Does Adobe's Lightroom replace Photoshop?

by Thomas Theuerkorn, ©May 2007

In February 2007, Adobe finally released Photoshop Lightroom in its final version. Previously, Adobe only offered a plug-in by the name of CameraRAW which is part of Photoshop. This graphics behemoth is not only expensive but also not the easiest to use for larger batches of photos. Until the end of April 2007, Lightroom was available for "only" $199 and designed to lower the resistance against yet another tool in light of the already established titles. However, the strongest competition for Lightroom comes from within Adobe: The latest update of CameraRAW 4.1 now provides the same development functions as Lightroom 1.0. What's left are improved workflow and extra functionality like the slide show and web generator, but is that enough to spend $299 for Lightroom? After all, lawful owners of the pricey Photoshop don't receive any discount towards the purchase of Lighroom despite the similarity in name and application. To keep things simple I am going to refer to Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 1.0, simply as "Lightroom". Consequently, "Photoshop" would then refer to the graphics giant Adobe Photoshop CS3.

Adobe recommends to: "use Lightroom to import, manage, adjust, and present large volumes of digital photographs, and use Photoshop to more thoroughly refine individual images."

[Photoshop?] - Since Photoshop has become a household name for everything related to digital photo editing, Adobe apparently felt that adding this nomenclature to Lightroom is a good choice. It may describe a family of products, but it's in the least confusing as Lightroom--unlike Photoshop Elements--does not provide any editing functionality other than red eye and spot removal and straightening. Similarities are even more so pronounced with the introduction of CameraRAW 4.1 which is the first update for Photoshop CS3 and basically renders the same functionality as Lightroom's "Develop" stage. (Bridge isn't that far off to match most of the "Library" state either.) In essence, Lightroom merges workflow functionality of Adobe Bridge with photo processing of CameraRAW in one stand-alone program. Lightroom is geared towards processing large numbers of pictures with ease and without the expense or complexity of a full blown Photoshop. The slide show and web gallery, however, are unusual to the genre. The print option is also more advanced than in Photoshop.

[Workflow] - Though Lightroom's user guidance is generally excellent, the beginning of a project presents the biggest hurdle. Importing pictures into the Library is mandatory and can only be done via the standard file browser window. It doesn't take much imagination to understand the related hassle of working with a large number of folders and files. Especially if you have doubles and need to evaluate which one to pick before the importing, which is virtually impossible by relying on tiny thumbnails only. Files can stay in their original location, but Lightroom needs to be taught where to look and which one to pick. The included companion tool allows to automatically import pictures as a memory card is inserted. While that's generally a good idea, it doesn't help a bit with existing collections.

Lightroom 1.0 has an odd bug under Windows Vista where the user can be confronted with an apparent inability to import anything. (Error message: “This file was not imported. Could not copy a file to the requested location”) It's an odd bug since simply using a different Organize option like "into one folder" will fix the problem.

Once imported, the Develop stage offers all functions to take your pictures from RAW to processed. Of course all changes are global with exception of the red-eye removal and spot removal. If that's not enough, an external editor can be defined in addition to the mighty Photoshop. For the latter it's worth mentioning that PS is working off a copy and not the original, which is mostly significant for formats other than RAW. Settings can be selectively copied from one picture to a batch of others, which helps to reduce repetitive tasks. Once processed, Lightroom offers three modules that are not exactly typical for a RAW editor. The Slide show is an easy way to present your collection and even export it for use on another computer as a slide show (with transitions). Alternatively one can go directly to the Print step. Selecting layout (i.e. multiples per page) and print option directly from within Lightroom is an easy way to get prints (to which one even can automatically add a logo). Another alternative is to publish your collection to the web. It's just as easy as the print layout and using customizable templates makes publishing your pictures a snap. Both Print and Web are unique to Lightroom when comparing it to other RAW editors.

