DocDav Loc: IN

i use Photoshop cc. I also have an older non cloud based LR 4.4 that I got years ago and have no idea how to use. I don't do anything exciting in PS and don't play in layers there much either but have gotten pretty good at that program. I don't even know how to up load a photo into LR and wonder if it is worth my effort to learn? What does LR do different that PS? Or better or simpler that would make me go buy th eLR for Dummies book?

Thanks

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The engineers are Adobe recognized most photographers do not need the complexity nor power (nor cost) of Photoshop. They isolated the best and most used features for image editing and created Lightroom and expanded the LR tool with the power of a digital asset manager. If you are an Adobe subscriber (unclear from your post), you can download and install LR classic and get started. If not a subscriber, you can also continue to use your LR4.4 software, particularly if you work only in JPEG, or use a DNG converter for new RAW types.

The internet is rich with freely available LR training. Yes, you may need to recognize that here and there the current software being presented differs from your LR4, but these differences are extremely modest. Find and watch the free authors on u-tube is a great way to get started. A simple google will lead you there: utube lightroom getting started

A similar google will lead you to Adobe's free training videos: "adobe support lightroom getting started" From the Adobe results, follow the "tutorials" where the training will split for Beginner and Experienced.

You might need to include "classic" in your google search, or just note when the training video talks about another software version other than "classic". Skip the non classic topics.

bleirer

Lightroom is a really good organizer, so that's part of it. If you open a file in photoshop and start with Adobe Camera Raw, that is pretty much identical to the develop module in Lightroom, the layout is a bit different but the tools are the same. ACR can even open a jpeg, oddly. So you can start in Lightroom, get really far with the sliders, and then if you need layers or selection tools, or other advanced tools, jump to Photoshop, and when you save a copy will get placed back in your Lightroom library.

DocDav Loc: IN

Thanks. I may get the LR cc. I already subscribe to just PS on line and the LR 4 is an old bootleg student copy. I shoot raw and jpeg combined. For something quick without any changes I use the jpg but if I want something nicer, I use the raw files. May give LR cc a try just, well, because?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You can't "subscribe" to just PS. Your subscription payment enables installation to at least three softwares: LR Classic, LR CC (for mobile devices) and the fully operational PS. Just visit the Adobe site with your account credentials and download what is available. Once installed and upon the initial use, LR classic will recognize your older LR4 catalog and will automatically import all the contents to a new catalog. Just remember to use the new LR software going forward.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

If you are subscribing to Photoshop CC, it includes Lightroom CC for no extra charge. There's no reason for you to be looking at an old version of Lightroom.

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

When I started with digital I just put all my photos into a folder and maybe a few subfolders in a half-hearted way to organize them. It came back and bit me.

Eventually I got over 10,000 photos in my photopile and I was having trouble finding things. The first thing I did was to change file names on import so they were at least somewhat descriptive. I just tooled along like that for a while, but eventually I had a mess with about 60-70,000 images, a lot of duplicates, several versions from different edits, and things like that. I had been using LR as an editor because to me it was fairly intuitive and I got used to it. I started to use it to organize my stuff.

Don't wait until you get to 60,000 images to organize it. It took me a while. I divided them up into years and worked on one year at a time. That made it a bit easier to keep track of where I left off. Took me a couple months of free time but I dumped the duds and put keywords on all the rest and made a few collections of things that go together. Got it down to about 18,000. Then I took all the years and merged them into a master catalog. And I developed a workflow that I use to put the keywords on all the photos and dump the ones I don't need.

Having keywords on the files is more useful than I can reasonably describe. I can search on the keywords and find old images I'm looking for easily. I can even find useful images of something that I forgot that I took. My master catalog is up on the order of 25,000 now. My memory (at my age) is not that great so the keywords are essential to me.

I should point out for completeness that Bridge can also put keywords on your images, but I think LR does it more easily. If you really really have trouble getting into LR, try Bridge. It will help you find things with keywords. I don't think Bridge has collections, but the basis of Bridge is folders, so you could organize things that way. My personal opinion is that LR is much more powerful in organization than Bridge, but if you don't yet have a huge photopile it might do the job for you.

DocDav Loc: IN

had no idea. damn but they don't include Adobe DC in that system of things to use free. got the new LR and figure tomorrow I might be tied up a bit. thanks all

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

Congratulations. Have fun. Be sure to ask questions if you have a problem.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Its pretty mood trying to compare the two, as they are two totally different programs used for entirely different purposes! For cataloging images, yeah, LR is a great program, but you're already able to do that in Bridge!

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

This is not an either or situation. The editor in Lightroom is EXACTLY the same as in Photoshop - ACR. The most functional reason for using Lr is for its file management, publishing, geotagging, and overall fast interface, making it ideal for volume work. It is NOT a program that can be used for photo-finishing. It comes close, but still falls short of producing carefully crafted final images. It is, after all, just a parametric editor - which excels at global adjustments. While it has the ability to do some local adjustments, it tends to really slow down as you add more local adjustments. From an editing perspective, anything you can do in Lr you can do in Ps. If you want catalog-based image management, then get involved with Lr.

DocDav Loc: IN

thanks. downloaded LR to play.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I use both. Costs $10.00 a month (cheap). Use lightroom for quick fixes, use photoshop for everything else.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

First thing is learn how to use the library module. Set it up in a way that is comfortable for you. I follow John Shaw’s method. It is available at his site as an ebook for $10.

drharveys Loc: Holly Springs, NC

LightroomQueen.com is a great site with some FREE ebooks on getting started.