Home News « Articles » Services Gallery Links About Contact

Lightroom — a review by Brian Vincent (4.4.08) Introduction   On first encounter Lightroom is a mysterious product.  Superficially it seems to answer all your photo-software prayers.  On delving deeper it becomes apparent that you will probably still need a fully featured photo-editor, at which point it would be reasonable to ask whether the other facilities of Lightroom are just an over-elaborated gimmick. Lightroom is also worrying to begin with.  One suggestion is to put all your precious photographs into Lightroom, relying on you to (hopefully) assign meaningful keywords to locate them again.  Why can't Lightroom simply operate with the way you presently work and not bother you with such big decisions ? This review sets out to clarify these issues.  To do so, it's necessary to first consider how traditional photo-software operates.  But before that, a few clarifications —   • this review is aimed predominately at photographers who have photo-editing skills, and who therefore need mainly to understand what Lightroom may be able to do for you.   • the term "Photoshop" in this review is used somewhat loosely, and may in certain cases be taken to indicate any fully-featured photo-editor of your choice.   • "catalogue" is the Adobe term for "database" - out of deference to Adobe, I use their language ! The traditional approach   •   photo-editing software - such as Photoshop CS2/3 Traditional photo-editing programs open the full-resolution file; at the end if any changes have been made, the file has to be re-written and closed.  In computer terms these are painfully slow processes. Also while the photo is "open" a large amount of memory is consumed, which can potentially slow everything down. If wanting to compare or work on more than one photo at once, then multiple photos have to be opened, arranged in some way, and then closed. If wanting to make similar changes to other photos, then (using Photoshop language) it is necessary to tediously record a set of actions, and then replay them using automate and batch.  It's easy to make mistakes when recording actions.  Execution of the batch process is slow, as each photo has to be opened, modified, and then saved.  Although actions can be saved for re-use, by definition these only deal with highly specific editing requirements.  For these reasons, it is probably only advanced users who make significant use of batch processing, and then only when the volume of photos involved makes the effort worthwhile. A major problem of traditional photo-editing approach with JPEG is that adjustments degrade the photo forever.  Revisable formats such as Photoshop PSD bear the penalty of generating huge files. •   RAW file converters A benefit of RAW file conversion is that the original photo is not changed.  This is achieved by placing only the change instructions in either a central catalogue, or secondary individual files (in Adobe language, a sidecar). •   viewers - such as Bridge These are faster because they don't open files, but instead render preview photos by simply reading the file.  To make things even faster if returning to a directory of photos, most viewers create a small file of thumbnails. The Lightroom approach   This builds on the techniques used by RAW file converters and viewers, namely   • Photo files entrusted into the Lightroom environment are not opened and therefore not changed in any way.   • Details about the photo such as its location, metadata, keywords, sort filters, and editing information, are stored in a catalogue.   • Editing information is in the form of compact instructions, e.g. "set the colour temperature to 4000°K".   • A read-only process generates preview photos, prints, and files for editing in other programs such as Photoshop.   Consequences of this approach include   • The pristine original photo is preserved forever (unless deleted of course)   • All editing changes are fully revisable.   • Compared to editing in traditional revisable formats such as PSD, the amount of additional disk space occupied by editing is negligible.   • Likewise, the amount of memory involved in editing is far less.   • The copying of editing instructions to other photos is fast and amazingly simple using the synchronise tool.   • It's possible to view both the "original" and "edited" photo at the same time; indeed Lightroom's options for making comparisons are in many respects superior to Photoshop.   • The comparatively slow processes of printing or creating edited files tend to get done at the very end as an efficient batch job, which is an excellent point to take a break and make a cup of tea.  This is in contrast to traditional photo-editors, where in moving from photo to photo, you have to sit around as files are opened and saved.   As should now be apparent, Lightroom has lots going in its favour when it comes to fast efficient operation.  But it does not end there, as the whole workflow is designed for speed. During the "import" process for example, Lightroom offers options for gathering as much additional information as possible, e.g. to   • add keywords global to the import such as "Wedding" and "Smith"   • add preset user metadata such as copyright and contact information   • apply preset editing, such as convert to Black and White.   All revisable later, of course ! While importing, a read-only process renders preview photos.  This is broadly similar to what occurs in Bridge, although on my PC I find that Lightroom is better behaved, allowing me to get on more effectively with other things. Anyone familiar with Adobe's Camera RAW converter will be aware that preview photos are not as nice to work on as those in Photoshop - which is presumably an artefact of the read-only process.  