Adobe Lightroom and CS3

[richardpcrowe]

I have just purchased but have not had the time to install Adobe Photoshop CS3. Given the capabilities of Adobe Bridge; is there any extra benefit to buying and installing Adobe Lightroom to use along with Photoshop CS3 and Adobe Broidge?

[dgs]

I like Lightroom because of the database that it contains. You can setup keyword tags for the pictures to categorize them however you want. I find I now use it for most of the quick touchup, and only use Photoshop for things that need more work.

thanks,
Danny

[zero rc]

hey richard! looks like we are finally getting some much needed rain!
i think that lgithrooma dn bridge are two great programs, each with their own strenghts and weaknesses. bridge is basically a browser program. its been really improved in cs3 and i find it works well for viewing files and making raw adjustments. lighttroom is more of a raw / DAM (digital asset management), type of app. ther are a few things you can do in lightroom that you can not do in bridge or PS for that matter. like the previous poster said, its a wiz at organising large numbers of files and you can also use it to make slide shows complete with transitions and music. the one drawback to lightroom is that the editing features are very simple. in lightroom, you can crop and color correct with ease, it even has a spotting brush to clean up your images, but thats about as far as it goes. for serious post work you will need to use PS. so to sum it up, i think the programs can go hand in hand. use PS for post, bridge to view, and lightroom to organise and display your files ( slideshows are great to share your pics!)
hope this helps.
btw, did you ever get any ideas re: that national geo type effect you were looking for?

[peterst6906]

Richard,

It really depends on the quantity of your shooting, your intended output and how much you rely on Photoshop for.

Lightroom is much better than Bridge if you are a medium to high volume photographer. The catalogue and features of the library module in Lightroom are a significant improvement on Bridge in my experience. However if you are a fairly low volume photographer, then Bridge is probably sufficient as far as organizing and accessing your files goes.

When it comes to RAW conversion, Bridge can access ACR and you can conduct your RAW conversion without opening CS3 proper, whereas in LR, RAW conversion is conducted within the Develop Module. The engine behind the RAW conversion is exactly the same in LR and ACR, although in LR there are currently some targeted adjustment tools that aren't in ACR (although information on the Adobe forums suggests that these might be added to ACR in the future).

It's really after that, where there are strengths in Lightroom that may suit, depending on your normal output. If you print yourself, the Print Module in Lightroom is very good and it's possible to go from Lightroom to CS3, save your changes in CS3 and then go back into Lightroom fairly seamlessly for printing. In addition, there are the Slideshow and Web modules in Lightroom.

The Slideshow module is very useful for quick slideshow preparation - useful for pro's like wedding photog's, or maybe useful if you want to hold one of those fantastic slide nights of your holiday snaps and invite the neighborhood (I haven't been to one of those since I was a kid back in the 70's. It's time they became popular again....).

The Web module allows you to build web galleries and it will output the required files to make the process easy. So if you have a website, you might like that feature.

Finally, on the plus end for Lightroom, Adobe have released a beta version of the SDK for third-party developers that allows them to develop export presets (eg. to automatically upload to Flickr, Photobucket, Smugmug, etc.). At this stage, the beta release only contains the export capability, but the full SDK will be released in the near future. That will then allow third-party's to not only expand existing capabilities, but potentially to also develop additional modules.

For example, it is likely that there will be third-party add-ons similar to some of the sharpening and noise reduction plug-ins available for Photoshop.

So in quick answer to your initial question, Lightroom is a much more significant program than Bridge and very useful for mid to high volume users and to professional photographers.

It's also fairly intuitive, so if you want to do most of your tonal adjustments in Lightroom, then it can replace a lot of work even in Photoshop. However, it will never be a complete replacement for Photoshop as far as photography goes, because it is a metadata editor, rather than a program that works directly on pixels. There are no layers, masks or selections like in Photoshop for example. So edits in Lightroom are basically image wide (except for the spot-removal tool that is also in ACR).

Hope that helps.

Regards,

Peter

[brian.austin]

Depends on who you talk to. There is/was a running discussion about it at Ask photocamel...topic: Image and file Organization.

