Final Verdict on Adobe Lightroom 2: YES!
We are trying to improve our digital photography workflow. I already tried Apple Aperture 2 for one month, but rejected it for several reasons that I outlined in this article: Final Verdict on Aperture 2.
So now I have completed my evaluation of Lightroom 2 on a Macintosh platform. After using the 30-day free trial of Lightroom 2.5 , we decided to purchase Lightroom 2 and use it for the majority of our post-production workflow.
Easy Transition from Bridge and Adobe Camera RAW
Anyone familiar with Bridge would be comfortable using the Library Module for rating and flagging images. And anyone familiar with ACR will find the similar commands in the Develop Module. The only significant difference between Bridge+ACR and LR2 is that LR2 uses a database and requires importing images.
Good Learning Resources
There is no shortage of books, video clips, blogs, podcasts and websites about LR2. This makes it easy to learn how to do things. It seems like it is becoming an industry standard. Also many photography schools have adopted it, such as Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara, California.
Apple’s Aperture 2 was a great program, but there were three issues that we had with Aperture 2 that were solved by going with Lightroom 2 (LR2).
1. Backward Compatible with CS2 Bridge
Our old workflow used Adobe CS2 Bridge plus Adobe Camera Raw. We have hundreds or thousands of hours invested in editing RAW and DNG files. When I open up our previously edited files in LR2, all of the edits and metadata are intact. Yay! This saves having to redo all that post work.
2. Lightroom Can Write to XMP Files amd Update DNG Files
A major shortcoming of Apeture 2 was that it could not write the edits to the DNG files. This creates a problem when handing off DNG files to downstream workers, for example a photo retoucher. In fact, its not uncommon for a customer to ask for all the DNG files and have someone else do most of the post-production. LR2 has a command to write xmp sidecar files or update DNG files. Yay!
3. Lightroom 2 has Camera Profiles
The final shortcoming of Aperture 2 was the lack of camera profiles. It is near impossible to get the raw conversion that you want without the developer software knowing which camera was used. Now every raw converter produces a slightly different JPEG, and some are better than others, but my main requirement is that a picture that was shot with correct white balance and exposure should look excellent with default settings. It is a waste of time to take a perfectly exposed picture, only to have the raw developer screw it up so you have to move all the sliders around.
Still Think Database is Overkill
I still feel that the database philosophy is overly complex for our needs. It may be wonderful for a photographer that has a stock library with varied subjects that needs to find the needle in a haystack. They can keyword to their hearts content.
But we don’t need any of that. Our library is large, but hierarchical. We have a a few collections of photos from different sources, and within each collection are a few hundred photosets, and within each photoset there are 100 to 500 images. There is no need for maintaining a vast database down to each individual shot.
Final Verdict
So in the end we decided that Lightroom 2 meets most of our needs.We have a couple of other RAW converters that we’ll use occasionally like RAW Developer and Nikon ViewNX, but LR2 will take over the heavy lifting from CS2 Bridge plus Adobe Camera RAW which has served well for the past few years.
