1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Adobe Lightroom for photographers

Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by wordie, Jan 11, 2006.

  1. Bungle73

    Bungle73 I was there, now I'm here

    A "damn sight cheaper"? LR 6 stand alone is £103.88; that's a difference of £7.88, and of course you get permanent use of the program and not a year's worth. The downside is, of course, that you don't get the free updates, so if you want the new version when it comes out you need to shell out again. The stand alone version is missing features you get with the CC version too.
     
  2. Mr.Bishie

    Mr.Bishie In solidarity with the people of Catalonia

    Subscription for me, at 8 quid a month is a no brainer.

    3 pints of fuckin' beer a month!
     
  3. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Is that £8 just for Lightroom or do you get Photoshop for that as well?
     
  4. Mr.Bishie

    Mr.Bishie In solidarity with the people of Catalonia

    Not sure, would have to look at my sub for a breakdown.
     
  5. Bungle73

    Bungle73 I was there, now I'm here

    weltweit likes this.
  6. Mr.Bishie

    Mr.Bishie In solidarity with the people of Catalonia

    Yep, you get PS CC 2015 as part of your sub, plus at least 20 other sw apps to try. Not a fuckin' bad deal tbh ;)
     
    weltweit likes this.
  7. pocketscience

    pocketscience Well-Known Member

    Organizing photos in LR is all about finding a workflow you're comfortable with and sticking to it.
    There are tons of tutorials on organizing your photos in LR. When I started out I found this one really practical:



    It really is a great program for photographers. Once you get through understanding the import/ library/ organization (just watch the 1st quarter of the vid) then you can open up to the fine editing which is obviously where the fun's at. Serge Ramelli's Youtube channel is a good place for that.
     
  8. paolo

    paolo Well-Known Member

    When I do 'pro' photography event work, looking round the media office, it's 9/10 macs, and 10/10 Lightroom.

    The import thing though, it's a bit of workflow most casual photography doesn't need.

    I like the idea of something like iPhoto (shoot anywhere, edit anywhere).

    Maybe one day cameras will let you choose a provider. Everything you shoot goes to the cloud (eventually). Edit from the cloud. Publish from the cloud.

    Transferring photos from one place to another is fucking dull. Lightroom has some automation for that, but why do I need to care about setting that up? :(
     
  9. pocketscience

    pocketscience Well-Known Member

    Couple of points about that:
    My camara's photos are over 25MB each and sometimes I'll have a few hundred pictures after a morning session, half of which are basically useless and will be deleted. I'm fucked If i want to be uploading that lot to a cloud and then accessing them on the cloud to delete, edit, catagorise, etc... Much better to have a local machine with a powerful graphics card and SSD HD to manage and edit before (automatically) uploading the final cuts to a cloud or flickr.
    Also, I've given up worrying about the time wasted on setting up automation processes (particularly on organizing) and carrying them out, mostly because it only takes about 5% of the time. It's the spending 95% of your time cropping and faffing around tweaking the sliders for exposure, contrast, temperature, etc for the best 5 pictures of the session that worries me.
     
    Bernie Gunther and RoyReed like this.
  10. FridgeMagnet

    FridgeMagnet Administrator

    I'm pretty happy with Photos so far. I can import stuff on my iMac, do some editing, open my laptop sometime later, the edits and the originals are there (presuming I have wifi), do a bit more tweaking, they're on my iMac when I get home.

    It does give me a lot of pause though to know that all of these systems—Apple, Adobe, Google, Facebook et al—are designed to tie you into their infrastructure forever. They've learned from Facebook that people want to keep their photos and the metadata attached. I'm a programmer, so as long as I have the data on my system somewhere, I can fuck with them and transform them into any other format I like, but once they're up in the cloud i.e. on somebody else's computer, I can't. So I will always want local copies, and I'm thinking I should just create a filesystem-based system of my own to manage photos, or use an open source one that can sync. Filesystem syncing is still available.
     
