File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What does /p/ make of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom?

I've been playing around with the 30 day trial and it seems pretty awesome so far.
>> Spades !!byXwIH+F+lH
Good software, but the UI needs refinement.
>> Anonymous
Good UI, but the software needs refinement.
>> Anonymous
shit sucks
>> Anonymous
Where the fuck is the god damn magnifying glass tool!?

And why won't it let me export RAW's to photoshop without creating a fucking copy of it?
>> Anonymous
>>195509And why won't it let me export RAW's to photoshop without creating a fucking copy of it?

this is why lightroom fails

that and shitastic "library management"
>> Qonfused !!ziHVWcW6bcF
I <3 Lightroom.
>> Anonymous
>>195509
non-destructive editing
>> Anonymous
>>195517
I save all my edited photos as PSD's so I can go back and re-edit\resize if I need to. I don't want another fucking RAW in there.
>> Anonymous
All I use lightroom for is importing pictures and deciding keepers. I don't like how it handles anything else and all my editing is done in photoshop.

Should I be using Bridge? I haven't looked into that program at all.
>> Anonymous
>>195525All I use lightroom for is importing pictures and deciding keepers. I don't like how it handles anything else and all my editing is done in photoshop.

yes, if all you use it for is to view RAWs, you can use Bridge to the same thing

or you could use Preview in OS X.. or on Windows, there's a powertoy for RAW viewing
>> Anonymous
ooh
>> Anonymous
Lightroom is the shit, and I couldn't live without it.

The UI could be better though....

At least it beats the shit outta Aperture.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>195466
Epic photo you've got there op.
>> Anonymous
>>195517
I hate it when dipshits like you actually go for that marketing trick.

It's always non-destructive when you work with RAW-files, because you cant save them as the original file.
>> Anonymous
yea lightroom is sweet, but i fuckin hate the UI as prev mentioned and the whole "imma library, sorter and image editor"
its so annoying having to import photo's sopecifically for lightroom and creating those damn catalogs, why cant it just edit the photos from where they fucking are!!! >_<

they need a lightroom lite version which is just the raw editor and nothing else.
either that or canon needs to re-release DPP to be have the editing ability of lightroom (proper curves, luminance, saturation etc) adjustment with the simplicity and nice UI of DPP.
>> Anonymous
>>196302
You could try dedicated RAW editors such as RAW: The Rapee

http://www.rawtherapee.com/?mitem=2
>> Anonymous
>>196310
will give it a try, TIA
>> Anonymous
Lightroom is good, when done right.Unfortunately, seldom is it ever done right.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>195525

I use bridge + Photoshop...

it's good for sorting thru massive amounts of files.

doesn't do any editing though...

It's basically a Lightroom lite.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Raw Shooter is still the best raw processing software.

I mean it has the best user interface and library system.

It's so good, the cunts at Adobe bought them out ...but failed to integrate ANYTHING from RawShooter into Lightroom...

I hate it when a superior product is bought out...
>> Anonymous
>>196293
This is a fine example of a school child in the US. Notice how he attacks another poster and then contradicts himself in his own post. Bravo.
>> Anonymous
>>196323
How the fuck can you call Bridge+PS "Lightroon lite". What the fuck.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>196370
yeah ok It doesn't have a raw editor. whatever. I use third party software for that anyway.
>> Anonymous
no, example where lightroom > bridge+ps

I shot a graduation that took place in a church this past weekend, I was the official diploma photog, etc.

Well anyways the church is dark as fuck, has ceilings 200 ft. high (no bounce flash) so im stuck with straight on flash. Unfortunately I accidentally left it on iso400 when I should have been at 1600, but lightroom allowed me to bring in the dark background, up the levels, do some cool stuff to save those pics - for 250 photos AT THE SAME TIME.

Can NOT be done in photoshop.
>> Anonymous
>>196515
Never heard of batch action processing eh?
>> Anonymous
>>196516
Batch's can't fix exposure based on the actual exposure of individual photos, unless you batch "auto levels" which would be absolutely retarded.
>> Anonymous
>>196518
RAW processing can, Which you can Batch even easier than actions.
>> Anonymous
>>196373yeah ok It doesn't have a raw editor

uhh adobe camera RAW???
>> Anonymous
Apple Aperture > Adobe Lightroom
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>196551

It already fails for no cross platform compatibility. And it's not like I even like Lightroom to begin with.

