Will Lightroom be enough?

December 30, 2010 6:41 AM

I'm thinking of buying Adobe Lightroom because it's pretty cheap with the educational discount but I don't have Photoshop (I'm unwilling to drop that much cash), am I doing the right thing? I'm a total noob so bear with me...

I've been happy with the Gimp for several years now but I just got my first DSLR (Nikon D3100) with a bunch of nice lenses and I'd like something that will let me quickly work with many, many photos.

I'm on Windows so no Aperture for me, that's when I started looking at Lightroom.

Some questions:
1) I hear that you can't fix levels in Lightroom, is this true? That's pretty much my #1 favorite feature in the Gimp. What about curves?
2) You can't rotate in Lightroom? Can you crop?
3) What's the usual workflow for the pros - do some adjustments in Lightroom THEN move the file to Photoshop? If so, could I just do my final tweaks in the Gimp instead? Can I still use Lightroom's nifty export tools once I do that?
4) Would Photoshop Elements be sufficient for my needs - can I tweak levels in it?

posted by exhilaration to computers & internet (13 answers total)

I've tried both Lightroom and Aperture and found neither to be useful.
I can address point 3 though - There's no "usual". We do what works for us best individually. For me, that means sorting in Bridge and retouching in photoshop. Bridge does everything I need it to for image management (and I'm often working with 500+ 21 megapixel images at a time). Photoshop elements will likely do all that you need. Its menus are a bit different than the full version, but if you're not accustomed to the full version then that won't matter.
posted by blaneyphoto at 6:50 AM on December 30, 2010

You can download Lightroom 3 for a 30-day (fully functional) demo to see if you like how it feels. I'm on day 3 or 4 of mine because I wanted to experiment with shooting RAW and futz around more in post-production than iPhoto or Picasa would allow.

Adobe has a series of LR3 tutorials that show off some of the useful features (like virtual copies, level adjustment, masking and so on). Some of the demos make use of PSD files that were brought into LR, others just show the image files as is. Like PS, I'm getting the sense that the app is a lot more powerful than a quick perusal of the GUI reveals - there seem to be 101 keyboard shortcuts for things, but I can also see that once you get used to everything, it'd be really good for managing large numbers of images.
posted by jquinby at 6:52 AM on December 30, 2010

1. It doesn't work quite the same, but Lightroom has curves, and you can make fine adjustments in four exposure zones.

2. Of course you can rotate, flip and crop.

3. Yes, you can do that. While Lightroom can open directly into PS, you can just export in any format to edit in Gimp for your final adjustments. I would add, though, that unless you're doing compositing, there may be little you find you need Gimp for. I have CS4, and I don't think I've bothered to open it to edit an image in three years.

4. I usually recommend that people skip Elements. It's not a great compromise.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:03 AM on December 30, 2010

Use the demo.

I know a few people in the wedding business and they use LR for 90%+ of their photo editing needs. I'm an amateur and I use Apple's equivalent, Aperture, and it does most everything I need it to do. The nice thing about LR (and Aperture) is that they're designed to manage numerous photos and let you quickly edit many of them.

Again, download the demo, it will answer all of your questions. I'm not a LR user, so off the top of my head:

1. Yes, but not exactly the same as PS does.
2. Sure you can, 90 degree increments and arbitrarily as well. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. And of course you can crop.
3. Import into LR, let it manage your photos, tag your photos, categorize your photos, etc. Do all of your adjustments there and for the few things it cannot do (like remove grandma from the photo and replace her with lady gaga), then edit in Photoshop. I'm not sure why you'd export it, it would make sense to just set your external editor to the gimp.
4. Consider LR seems to take care of your needs and PSE is limited to things like 8-bit images and the like, I'd consider PSE a set down.

But then again, you haven't tried the demo to see if LR meets your needs, which I'm pretty sure it does.
posted by Brian Puccio at 7:04 AM on December 30, 2010

By "set down" I mean "step down". And it looks like the Admiral and I agree on this.
posted by Brian Puccio at 7:05 AM on December 30, 2010

Lightroom is definitely the way to go. Try the trial and you'll agree.

(1) You can adjust the exposure, levels, although it works a bit differently than Photoshop/GIMP's levels command. You can adjust curves, as well.

(2) You can crop, rotate, and straighten

(3) I'm not a pro, but I do almost all adjustments in lightroom, and sometimes make a few final tweaks in a different editor. My workflow in Lightroom is import->crop->correct color/levels/etc.->make other adjustments (noise reduction, vignetting, etc.)->export.

