Should I get Lightroom or upgrade to CS4

[Linda Dulak]

I have to make a choice about which of these programs I buy due to the economy. I've had some recommendations for Lightroom, especially to bring out more detail in whites which are close to being blown out. We are currently working with CS3.

The latest Lightroom info plugs the fact that it is fully integrated with CS4, but does it still work well with CS3?

What are the advantages of Lightroom or CS4 over CS3? There is such a large learning curve with any of these programs that by the time I'm starting to learn how to use them -- they are upgraded and the learning curve starts all over again.

Does Lightroom allow installation on more than one computer (2 photographers in this family)? We are both on Macs, but one is Intel and one G5 -- does one program work with both platforms or do we need to buy two different programs? What about CS4?

And for both Lightroom and CS4 -- is there a good book you would suggest for support?

Thanks

Linda

[David Thomasson]

Being a CS3 user -- still -- this question occurs to me: In what way does CS3 fall short of your needs or desires? (I haven't upgraded to CS4 simply because my answer to that question thus far is: It doesn't.)

[Ed Cordes]

If you are going to upgrade for the cost of upgrading CS3 to CS4 I would go that route. The full PS has so much more it can allow you to do. i.e. layers, various plug ins like noise reduction,and sharpening. With limited $ why get something less than a comprehensive program?

[Bob Ettinger]

Adobe is having a special if you do both at the same time. Check the Adobe site. I have not heard of one book for both CS4 and LR. Good authors include Scott Kelby, Tim Grey, Ellen Anon but there are others

[Linda Dulak]

Perhaps you have misunderstood my question. Does Lightroom add that much to the normal workup of photos that can't be done in CS3 or 4 that it will significantly help the workflow? I am not working up hundreds of photos at a time so don't need batch processing for which Lightroom has been suggested. But I keep hearing about the ease of use of Lightroom and the ability to bring out details in areas with Lightroom that take much more effort and skill in PS CS3.

Has CS4 (or rather the bundled Bridge) incorporated more of the features of Lightroom? I have read that some of the features of Bridge in CS3 are from Lightroom. So, have more emerged into CS4?

Is anyone using both Lightroom and CS4 and, if so, which has added the most to your workflow satisfaction?

I should add that we (my husband and I) both work with Macs, one G5 and one intel based, if that makes a difference.

Perhaps we should just stay with CS3?http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

Linda

[Maxis Gamez]

Upgrade to CS4 for sure!

[Howard Burkert]

Linda,I have upgraded to both CS4 and LR2. The verdict is still out on LR2. I will say so far the print module is a very impressive. I have to figure how the whole program would fit into my work flow.
Using Nikon cameras my raw converter is Nikon NX (awesome) to say the least. So hard to make changes in work flow. If nothing else yes to CS4.
Best,
Howard....... BTW I did upgrade from CS2.

[Tony Whitehead]

I use both LR2 and CS4 on Mac and if I had to have only one it would definitely be CS4. I find LR nice for downloading, renaming and attaching metadata, quickly reviewing and tagging images for deletion. I use the ACR component for basic raw conversion then export to CS4 (which has he same ACR engine so you would still have access to this if only using CS4). LR integrates fine with CS3 but I have found the CS4 adjustment palette that automatically adds an adjustement layer a nice improvement over CS3. The option to have an application window in Mac is also very nice and negates the niggle I had compared to the Windows vesion of PS.
CS4 for Mac should install and activate on 2 machines - licence specifies one at work and one at home or a desktop and a laptop with the 2 copies not to be used concurrently. LR comes as a version installable on Mac or Windows. If you go with CS4 as a bonus for registration you can choose 30 day access to Lynda.com online video tutorial which are a good way of getting up to speed with Photoshop or Lightroom. Kelby Training also offer very good training videos that I find more efficient than a book.
I could happily live without LR but not without CS4. Hope this helps.

[Dave Taylor]

I have been a LR beta tester since it was unveiled, and am currently using CS3 (I've been using PS extensively since PS4). I love PS, it is a very powerful tool - layers, masks, I think a better cloning/healing tool. However, many people discount LR for being similar to ACR & Bridge - which is fundamentally wrong in my mind. While there is some overlap in the aforementioned products, the power of LR (in my mind) is non-destructive editing. No matter how many changes to an image you make in LR, you're not actually touching any pixels - all changes are being written to a sidecar file and not to the original image itself. It also has an unlimited and fully saved history of each file. Unlike PS, you can always go back to any step you ever made in post-processing. In PS, you lose that history when you close a file. Each program is superior in some way over the other. I think that where LR excels is, as I said, non-destructive editing, and workflow speed. As Howard Burkett said, the Print Module in LR is very impressive, but they still haven't added a soft-proofing feature. Hope this helps.
dt

[Linda Dulak]

Thanks everyone. You've given me lots to think about. I like the non-destructive editing of LR, especially keeping all the history. OTOH, we've been users of PS since PS4 as well. It keeps getting better and better. Perhaps CS4 this year and then LR next year unless the economy changes a bit. (or we sell a few pictures):)

Linda

[Dave Taylor]

if it were me (and you really have to look at your own workflow/needs), I'd keep CS3 and get LR2. CS3 is already plenty powerful (you'd have to decide if the new features are needed)and you can probably still do a 30 day trial download of LR2 to see if it would suit your needs better at this time. LR2 is fully integrated with CS3, so you won't have any compatibility issues. If you end up getting LR, I'd highly recommend buying the Luminous Landscape video tutorials. They are fairly priced, very comprehensive, and eat to follow... Or sign up for one of my Workshops/LR classes;). Please let me know if you have any questions.

[Dave Taylor]

Oops... EASY to follow (not eat:)). Darn fat fingers on my iPhone!

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Linda,
I use Lightroom. As Dave has mentioned the power of lightroom is in the non destructive editing. Further, you need not follow any sequence in editing. for eg.you can first correct the White balance, exposure, the black point, go down to the tone curve for highlights and contrast and come back to vibrance, saturation etc. You can do that in any manner. The programme will decide what is the best sequence to use these corrections. Some basic tools for digital alterations are present as well. There is a cloning and heal tool. Not as advanced as in CS4, but it helps. The LR2 has a graduated filter as well. I am happy with lightroom 2 as I don't do. LR2 has helped me in cataloguing my files. For me that is a huge plus.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Phil Bayley]

If you shoot Raw then you must get LR2. It will cut down drastically on your Photoshop basic edits. I have CS3 and don't think 4 is worth the money right now. The learning curve is not that steep, after all I understand the basics, I just don't know how to judge my work.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Are you a Canon or Nikon shooter? For me, Nikon shooter, my main raw convertor is NX2, and my main catalog program is Expression Media 2, so LR2 does not have a whole lot to offer me. I have CS3 at the moment with several of the Nik software plug ins. If you are a Nikon shooter I would trial NX2 also. A lot of what LR2 offers is a catalog feature, which I do not need.