Photographic technique for digital shooters.
by Tim Grey©
Q. Since Lightroom, Bridge and CS3 all overlap and yet each offer distinct uses, what is your feeling on each program and how would you integrate the use of these programs into a compact workflow? It’s nice to have all the bells and whistles but time constraints necessitate efficient processing and archiving of my photos. Is Lightroom going to the answer to this?
==========
A. Photoshop and Bridge are a package deal (Bridge comes with
Photoshop), so those need to be taken as one unit. Lightroom is, of course, a
new and separate application.
First let's take a look at what is possible with Lightroom in terms of core features. With it you can manage your images (sort, apply metadata, search, etc.), perform basic optimization (tonal adjustments, color adjustments, and basic image cleanup), produce slideshows, create web galleries, and generate prints (one per page or many per page). You might read that description and realize that Photoshop and Bridge are capable of doing all of those things on some level. You can manage images with Bridge, including the ability to assign metadata (which can also be done in Photoshop), you can most certainly optimize your images with Photoshop, you can create basic slideshows with Photoshop saving the result as a PDF, you can create web galleries with Photoshop using the included automation tool, and you can print images either individually or by creating print packages or contact sheets.
So, in a general sense you could say that both the Photoshop/Bridge combination and Lightroom do the same things. At that point we need to consider what the differences are. You probably realize that Photoshop is significantly more powerful than Lightroom when it comes to optimizing your images. Lightroom doesn't provide adjustment layers (though it does utilize non-destructive editing), so it lacks the flexibility of Photoshop. Lightroom also does not allow you to apply targeted adjustments via masking, nor does it allow you to composite images together. So when it comes to powerful image optimization, Photoshop is the clear winner. The only question to consider here is whether you need the power of Photoshop, or if perhaps Lightroom provides all the optimization you really need.
When you consider image-management features, Lightroom has the advantage. Bridge provides a great deal of the functionality of Lightroom, but not all of it. It isn't a night and day difference, but Lightroom certainly comes out ahead.
In the output options (slideshows, web galleries, and prints), Lightroom is also a clear winner. It provides much more customization for these various output methods, giving you tremendous flexibility in the output you produce compared to Lightroom (though third-party tools still have a significant advantage over both the Photoshop/Bridge combination and Lightroom in these categories).
I think you also need to consider workflow and ease-of-use here as well. Lightroom has been designed as a new application from the ground up, with considerable thought to usability. Photoshop certainly has a reputation as not being the most user-friendly application out there, and many of the features that have been around for a long time retain their "not-so-easy-to-learn" quality. Also, Lightroom offers an end-to-end workflow in a single cohesive package, with an easy flow through each stage of the process. With the Photoshop/Bridge combination you're piecing together a workflow with individual tools that don't feel cohesive. You very much feel that you're performing each stage of the workflow with a different tool.
Considering Lightroom is the new entrant here, I think it makes sense to first consider whether you can work without Lightroom. The way I think about it is to consider how often you share your images via slideshows, web galleries, or prints. If the answer is "frequently", and you often need to process a group of images for that output, then Lightroom is probably worthy of very serious consideration. For example, a wedding photographer who does a fair number of weddings per year and shares those images in various ways with the clients would see a tremendous benefit in Lightroom. The hobbyist photographer who doesn't generally produce too much output with the images might not see as much benefit. But if you want to have a smooth and efficient workflow, Lightroom provides just that. I think it is definitely worth downloading the 30-day trial so you can explore it for yourself and make an informed decision based on that.
If you decide Lightroom is right for you, the next question is whether you need Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements). To me the answer for most photographers is still "yes", because you need to have the ability to apply targeted adjustments to your images. But if you think you can get by with the optimization limitations of Lightroom, I would suggest sticking with your current version of Photoshop instead of upgrading, work with Lightroom, and see if you feel you're missing anything that requires you to go back into Photoshop before you upgrade. But my feeling is that photographers who will benefit from Lightroom are still going to want to keep Photoshop around, until Lightroom gets updated with more powerful features.