By some minor miracle Adobe have avoided this problem in Lightroom. Once imported, photos can be ranked, sorted, metadata and searchable keywords added - similar to features in Bridge, but presented in a more accessible way.  However, there are other methods of using Lightroom that don't necessitate the tiresome and potentially off-putting job of entering keywords. Photo editing facilities are limited, but cover the essential tasks needed for proofing, such as to adjust exposure, colour, and cropping.  Obviously it would be nice to have more features; one might even suspect that commercial pressures had some bearing on leaving things out !  However, the over-riding limitation is the amount and complexity of edit information that can be realistically stored within a fully revisable catalogue.  All things considered, I would say that Adobe have struck a reasonable balance. To finish the package there are options to develop a slide show, web output, print, or export.  Again, these activities don't change the original files.  The originals are simply read and the editing instructions applied to whatever type of output is selected - while you make that cup of tea ! More about Lightroom's editing capabilities   In trying to understand Lightroom's editing capabilities, it is helpful to make a distinction between • adjustments which modify the entire photo — entire-photo      & • adjustments which modify specific parts of a photo — localised corrections   For straightforward editing applications Lightroom has adequate entire-photo editing capabilities, such as to adjust colour balance, exposure, and contrast.  A superb histogram and tone curve graph are thrown in for good measure.  Although the tools are not as comprehensive as in Photoshop, they are in many respects more sophisticated and easier to apply.  The workflow is also faster, as tools are presented in a continuous scroll-down strip, instead of having to jump around, as in Photoshop. The localised corrections editing tools are limited to crop, rotate, red-eye, clone and heal.  The crop/rotate tools are a delight - in many respects better implemented than in Photoshop !  The others are somewhat basic, and will probably be of interest only if you don't intend to perform further editing in Photoshop.  The clone/heal tools, incidentally, are primarily intended for dust spot removal.  There are no masks or layers - although don't be fooled by this - most of the functionality provided by adjustment layers is provided, except for the adjustment masks. More about workflow   It is probably no exaggeration to say that Lightroom will be a life-changing experience for photographers processing large sets of photos from a photo-shoot, and here is why. One of the most powerful features of Lightroom is the synchronise tool which allows change instructions made on one photo to be copied almost instantly within the catalogue to any number of other selected photos.  Typically, this would be things like to adjust the colour temperature and exposure, and apply curve corrections. For photographers in a hurry, the initial workflow is therefore :-   1. Create a new catalogue and Import   2. Select a typical photo and optimise colour balance, exposure, and any other settings that apply to the entire-photo.   3. Select the other photos to have the same treatment   4. Operate the synchronise button.   Now even a child could do that !   The speed of operation is impressive.  In a test involving 200 RAW photos imported from their current location on my hard drive (this caveat is to obviate the huge difference that could arise if "copying" files), this took under 5 minutes on my laptop (dual Core, 1.73 GHz, 2G Memory).  Most of the time was rendering the preview photos, and I spent one minute on the optimise process (on which I could have obviously spent more time). Having standardised a set of photos, it is then possible to go back and make individual tweaks.  Without the time overhead to open and save photos, you can for example, do a crop/rotate in about 20 seconds, and then immediately move to the next photo.  In terms of speed, impossible in Photoshop ! Another impossibility in Photoshop - every editing "change" on every selected photo, regardless of the file format, can be reset almost instantly. All of this is possible because of the catalogue, and the simplicity and speed of the synchronise tool.  No more clunky action / automate / batch to contend with ! Demarcation between Lightroom & traditional photo-editors   Given that editing functionality overlaps, one has to be pragmatic and develop a strategy as to where it's best to do things in Lightroom, and where best to do in a fully featured photo-editor such as Photoshop. Once it comes to fine photo-editing adjustments, I personally prefer Photoshop.  Partly this is because the Lightroom controls don't operate as smoothly as those within Photoshop (one of my few criticisms of Lightroom); but also there is the benefit of having all the extra controls. My strategy therefore, is to use Lightroom first for standardising and then for further individual tweaks that are obvious to do, but not fussing to get things exactly right.  I then export to Photoshop, with the benefit that the amount of additional work required has been minimised to an extent that is probably unachievable using a conventional RAW converter and automation. Having said all of that, and here is the surprise, there are some entire-photo adjustments and effects which are better to make in Lightroom, so it is very much a case getting to understand which product is best for specific types of adjustment. Screen Size   As anyone sorting a large number of photographs on a conventional lightbox will appreciate, it helps to have plenty of space in which to view, compare, and shuffle photos.  