I like it and it works well for me. Some don't.

[jfrancho]

I think you could find better valued DAM than LR, since you already have CS3. That is if you are in need of such a system. I have used iView, and am trying out iMatch, but right now, I am using LR, since I got LR at a low price (RSP user). LR alone as a stand alone solution for all digital image needs involves a lot of compromise. LR as DAM is pretty good, though its pricey, since it includes the raw conversion. I have played around with some of the presentation features in LR, and what I've used is pretty nice as well. If you want that piece, it may offset the price. The presentation and the DAM parts of LR is where it goes above and beyond Bridge. If you are using the whole Creative suite, then Bridge really comes into its own, linking PS, Illustrator, Flash, etc.

[tomrock]

If I were in your place I'd work with Bridge and see what it does. It may be all you need.

You can then take the time to look into LR and see what it offers.

Basically, Bridge is for looking at a folder of images and LR is for managing a larger collection of images.

Personally, I use LR every day and love it. It's great for the way I work.

[Mr. Pickles]

As has been said before in this thread, if you are buying PSCS3 then it may suit you. It all depends on why you are buying PSCS3, too.

If you are getting PSCS3 primarily to do RAW editing and other post processing changes that involve layers, masks, blends and such, then you don't even care about LR. If a decent percentage (25% or more) of why you are buying PSCS3 is because of Bridge, then you owe it to yourself to download the LR demo and give it a try as far as the Library is concerned, and you may end up using it to do the RAW portion of your editing too.

Are there better DAM software packages than LR? Sure. But look for one that does DAM and that is pretty much it. I do NOT use LR for its Library ability. I don't just use it just for its RAW (or JPG) processing abilities. I don't use it just for its Printing or web or slideshow abilities either. I use it because it can do all of those things better than I need them to do.

[Paul Shields]

I use Lightroom (on a Mac) primarily as a way of getting images off my CF card, converted to DNG, and tweaked ever so slightly before going into Photoshop. It's a reasonable enough DAM solution, though I hear all the time that Aperture is better in that regard (never really investigated why). If you're not shooting huge numbers of images and you're well organised filesystem wise then the Bridge should do most of what you need. I mean, even Picassa will work as a quick and easy image organiser if need be.

[jfrancho]

Basically, Bridge is for looking at a folder of images

And editing meta data. And flagging, labeling, renaming, rating, and sorting images. And DLing from a card reader. And editing in ACR. And adding keywords. And maintaining different versions of images. And Batch resizing. And making HDRIs. And making contact sheets. And running batch actions. And making PDF slide shows. And more.

[tomrock]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

And editing meta data. And flagging, labeling, renaming, rating, and sorting images. And DLing from a card reader. And editing in ACR. And adding keywords. And maintaining different versions of images. And Batch resizing. And making HDRIs. And making contact sheets. And running batch actions. And making PDF slide shows. And more.

You're absolutely right -- Bridge does all that for a folder of images.

And LR does those same things for a collection of folders of images. With the exception of HDR and running batches.

[Mr. Pickles]

Originally Posted by tomrock

And LR does those same things for a collection of folders of images.

The statement above needs the word exactly in front of the word same.

And LR does all kinds of "batch" things, like batch WB changes, batch color changes, batch cropping, even batch resizing...

[Fusion]

I picked up a copy of LR in Cambodia recently, I had previously tried the free download and had not been particularly impressed. Have been using it for a month now and I rarely use PS, or not as much as I previously did, for anything other than quite extensive reworks. I rearly like LR apart from the occassional system crash on my machine.

[Paul Shields]

Lightroom is very powerful in that regard Fusion. If you don't need extensive tweaking then you'll get a lot of functionality out of LR without resorting to the full Photoshop alternative. I've never had it crash yet (on a Mac), though it can get a bit sluggish occasionally.

Unfortunately, I'm a tweaker and like PS too much to give it up .

[Fusion]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

Lightroom is very powerful in that regard Fusion. If you don't need extensive tweaking then you'll get a lot of functionality out of LR without resorting to the full Photoshop alternative. I've never had it crash yet (on a Mac), though it can get a b