    Bernie Gunther likes this.
  11. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Sure, but if you balk at the price for LR, then Picasa can't be beat on that front :)
     
  12. pocketscience

    pocketscience Well-Known Member

    It might be worth mentioning that Adobe do offers every so often. I got my LR for about 50 quid
     
  13. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    I bought LR4 so upgrading wouldn't be that much. There's something about 'renting' software that rubs me up the wrong way.
    My budget really is remarkably tight, so committing to software I have to keep paying for forever is not something I want to do.
     
  14. Mr.Bishie

    Mr.Bishie In solidarity with the people of Catalonia

    Maybe keep your eye on fleabay in the New Year for a copy.
     
  15. Bernie Gunther

    Bernie Gunther Fundamentalist Druid

    I'm thinking along the same lines as FridgeMagnet about the cloud stuff (as well as looking hard at Lightroom alternatives)

    Seriously considering setting up some kind of private cloud server just 'cos I'm so pissed off about being frog-marched into someone else's cloud by most of the other alternatives.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2015
  16. FridgeMagnet

    FridgeMagnet Administrator

  17. Bernie Gunther

    Bernie Gunther Fundamentalist Druid

    They've got free trials for Affinity Photo and also Designer (the latter is half price right now), only 10 days though rather than the usual 30. Pretty good so far as I can tell from playing with it for a few hours over the last day or two, but I'm not a graphics pro.

    What I can say is that the retouching stuff in Photo is significantly closer to Photoshop than the limited local adjustment layer stuff in Capture One (C1 is the main thing I'm using at the moment, excellent for RAW development, even works properly with Fuji x-trans, and pretty good at asset management in the latest version)

    Affinity software seems to have all the proper colour management capabilities, and no cheezy consumer-aimed FX like say Pixelmator.

    It seems to work ok with tablet input too, although I haven't tested that properly yet. Not being able to use a tablet without a whole lot of hassle due to GTK issues was what put me off GIMP.

    I'm thinking Capture One (assuming a suitable 'special offer' on it is available) replacing Lightroom / Aperture and Affinity Photo for PS.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2016
  18. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Why this anti Adobe Bernie Gunther, I thought Lightroom was rated pretty well?
     
  19. Bernie Gunther

    Bernie Gunther Fundamentalist Druid

    I dislike Adobe's rental model and my old version of Lightroom doesn't support Fuji X raw files.
     
  20. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Oh, Ok. I was just thinking the rental deal might be for me. But I suppose once you have gone that route you will be persuaded to stick with it or lose all the investment you have put into managing your workflow that way.
     
  21. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    I got the standalone Lightroom. I don't want to rent Photoshop or Lightroom in perpetuity; although I suspect the day is coming when all utility-type software is marketed that way.
     
  22. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    I am considering lightroom and PS for a camera upgrade. But it seems I may need a PC upgrade also to cope with the much larger raw files I am considering having.
     
  23. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    If you want to try a non-Adobe alternative then AfterShot Pro and PaintShop Pro are well worth a look - particularly ASP. I'm pretty much stuck down the Adobe path as I have about 75,000 RAW shots in Lightroom, but I hate their subscription model and won't ever go down that road. (Hopefully they'll keep the standalone version going for the next few versions.)
     
  24. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    That is interesting, the link to PaintShop Pro also features PhotoImpact X3. I used Ulead PhotoImpact for many years, it wasn't a bad program.
     
  25. Bernie Gunther

    Bernie Gunther Fundamentalist Druid

    Affinity Photo is pretty good. It works similarly enough to Photoshop that you can follow along with many tutorials and have them work, although you'll eventually run into a situation where it doesn't have a brush or filter or whatever that comes as standard with Photoshop.
     
  26. Bernie Gunther

    Bernie Gunther Fundamentalist Druid

    I got around to trying Capture One tethering at the weekend. There were a few limitations that I think were due to my D700 being an early live view implementation, but for the most part I really liked it. I could muck about getting flash exposures and composition (still life stuff) sorted without generating a zillion raw files.

    I can see myself using C1 for 90% of what I do: raw developing, asset management, retouching and now tethered shooting and using Affinity for the odd bit of half arsed graphic work.
     