Lightroom is just the same, in particular when using Library view in which one option is to present lots of thumbnails for sorting and ranking. Surrounding the central viewing area, Lightroom places four primary operating panels, one each to the left and right, and one each to the top and bottom.  As these absorb a significant amount of the potential picture viewing area, there is a feature for these to automatically withdraw when the cursor is not within their display vicinity.  Frankly, I find this irritating, so I normally change the behaviour option to manual, in effect forcing the picture viewing area to its smallest size. The issue then becomes, as to whether the residual central viewing area is sufficiently large for displaying lots of thumbnails at a respectable size.  As you would expect, this depends partly on your screen size, but more specifically on the number of pixels available in the vertical and horizontal directions of your screen. Let there be no doubt on this.  Despite the valiant attempts of Lightroom to display/hide the side panels, the fact of life is that the more pixels the better. My normal screen is a whopping 1920 x 1200 pixels, which is superb.  My laptop however, is 1280 x 800 pixels, which I find frustrating to use with Lightroom.  In fact the problem is not so much the reduced central viewing area, but the left and right side panels, which require more scrolling activity and other tricks to access controls. Edit using an editor of your choice   In recognition of Lightroom's limited picture-editing capabilities, there is an inbuilt facility to temporarily transfer to a fully-featured photo-editor, after which you return to Lightroom.  Depending on the format of the original photo, up to three options will be offered :-   • Edit original. (Edit the original file.  Lightroom adjustments will not be visible)   • Edit a copy. (Edit a copy of the original file.  Lightroom adjustments will not be visible)   • Edit a copy with Lightroom adjustments. (Apply the Lightroom adjustments to a copy of the file and edit that one.  The copy will not contain layers or alpha channels)   The presumption behind these options is that Lightroom becomes your control point for everything, even to the extent of using Lightroom to generate slide shows and web content.  Later in this review I describe an alternative (and perhaps contentious) strategy.  In the meantime, the following section describes another method which can be used to transfer photos to an external editor, or suitably formatted for other applications (such as web or slide show). Export   The export function in Lightroom is extremely comprehensive — you can   • Select the output destination, creating a sub-folder if required   • Rename files on the fly using preset or customisable templates   • Convert to JPEG, PSD, TIFF, DNG   • Set the color space to sRGB, AdobeRGB (1998), or ProPhoto RGB   • Preserve the original resolution, or resize.  If to resize, then various constraints can be placed on the maximum dimension, which is most helpful for creating web or slide show output.   • Add a copyright watermark   • Configure the amount of metadata to be embedded. Slideshow   Lightroom provides a basic slide show builder facility that can run on the PC from within Lightroom, or alternatively there is a pdf format export function. Frankly, I think it's all a little too basic and restrictive.  From my limited experience of producing slide shows, PicturesToExe by WnSoft is more flexible, cheap, and extremely easy to use. Print   Lightroom offers a comprehensive facility for batch photo printing. Web   Lightroom provides several web site builders for various layouts of gallery utilising selected photos.  Whilst these certainly enable the novice to create a quick presence on the web, or as a viewer for distribution on CD etc., I suspect the novelty will quickly wear off.  For serious website applications where a standardised file format is required, the Lightroom Export function is the tool to use, and does the job superbly. First use of Lightroom - file setup strategy   As intimated in the introduction to this review, on first using Lightroom you are confronted with major and potentially troublesome decisions to make.  The following section is therefore to help you understand how Lightroom can be configured the way you want to operate.  Apologies that this part of the review is fairly detailed, but this is because it was the aspect of Lightroom which troubled me the most when I began using it; indeed it's what inspired me to write this review.  However please note, you will need a good understanding of file handling manipulation to put the following suggested strategies into practice.   Catalogues & File Locations   When first opened, Lightroom creates a default catalogue and uses the "My photo's" area for images, i.e. buried where control freaks like me don't like !  Fortunately, all of this can be changed.     Import Options   Perhaps not quite as you would expect, the method of import plays a large part in determining your file storage strategy.  The critical options are :-   • Import photos at their current location   • Copy photos to a new location and import   • Move photos to a new location and import   • Create a backup somewhere else   Import & Catalogue strategies   The key points to note are :-    1. You can have as many catalogues as you like, located wherever you like.    2. One giant catalogue might be a good approach if you have a library on many subjects, and want to be able to search for photos using the keyword and ranking features.    3. At the other extreme, if you tend to work on self-contained projects you could create lots of project-specific catalogues and not bother with keywords (unless to help with sorting / ranking).    4. Alternatively you can import by directory name, in which case each directory name will then have its own select panel within the catalogue.    