jupitersolo

Monday Sept 10th Washington D.C. Convention Center.

Presenter Scott Kelby "Lightroom LIVE"

I have to say I had a lot of fun, there was almost 800 people in attendance. What I liked about this the most was Scott Kelby, he was really into this. It wasn't just, oh, I have to do this seminar. He was really stoked for what LR can do.

Because it was mostly a learning seminar (walk through) the tone was a little mellow, some have said that they can be pretty lively. That was evident when he was working in Photoshop a few times. He is a witty man, very knowledgeable of the product. He had to be, they got 800 people to pay $100 or so each. Plus he's in charge of the magazine, training seminars and numberous book and DVD's . If anyone has every meet him or seen his TV show, he has lost about 100lbs.

If you currently don't have Lightroom, you are missing out. 90% of the PP you do, can be done in Lightroom, without all out the waiting that Photoshop deals with. I've had it for a few months, I learned so much more with this seminar.


B&H Photo was there, they are a sponsor of the seminars. They were/are offering some discounts. I thought maybe a really killer price on the 5D would have had me whipping out my CC. But it was only $25.00 off. So... I'll use in next month when I'm ready. The specials are good until 14 Nov. Plus they're offering free 3day shipping for all NAPP memebers.

While there I joined NAPP, a two year subscription to their magazine and organization, plus rcvd two DVD's for joining, Beginners LR and Beginners CS3. As a member of NAPP you can get discounts on equipment and software, I think they're still offering LR for $199.


Their websites have been up and down all day.


www.scottkelby.com

www.photoshopuser.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kelby#Biography

Siddig

glad you liked it....I have been trying to say this for months. Some people are just to scared to leave the comforts of Photoshop.

jupitersolo

From what Scott said, there are no comforts of Photoshop, said too much time is wasted waiting for PS on a lot of what it does. He said (paraphrase) you waste so much time in photoshop, it's OK if you're charging by the hour and that PS still has it's uses, he should us one were he was doing the LR thing, then went to PS and did what PS does best, manipulation then back to LR for the final product.

Siddig

I rarely ever use PS now that I use LR.

ChodTheWacko

The only things I need lightroom to do are:
1) HDR merging
2) Photoshop's Lens correction function - to defish wide angle shots a bit.

then I can dump PS for good.

- Frank

waTSX

Thanks for the info Jupiter. I'm about to pull the trigger on CS3 using the PS Elements upgrade offer ($299), but now you have me re-thinking that. Can you expand on your statement that you can do 90% of your PP in LR? What is the 10% that you can't do?

Also, do you happen to know if LR now runs natively on Intel-based Macs? I'd really be interested in hearing any more info you can provide, because the CS3 offer expires on the 16th of Sept. FWIW, I have one of Kelby's books for Elements and it's pretty good.

Thanks dude.

waTSX

Siddig, if you have anything to offer about LR v. PS, feel free to chime in!

Siddig

It is a universal program, and does run on intel chips. I bought LR for my older powerbook, and I am now also running it on my 24" imac.

Basically, the one thing LR doesn't do is photograph manipulation. it does anything you need in the processing dept. and does it very well. The whole idea behind its virtual copies and stacking is just awesome. Just do a little reading and you can find out what all that is.

waTSX

I'm reading Adobe's material right now, but I'm not sure how you're differentiating between manipulation and post processing. I just want to make sure I don't get left hanging if I go with LR over PS and end up wanting to do something I then can't.

wndrlst

^^No kidding, this is making me a little sad to have dropped the cash on CS3




:buriesheadinthesand:

waTSX

Wndrlst, not being able to merge HDR's or do lens correction, like Chod said, may be enough for some to pass on LR. I'm going to do some more reading before I decide, but if it looks like I can do most of what I want with LR I may just get that.

wndrlst

It's true - I have used both since purchasing PS.

waTSX

And? Do you find you need both? I can't find anything yet at Adobe that says you can sharpen with LR. That's something that usually needs to be done.

wndrlst

Ah, sorry, I meant both the lens correction and the HDR. I don't have LR. I considered buying it instead, but decided to go for the big guns.

waTSX

Gotcha. I still may need some of the things PS has to offer.

ChodTheWacko

Yes, sharpening has always been there.

waTSX

Thanks.

ChodTheWacko

Manipulation is changing the content of a picture. For example, removing a sign, adding more clouds. Lightening the bags under someone's eyes. Manipulation generally requires some drawing ability in order to blend in things that weren't there (foreground or background).

Post processing is stuff like: adjusting light, changing white balance, sharpening, cropping, resizing. Pretty much stuff you could do in a lightroom with regular film.


