Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

It really boils down to whether you wish to work the Lightroom way because it accepts no other way and can be very unforgiving. I hate it with a vengeance and choose not to use it. If I was a pro and needing to find images for clients etc I would think differently but the cataloging part is not needed by the weekend shooter. But many of em like to think they are close to pro standard, cos they did cousin Mildreds wedding, do they not and having tens of thousands of images stored with with dinky little flags and keywords that will never be used makes em feel good. They are the ones lugging three well polished hardly used camera bodies around with a big bag of lenses. Leave em to dream but we honest amateur types do not need cataloging.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

First, no one knowledgeable has ever said Lightroom can do everything that Photoshop does. It compliments Photoshop, but it's not a replacement for it. Second, the reason some people have problems with it is because they assume they can just jump in and use it. You can't. It's professional level software with a specific paradigm and requires time and effort to understand how to use it properly. Those not interested or willing to take the time should avoid it. Those that do take the time, both professionals and amateurs, are amply rewarded.

Bill_de Loc: US

I am a long time PhotoShop user, and like to play around with other free and paid for programs. I tried Lightroom a number of times as various versions were included with pieces of equipment. The learning curve boggled my mind, so I put it aside. After joining UHH and reading so many posts both in favor of, and ranting against the program, I decided to bite the bullet and see what it was all about. I bought the latest stand alone version and set about educating myself.

I can now comfortably deal with the file handling, but have very little use for all it offers. So, the best thing for me was to delete my entire catalog and starting from scratch. Since there are some features of the program that are useful on specific projects, learning how to import only the folders that contain files I want to work on in LR was key. I no longer hate the program and use it occasionally as I do with Corel, On1, and Nik software.

The editing/processing part of the program is very good, because you don't have to know much to use it to produce an acceptable image. Being non-destructive, you can just run each slider back and forth until you hit on something you like. If you shoot consistently, you will eventually develop a pattern of steps that will get you through the day. That should get anyone over the frustration hurdle, making it easier for those who want to, to learn more in depth procedures.

My own process is to save picture files in Windows Explorer and to use the same conventions when naming the files as I do for any other file type. I doubt that many of the amateurs that take the time to grade and title every one of their tens of thousands images, ever reap rewards commensurate with the effort. But, to each their own.

I still do 90% of my editing in PhotoShop CS 5, without bring the images in and out of other programs. The other 10% are files I play with to turn them into something other that what was actually in front of me. Most of the time if I don't like what I see, I don't press the shutter.

I am not an advocate for my personal work habits. Everybody needs to find a process that works for them, first and foremost. Try whatever is available, but don't be a lemming marching into the sea.

I do post my pictures, so I don't just talk about this, I actually do it. Most, if not all of them, could be improved upon. Maybe in time, but for now my real joy is to be shooting, more than processing. If this is your hobby ... have fun! If this is your business ... it is time to get to work!

Everyone, have a good day.

anotherview Loc: California

LR does not do layers, a major development tool in PCC. LR serves the needs of photographers who process hundreds of photographs for a living.

I saw a comparison chart once of LR and PCC. LR comes across as limited.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

When I got in your predicament, I organized the photos I wanted to have in LR into folders by month/year and copied them to an external drive (not my internal hard drive). I did not want all of it as much of it was junk and duplicates, so I was purposeful in what I brought over. Then I created a new catalog in LR (with a different name) and imported these photos from the external into it. Once I was satisfied that I had everything I wanted and it was functional, I made a backup copy on a second external and I deleted the old catalog and the files on my internal hard drive (the ones that I'd copied to the external). I did this with care to be sure I wasn't deleting something that would cripple me. Eventually I deleted most of the junk images too, but gave them another look before I did, just to be sure. That was 7 years ago. Thenceforth I've used LR to manage and organize everything, and it's a lot cleaner and easier.