  27. FridgeMagnet

    FridgeMagnet Administrator

    Update on using Photos + iCloud as I've been doing this for a few months now. I imported my old Aperture library into Photos and merged it with my existing one (this is easy but slow, even with fast broadband).

    Plus:

    * The syncing of originals and edits and folders is really useful, and I'm not even the most mobile of users. The ability to sync edits and libraries across laptop and desktop is really, really handy, and it does "just work", on my Macs at least (see below).
    * Photos is quite decent and easy to use for most general editing purposes. I don't do a lot of post, admittedly, but I find that most tools are there—WB and simple contrast/brightness things are the main things I do, some sharpening occasionally. (I'm mostly putting the final touches on film scans.)

    Minus:

    * While Photos syncs brilliantly between Macs with large hard drives, and doesn't fill up my laptop with photos I'm not using but just downloads them on demand, it doesn't work very well with my iPhone. It seems that even just the thumbnails need more space than I can free up, and you can't reconfigure the space allowed. This was one of the reasons I liked it in the first place and I'm pretty disappointed.
    * Photos is not exactly the most reliable piece of software. I suspect it was not really developed with users with over a hundred gig of photos in mind. It regularly beachballs for no apparent reason, and sometimes crashes completely. I've never lost data because of this, and it hasn't reached the point of being too annoying to use, but it's annoying.
    * It seems to have dicked up when importing some of my early Aperture shots which had edits done on them. I don't think I messed up the edits _that_ badly. More recent stuff is okay.
    * If you have a large photo library you're paying noticeable money. I have to use the 1TB iCloud storage plan which costs £6.99 a month, and I don't use that storage for anything else. I can get the Adobe "Photography" plan for £8.57 a month, with considerably more functionality—just £1.58 a month more. If anything would make me switch it's that.

    I think Photos + iCloud is workable, and if you use Apple devices generally and also don't have a massive photo library and don't do heavy post processing you'd probably find it really handy, but for even a serious amateur it seems limited. Kind of what you'd expect as it is designed to be a consumer product.

    I'm going to try the Adobe Photography plan... I'm going on a short holiday soon which will give me an opportunity to do stuff. The problem is that I have never got on with Lightroom. I just don't like it. But I'll give this a fair go.
     
    pocketscience likes this.
  28. pocketscience

    pocketscience Well-Known Member

    It's really not too difficult.. As mentioned above, I really,really recommend finding a workflow that bests suits your needs as a first priority. Once that's done you'll settle into all the tweaking opportunities Lightroom has, without constant disruption/ annoyances.
    Hope it works out this time :)
     
  29. FridgeMagnet

    FridgeMagnet Administrator

    So I've been playing with Lightroom a bit. It's certainly a lot more powerful than Photos for post processing, as you'd expect—better than Aperture too, though you'd also expect that given that there's been no development on Aperture for many years. It does launch rather slowly and has the usual Adobe contempt for OS X interface standards.

    Unfortunately what I've realised is that it doesn't actually do sync between different computers at all. It has a system for syncing between computer and mobile, but that's it. (This seems to only have 2 gig of space as well.) I could live with just syncing selected catalogues but having to import and export catalogues, well, I might as well keep using Aperture if I have to do that. "Creative Cloud" appears to mean basically "Adobe App Store".

    There's also the fact that there's no import option from Photos (though there seems to be one from Aperture now) so I'd have to recreate all my metadata over the last six months or so, as well as duplicate master and edited files unless I want to redo my edits or lose my masters. I _could_ theoretically write a script to export data from Photos (using Applescript) and import it into Lightroom (requiring me to learn Lua first)... I _think_ this is possible... but that's really quite serious work that would take up lots of time that I could spend doing other things.

    It's annoying because an organising app of some sort is a must—individually editing every file in <image editing application X> is far too slow for my workflow and also wastes disc space. I don't see any great reason to trade one walled garden for another here though, and every time you jump a wall, if you can, you lose something on the barbed wire.
     
  30. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    I had kind of assumed I would plump for the Adobe package but since have been dissuaded from this as apparently my computer is not up to it. This means, as I have no plans to upgrade my computer, that I will probably muddle along as is with dated and named folders, file explorer, and elements.
     

Share This Page