[Interface] - Clean and inviting, Lightroom's interface is nearly perfect with collapsible panels and user guidance that rarely ever requires a glimpse at the manual (at least for users with some prior experience). However, beauty is in a few corners only skin deep since Lightroom is missing some automation for more advanced features (beyond the histogram based adjustments). On the one hand, that's also responsible for the great rendering speed and overall responsiveness. (The included zoom function is virtually instant, and many controls render real-time previews while changing parameters.) On the other hand, adjustments like chromatic aberration can get tedious since you will have to find the worst case and then move the sliders manually until it's good. That sounds a bit easier than it occasionally is. Yet, the ability to maximize the work surface by selectively hiding any panel is a great helper for users with limited real estate.

Adobe's expertise and the large user base resulted in an excellent user interface that's very approachable and easy to navigate. The ranking system in Lightroom is the most extensive implementation in any RAW editor to date and not only does it sport the typical 5 star rating, a well accepted system to distinguish 5 different quality levels that's now even implemented in Windows Vista, but certainly has its roots for Adobe in the venerable Bridge organizer that's included with CS2 or CS3. So does color tagging which adds another level of differentiation to Lightroom and allows to either separate the pictures within one rating, or simply categorize them by type or theme (i.e. portrait or landscape).

[Functions] - Lightroom excels in mainly color and exposure correction. The all too important tone curve is the best implementation in any program so far. While it works the same as others, the range is divided into four ranges and the changes to the curve on the respective zone is expressed by an overlaid band which symbolizes the affected portion of the curve. This is very handy to judge the overlapping effect of curve changes on highlights, shadows and mid-tones, but mostly relevant for those who need a little reminder. Overall, color rendering is one of the best in any program and preserves some softness for pleasing transitions. Sharpening is rather traditional and while of good quality the typical halos are still quite visible when overdone. Localized contrast adjustment is not available, which sometimes helps to sharpen a picture without halos.

Automation is relatively scarce and doesn't reach further than letting Lightroom determine the settings for the Basic panel (exposure, saturation etc.). It's also possible to reduce the work load by selectively applying certain settings to multiple picture from a master picture. Presets are aimed at getting the user close to a certain look (i.e. Cyano Type) but with only ten different styles it's a bit less "complete" than some of the competition. This may sound like a major disadvantage, and some competition gets good results quicker (including a nearly perfect automatic correction for chromatic aberration), but most perfectionists will insist to tinker with each picture anyway and the top shots deserve that kind of extra attention.

While lens correction is good for chromatic aberration (color fringes), geometry is not affected by Lightroom. Purists might argue that correcting distortion in the software moves pixels and unavoidable interpolation would ultimately result in reduction of detail (a.k.a. sharpness). At least the included horizon leveling provides both numeric and graphic control. Generally, the biased set of features may be Adobe's way to shoehorn the "need" for Photoshop into Lightroom, but for the workflow that is certainly disruptive. Not only perfectionists will need a secondary editor (or the mighty Photoshop) for distortion corrections while some other RAW editors include more or less complete functionality. Best in class would have to be DxO with its lens correction based on measurements with the Company's venerable Analyzer, a respected tool in the industry to profile lenses.

The typical histogram sports RGB channels and optional indicators (arrows) for blown-out highlights or underexposed shadows. Basic adjustments for exposure, highlight recovery, and fill lights affect the corresponding range in the histogram. Vibrance adds another level of detail to make sure pictures can shine and still remain their natural look. However, it depends on the application whether saturation or vibrance yield better results. Another great feature is the B/W conversion and individual adjustment of 8 color channels (red, orange, yellow, green, aqua, blue, purple, magenta) allow for greater control and better contrast than the typical single color filter. Beyond color control, the adjustment is limited to sharpening, noise reduction, chromatic aberration and vignetting. Neither offers an Auto button to analyze and guess the correct setting, and that costs a lot of time when fighting color fringes. Lightroom doesn't offer any geometry correction, but red eye and spot removal are fortunately available. Zone editing (as seen in Lightzone and somewhat CaptureNX) is currently not available in Lightroom, but Lightzone can be used as an external editor to fill that gap. LightCrafts even offers a special discount to Lightroom owners for the Basic version.