And I'm posting from OS X.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Guess which one gets more use.
>> Anonymous
>>196518
Actually PS can do this. Open all 250 .CR2's at once and the RAW editor will pop up with all 250 photo's on the left. Highlight them all and you can adjust exposure, curves, etc for all photos at the same time.
>> Anonymous
sheesh

so many people don't know about adobe camera raw

and you still have to bring those images back in PS if you want to do any serious editing
>> Anonymous
>>196596
>if you want to do any serious editing

pros don't need to edit.
they shoot it right the first time.
>> Anonymous
>>196609
No one "shoots it right the first time" in shitty conditions unless they bring their own light.
>> Anonymous
>>196611
>No one "shoots it right the first time" in shitty conditions unless they bring their own light.

no shit sherlock.
that is what makes them pros.
right gear for any situation.
>> Anonymous
>>196612
Bullshit, but I believe 196609 was pretty much trolling away anyhow.

Depending on the type of photography, pros edit ranging from quite a bit (bringing out the sky more, repainting highlights and shadows

Coming from someone that has worked with quite some pros. Also, pros don't make good pictures. Pro just means you get paid a lot.
>> Anonymous
>>196619

pros also know how to use parenthesis correctly.
your clearly not a pro. you probably have never met a pro.
just b/c someone gets paid does not make them a real pro.
>> Anonymous
>>196612
so naive.

Situation: hockey arena, and a national outlet owns the arena strobes. What then?
>> Anonymous
>>196627
Getting paid is the literal definition of being a pro. Shut the hell up, already.
>> Anonymous
>>196811

lol yeah rite.
so the lady at the dmv who does the licence photos is a pro now?
whatever mr. dictionary your a fucking idiot is what.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>196813
getting paid SHITLOADS to do photography no one else can do for lack of equipment is the definition of being pro.

this point, you cannot argue.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>196813
>>your
>> Martin !BOpXGz0PO2
>>196817

I think that's what he was saying.
See>>196627
>just b/c someone gets paid does not make them a real pro.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>196832
Mind stop mimicing me failfag?
>> Martin !BOpXGz0PO2
>>196833

Why are you copying my name?
Doesn't matter since your trip is wrong.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>196836
I wish we could at least get some decent trolls. Ones that, you know, are funny after the 4th thread.
>> Butterfly !U.eYZfeJt6
>>196854

Agreed.
These were kind of funny for the first 20 minutes, but now not so much.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>196859
Exactly. I thought it was funny when 90% of /p/ was using my name the other night. Now it's just played out.
>> Anonymous
>>196813
I think the cutoff is when your job performance is determined by the quality of your photos. Its fairly simple.
>> Anonymous
Of course only amateurs CARE about this crap, which is ironic since it doesn't affect them. When you start getting checks you stop caring what you're called.
>> sage !QPQnHoZHMk
>>197034

I make about $200/month from my stock photography so i would say yes.
>> oh lawd this again Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>197044

I make about $200/month from my stock pornography so i would say yes.
>> Anonymous
>>197047

$200...I CANON'T BELIEVE IT.
>> Anonymous
Pro seems to be based on public opinion instead of actuall income.
I believe it should read like this
Amatuer, Anyone who doesn't make a living income off of their photography.
Starving Artist, Someone who's only (Primary) income is photography but still doesn't make enough to survive
Pro, Someone whos primary income is photography (And it is enough to survive off of)

Talented Starving artists get everyones underdog pitty, and are generally more respected because they are not doing high paying but less exciting work.
Pro's can be revered or despised depending on their quality.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Ha...ha...haaaa!
>> Anonymous
>>197181
So you can use BitTorrent. Proud?
>> Anonymous
>>197186

Excellent deduction Jill.
>> Anonymous
Awesome thread /p/
>> Anonymous
>>196627
Spell-checking as counter argument, an obvious last resort for trolls. Believe what you want to believe, I don't really care if you believe me.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>197327
The irony is that both of your posts suffer from grammatical errors!