(4) If you can afford only one, make it Lightroom, because it also has great photo organization tools, which Elements doesn't offer.
posted by griseus at 7:07 AM on December 30, 2010

I use Lightroom almost exclusively and I find that it suits me perfectly. I recommend downloading the trial to see how well you adapt in the end, it's going to depend on your personal preferences. For instance, I hate working with Bridge and rarely ever use Elements for anything other than graphic work (which I love it for), but you might find that Bridge and Elements suits your needs.

To answer your specific questions:

1) You can fix curves, but not levels - however you can adjust the blacks and exposure while playing with the curves to get the same effect. This has never been an issue for me.
2) You can both crop and straighten in Lightroom.
3) I typically do everything in Lightroom, but sure, you could export, tweak, import back and export again if you found it necessary.
4) Yes, you can work with levels in Elements but as photo editing programs go, it's slightly limited. I have both, but I wouldn't use Elements to edit photos.
posted by mewithoutyou at 7:08 AM on December 30, 2010

I'll go against the majority opinion here - Elements is really more than most people need to edit photos, especially the most recent version, which includes the Content Aware Fill technology introduced in Photoshop CS5. If you like using Levels, then you will not have to compromise, unlike if you use Lightroom (which, while offering a version of Curves, totally lacks the numerical input/output precision of Curves in Photoshop, essentially rendering it useless for pro-level color correction work, IMO). The major omissions in Elements (as compared to the full Photoshop) are channels and CMYK support, which are likely not of much interest to you anyway. The idea that Elements is somehow majorly compromised in terms of editing features, is simply wrong, especially if you take into account layering tools, which essentially don't exist in Lightroom. Anyone who wants to create effects and layering techniques will find programs light Lightroom and Aperture to be seriously limited. What you intend to do with your photos, will have a major impact on the programs you should consider.

All that said, if you primarily intend to work with RAW images, I'd tend towards Lightroom for support of bit depths beyond 8 bits/channel, important for dealing with images that have significant shadows areas that you want to be able to print with maximum quality. Lightroom was essentially designed for photographers who were finding themselves overwhelmed by Photoshop's depth, and wanted something that would more closely match their overall workflow, while not being very interested in advanced effects and compositing features.
posted by dbiedny at 7:52 AM on December 30, 2010 [1 favorite]

Nthing "Try the demo" above. Also note that, much like you can one-click open a modified LR image in photoshop, you can do the same with Gimp. I have it set up so under the "Photo" menu, I have an option to "Edit in Gimp". This opens a dialog box that prompts me for some file specs (edit the modified LR version vs original version kind of stuff), and then it opens a TIF of the image in Gimp. Once I'm done with anything I need to do there, just save the image and the updated image is stacked with the original in LR.

LR is *great* for batch processing/photo management, and really good for global image adjustments. Presets are a huge timesaver. It's pretty good with the local adjustments that it can make - gradient, exposure brush, spot removal, etc. That's not what it's designed for, so it doesn't excel there - you may need to jump to Gimp for cloning and such. Most of your questions have been answered well above, but I'll add a little to #3. My workflow (mostly stolen from Scott Kelby, whose Lightroom book should be right next to your computer if you purchase the software):

1. Import photos
2. Run through all photos from the import and mark the crap (out of focus, blinking, boring) for removal by hitting 'x'. Delete the crap
3. Create a collection for those images that remain, put this collection in a collection set, call it " Full"
4. Run through the full collection, marking the images that I like with a "p". This generally winds up being about 30% of the "Full" collection
5. Copy all of these "picked" images to another collection called " Picks"
6. Run through the picks again, marking just the best of the best. These are generally the only images I will edit from a shoot, and the only ones that the client sees.
7. Copy these best-of-best images to a collection called " Selects"
8. Make appropriate exposure/color/lens correction changes. If the shoot setup was controlled (e.g., Studio) you can save a ton of time by just modifying the first image from the group, and then copy/paste those settings to other images. However, if it's something environmental, like a family shoot in a park, that gets harder to do.
9. Use GIMP for any specific fixes that need to be made
10. Look for opportunities for color conversions/other effects. Make b&w/sepia/other treatment images as appropriate.
11. Switch to Web module, use template to make/upload a proof gallery in a couple of clicks.

