achesley Loc: SW Louisiana

LR 6 here

lsimpkins Loc: SE Pennsylvania

This is not true. I have LR backup my catalog every time I close the program. No extra step involved. My backup routine runs automatically every day to back up my images. To use YOUR phrase "one [automated] step and done". And I have never lost an image, edits, or any data including keywords attached to one of my images.

I have no problem with your or anyone else's preference for other tools, but please don't prejudice others by stating things that are true only for the way you tried to use LR.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'd recommend you buy Adobe Elements 14 and give it a try. It's on sale right now, as they are clearing the shelves for Elements 15, which is coming soon.

Adobe Elements is more of a stand-alone, do it all program than either Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Photoshop.

Elements is more geared to general purpose use and has various built-in support. You can use it in Beginner, Intermediate or Expert mode, depending upon how much assistance you want.

Lightroom is primarily an image archive manager/cataloging tool with "light", mostly global image editing capabilities. Photoshop is an intense, heavy duty image editor able to work right down to the pixel level and in layers and other ways, as needed.... with very little archive management/cataloging capabilities. So, LR and PS are sort of two sides of a coin.... neither is truly complete without the other. This is not to say that each can't be used as a stand-alone program. For some people, LR does all they need. Others are happy using only PS.

As of now PS is only available via subscription. LR is available that way too (and is bundled with PS).... but also can be bought outright, if preferred. Elements is only available as an outright purchase.

I have not used GIMP, so cannot compare it in any more detail.

Be aware that Elements has one key limitation: It's an 8-bit program. This means that while you can open and with your RAW files, but will only be able to save the end results in 8-bit file types (such as JPEGs). Actually this is all many people ever need. JPEGs are what is required for printing yourself with an inkjet or by most printing services. It's also all that's need for online sharing and display.

But some commercial users need TIFFs or PSD or other 16-bit file types, for various reasons. To work with those, Lightroom and/or Photoshop are necessary.

Ted d Loc: Green Valley, AZ.

I use Photoshop, Lightroom, On1

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Not tied to anything. I use LR's database out of convenience. Doesn't make me a fool, but it really does make my workflow considerably more efficient.

I use On1 Browse and PhotoMechanic to view, cull, rate and import images OUTSIDE of Lightroom. When I open Lightroom I tell it to ADD the folder I just imported my images to, and I have it make smart previews. Again, this is efficient when I have 800-1200 images from an event to go through. Not FORCED to use Lightroom in the way you describe. I am comfortable doing file management in and out of LR.

I use DXO (since version 4), Capture One, and other raw-centric image processing programs right along side Lightroom. No issues whatsoever.

As far as editing single images is concerned, I have a watched folder that I don't even have to do anything to edit a single image, other than copy the file to that folder. When LR opens, the image is automatically available. No double click required. :)

I think you are not happy that LR works differently from the way you are accustomed to working with images. If all you've ever driven was a car with power steering, power brakes and automatic transmission, you would absolutely HATE with a passion getting behind the wheel of a 1966 Sunbeam Tiger II, with its manual everything, no power assist on anything, hell, the windows use a crank to get them up and down, heaven forbid. And yes the clutch is heavy and not power assisted or even hydraulic - it uses a cable. But it's a 2,500 lb, 245 hp fun riot or death wagon, depending on the driver's skill level.

My advice is to stop complaining about non-existing nits you are picking on - it's all part of the learning curve and after a few hours with the program you get over them - and start to see the benefits of using LR. Or not. Is it different? You bet. Can it save you time and aggravation? You bet. Does it take a little getting used to? Yup again. Is it worth the time it takes to learn it (usually one weekend) - it depends on the individual, his/her learning style, and their ability to see the benefits in spite of having to learn a new lexicon and way of doing things.

I shared your frustration at first - then I figured it out, and now I use it daily. Along with many other titles I have on my computer. It integrates very nicely with them all.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Having to save images in PSE as jpegs is not an issue - I use Photoshop and do the same thing. The real quality issue is that PSE is by and large an 8 bit workflow after you convert from it's crippled ACR implementation.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

especially the last sentence.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You really have some serious misconceptions about how to best work with Lightroom - and they seem to be based on the fact that you are trying to use it just like every other program you have used.

One more time - I can edit a single image easily - placing it in a Watched Folder - no extra steps - I don't even have to click on the image to launch the application. I launch the application, and BINGO, the single image (or more) are in the watched folder ready for editing.

While I like DXO and use it quite a bit for it's exceptionally good noise reduction (Prime) and sharpening (Lens Softness), it's excellent lens profiles, volume anamorphosis correction, and keystone correction, there are a number of things I can't do with it - local adjustments with a brush/radial/linear filter, spotting, red eye reduction, fast access to images already in the catalog (I've got 200,000 images and trying to find a single one would take a while without LR's catalog and indexing), making virtual collections of images for a variety of purposes, and in extreme cases of deliberate underexposure, freedom from posterization, watermarking, detailed and robust output options, merging to HDR or Panorama, and the biggest one for my use - being able to generate a unique camera profile for each camera and each lighting scenario using an XRite Color Checker Passport, so that all images are consistently neutral and they appear as if they were taken by a single camera. Another huge benefit is being able to shoot tethered, using a USB cable. Being able to have all the parties in a room during a shoot, and have the Creative Director for the client approve the images on the spot - that is a major time saver. All of the things that DXO does not do would require at least one other program, and in some cases more, to execute. And some things, like the custom profile many not even be possible.