Getting the clutter off my internal drive speeded up the computer and LR, and I continue to keep all photos on externals so that everything runs real snappy. I have 80,000+ images in a single catalog and it's running great. I have never had a problem with LR that wasn't of my own doing, except occasionally with a bug in a new version right after it launches, and those are typically cleaned up by Adobe fairly quickly. I use Photoshop and various plugins and they work seamlessly with LR, so that everything comes right back into the catalog for easy access and tracking.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

If you don't use or want any cataloguing features, it might not be worthwhile, since the editing tools are very much like what's in ACR. I like the conventions of the LR catalogue, where everything is lined up in the order I shot them from 2008 forward, and edits I do in other programs (PS, On1, MacPhun) come back and sit down automatically beside their unaltered raw parent images without me doing any extra thinking. I use the presets to make my raw images import with the settings I prefer, I use the print module in LR for most printing, and the export function is very easy and versatile. I'm not a fanatical keyworder but do some basic stuff so I can find things I'm looking for quickly. I don't use the other modules much. I made my share of messes in my first months with LR back in 2008 but it didn't take me long to buy a decent reference book and to discover the Lightroom Queen website, which solves most problems quickly and simply.

It is certainly not a replacement for PS since LR is a parametric editor and PS is a pixel editor, but they work well together. And it doesn't fit everyone's workflow, in which case they should seek another solution that matches how they prefer to work. Blessedly, all of us are different. How boring life would be otherwise.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

I prefer a standard shift car/truck. Those that don't would describe it as manual transmissions "suck" .... the only person whose opinion on the matter would be the one that knows how to really drive a manual transmission yet prefers an automatic. Otherwise what worth is their point of view other than to illustrated their profound ignorance of it?

Lightroom does some things so superior to other programs ( including photoshop- which i have used professionally since PS2 in the very early 90's ) that it is indispensable in my work flow. But i will agree, just to get things moving, you do have to take the time to learn how to work its clutch, and it will be clumsy for awhile, but once you get the hang of it, it will seem easy, and you won't ever want to go back.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I couldn't have said it better - especially the part about Lightroom can do everything that Photoshop can do. Once you learn to use it, you'll never give it up. If you think Lightroom and a steep learning curve, try learning Photoshop. It's a 100 times more complicated than Lightroom.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you do not shoot weddings, have clients ect, ect, keep it simple - shoot JPEG and use Elements - like I do.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I think this is a great summary. Like anything, you must learn it first. Parts are intuitive and other parts are not. I decided in December 2015 to switch all my photo work to my new iMac AND to purchase, and learn, Lightroom/Photoshop CC. Boy am I glad I did, but it did take some doing. Along this road I bought Kelby's book AND Laura Shoe's videos. Then it began to click. The comment that you should learn about the Library module BEFORE embarking on switching to Lightroom is RIGHT ON! Check out Laura Shoe's site, her videos are really worthwile and are both great learning and reference tools. At the point I am now, I would never go back! Hope this helps!

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

I once paid $300 for Lightroom and Hated It! I use 1-2% probably of Photoshop, but I can do everything I want to an image in a few minutes. Once in a while I need something new, then take the time to learn it, but it's Photoshop for me, now and forever. Cannot Stand LightRoom!

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

I've stated it many times, and maintain, that the biggest obstacle to the use of any software is the absence of a documented workflow. Knowing the path your image will take from the camera to its final storage spot. Think of an inventory system used by the likes of Amazon. I'll assure you that the process to acquire and stock any item on Amazon's shelf is a published, rigid, process. And, those employees are trained to 'use the process'. The end result is that Amazon is capable of processing orders in excess of 100,000 per minute.

While we photographers certainly don't need anything as powerful, the concept is very similar. We have inventory systems because it's impossible to recall every item on the shelf. Even when there are only a few hundred. Lightroom works very well for the price and is targeted to photography. After studying how it worked, I developed a workflow that takes advantage of the LR functionality (which it is designed to do).

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

And therein lies the problem: How do I get to understand the program without using it?
Book learning? Forget that! It doesn't give understanding without using the program.
I'm a hands-on learner. A couple of years ago, I downloaded LR and tried it out, "playing" with it every day for at least an hour or so, till the trial ran out.
LR and I were not made for each other.
I already had my "filing-system" in place, and now only use Photoshop Elements (in Expert mode) with Elements+ and a couple of other extra plug-ins, and I'm more than happy with it - I can do everything I want to do with the program, and learned it by using the program.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I tried it a couple of times and I was not happy with it. Perhaps I need more training but I am not going to try it again.
I use Nikon Capture NX2 for my Nikon files. If something needs improvement I have Nik and Topaz.
Photoshop always takes a final look at my images.