I've actually already purchased LR, but haven't installed it yet. Just doing a little research. First of all I'm a jpeg shooter and haven't been convinced to switch yet. I pretty much try to nail my exposures and WB in camera so that usually isn't an issue. I use ACDSee to cull, sort, and rename images. I should also mention that I usually don't touch an image until someone orders it.

So my question is, given these facts, do I even need Lightroom? What advantages will it give me over my current system?

Any advice, suggestions welcome.

Bentley

Bentley -

I am a raw shooter and have lightroom, but am now tempted to save time and space by shooting jpegs...

Anyway - Click here to see a sample image of what LR can do for your jpegs.
It was a poorly exposed shot (I shot this wedding last year in JPG btw) but totally salvaged by LR's processing.

That's pretty amazing Johnny. Thanks for posting that.

For me, LR's sorting, picking, rejecting pictures and quick exposure adjustments makes it well worth using. Being able to copy and paste settings from one picture to the next cuts my workflow in half. I do most of my editing in LR now but still will tweak a few things here and there with PS which btw is so easy to go back and forth with. Unlike you, I don't show anything I've not tweaked at least a smidge... maybe cuz I don't usually nail my exposures perfectly... not for the lack of trying, just not there yet BTW, I shoot jpeg. HTH hope that helps.

Thanks Rowena, that does help. I don't exactly nail my exposures perfectly, but I try my best to get close. To me it's just easier to "get it on the negative" (that's an old school term) than it is to fix it later. Obviously though I don't get it right every time so it's good to know this software can help. For me it's hard to imagine, even with this amazing software, tweaking every single image. Keep in mind that I'm a full time studio doing portraits as well as weddings. Maybe I should look into this....but I have a feeling I would drive myself crazy.

I used to use ACDSee to cull and sort images too. I just recenly switched to a Mac and have had to tweak my workflow a bit. The latest wedding that I just finished was done almost completely in Lightroom and I loved using it! The only thing that I did not use LR for was renaming my images from two cameras before loading them into LR. LR has done wonders for my workflow time!

Oh...and I'm a Jpg shooter too.

Thanks Matt,

So have you found that LR is more efficient than ACDSee?

I would also like to hear more input on Lightroom vs Aperture...I need to get one of these programs, just trying to figure out which one would be best. BTW I am a jpg shooter.

I can't compare the two programs that well. I only used the basic version of ACDSee that came on my PC. All I did in ACDSee is look through the images and delete the non-keepers. I now use LR to everything in one shot. I load all the images into LR, go through them and flag the ones I don't want and then edit the rest.



One of the biggest differences, from what I understand, is that Aperture does not have any batch editing feature. In LR, if you have a bunch of pictures that were all taken in the same light/same settings, you can edit one of them and push those edits onto as many other images as you want. That feature alone saves a ton of time!

I'll save you the trouble.

Get Lightroom.

We were early adopters of Aperture and really wanted it to work for my wife (ok, I really wanted it to work, she just wanted something to work). Aperture is a good idea but the implementation is still clunky, requires too much graphics card horsepower -- something Macs are notoriously behind on when compared with PCs -- and isn't the solution that is Adobe Lightroom. Lightroom is practically Panacea for us...

Good luck!

Wow, that is huge! For some reason I thought they had batch processing. I have been leaning toward lightroom and this alone gives me the incentive to get it!

Yep! This has made editing a BREEEEEZE for me! It used to take me forever to edit a whole wedding, now I can edit, export full-size, export web-sized, upload into a gallery and blog a wedding in less than a day. I was SUUUUPER close to hiring an outside company to do my editing (I even posted on OSP about it) but then I bought LR and have been so less stressed ever since.

Buy it!!!! It's worth every penny!

Second all that is said here about LR. Buy it and you will love it.

The ability to have custom presets are like actions in photoshop. Saves tons of time. The time I spend in Photoshop is minimal for my wedding work.

sorry for the silly question... but I thought LR was just for RAW processing???

Nope...I don't shoot RAW at all and LOVE Lightroom! It works great with JPGs too!!!

I have LR and Aperture and love aspects of both. If you have two 30" monitors, use Aperture. If you have a slower computer, use LR. Like the loupe tool to work on thumbnails?; use Aperture. Like powerful web and printing features?; use LR. I don't think there is just one answer for everybody...both rock in their own way. Both can batch, and stack, and group and cull and do all kinds of fun stuff. Both have a very robust feature set. Check out the Vibrance tool in LR, or better yet the tiny little secret round button in the upper left corner of some of the palettes...you'll fall in love. RAW or jpeg...doesn't matter: both programs will rock either.

Corey

www.coreymcnabb.com

I used ThumbPlus and switched to lightroom now.
I am a JPEG only shooter:-)

With ThumbsPlus it took me about 5-6 hours to make my way through the selection of a complete wedding (about 1600 - 2000 images for a 14 h coverage).

With Lightroom i reduced the time down to about 3 hours because i can pick and rate in one step.

Lightroom is worth the money.

Johnny, that's aweseom! I'm not really familiar with LR, could you tell me how long it took you to get that result? Was it much faster than PSCS2?

Not long at all, maybe 5 minutes of messing with the sliders - give or take.
I know that once I get all my presets in place, I'll be able to whip through a wedding in no time. For my system config, I noticed that raw files are much slower (obviously) than jpgs.
But if I can get the same results from a jpg... why shoot raw?

I've never used PS to develop my files, unless it comes to further enhancing them (I also use Corel's Paint shop Pro - fwiw). Being a RAW shooter (for now), I have always used Phase One's Capture One software - but it doesn't mess with Jpgs. And I love how LR allows you to tint, crop, straighten, remove blemishes etc. It's a serious program! Now if you could design wedding books in it and have layer support... ah, that'd be sweet.

Don't give up RAW just yet. The WB correction for JPG's in Lightroom are really not that good. It is better than what used to be there, and great for being able to edit JPG and RAW in one tool (why can't capture one do this?????) but the end result from JPG is not nearly as good. You need to be in the ballpark to get a decent result. Maybe version 1.1 will be better?