My take on photoshop vs lightroom.

Photoshop > Lightroom. Technically.
There's arguably nothing you can do with Lightroom that you can't do with photoshop. Except for the DAM (Digital archive management) capabilities.

I find, however, Lightroom does most things I need to do easier. So that's why I like and use it. Lightroom + CS2 will be plenty for me. If I had to choose only photoshop OR lightroom, I would probably use photoshop.

However, perhaps something like Gimp can be used to do whatever maniuplation you need that LR doesn't do. Wide angle distortion correction is a big deal when you shoot ultra wide like I do - otherwise people look funky. And HDR capability is pretty useful as well.

- Frank

jupitersolo

In the seminar when Scott went into PS, what he was doing was "fixing" the image. Mainly the person in the picture. He was adjusting skin tones, yellow teeth, lighting up hair. I would say to those who are trying to decide which one to get, get Lightroom. Lightroom is exactly what it's name entails a darkroom on the computer. The one thing you're going to in LR is save time. EVERYTHING you need to develop a picture can be done in Lightroom. If you want to manipulate your images, change color of a certain item, take a color image and make everthing B&W but say a coke can, remove zits or birthmarks, make a nose smaller, get PS.

I never really used Photoshop before, I had PSE4. When I did use it, I was using it for one image at a time, Lightroom allows you to make changes to all of the images you download from your camera on the fly. The way Scott descirbed it was that Lightroom is a database progam, the amount of speed that is used in it blows PS away.

I was fortunate enough to be able get buy both of them this year. If I had to choose one, it would be Lightroom solely for the developing of the picture for RAW. If I would have purchased PS only and then gone to this seminar. I'd be upset and itching to get Lightroom.

Lightroom is available for a 30day trail, you can d/l via Adobe's website.

waTSX

That's great info. Thanks guys.

jupitersolo

OH, also PSE can be used in place of PS with Lightroom.

waTSX

Does LR allow you to work in layers?

ChodTheWacko

no. One minus for lightroom is it's not to easy to do 'selective' post processing - like say if you only want to sharpen a particular part of the image.

you can however click on a point of the picture, and brighten/darken only that part of the histogram, which is nice.

moeronn

Hmmm... good info in this thread. I might end up just getting LR for now and using Paint Shop Pro when I need to do manipulation. I do like the layering but PSP is lacking on the lens correction. Not huge at the moment since I don't have a real wide angle lens.

Siddig

To build off of Chod. No layers...but everything you do to image "isnt done to image"

Which means to say you can make and see all your changes, and you dont like them you just hit the reset button. Any changes you make will not be finalized to the image until you export the image as a new file. Its all done in a virtual environment. This also gives you virtual copies of single images, so you can have multiple versions at the same time.

LR is also better for making batch changes. Such as renaming a group or white balancing an entire series.

Here is my analogy for Lightroom. LRis basically everything you can if you were in a lab developing and processing your image yourself with chemicals, enlargers, etc.

PS is more of a finite tool, like airbrushing back in the day.

Billiam

I think "not easy" is an understatement in this regard. It's practically impossible to do selective editing in LR. That to me is one of the key differences between LR and PS. To be fair, LR has the absolutely wonderful targeted adjustment tool (TAT) which can be used to adjust a particular tonality, color hue, and so forth. Even using the TAT though, LR will adjust all instances of the tone/hue in the image and not just the one particular instance you may be looking to tweak.

One additional note for consideration is that the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw has the exact same basic exposure controls as Lightroom. Now if we could just get parametric style curves on adjustment layers in PS, I'd be one really happy camper.

waTSX

Billiam, given your druthers, and only one choice, would it be CS3 or Lightroom as an upgrade from PSE 4?

srika

Yea - if LR had selective editing (via the various selection tools) and plugin support, I think it would be all you need. Of course selections can be very intricate and have a ton of options in Photoshop - if they were to include them, I think it would still be tricky because I don't see them putting the full set of selection options into LR. Plugin support would be pretty slick, but would also be only completely helpful if selections were also available.

Maybe later on down the road they'll do like a "LR Pro" or something with some added features such as these.

Billiam

To be honest, it's really about how much control you want and kind of person you are when dealing with software. Are you the kind of person that essentially says "I just want to click a couple of buttons and have it spit out something pretty close to what I want" or are you the kind of person that says "I don't mind jumping through an extra hoop or opening a door or two if it can get me exactly what I have in mind"?