5. Catalogues can be located either centrally, or co-located with the photos to which each catalogue relates.    6. Centrally located catalogues might be easier to find and backup, but knowing where the photos are is another matter !    7. Co-located catalogues keep everything together; ideal for self-contained projects or swapping between PC's.    8. Photos can be imported into as many catalogues as you like.  Useful if you need to work on photos in totally different ways, or for a one-off project.    9. Catalogues can be deleted without affecting the associated photos.   10. The "import from current location" option might be best for photos already stored on your PC, as nothing changes.   11. When loading new files onto your PC from a camera card, the standard procedure is to use Lightroom's "copy photos to a new location and import" option.  Alternatively, you can effect the transfer using whatever technique you normally use, and then at a time of your choosing use Lightroom's "import photos at their current location" option.  This helps get over the issue that you can carry on doing exactly what you were comfortable with before, and don't have to suddenly commit everything to Lightroom.  The only caveat is that if you should ever delete a photo within Lightroom, think VERY CAREFULLY when asked if you wish to "REMOVE" or "DELETE FROM DISK", as the latter will do exactly what it says !   12. If you subsequently move files, Lightroom provides a mechanism for re-pointing to the new location.   13. You can use Lightroom's backup facilities, or any other scheme of your choosing.   In summary, the only limitations are your imagination and experience. Editing strategies - for dinosaurs who resist change !   I've placed this section towards the end of the review, because I have one final but very important observation to make about Lightroom. New users may initially be put off by Adobe's underlying presumption that Lightroom should become the control point for everything you do with photo-editing.  However laudable this objective, I suspect that there are many photographers, myself included, who are not prepared to, or are not ready to go that far, but otherwise will find certain features within Lightroom extremely valuable.  Throughout this review, emphasis has accordingly been placed on the features of Lightroom that enable you to work in other ways.  In particular, to show that :-   • You can create new catalogues for individual projects, not bothering with keywords.   • Importing from current location allows you to utilise Lightroom without changing your file storage and location strategy.   • The process of importing is sufficiently quick as not to be a chore; indeed no worse and probably better behaved than waiting for Bridge to settle down after being given a new set of images to render.   • Use Lightroom to standardise and then tweak images, not necessarily bothering to get things exactly right.  Superb for anyone working in RAW and with high volumes to process to a tight deadline.   • Then use the export utility to generate new files in an appropriate format for     — editing with a traditional photo-editor,   or     — the final product, such as standardised images for web pages         or a slide show.  Note: This assumes that you will be         using third-party software, rather than Lightroom's inbuilt but         somewhat basic facilities for web and slide show generation.   If editing, then afterwards you can then either carry on as in the past, or if you want to produce standardised photos for a slide show or web pages, you could   • Re-import into Lightroom, using a new catalogue   • Re-export using the appropriate template   Although this may sound clunky, in practice it's fast and straightforward, especially once the natural inhibition to create (and then optionally delete) catalogues is overcome. Who should purchase Lightroom ?   I have heard it suggested that for anyone without CS2/3, an alternative option is to purchase Lightroom and Elements.  I have to say that I don't quite follow that logic.  Once you go beyond the editing capabilities of Lightroom, you have to be driven by whatever finishing tool(s) best suit your needs.  For many, this will be CS2/3, and the appearance of Lightroom on the market hasn't changed that. If you don't deal in high volumes, don't shoot in RAW, or don't need a flexible find facility, Lightroom might only be of marginal benefit.  As a stand-alone photo-editor, it would definitely have limitations. But it is not quite that simple.  Unlike Photoshop, Lightroom is optimised for photographers.  Everything is simpler and more user-friendly.  Indeed, because Lightroom is so simple to use, it might even be the photo-editor of choice for novices, in which case the optional decision is whether to add Elements. For anyone who works extensively in RAW, then consider Lightroom as a replacement for your existing RAW converter.  A bonus is that one can then operate with a mixture of RAW, DNG, JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files - and the really spooky thing is that you can't tell the difference when working on them, other than a few editing options operate in a slightly different way.  Another advantage compared to working with a traditional RAW file editor, is that you can select any preview to start working on immediately. For anyone involved in high-volume deadline-critical proofing, then Lightroom is a no-brainer !  The same is probably true if you specialise in slide shows, the web, or bulk printing, and only need to crop and standardise photos. In the end, only you can decide whether Lightroom is worth the investment, but I hope that my observations have helped.  To help decide, you can download a free trial from the Adobe website.