Lightroom 2 RAW vs CS4 RAW

[Jeff Worsnop]

My first post here.
I have PSE6 and CS. CS does not support RAW processing of my Sony Alpha 100.
I have a trial version of Lihjtroom 2. I think the RAW processor tools are excellent.
Question is. Does CS4 have the same RAW tools as Lightroom 2?
Cheers
Jeff

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Jeff,

Welcome to CiC, good to have another active member.

Someone who knows for sure will be along shortly (to put me straight), but for now I'll say "I believe so", i.e. LR2.2 = CS4 for RAW, both using ACR5.3, although since that's only just out, it may get sold with ACR5.1 or 5.2 and you'd need to update ACR online.

I have PSE6 and I'd be fairly surprised if ACR4.3 in that doesn't support the Sony A100, given their similar ages. I guess you probably knew that and that's how you're working for now, but just thought I'd mention it.

Anyway, welcome once again,

[Jeff Worsnop]

Hi Jeff,

Welcome to CiC, good to have another active member.

Someone who knows for sure will be along shortly (to put me straight), but for now I'll say "I believe so", i.e. LR2.2 = CS4 for RAW, both using ACR5.3, although since that's only just out, it may get sold with ACR5.1 or 5.2 and you'd need to update ACR online.

I have PSE6 and I'd be fairly surprised if ACR4.3 in that doesn't support the Sony A100, given their similar ages. I guess you probably knew that and that's how you're working for now, but just thought I'd mention it.

Anyway, welcome once again,

Thanks for reply.
I expressed myself badly. CS doesn't recognise Alpha 100 RAW and can not be updated to do so. My PSE6 does indeed support Alpha 100RAW.
I am especially interested to know if the features such as the brush tool, gradient tool and spot removal tool are included in the CS4 RAW editor.
Cheers
Jeff

[Colin Southern]

Hi Jeff,

Great to have you with us - welcome to the forums

Lightroom and Photoshop (respective versions) use the same RAW engine.

Probably the easist solution for you though is to simply convert your RAW captures to Adobe's DNG format (using their free converter) - you'll then be able to open them in any version of Photoshop CS.

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/?promoid=DNRIB

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...&promoid=DNRIF

[Jeff Worsnop]

Hi Jeff,

Great to have you with us - welcome to the forums

Lightroom and Photoshop (respective versions) use the same RAW engine.

Probably the easist solution for you though is to simply convert your RAW captures to Adobe's DNG format (using their free converter) - you'll then be able to open them in any version of Photoshop CS.

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/?promoid=DNRIB

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...&promoid=DNRIF

Colin
Got the message file format not recognised -or similar - when I try to open DNG files converted from my ACR files.
I'll start again from the beginning to see how it goes. However CS does not support the later versions of Adobe RAW and the CS RAW has no more features than PSE6 RAW.
But I'll do that later 'cause I'm off to Liverpool airport to meet the Budapest flight.
Cheers
Jeff

[Colin Southern]

Got the message file format not recognised -or similar - when I try to open DNG files converted from my ACR files.

Hi Jeff,

You just need to update the plugin within photoshop.

Take a look at ...

Photoshop CS2 Error When Loading DNG Files

However CS does not support the later versions of Adobe RAW

Correct - Adobe's policy is to not provide backward compatability; but luckily the DNG option side-steps this nicely (and can be used to move files from your card and rename them all in "one foul swoop").

and the CS RAW has no more features than PSE6 RAW.

I'm not sure what's available in all versions of each, but my understanding is that some versions of ACR hosted in PSE limit the user to only the first two converter tabs.

[Hansm]

I use Lightroom already from of its introduction. It's not only a RAW converter tool but it can do much more for you.
It has very nice tools in it to create slideshows, web albums and most important: a database.
You have to learn this program but it's very powerfull.
I can only recommend it as extra tool in your digital workflow.
The outputfiles from Lightroom you can use in any other photoeditor program.
But again this tool has a learning curve.
Otherwise take a look at lightroomkillertips.
Very clear tutorials.
If you take a look on my website I used Lightroom to create my photoalbums.

[Jeff Worsnop]

I use Lightroom already from of its introduction. It's not only a RAW converter tool but it can do much more for you.
It has very nice tools in it to create slideshows, web albums and most important: a database.
You have to learn this program but it's very powerfull.
I can only recommend it as extra tool in your digital workflow.
The outputfiles from Lightroom you can use in any other photoeditor program.
But again this tool has a learning curve.
Otherwise take a look at lightroomkillertips.
Very clear tutorials.
If you take a look on my website I used Lightroom to create my photoalbums.

Thanks for the reply.
I use my trial version in the develop and print modules which I find excellent.
However the question is whether CS4 has the same tools as Lightroom in the develop module.
Cheers
Jeff

[Colin Southern]

However the question is whether CS4 has the same tools as Lightroom in the develop module.

They're both excellent programs, but designed for different things ...

- Lightroom is strong on organising and workflow but "only" offers medium strength photo adjustment capability (although more than adequate for any reasonably well-captured image)

- Photoshop on the other hand doesn't offer any organisational tools (unless used in conjunction with Bridge, which handles that side of it), but is "super-strong" in the photo adjustment category (assuming you know how to get the most out of it).

So it again comes down to one of those "right tool for the job" situations: Lightroom suits a collegue of mine's wedding photography workflow perfectly and yet Photoshop / Bridge combo suits my landscape shooting workflow much better.

[Bill44]

There is also the relative costs to be taken into consideration. I often wonder how many are swayed into buying Photoshop by its prestige value, when Lightroom may be all they ever really need.
I'm not decrying Photoshop by any means, it's just that some people may be buying a D9 bulldozer when all they really need is a mid size tractor.

