capt2575 Loc: New York City

What are the benefits of "Lightroom Classic" if the vast majority (90-95%) of my photographs are action and shot in jpeg?

Schwabo Loc: Florida

In jpeg lightroom is limited, in raw plentiful.

capt2575 Loc: New York City

Thank you for the reply Schwabo. I guess then it comes down to the price factor. Is it worth the monthly price for limited use it will afford?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Yes, assuming you do any editing. Your sports shooting is typically bursts and / or similar lighting or views of the action. Edit one image, and then replicate (sync) those edit parameters across all the similar images, doing far more in less time and effort.

You also have world-class organization of the images within a library of all your work and world-class automation to create output-specific formats, via batch processing, to resize images for specific purposes and the consistent application of watermarks.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There is ZERO limitation in JPEG editing that is specific to LR.

capt2575 Loc: New York City

Thanks C C this help clear up some of my confusion . Lightroom Classic will work on jpegs just to a limited amount but it will decrease the time spent editing.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

There's LR's database function and other non-editing functions that are excellent.

In terms of editing, LR doesn't offer the depth and options that a raster editor offers but there's no reason to avoid using it other than you're editing a JPEG.

As a parametric editor LR is a good choice if you must edit JPEGs because it automatically refuses to overwrite your original JPEG and it avoids the problem of artifacts created by JPEG re-compression through multiple editing saves.

Joe

capt2575 Loc: New York City

Thanks Joe, good point in the fact that the JPEG will not be overwritten.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

cat 2575-LR is an application that contains a data base as well as the ability to process/edit images. Many jpeg images benefit from processing, as the camera does not always choose correctly (white balance, exposure and highlights can all benefit). Even if you only use the data base abilities you will benefit from LR, although I think you would use many of the other options available, such as creating a book or slide show or using it as a pass through for other applications if you begin to experiment with your images. And, there is perhaps a possibility that you might shoot some RAW images at some point if you want to learn more about what you can do with your images. Having Photoshop to assist you in cleaning up your images, which a camera cannot do, is also very useful. There are many other choices out there today but none compare to LR in the area of its capabilities to organize images using its digital assets management ability. I can find an image in LR in, literally, seconds, no matter what kind of image it is I want, as I use keywords and file names to organize. LR contains a filter tool that allows me to search based on metadata, keyword, and many other choices. I suggest you read up on the program as there is a lot of information available.

capt2575 Loc: New York City

VTL, thanks to you also and the UHH crew who have responded. This has increased my knowledge and made me think about maybe shooting RAW and JPEG.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Lightroom is an image database. It has wonderful digital asset management features. In other words, it lets you "import" (store a link to each image), sort, rate, examine, adjust, crop, spot, edit parametrically, send images to other applications such as Photoshop or various plug-ins, and use its printing engine, export engine, and layout engine.

If any of that is important to you, then yes, it is a phenomenal tool. I find it is worth the subscription price because I get Photoshop and Bridge with it.

Lightroom Classic does 80% to 90% of what I need. I also use Photoshop, Graphic Converter (Mac only), SilkyPix Developer Studio, Epson Scan, Negative Lab Pro plugin, and the NIK plug-ins that were free a while back.

I record raw and JPEG images for different reasons, and find LR Classic useful for working with all of them.

capt2575 Loc: New York City

Thank you Bill I appreciate your help and insight.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

You’re welcome. I forgot to mention one of its greatest strengths — cull editing. You can easily get rid of a group of similarly rated images, or delete them one by one.

capt2575 Loc: New York City

That is a great point when you shooting in AFC.

bleirer

If I send film out for scanning it comes back as jpeg. I find Lightroom and Photoshop work just fine except the jpeg is 8 bit so limited adjustment range, and some things that are baked in to the jpeg like white balance can be adjusted but on a percentage + or - basis rather than absolute. Photoshop editing works fine too, that is where my 'keepers' end up.