90% of my post-proc time is in LR. If you're getting the student discount, it's the best 100 bucks you can spend on your photography (maybe after you've bought your nifty fifty). It might sound like the process for making the collections above is a huge hassle, but once you get used to it and get your filters and such setup right, you can get through a 300-image import in about 10-15 mins

Hope that helps - let me know if you have other questions.
posted by um_maverick at 9:37 AM on December 30, 2010 [2 favorites]

Seeing Aperture for the first time, and discovering the Adobe version as Lightroom over a year ago has shaped me to be somewhat of a more lax photographer with settings because I know what I can do in post. I miss fewer shots and I can look at a shot and know what I'll need to do later.

There's definitely the adage that knowing what you need to do in camera is the best, but sometimes you just don't have time when shooting between some very extreme lighting conditions. I futz with EV, metering methods, focus mode, aperture and composition a lot when shooting. I don't always have a moment to mess with the white balance and contrast/sharpness/saturation.

Anyway, Lightroom is wonderful. I do recommend a lot of system memory though. Version 3 gobbles it up like crazy over version 2. I'm running 6gb in a Windows 7 x64 system right now and I'll be building a 16gb i7-2600SK workhorse machine over the coming months. Totally overkill for this task, but I have seen LR3 use upwards of 2gb in Task Manager.

As for my workflow, it's pretty simple. I pull out my tablet, recline in my chair, and import a few hundred or thousand pictures. I basically go through each picture and decide if it's worth using, and if so, if it's worth editing. I push P, the picture is flagged and then I filter out the unflagged pictures. So out of a 1000, I'll probably have 40. Then I press D, get into develop mode, and start tinkering with the images to how I want. I can do some specific tasks like smooth out skin, whiten teeth, compensate areas of over/under exposure with the gradient tool, crop, rotate, vignette, mess with curves, white balance, blacks- if I need specific filters for noise reduction (noise ninja) or lens distortion, I can open the specific image in Photoshop, make changes, save, close it and the edited copy will appear in LR automatically.

The really wonderful thing about Lightroom is that you can exit the program at anytime without having to save anything. It saves your state, your edit history continuously, and you can always go back to a previous edited state. Just recently a client asked for an uncropped version of a picture I had delivered five months ago. Easy peezy, just opened up that gallery, found the picture, reverted a few steps, exported the picture with edits but in original size, returned it to the cropped size and closed out.
posted by liquoredonlife at 9:46 AM on December 30, 2010

I do retouching/image processing professionally and I think LR is adequate for pretty much everything an amateur would need to do. The answer to all your questions is, yes, LR does those things well. For my own work I do a majority of the work in LR and reserve Photoshop for actual bitmap pixel manipulation (compositing, Liquify, etc.) and for higher end color work and mask making that is tedious in LR.

If you're doing really basic things like tweaking levels then LR is more than powerful enough for you. Get the trial and see how you like it. I doubt you will need the full power of PS.
posted by bradbane at 9:57 AM on December 30, 2010

I've been a heavy Photoshop user in the past, and made the switch to The GIMP when I switched to Linux. When I got a Mac and a DSLR a few years ago I tried out Lightroom and would never go back. It has the perfect combination of the organizational tools that are lacking from Photoshop with all of the (non-destructive) photo-retouching that most people would ever need.

I can certainly still see the value of Photoshop (or even The GIMP) if you're heavily altering photos, but if you're looking to just make the photos you took look as good as they can while also having a tool that helps you quickly sift through the mountain of shots you'll be taking on your DSLR and then organize them you need nothing more than Lightroom... and if you do you can still process those specific images in The GIMP.

Try the trial, you'll see.
posted by togdon at 10:44 AM on December 30, 2010

How come no one has even mentioned Camera Raw so far? (Which comes with Elements as well as with Photoshop, no? As does Bridge… Pretty sweet for $99)

I'm a long-time Photoshop user who got Aperture when if first came out (I shoot maybe 500-700 images a month, so not a huge amount, but it certainly needs managing and batching), then got to know Camera Raw from opening raw images out of Bridge and much preferred it to Aperture for single-panel batch processing, and to all the individual adjustment panels in PS, plus it offers adjustments that don't even exist in PS, at least as simple sliders. Between Bridge and Camera Raw I never open Aperture anymore, and only proceed to Photoshop when I need a mask or layer, or for resizing. Still can't see any reason to spring for Lightroom. What's it do that Bridge and CRaw can't?
posted by dpcoffin at 12:57 PM on January 2, 2011