BTW. I was given, by a very good friend, a fully paid for version of Lightroom 2. I could on occasion use Photoshop, but being on a retirement pension I can't see it happening.

[Jeff Worsnop]

They're both excellent programs, but designed for different things ...

- Lightroom is strong on organising and workflow but "only" offers medium strength photo adjustment capability (although more than adequate for any reasonably well-captured image)

- Photoshop on the other hand doesn't offer any organisational tools (unless used in conjunction with Bridge, which handles that side of it), but is "super-strong" in the photo adjustment category (assuming you know how to get the most out of it).

So it again comes down to one of those "right tool for the job" situations: Lightroom suits a collegue of mine's wedding photography workflow perfectly and yet Photoshop / Bridge combo suits my landscape shooting workflow much better.

The question concerned the tools available to edit in RAW. I didn't make that clear.
I have done the obvious thing which I should have done first, and gone to the Adobe website for information which is that CS4 does indeed have most of the Lightroom tools and edits non destructively in the RAW editor.
I agree that Lightroom is the obvious choice for photographers given that photographers have no need for many, if not most, CS4 features.

Lightroom plus PSE6 does what i want - all I need to do is buy Lightroom!
Cheers
Jeff

[Dave Humphries]

There is also the relative costs to be taken into consideration. I often wonder how many are swayed into buying Photoshop by its prestige value, when Lightroom may be all they ever really need.

You could be right Bill, although they do, as Colin explains, do quite different things.

As far as I can see, Elements does both jobs to a reasonable degree,
a) it will do most of the stuff people say LR2 does for them, the exception maybe RAW workflow, although it does use a stripped down ACR to handle RAW
b) it does a fair chunk of what CS4 can be used for (that LR2 cannot)

And it's 1/6 price of CS4 and 1/3 price of LR2.

[Dave Humphries]

Lightroom plus PSE6 does what i want - all I need to do is buy Lightroom!

If you do Jeff, I'd be very interested to know what you get with LR2, beyond enhanced RAW editing, that's of benefit, given the library features in PSE6.

Keep in touch,

[Bill44]

If you do Jeff, I'd be very interested to know what you get with LR2, beyond enhanced RAW editing, that's of benefit, given the library features in PSE6.

Keep in touch,

If you have the database style of library in PSE6 that LR2 has then you may have a reason to like it.
The Library function in LR2 is quite often overlooked by many people who are more interested in the PP features of a program. If you use the Library as it was intended to be used, ie enter the metadata key words associated with your shot, then in 18 months time when you are searching for "That" shot you will find it in seconds, as opposed to spending a lot of time searching individual files.

[Colin Southern]

I agree that Lightroom is the obvious choice for photographers given that photographers have no need for many, if not most, CS4 features.

True for some, but by no means all.

My style of shooting dictates capturing a lot of images around a sunset or sunrise - viewing them in Bridge - and then processing only 1 (sometimes quite extensively) in Photoshop; I wouldn't be able to do what I do in LR.

[Jeff Worsnop]

If you do Jeff, I'd be very interested to know what you get with LR2, beyond enhanced RAW editing, that's of benefit, given the library features in PSE6.

Keep in touch,

The enhanced raw editing is enough to sway me.
I also find the print module to my liking.
I am not interested in the organiser, slideshow or web modules.
I only have the trial version of LR 2.
My understanding is that LR is really intended for professional photographers doing large volumes of, say, wedding pictures rather than amateurs doing small volumes of work.
Cheers
Jeff

[Jeff Worsnop]

True for some, but by no means all.

My style of shooting dictates capturing a lot of images around a sunset or sunrise - viewing them in Bridge - and then processing only 1 (sometimes quite extensively) in Photoshop; I wouldn't be able to do what I do in LR.

OK.
i'm corrected.
I must say I would like a full screen preview so I could delete obvious non keepers when I have been away on holiday for a week or so and need to go through a couple of hundred shots.
Cheers
Jeff

[Davey]

I think what they do with the photos is also important. LR might be good for minor tweaked photos but it's useless for other styles. Eg. LR to my knowledge doesn't sync with illustrator and indesign and if it did it would be very different interface where as pshop is similar and you can edit stuff between them in smooth workflow. Hence anyone using images in design software such as those would be better with ps over lr even if they don't do anything to the photos in pshop that they couldn't in lr. Lr seems great for quick minor/basic tweaks to photos that are then archived, hosted or printed in their base developed state. For those who need more fine tuning with layer masks, particular selective edits, stacks/merged composites and so on also need ps.

[shreds]

Davey is right in so far as PS is required for integration with other parts of the CS and that LR2 is purely for quick edits and cataloguing.

I think that having them both available is very useful, and now with Viveza available as a plug in too, the edits can be carried out using U Points instead of layers this is a much quicker and from my perspective more fluid method of working. (U points already being incorporated in Nikon Capture NX2).

Shame that LR2 cannot go that bit further in editing without the cost of CS4.

[Jeff Worsnop]

I think what they do with the photos is also important. LR might be good for minor tweaked photos but it's useless for other styles. Eg. LR to my knowledge doesn't sync with illustrator and indesign and if it did it would be very different interface where as pshop is similar and you can edit stuff between them in smooth workflow. Hence anyone using images in design software such as those would be better with ps over lr even if they don't do anything to the photos in pshop that they couldn't in lr. Lr seems great for quick minor/basic tweaks to photos that are then archived, hosted or printed in their base developed state. For those who need more fine tuning with layer masks, particular selective edits, stacks/merged composites and so on also need ps.

I'm not interested in design or indeed anything but photographic prints.
LR enables quite a lot of photo manipulation. Plenty for most photo purposes but does lack layers which I find useful. The print module is, for me, a very good application and superior tp PSE