Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Am I going to hell for not using lightroom or aperture?

profile picture
DILLINGER
Posts: 970 - Karma: 1,102
Ok, so I use this program called CameraBag 2, which is basically glorified instagram-esque editing with your usual wxposure/saturation/whatnot, as well as a bunch of customizable filters. Most of the filters are shit, but there are two which I love if I tweak them a bit.

I recently downloaded the Lightroom trial and I managed to get the same effects, it just took me longer. Is there something I'm missing here? I was expecting to be able to "get a lot more" out of the pictures, kind of hard to describe.

Any pointers?
Dec 29 2013 5:13PM
13 4
profile picture
Mag
Posts: 8155 - Karma: 14,809
Whatever program you were using before, you were getting some cool photos.

I pretty much exclusively use lightroom now and it is actually really clever and useful as it's non destructive and good as a cataloguing program, a lot of things about it escape me, but it's relatively easy to do the basics.
Dec 29 2013 5:37PM
1 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,398
LR is a cataloging application that happens to include adobe camera raw in it, thats it. It is not a true photo editing application. Thats what photoshop is for.
Dec 29 2013 5:59PM
0 2
profile picture
Laurent.
Posts: 10054 - Karma: 25,277
No, Photoshop was designed solely for putting Tanner Hall's face on pre-much anything.
Dec 29 2013 7:23PM
4 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
No way, it's called "Lightroom", not "Catalogue". Photoshop is for going above the capabilities of lightroom - serious touchup, straight up changing things, real heavy photo manipulation. If you're the sort of person that sits with one photo doing edits for hours, and you have a PS workflow, that's great... but even going through a day of shooting skiing, much less a bunch of photos from an event you photograph, etc, LR is a way better option.

Doing all of your photo work through photoshop is a bear even with a good workflow compared to lightroom. It should be a last step if you need to do more than you can do in LR or a similar program, or if you're the sort of person that spends forever in the details of a single photo, and you like doing that in PS.



OP - you aren't doing anything "wrong", but you're not doing yourself any favors either. LR workflow is so damn good. It's faster to go through any number of photos, organizes for you, inserts metadata super easily, and is non-destructive in the editing process (it never changes the original file). I would suggest you get into it.

Dec 29 2013 8:01PM
2 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,398
LR doesn't do much more then adobe camera raw, the vast majority of the application has nothing to do with photo alteration. It's a cataloging application that is intended to be used in part with PS. We discussed this in school with an adobe rep when he came to talk to us about the creative suite.
Dec 29 2013 8:20PM
0 1
profile picture
DeRizzo
Posts: 3827 - Karma: 3,483
I just thought I'd say ya got some sick pictures hahaha I don't think it matters what you use to get them.
Dec 29 2013 9:41PM
0 0
profile picture
DILLINGER
Posts: 970 - Karma: 1,102
What are the selling points of camera raw? Never heard of it to be honest :)

I know my way around illustrator, indesign and photoshop so I'm not a stranger to adobe, but their photo editing system sort of escapes me, I've only ever used photoshop for editing the actual picture (worked at an architecture firm where I had to alter building renders).
Dec 30 2013 3:56AM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,398
To convert your raw files into a useable format. If you have ever opened up a raw file directly into PS that window that pops up with initial editing is ACR, which is the exact same thing built into LR with the same amount of control, it is only intended to get you a workable file type (psd/tiff). Now if you don't need to do anything beyond that, great, but if you do then you have to take it into PS. LR is for organizing/managing your images and initial raw processing, thats it.
Dec 30 2013 11:13AM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,398
that is literally what someone working for adobe told us
Dec 30 2013 11:17AM
2 1
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
Well, their employee doesn't agree with what they claim about their software as a company, and doesn't know much about common workflow these days. Hopefully he gets his pitch straight before they find out.
Dec 30 2013 1:43PM
0 0
profile picture
jeremy.g
Posts: 4931 - Karma: 459
lightroom is good for cataloging, like balto said, but its two most important uses, imo is the ability to very easily batch edit, and the fact that you can nondestructively edit raw files, without altering the original file.

in my workflow, i pull a batch of photos into lightroom, do basic editing on them (exposure, clarity, vibrance, and a few other things) and then export tiff versions of what i want to finalize into photoshop where i cant set the black and white points, do local edits and finalize for prints.

If you are just using your photos for web things its probably ok to just edit with lightroom. i did it for awhile when i had my old laptop abroad with just lightroom to update my blog. but to really get everything that is possible out of your photos you need to be using photoshop as well. it is just capable of a lot more than lightroom - especially if you are making prints, paper profiling, easy color correction, finely tunable sharpening are all things that are a must that you will have to manipulate in photoshop.
Dec 30 2013 5:50PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,398
Its a fantastic program, it will be a great aid to your work flow once you get it figured out. Speed will come with use. I do a huge part of everything in just LR, as many tumes there is no need to go into PS, but LR does have its limits to how much control you have compared to PS. They work great together as there are some things done better in photoshop if you need them, and having them connected is very useful. Keep using LR, you can do most everything you will probably need to with it, but if the shot calls for it bring it into PS.
Dec 30 2013 7:48PM
1 0
All times are Eastern (-4)