Lightroom vs. Bridge\Raw

[rouxster]

About a year ago I bought Scott Kelby's Photoshop book and absolutley loved it! I really got acustomed to using Bridge to get my photos off of my camera, convert them to .dng files and using Raw to do any post processing work. I have been hearing so much about Lightroom and everyone I speak to says that once I start using Lightroom, I won't stop. So, I went out and bought Kelby's Lightroom book. I'm only about 25% through it, but I'm haveing a hard time seeing why I should stop using Bridge\Raw for my work and start using Lightroom I want to be a believer so bad, but I just can't see the light! Can anyone help?

[Murtasma]

Waste of time if you ask me, if you have a good organization system on your file system (uploading pictures to your hard disk in a folder named after the date you took the pictures IS NOT HOW YOU ORGANIZE). Try uploading your pictures to folders that actually mean something to you "So and So's Wedding". I don't really see what all the hype is about tagging images and storing them in a database, it just adds yet another layer of confusion on where something is actually located on the hard disk. I can open my source pictures folder within this folder there are sub folders "My Pets" "Friends" "Air Show 2008" ect I can literally find any image I need in under a minute.

If you are already using Bridge/Photoshop moving to lightroom would be taking a step backward in my opinion.

[rouxster]

I have all of my pictures organized by the function like you said. The name of the function or the name of the person and if there are multiple times the photos are taken, I create a sub folder under that person with the date the pictures were taken. I don't use or see the purpose of keywords becasue of the way my pictures are taken. One thing about the Lightroom book, is that I skipped almost the entire first section that covers photo organization. I started to read it and realized that I like my system better.

All of my photos are in one place (actually 2, if you count my backup drive) and Bridge does a great job. For instance, I keep the primary copy of all of my pictures on my PC under the "Pictures" folder in Vista. Being that I shoot raw, Bridge is much easier to read the pictures with. So, Bridge remebers the last folder I was in and if I want to view something different, I go up either one or two levels and I can see all of my folders.

If I decide to do any post processing, I can either do it in Raw, from within Bridge, or I can right click on the picture and tell it to open in Photoshop. It seems like Raw will do everything that Lightroom will do.

For me, I can't see the adavantage. That is why I'm asking everyone's opinion.

[Nicole]

I guess I see the benefit as sometimes you want to find things that would span multiple folders. Say you have everything organised by events and then you have folders of people inside them. What if there are 2 people? Which folder does that go in? Person A or Person B? And what happens if you want to find all the pictures you've ever taken of Person A over a series of years. Either you wind up copying all your pictures so they can be in multiple folders or you wind up having to sort through a lot of folders to find what you want. With Lightroom I can tag things for each of those items and when it comes to finding them again, it's really quick. It took me a while to see the benefits of Lightroom (I did the trial twice), but once I did I was pretty well hooked. I think it all still boils down to personal preference, but that's just my 2 cents.

[rouxster]

What about for editing purposes? Is Lightroom better\easier than Raw or Photoshop?

[yorkiemom]

I think it's a matter of personal preference also! I'm using CS4 and I think Bridge can do just as much as Lightroom 2. I had been thinking of getting it; but it's just another database that I'd have to take care of. Right now my folders are set up just the way I want them...I have no problem finding them; I can tag, mark favs, etc. So I don't see the purpose of getting Lightroom.

[Nicole]

I find it easier because all the controls are right in Lightroom. I don't have to right click to edit each file, I just click on the file I want to edit and the controls are on the right side of the picture. I also think that the controls are a little more robust in Lightroom (or again, at least easier to get to). The thing that I like in Lightroom that wasn't in CS3 is the ability to use masks right in Lightroom without having to open Photoshop. That being said, it's still personal preference on that. I'll admit that it actually took me a few months after buying Lightroom to start using the editing functions in it rather than just sending it right to Photoshop.

[rouxster]

I'll have to keep reading and see if I like Lightroom for post processing.

[KathrynWilson]

I prefer Lightroom too. Aside from the organisational factor, which I found required some effort to get to a point where I got benefit from it, the editing, especially in version 2 is just easier. Especially for a large series of similar shots, where you don't want to batch process them exactly the same, but you do want to move through editing quickly. And the bonus is that the additional functionality means I can completely replace PS for some photos if I so wish to, using the masking functionalities etc etc.

[Car2n]

Why not download the 30 day trial?