Lightroom

G

Grentz

Fully [H]
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
17,273
Anyone use it?

I just downloaded the trial and it is AMAZING. Now, I think $200 is a little steep considering its like under 30mb :p

It is really neat how you can control the colors and mess with your photos though. Adobe really did good with this one!
 
it is a great piece of software and the price dosn't seem that bad considering photoshop cs2 is alot more expensive, and the free / cheap alternatives don't provide the same level of functionality. I say its worth $200
 
Veritas616 said:
You think $200 is steep try the sticker for Aperture
Click to expand...


true, and I think it can do everything Aperture can.

It is not full photoshop though (none of the creation, shapes, layering, etc. It is all based on colors and photo cropping) and like I said, it seems steep considering it is less than 30mb lol

But i can see that it is worth it, it makes working with photos much easier and from what I have seen it is very stable as well.
 
compslckr said:
it is a great piece of software and the price dosn't seem that bad considering photoshop cs2 is alot more expensive, and the free / cheap alternatives don't provide the same level of functionality. I say its worth $200
Click to expand...

Yeha tell me about it the CS2 upgrade was still $150. Far an Adobe product $200 is cheap. Nik Color FX cost me $350 if I remember right.
 
I just got my Lightroom package from Adobe yesterday, but haven't installed it yet.

I think it's worth $200, especially since its normal price is $300 but they're having a discount on it until end of April.
 
I'm not a fan. I'm coming from using Rawshooter, and everything feels slow and bloated in comparison
 
Umm Aperture is only $299, compared to Lightroom's regular price of $299 I don't think that Aperture is that much more expensive. I myself never could get behind Lightroom, maybe it was the beta version that I was using on my PC was really flakey, and the fact that it really didn't like my NEF (Nikon RAW) files. Hopefully the got that stuff fixed in the production version. More competition the better I say. I do love Aperture though :)
 
I don't really like Lightroom much. It feels kind of slow and clunky, and the organizational features are limited. I think I prefer Aperture.
 
The final version is better than the Betas.

To me it seems pretty slim compared to many other Image Editors. I can tell you have not used that many if you think lightroom is chunky...maybe compared to Aperture, but not compared to most.

Also, Aperture is not for PC so ya....;)
 
Grentz said:
Also, Aperture is not for PC so ya....;)
Click to expand...

Exactly. :eek: :p I don't have a Mac, otherwise I'd use Aperture, but I'm not, and I thought Lightroom was good from the beta, so why not.

On a sidenote - if you think $200/300 for a 30 MB program is expensive, well...you wouldn't want to buy some of the stuff my company makes that is less than 10 MB. :eek:
 
Grentz said:
To me it seems pretty slim compared to many other Image Editors. I can tell you have not used that many if you think lightroom is chunky...maybe compared to Aperture, but not compared to most.
Click to expand...
Well, most software sucks anyway. Lightroom is definitely better than most apps like it, but I still don't think it's quite good enough.



Also, if you think $200 for a 30 megabyte application is expensive... FPrime, a Lightwave plugin, costs $399, and it weighs in at half a megabyte. Besides, when you look at how much hard drive space an application uses, you're mostly looking at the resources it ships with anyway. Graphics, different languages, etc.
 
Ya Ya, I know that the size does not equal price, still its just funny to look at.

Heck, I just shelled out over $8000 for a 100mb app a few days ago for a company I am doing some work for
 
Ya Ya, I know that the size does not equal price, still its just funny to look at.

Heck, Our office just shelled out over $8000 for a 100mb app a few days ago
 
I bought C1 and love that. I played around with Lightroom, but my C1 Pics came out better.
 
From the post i made at adobe's lousy forum:

As I promissed I went and installed my courtesy copy of Lr v1.0 (thanks again Adobe, that was a classy thing to do!) and have gone through as many tutorials and videos as I can to learn all I could before putting it into my 'production' workflow. Again, I'm an amateur but I take about 6-8k clicks a year, mostly at 'events' related to my family but also just simply trying to learn more about photography and branching out artistically as I can. The only person I need to satisfy is myself, and my goal is to take both satisfying snaps and also expand creatively. Not easy for a colorblind engineer. =)

The RSP 'way' is still deeply ingrained in me, but for the most part the improvements between the last beta and Lr 1.0 have been enough to convince me to get on the bandwagon and give up RSP completely.

First, the bad:
Speed still has a ways to go. While I cringe at the slowness of the Lr UI sometimes, it certainly isnt as frustrating as the Beta was, and while I have no NEED for the database driven back end, for the most part it has stayed out of my way. I'm adding basic tag information but not overdoing it, as simple folder and chronological views are all I need to find any picture I want.

I still dislike the Crop tool but am getting used to it, begrudgingly. I understand many people love it but I wish it were toggleable back permanently to the way I want to work. I liken this to 'Invert Y' feature for FPS games. If, like me, you play Quake looking up or down the way a pilot would, being forced to invert this basic function would be unthinkable, and every FPS on the market allows those who wish to use either scheme to make a configuration choice once and get on with life.

Final output and renaming is still painful to me. I want to rename every one of my selects something unique. The tool to batch rename files works great, but if I want to identify my final output, say for my Flickr stream, this does not seem to work well for me. What I'd ideally like is to select the ones I want to output and then have the program go through them one by one with a window asking me what I want to name each individual one. Perhaps this is possible now and I missed it.

The Good:
The absolute level of control within the actual raw conversion is staggering. Especially in Black and White and especially the TaT. Here's but one example: I have a favorite picture of my niece that was shot horribly overblown. I 'rescued' it RSP, choosing to creatively live with blown out details, making something I actually liked despite the terrible technical no-nos.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/73/178696020_fe7b7c0285_b.jpg

Using the tools in RSP, I have created a new vision that completely does away with those blown out areas and which I absolutely adore.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/413088911_be54dd2355_b.jpg

And I did it in about 10 minutes with a minimum of fuss and while still being a relative noob to the program.

The Clone and Heal tools are simply magic. Yeah, "Dust" my butt =)

The Red Eye tool is very good with actual red eyes. Would like to see support for light grey mirror eyes as well. As I noted in another thread my Costco terminal does a fair job with this phenomenon, hope Lr can sometime in the future too.

The noise reduction is great for my purposes. It works miles better than I ever had RSP do. Sharpening is similarly good, I wish it were more detailed but still quick and easy and works.

The 'Versions' feature works great. Still getting up to speed on it but it's even more usable than the way I handled similar needs in RSP.

The never uses:
I never ever use Web output or the print modules. Every one of my pics will go to Flickr and/or Costco for output.

That's it for now. More as I play and explore this tool.
Sam
 
Thanks for the mini review :)

I noticed the speed factor on my laptop, but as soon as I moved to my desktop it was gone, guess it all depends on your system and other software though.
 
Kadath said:
The Good:
The absolute level of control within the actual raw conversion is staggering. Especially in Black and White and especially the TaT. Here's but one example: I have a favorite picture of my niece that was shot horribly overblown. I 'rescued' it RSP, choosing to creatively live with blown out details, making something I actually liked despite the terrible technical no-nos.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/73/178696020_fe7b7c0285_b.jpg

Using the tools in RSP, I have created a new vision that completely does away with those blown out areas and which I absolutely adore.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/413088911_be54dd2355_b.jpg
Click to expand...


You did the first one with RSP and the 2nd one in Lightroom? Any chance you can post the RAW, I'm curious to see what kind of results I could get in both programs. I'm currently using RSP and am not a big fan of the Lightroom workflow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top