PS? I know I probably touch 3% of PS, but I have a process and it works for me but I'm sure it could do much more. But who has the time, or the time times two?

I'd say it depends on how quickly one learns new ways of doing things. LR's modules are laid out in a very logical fashion to suit the way most photographers process their images. I thought it was rather easy to learn, but one needs to put their PS mindset aside in order to embrace a new way. I recommend downloading the trial version and begin working with it.

Here's a good site to begin reading.
http://www.photoshopuser.com/lightro...APPLR207312008

[Emma]

the reason I started in LR was because someone mentioned that version 1 and 2 are going to be much simpler to learn, and doing so now will make my life easier when version 10 or 12 comes out! A little at a time instead of another monster program that takes forever to get caught up on.

So that's one reason to learn it now, even if you struggle with new software: it's only going to get better, harder, and more the standard if it turns out like PS, which it's proving to do so far!

[boxofrocks]

Wow. Great thread! Thanks for all of the intelligent responses.

[boxofrocks]

Oddly enough, there's a lightroom tour next month. I'm going!

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Yes, I got an email about that as well but I won't be attending. I'm sure it will be worth it for you though Tom since you're on the "new" side of Light Room.

- Wil

[jeffkohn]

Can't hurt to give the trial a look-see I guess. IMHO LR's only real advantage is for high-volume shooters who need to do bulk processing without editing individual editing in PS. If your'e going to be editing images in PS anyways (which I do), LR just adds more complication to the workflow.

I'd suggest taking a look at the new features in PS CS4 since many of the LR2 features are coming in that release (along with lots of capabilities not in LR), and the upgrade will cost you about the same as purchasing LR would.