Backups - I run my backup to back up my files - pretty much exactly as you do - one operation, and it runs nightly, every night. It backs up my catalog and preview files and image files to 2 different external drives. Not sure what you mean by an "extra" step. I do exactly what you do. I back up my files.

I routinely import hundreds of images, sometimes from multiple shooters, from events. It is not unusual for me to come back from a day's shooting at an equestrian competition with 1800 images. I have yet to have a problem in the 4 yrs I've been using LR. When I did use DXO for this, it would take at least a day for me to generate proofs. With LR, I can do 1600 images in 3-4 hours.



I've heard that catalogs can become corrupted, though I've never experienced this. One the few occasions that my LR was unstable and it stopped working, only the edits in the current image were lost. The other images and there edits in the current session remained intact - I only had to restart the process with the image I was editing. No need at all to go back and re-import the entire session.

The complexity appears to be entirely in your mind - you are having problems getting your head around the underlying concept of LR, and you obviously lack the familiarity, perhaps because of your bias and reluctance.

DXO is great, but limited. LR is great as well, and while it doesn't do some things as well as DXO, it does a whole bunch of other things that are meaningful in a working photographer's workflow, which accounts for it's immense popularity. If I simplify my workflow (basically making it faster), I don't see how that translates to time-robbing and unnecessary complexity as you have characterized.

If you don't want to continue to sound foolish, take a course and learn LR. Then your credibility will soar. Right now, you are sounding like you have no real working experience with it - and your criticisms are both incorrect and silly.

In the meantime I hope I have clarified how LR can help a workflow, and addressed each and every one of your complaints with accurate, fact-based and experience-based information. I would hate to see someone lose out on the opportunity to use a great piece of software based on your negative comments alone. Don't get me wrong, I think DXO should be a part of everyone's workflow - but at best all you can do is create proof quality images, so for proper professional photofinishing, you still need to go to another package - a pixel-level editor. The same is true for LR - and the way it works seamlessly with other programs makes it a complete pleasure to use.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I have the latest version of Lightroom and a really old version of Photoshop; works for me. If I had to chose one, it would be Lightroom. I only use Photoshop for texting images and playing with layers; probably about 2-3% of my images ever see Photoshop.

bwa

billybaseball Loc: Bel Air MD

I think i do a pretty good job processing jpgs in GIMP but the few times I have tried to process a RAW image it always seems to be to dark, I can never get it looking as good as the in camera processor. I think the raw processor in GIMP maybe just lacks something that other programs may have.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Just so there's no confusion, backing up the LR catalog DOES NOT back up your images. It backs up the data ABOUT your images. Images must be backed up separately.

Storage media do fail. If you haven't lost data yet, buy a backup drive or two, AND have a plan for off-site safe-keeping (cloud service, portable hard drive, DVDs, etc.)

spectraflash Loc: Boston

There are many options for image processing and amateur photographers usually settle on a software solution without considering some critical facts. Adobe Photoshop with Lightroom costs 33 cents a day. For less than a cup of coffee, you can have the most widely used, industry leading software. These two programs are easy to learn and enjoyable to master. It's not like learning Quickbooks or Excel. The results of everything you learn are instantly and visibly tangible. It's a totally fun experience!

I'm a professional shooter and bought Lightroom a few years ago. Not only is the software very intuitive, it is a powerful, non-destructive editing package with features that balance efficient productivity and unrivaled creativity. Couple Lightroom with Photoshop, which I use for post-production clean ups, and you have an editing solution that no other software can begin to match. Photoshop offers so many advantages over other editing programs and there are dozens of top-rated, third party applications that dovetail into its interface. Countless plug-ins and presets are available, one of which is the recent free release of the Google Nik suite of plug-ins. There are hundreds of free online tutorials too. Youtube is a veritable library of free learning.

Gimp, DPP and the others have only a fragment of the image editing market share for a reason. They're inferior offerings compared to the Adobe solution. That said, you can get good results without Photoshop and Lightroom. But if you aspire to improve your photography, why would you limit your capabilities right from the start?

Best of luck to you.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

lsimpkins Loc: SE Pennsylvania

No confusion here - my catalog is backed up by the closure of LR AND my images (as well as the catalog and its backup) are backed up to an external HD by my backup software automatically on a daily basis (actually every three hours, but who's counting). While I have not lost primary data yet, I fully endorse and use backup in case I do. The implication in the post I was commenting on was that LR by its arcane or confusing nature was prone to causing users to lose data.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Agreed. There are newbies here, whom I am really addressing with my previous post. I've seen this misunderstanding before, and it was an ugly mess.