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

And you get to pay an upgrade fee of $80 every fall. Unless you don't care to use older, somewhat dysfunctional at times software. I've been using on one since v 6, and still do. It not an Lr replacement by any stretch.

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

Open source is, by definition, free. But you get what you pay for. I don't know of anyone outside the few hobbyists that actually use GIMP.

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

I rarely go back and re-edit an image. If I do, I usually start off with a clean slate. For me, a 100% non-destructive workflow is mostly irrelevant. Nice feature, but of no consequence for me. I will not surrender the awesome editing capabilities of a full blown raster editor just to say my workflow is 100% nondestructive.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

To each his own -- I don't just say my workflow in 100% non-destructive. I in fact work that way as much as possible and I appreciate the benefits I derive. Having spent many years working between parametric and raster editors I will not go back.

Joe

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

We've been here before, and your editing style is "peculiar" to your style of photography. And that is more than fine. However, my workflow has evolved to leverage all of the great stuff that I can do in a parametric editor, and then go on to take advantage of what is available in a world-class raster editor - I use both pretty much on every image I sell, and most of the images I post here and elsewhere. Not implying in the least that one workflow is any better than any other. One may be more comprehensive that the other, in that it is capable of doing things the other either doesn't do at all or does with some difficulty and produces results that may not meet client/customer/artist standards, but we have no choice to agree to disagree here. Don't you agree?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I'll agree as long as it is clear that in completing an edit with a parametric editor I give up nothing available in a raster editor. I still have a copy of PS (I still have to teach it every week) and when I encounter a problem that requires the capabilities of PS I use it. I'm working on a project right now editing a few hundred images. I just completed image # 194 without any recourse to a raster editor (PS). It is important for me to stress that in agreeing with you those 194 completed edits lack nothing that a raster editor could add and they are complete and every bit as good as if I had used PS. In other words not an iota of sacrificed quality or standards. I do use PS if and when I have to -- I just don't have to very often -- working on 195 right now.

Joe

EDIT: Oops. I was just looking over the above mentioned job and remembered that I marked one of the images for PS follow up. So that's 193 not needing PS out of 194.

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

How about using Capture One 20 (the one for Sony RAW files) I have the Sony A7RII and will purchase Capture One 20 when it is reduced further. Gene51 can enlighten you on this as he has used it.

You and I are both amateurs but we need a good program to get the best from our Sony cameras. Only my opinion.

H

jhh Loc: Lacey, WA

Certainly worth looking into - thanks!

Larry Powell Loc: Columbus OH

With Photoshop Elements available and much more feature rich I do not understand why some are so excited about LR.

I would like to hear fact based pros and cons.

Larry

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

LR edits photos parametrically whereas Elements is a raster image editor. That's a fundamental difference in approach. For me then it's about workflow. A parametric editor can deliver a raw workflow that is 100% non-destructive and 100% non-linearly re-editable and in my case I very much want that. A raster editor can't do the same.

In addition to the 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable workflow using a parametric editor for raw file processing also saves disk storage space by a huge amount -- as much as 80% depending on how you use a raster editor.

Joe

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Postprocessing is not only about editing.

When I first got a digital camera I just used IrfanView. It would crop, resize, rotate, change brightness, contrast, and colors. Everything I needed then, at least until I found I could do more with raw files. So, having tried a gaggle of programs I settled on LR as being pretty good and intuitive (to me, anyway). Later I found that Photoshop could do much much more, but LR was enough for most photos.

However, I kept taking pictures. Eventually the photopile got so large I had trouble finding things I knew I had taken. So I learned how to use the organizational features of LR. After going through all my photos and adding keywords, I found that I was able to find photos of things that I didn't even remember taking. (Yes, I'm getting old).

Now since LR and PS are both in the same package, I have everything I need in one place. Everything goes into LR, which keeps it organized and does basic edits, which are enough for most of my images. The harder stuff goes to PS and back to LR to keep it organized.

You can substitute PSE for PS and the above description won't change.

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

PSE is both - it has a rudimentary ACR built-in. Disk storage is cheap, and always getting cheaper. My first 10 MB (not GB) drive cost me $900 in 1983.

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

Lightroom is for people who have lots of files, need to get to proof quality ASAP, and don't want to spend a lot of time in front of a computer. It's cheap, unless you take into consideration the annual upgrade costm and well -supported in the industry. if PSE is a Toyota Camry, Lr is the Ford F150. The biggest difference is the file management, which is catalog-based in Lr and mostly browser based in PSE. Either application will produce decent images, but Lr is not a stand-alone choice. It is NOT intended for image finishing, retouching, and lacks the layering and layer styles and blend modes, masking, color mode management, custom brushes and thier blend modes, smart objects, focus stacking, etc etc etc that is the reason it is sold as a package that includes Photoshop, which has all of that and much more. Getting PSE gets you a lot of what Ps has, and a simplified (read crippled) raw editor. It's comparing Lr to PSE (or PS) is not really possible - they are fundamentally different. The better comparison would be Ps and PSE, which are fundamentally more similar.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

LR is for people who have lots of files or need to get proof quality ASAP or don't want to spend a lot of time in front of a computer

You don't need to meet all of those conditions.