File :-(, x, )
Lightroom workflow question Anonymous
I keep reading people saying that Lightroom has improved their workflow by over 9000 and made processing faster.

I've been using it for a while now and what I do is I go through each and every picture I have taken and process only the ones I like.

So those people praising Lightroom like it's the second coming, what gives? Let's pretend you have a 100% keeper rate, do they just batch process them with a custom or maybe even automatic settings and be done with it?

I mean, it might work fine if your lighting is consistent through and through but even then there are differences on each picture.

Am I doing it wrong?
>> Anonymous
>>132997

I import a full set of photos into Lightroom. I then use it's ratings, colors, and pick system to choose which photos I want to use and what for.

Then I'll usually make a second sweep and actually process the photo. Depending what needs to be done, each photo usually just takes a few seconds for minor exposure and fill adjusts. I also fix white balance and rotate if necessary.

The nearest I get to automatic is using the sync feature to apply changes to multiple photos taking in the exact same setting.
>> Anonymous
>>133002
My workflow is pretty much the same.

The main timesaver in Lightroom in my opinion is the combination of image editor, EXIF editor, and good browser/organizer software. It makes sorting out the ones to keep much quicker, then the image editor is set up in such a way that it's extremely fast to make the routine adjustments that most digital photos require, then the batch output system is quick and effective. With photoshop, routine adjustments require a lot more steps and photos must be opened, edited, and closed manually, whereas in Lightroom you just move down the line in the browser, make your changes (or even copy/paste settings between similar photos), then batch save them. The other nice thing is that Lightroom stores editing data so you can go back later and make changes without having to start over from an original file, or you can revert to the original file without having to make backup copies.
>> Anonymous
I still use the Bridge>Photoshop work flow. Lightroom doesn't do anything for my shooting style. I usually only take 4-5 shots from a shoot and edit them for print.
>> Anonymous
>>133006
What he said.

I shoot in RAW, import to lightroom, use the flag system (pick vs. rejected), then sort by the picks I want, edit WB and exposure + fill light, then export full size jpegs. Any other editing like vignetting or black & white I do in CS3, but only from the original RAW or DNG file.
>> Anonymous
>>133723
ditto
LR has really helped organize my library and surprisingly useful for non-destructive editing. I've only been using it for a month or so but beats bridge no contest. of course it isn't a 100% PS replacement.
>> Anonymous
eh

maybe i'm just old fashioned but i prefer bridge and photoshop

feels like i have more direct control over the pictures
>> Anonymous
>>133747
Ive been using lightroom since the first public betas and 95% of the time its all i need to edit my photos.

The workflow saves lots of time and makes things easier.
>> Anonymous
i know this is a little off topic, but i downloaded the trial version of lightroom and was wondering where to find a keygen for OS X? i need it for school and cant afford to purchase it. any help would be appreciated.
>> Anonymous
>>133756

The school can't provide it for free/a reasonable cost?
>> Anonymous
>>133756
isohunt