From a more objective perspective I'll state that Photoshop is not really difficult to learn. There's just a whole lot of pieces to it. With a decent book or two and the online resources available, none of those individual pieces are difficult to understand or use. Then, of course, there's cost. Remember, you only have to shell out the big bucks once. The version upgrades are much less expensive and often just a matter of whether you want the latest toys in the box not must-have features.

waTSX

Thanks. My biggest concern with LR is the lack of selective editing, sharpening that isn't quite on par with CS3, though it's better than it was during its beta release and it would probably suffice, and no layers. The upside is that it's geared specifically to photographers, and it appears more streamlined and easy to use. I did like Lightrooms Tone Curve adjustment and the way it organizes photos.

The price is a wash at this point, with the PSE upgrade offer, CS3 can be had for $299.

JJ4Short

Lightroom darkens my raw pictures and I cant stand it. I love the program but fuck I cant figure out how to stop it from making them look under exposed.

Siddig

Simple quit underexposing your pics


Look. You're starting to form youre own opinions on a program you havent really sat down and used yet. Critizing things such as layers. The way LR is set up you don't need layers. They have no purpose. If I made 5 changes in different aspects. If I want to see how one might affect the other, then i click the check button off and turn off that particular selection...similar to layers.

PS does give you some very specific control and filters. This really depends on how much of that absolute individual pixel control you need. Most people really dont need it.

Not to mention with the click of my mouse or a keystroke, I can send the image im developing in LR right over to PS (if you have both.)

In honesty, LR was designed to work with PS. Much like many of Adobes programs, its an all in the family kind of deal.

jupitersolo

Then it can be brought right back into LR and continued to be processed.

Lightroom is for developing your raw pictures (jpeg will work as well). Photoshop is for the manipulation of your photos. Which one do you want to do? Also PSE will work with Lightroom.

ChodTheWacko

I agree - It is really important to get it, and try it, and see how it works for you.
I'd say LR handles 90% of my pictures, with ease. It may be all you need.
and if it doesn't, there may be other tools to get what you want. For example, freeware tools for wide angle distortion; photomatix for HDR, etc.

What's most important, in the end, is workflow. Which tools allow you to get
what you what in the easiest way. It makes a big difference if you take a thousand pictures on a trip. Gather a bunch of pictures you want to post process, and then blow through them with both trials. It'll be pretty obvious
after that if you need PS3, or if LR is enough, or if neither is enough, and you
need supplimentary programs. (If you need a DAM/Digital archive management solution, for example)

- Frank

ChodTheWacko

Camera RAW used to have auto-color on by default which always annoyed me.
LR might do the same thing - check that out.

Your monitor might need to be profiled, too, or get current monitor profiles
from the vendor.

- Frank

Siddig

PS:

For LR users and those interested. I have this RSS feed going. Some great little video tutorials that pop up on some of LR most basic and most in depth features.

feed://feeds.feedburner.com/adobelightroomkillertips

ChodTheWacko

How did he get rid of yellow teeth without affecting other yellows?
Actually, there is a simple selection tool used for the red-eye fixer - can you
do something similar for other operations?

After listening to the seminar, What features do you find most useful in LR, or impressed you the most? It sounds like you have only used Photochop CS. I upgraded to CS2 for the Camera Raw/Adobe Bridge combo.

- Frank

srika

what did he have to say about the Clarity slider? I was using it once in a while in the beginning but now I pretty much never use it - I feel 9 times out of 10 it makes pics look worse.

jupitersolo

I have to boot of the laptop to remember the yellow teeth.

The thing I was most impressed with was Lightroom is on the fly making corrections. The correction are immediate, you don't have to wait for PS to make the changes. Plus the simple changes that can be done to one picture, then applied to all, or one. If all of your pictures loaded where from the same shoot, mostly you could make a white balance adjustment to the first one, then copy it right over to the rest.

Also working within Lightroom, then editing something in PS then going right back into LR, without missing a beat.

Adjusting the exposure can blow out the highlights, the recovery brings it right back where it belongs.

The webpage part of Lightroom, set everything up the way you want it, save it then post it to your webpage or have Lightroom send it directly to your server if you know all of the information you need for your host. The print part of Lightroom BLOWS AWAY Photoshop.

You can set up develop presets and have all photo developed for you as soon as they're d/l'd from your camera or media.


I know I'm rambling but as I type things are coming back to me. They gave us a seminar handbook so we wouldn't have to take a lot of note just follow along.

Billiam

I think it boils down to what's in your images. Nine out of ten of my Glacier images looked noticeably better with the clarity turned up somewhere in the 30-50 range. Remember, clarity works on midtone contrasts. I'm pretty sure the larger the blocks of detailed midtones, the better the results you'll get with clarity.