# Lightroom!



## MetalBuddah (Aug 9, 2013)

So...I have finally decided to switch over to shooting completely in RAW and thus I will need to get a decent program for processing my photos. I have a pretty fast and large SD card, so space is definitely not an issue to me at all. I have found that the student edition goes for about half of the retail price so I will definitely be taking advantage of that price cut (down to $79)

I just want to know what you guys think of Lightroom and if there is another/better option? I have used photoshop before for photo editing and I always found it very effective but not very efficient. 

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated 

-Nick


----------



## Tang (Aug 9, 2013)

I love shooting in RAW and especially love Lightroom. For me, it's unbeatable. Pic related, how I use Lightroom. Left is RAW, right is Lightroom (sharpening, contrast, and curves)


----------



## MetalBuddah (Aug 9, 2013)

Thanks, Tang! (rep'd)

I think I am going to go for it after I get my paycheck tonight  Can't really beat $79 for this kind of program I guess


----------



## Philligan (Aug 11, 2013)

Also rep'd 

I've been trying to find something decent to use, and I think I'm gonna keep using Canon's stock DPP until I can afford to go straight to Lightroom.


----------



## Khoi (Aug 11, 2013)

Lightroom is great to use, but I actually prefer to use Adobe's Camera Raw (ACR) in Photoshop.

ACR offers the same flexibility and the same controls as Lightroom, but for me, the workflow into Photoshop is much easier. It's easier to do things like touching up the shot, cropping, resizing, etc.

I also don't like how Lightroom catalogues the photos, I find their whole organization process extremely frustrating. I prefer to manually organize my photos.

A little before and after with Photoshop's ACR:


----------



## Ghost40 (Aug 11, 2013)

I shoot RAW 100% of the time, use Lightroom for most of my photos. Its a great software. I only use Photoshop when I am going crazy artistic with photos, which is not too often.


----------



## Tang (Aug 23, 2013)

In case you needed more persuasion, here's some of the most drastic changes I've made to a raw file. RAW is left, LR edits is right.




MAGIC! by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: who loves out of control highlights? this guy.


----------



## MetalBuddah (Aug 24, 2013)

Yeah, I got it and I absolutely love it! Made my vacation shooting a breeze


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Aug 24, 2013)

I tried LR a while back and couldn't get into it-Bridge+Photoshop just makes more sense for my workflow.


----------



## metal_sam14 (Aug 25, 2013)

I shoot raw and have only semi got into lightroom, I just import the stuff I want to edit, I don't like anything other than me organizing my photos  that being said I am tempted to port over to using it 100%


----------



## Hallic (Aug 28, 2013)

im probably the only one... but i actually like the before pictures better. just seems more natural.
//dont mind me


----------



## Tang (Aug 28, 2013)

Hallic said:


> im probably the only one... but i actually like the before pictures better. just seems more natural.
> //dont mind me



Valid opinion, but for me photography is about capturing what I see/envision the moment the shutter is released. What you see as natural I see as flat and unnatural. 

That being said, my post-processing tastes are constantly changing so..


----------



## eddygdk (Mar 4, 2014)

i just got Lightroom 5 last month and i love it, it really makes RAW photos shine.


----------



## Promit (Mar 5, 2014)

Hallic said:


> im probably the only one... but i actually like the before pictures better. just seems more natural.
> //dont mind me


Agree. All of the samples here are over-adjusted, with saturation and contrast curves pushed way too far. They look exactly how my Lightroom works looked early on. IMO a much lighter touch and gentler changes work a lot better and nowadays I try to go with a less-is-more approach. There's no need for the photo to try and explode off the screen with punchiness.

In most photos i find that it is not necessary or desirable to push any of the contrast, saturation, vibrance, or clarity sliders past +20, and that it's best to be very careful with the Medium Contrast point curve, avoiding Strong almost entirely. It's also easy to get overboard with the individual adjustment sliders; sometimes the Auto Tone does some insane things.


----------



## Whammy (Mar 5, 2014)

Promit said:


> Agree. All of the samples here are over-adjusted, with saturation and contrast curves pushed way too far. They look exactly how my Lightroom works looked early on. IMO a much lighter touch and gentler changes work a lot better and nowadays I try to go with a less-is-more approach. There's no need for the photo to try and explode off the screen with punchiness.
> 
> In most photos i find that it is not necessary or desirable to push any of the contrast, saturation, vibrance, or clarity sliders past +20, and that it's best to be very careful with the Medium Contrast point curve, avoiding Strong almost entirely. It's also easy to get overboard with the individual adjustment sliders; sometimes the Auto Tone does some insane things.



It can't be stressed enough that one size does not fit all.

Every camera and every lens is different, along with every photographer and their own style.
What settings work best for you in Lightroom may or may not work best for another photographer.
How you choose to expose the photo, how you use the lighting within the photo, be it natural or artificial and even how soft/sharp or contrasty your lens is all plays a factor in processing your photo, along with of course, personal preference.

While I agree that the examples above are a bit on the harsh side of processing, it is only my opinion.
I'm not claiming the photos are bad. Not at all. I'm only stating that more justice could have been done to the photos if processed differently.
But of course I am only looking at them through my eyes. We all perceive things differently and ideally that perception is what makes our own photos unique.

Everyone evolves their tastes over time. It is part of the learning curve that helps us find our footing. But the important factor is to learn from doing. Sometimes the best way to learn is to push things too far. Always leaning on the side of caution tends to be a very slow learning process.
Advising people not to over do contrast or saturation means nothing if they don't have a grounding on where the limits are.

TL;DR
Process your photos as you see fit. Try different things. Find where the limits are in regards to extremes and subtleties. Only then will you find a more steady workflow that suits your own style.


----------



## Tang (Mar 5, 2014)

While I agree that the boat shot I posted above was WAY overdone (and my eyes have grown to see that!) the chihuahua pic I posted looks way better and not overdone at all. If I recall correctly, it was the slightest S-curve with zero clarity or vibrance added. The before imagine is positively dull and I wouldn't hand that in to a client or print it that way.

TP, you'd call that chihuahua pics processing harsh? It seems pretty tame compared to alot of processing I see these days. Seriously dude, I won't be offended if you think so! That shot was when I first started learning LR and if I were to reedit it today I more than likely would've gone for a subtler look. Like you said though, we learn by pushing the software to it's limits. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't


----------



## Promit (Mar 6, 2014)

I wouldn't mind taking a shot at processing the chihuahua shot, if you don't mind sharing the RAW. PM me if you don't want to post it in public.


----------



## Tang (Mar 6, 2014)

Promit said:


> I wouldn't mind taking a shot at processing the chihuahua shot, if you don't mind sharing the RAW. PM me if you don't want to post it in public.



Let me dig it up, man! I have no problem posting it. I'll post it in the thread below when I find it. I might try and redo it myself.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/art-media-photography/259080-ss-org-raw-challenge-thread.html


----------



## Whammy (Mar 6, 2014)

Tang said:


> TP, you'd call that chihuahua pics processing harsh? It seems pretty tame compared to alot of processing I see these days.



I was speaking generalistically. Probably not the best word to use. By "Harsh" I meant, processing that has taken away a trait in the photo that now makes it harder for me to connect with the photo. If that makes sense 
And don't think of it as me pointing the finger. I am guilty of doing this myself.

For example I normally find the eyes the most important part of a portrait (or at least one of the most important part).
The eyes in the original are lovely. You can see the iris and pupil independently from each other. There is color, there is whiteness and there is a lovely natural light reflection. All in all there is detail.

While the rest of the photo is enhanced the eyes seem to have lost what attracted me to them. Of course I only notice this when viewing the original.
The iris color is gone, overall the eyes take on a very black tone and although the reflection is still there it doesn't feel the same. All the details that I loved are now gone.
That being said the photo is given a different mood depending on how the eyes look so it's all down to the photographer and the mood they want to portray.
I'm just putting this out there in case it's something you didn't think of.


----------



## Tang (Mar 6, 2014)

Makes perfect sense, dude. Thanks for you thoughts


----------



## Wretched (Mar 14, 2014)

Lightroom is amazing! You can get a good feel for it through the seven-part series of tutorials in InFocus magazine, if you have an iPad. It's free to download:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/infocus-australasia/id627335324?mt=8

Just download issues 1 to 7.


----------

