CS3 v Lightroom

[johnbeardy]

But are you and Peter saying that LR will inherently be a direct-to-filesystem tool and not offer the catalog abstraction at all?

Absolutely not, Andrew. It remains firmly a catalogue system like iView, where the metadata is stored in a database, and will never be a Bridge-style filesystem tool sped up by a cache. The structural difference from iView is that LR (like Extensis) holds thumbnails and previews in a subfolder while iView stores them inside its database. So when you move things between computers, you have to move move files.

In iView terms, how would you like it if some catalog sets were folders, so dragging a file from one shoot to another moved the file, and some weren't? And if you couldn't see the difference? And if you didn't have any folders panel? That was the problem. Shoots were fuzzy - sometimes duplicating Collections as virtual sets, and sometimes representing real folders. You couldn't tell where pictures were, and organising your pics via shoots could inadvertently move physical files.

Now, managed folders are gone, and shoots too. As a results binders are gone, and you have to transfer work between computers using your brain... and good DAM disciplines.

John

[akornylak]

Gotcha. Just a sanity check.

In IVMP terms, I think its great that there is a firm separation between doing things to the catalog and doing things to the filesystem. At least in the LR beta, it seems there wasnt as obvious a separation. So yes, Im glad to see "shoots" go away.

Seems like the best practice for sharing media assets is by storing them centrally on a network. If the media was stored in a standard form, like DNG, there would be no (or fewer) problems sharing them over platforms or even other DNG-aware systems.

Thanks for clarifying what LR will and wont be.

[johnbeardy]

The equivalent to catalog sets is collections - shame there isn't an industry standard way to write virtual sets into XMP. Don't know about LR beta3 but they're there in beta4 - I just wouldn't waste any time playing with shoots.

John

[peterkrogh]

To clarify my earlier remarks (which John already pretty much clarified), I was speaking about LR v.1, not Lightroom as a later product when I said it will not work particularly well for multiple computers.

The v.1 implementation will be missing some important functionality, like the ability to move collection information, and history, amybe even snapshots between libraries on different machines.
Peter

[thomas]

i love the conversions i get in lightroom, especially compared to acr3, now i know the same imaging engine is in acr4 as lightroom, but i'd like real world comments from you who have tried both, does acr4 give  a clean of a conversion as lightroom?

[johnbeardy]

Thomas

It's identical.

John

[BobSmith]

I like the IVMP concept of a DB-style "catalog" and was hoping that LR would offer that, to work offline, with fast previews and catalog sharing.

I've spent minimal time with the LR betas.  I just don't have the time.  I'm waiting for a shipping version before I dive in.  However I recently attended Imaging USA in San Antonio where Julieanne Kost from Adobe gave a  thorough presentation on Lightroom features.  One of the features she showed was the ability to work with offline images.  It did seem though that LR is not yet equipped to handle networked users or multiple users in even the most basic ways.  It appears to be a one user, one computer, application in its initial release.  Still, I see how many of its features could integrate very nicely in to my existing Bridge/ACR/iView workflow.

Bob Smith

[Chris Bishop]

If you use Bridge-ACR-iVMP and upgrade to CS3 surely you can't need lightroom? Isn't it just duplication? I assume you will upgrade to CS3 as it is such an improvement on CS2.
Chris Bishop

[BobSmith]

If you use Bridge-ACR-iVMP and upgrade to CS3 surely you can't need lightroom? Isn't it just duplication?

Depends on how you define need.  Yes you can accomplish many of the same things in CS3 but not with the same efficiency.  LR is a program specifically laid out for photographers.  The new tools for slide presentations, proof pages, printing, web galleries... and others are potentially major time/headache savers.  I do a load of printing to large format Epsons.  The printing features alone are quite attractive.

Bob Smith

[peterkrogh]

I'd amend what Bob says a bit.
With CS3, you will have the same image processing engine as Lightroom, so there's no image advantage there, on;y a workflow advantage.  If you are using a good DAM application, like iView or idImager, then you may have very little need for Lightroom.

If you don't own a DAM application, then the Lightroom functionality will seem magical, since it will provide a more integrated workflow.

Part of this will depend on how you intuit the application, how much money you have, how much you shoot, and what your need for perfection (in many different ways) is.

Peter

[Marc Rochkind]

I think of it this way: Currently, I use 3 programs for cataloging, raw processing, and printing. I would like to use just one. I know that LR will be great for the last two, and I'm hoping it's at least good enough at cataloging for me. Sometimes, there's no substitute for Photoshop, so that will remain in my toolbox. But 99% of my images that I consider to be good enough to work on a bit, and even print, will never go to Photoshop once I have LR.

--Marc

[Chris Bishop]

Following the "toolbox" analogy does anybody use:
Photomatix Pro
Lightzone
QImage
Neat Image

What plug-ins for CS2
Chris Bishop

[Dakota Wind]

   I have noticed on my system (17" MacBook Pro, 2 gig RAM) that Lightroom's adjustments work easier than ACR4/CS3.  Same thing, but it just works easier or maybe I should say a bit smoother with faster responses when moving the sliders etc.  Didn't seem to matter if I ran CS3 in Rosetta or not.  That probably doesn't have any bearing on ACR, but I was trying different settings to see if I could get it to work as smooth as LR.
   
   I have used iVMP for several years but once Lightroom comes out I could see me using it for everything since it is reported that it will work better with my files and easier to send selected photos to PS for other adjustments, masks etc.  I'm in the catagory of one user/one computer so LR would fit the bill for everything once v1 comes out.

   As for add ons I use Nic Pro for filters, Mask Pro and Neat Image.  Have to run CS3 in Rosetta to get them to work.  Will be glad when CS3 is out of beta and all works with the Intel Macs w/o Rosetta and will be faster.


Sue

[Marc Rochkind]

Sue--

I run CS3 with ACR4, and have noticed exactly the same thing... LR's sliders are more responsive (PowerPC iMac G5). However, this might not be true once ACR4 is released.

--Marc

[Dakota Wind]

So it just isn't me with thinking that ACR is a bit less responsive.  Thanks for the info.  Hopefully it improves with "age". 
Sue