[Performance] - Importing pictures and displaying previews is very fast. While that's mostly due to limited automated processes in the background, it get's you started quickly. The adjustment of each parameter is directly applied to the picture and especially sliders occasionally are a bit lagging since the changes are applied in real time. Of course that depends heavily on the used computer. Lightroom appears to utilize multiple cpu (cores) -- even for single commands. Conversion is typically a computing power intense, though Lightroom seems to defy such rule. Despite converting only one picture at the time--even in batch process--it's only a matter of seconds to process an eight megapixel picture on my Opteron 185 with 2 GByte RAM. Yet, part of the fame may stem from the limited geometry corrections when comparing to the competition, but it's impressive nevertheless.

[Extras] - Besides being a respectable workflow and processing tool, Lightroom also offers two features that are fairly unusual to the genre especially in one package. While printing is often provided in one form or another, Lightroom certainly has one of the most comprehensive automated layout features of any editor. (ACDSee seems to rival that, but other competition is far and in between.) This allows to print pretty much anything from the final picture to an index sheet and anything in between. Setup is very easy to understand and the most intuitive solution so far (with exception of the missing free positioning as seen in CorelDraw X3).

Even more impressive is the integrated web generator which allows to very easily create a gallery from the current library or a selection of picture within that library. This can save a lot of work if you need to get your pictures online quickly with a consistent design. The templates in Lightroom can be slightly customized, but don't replace a full editor like Dreamweaver to maintain a site's looks and overall feel (nor is it database driven). Lightroom creates either a HTML or Flash photo album. Templates are the only way to arrange your gallery. That's often all you would need, though a little more flexibility would be nice. For instance, the thumbnail image size cannot be adjusted and is relatively small. Further, captions are possible but relatively useless since they are global and the same for every picture, unless you choose to display IPTC data which is specific to each picture which of course requires to enter them in the associated Library panel. Other than that it cannot be much easier to generate and publish hundreds of pictures to the web with the click of a button.

[Overall] - Lightroom is a great addition to any digital toolbox that is in need of a workflow tool that basically does it all. Unfortunately, it stops short of being the ultimate tool for photographers by relying on external editors for some of the needed functionality. There are arguments for and against the chosen path and not all are made with the customer in mind. Lightroom is an easy recommendation for everybody who is not going to spend the money that's associated with the venerable albeit pricey Photoshop. Depending on your expertise level, Lightroom is often easier and more intuitive for photographers. A few things are missing which may or may not be essential to your work. (LightZone's selective editing makes it the "perfect" companion for Lightroom, but this combo would still lack distortion correction.)

At retail price of nearly 300.-USD, Photoshop Lightroom isn't cheap. Comparing this price to the included imaging related features makes it one of the most expensive RAW editors in the market. To expect Adobe to release a cheap product, however, would be illusionary and realistically the name stands for consistency and you also pay for the certainty that it will be supported (in one way or another) for years to come. When using Lightroom only as a RAW editor, I feel that there are very competitive offerings. Considering the Slideshow, Print and Web publishing; Adobe's Photoshop Lightroom is essentially two or three programs in one. With that in mind, the price suddenly looks more agreeable (unless you already own more powerful alternatives like Dreamweaver).

With the recent update to CameraRAW 4.1, Lightroom 1.0 lost some of its luster for exisiting Photoshop users since both provide the exact same processing and it remains to be seen if the expected v1.1 update for Lightroom can add more features to justify the investment. (To add insult to the injury, CameraRAW 4.1 currently supports 14 more recent cameras than Lightroom 1.0, like Canon's 1D Mark III. Of course Lightroom 1.1 will catch up and might leap ahead, but it's currently not yet available.) Then again, if you don't intend to spend your money (and time) on Photoshop, Lightroom is an excellent albeit incomplete stand-alone program and you'll probably not jump on every newly released camera either.

Links

• Adobe Photoshop Lightroom product page
• Adobe Digital Negative (DNG) overview
• Sample photo gallery generated with Lightroom
• RAW converter comparison overview
• DxO Optics Pro v4 - Standard review
• LightCrafts LightZone v2 Basic review
• LightCrafts LightZone v3 (full) review
• onOne Genuine Fractals v5 review
• BenVista PhotoZoom Pro v2 review

Type of feedback	-- select -- General Feedback Commercial Interest Request link
Your Name
E-Mail Address
Your Message: