Bridge or Lightroom

[CurtisMcHale]

I wondered what people use and why. I really wish they talked and I could use both at this point but I haven't had them for long.

[TORCH511]

I have a friend who is a professional photographer. He has progressed to the level where he does studio work, and has a staff of photographers that work for him, mostly during the wedding season. I went to visit him a few weeks ago and it was the first time since he implemented Lightroom.

He has no idea how he managed before.

He walked me through his workflow and I was really impressed with how much easier Lightroom made his job and I could see why he was so eager to sing it's praises. If you are into photography professionally, I would not hesitate to recommend it.

If you are a hobbiest or recriational photographer, and do not have or wnat to spend the $$$, but already have Photoshop, then there is nothing wrong with bridge for viewing collections of files. I use it a lot when working with textures and whatnot.

[CurtisMcHale]

Honestly I have both, more $ than I know what to do with. I was wondering what and why.

[GuyB]

Hi CurtisMcHale,

This might help you, at least for Lightroom : it's a good review and there is also a link to another review of Aperture

http://www.macworld.com/2007/02/reviews/lightroom/index.php

[Photowave]

I use lightroom and fine it amazing. I correct and play with things in lightroom, before I even go to Photoshop CS3. The things you can do with digital negatives is a long way from film. You have so many ways to file your images. You can one image out of thousands in less than a minute. If you file them right.

[TORCH511]

What I find amazing... my 500Gb external drive cost 240 bucks. Lightroom costs 300. All be told, I probably have about $1200 worth of Negfile pages in a library of 3 ring binders with my negs, contact sheets, 4x5 film positives...not to mention the cost of the developing and printing, though I did most of it myslef in my old darkroom (and we won't get into the cost of THAT)

Even if you drop 3 grand on a decent camera and a couple of lenses, and another 3 grand on a adequate computer with Photoshop and Lightroom... by the time you get to the number of photos that I have stored the old fashioned way, plus film costs, developing. By the time you get that many you will have spent so much more.

Digital requires more up front costs, but translate to savings later on.

[Lou Wrench]

Hi I usually visit the InDesign Forum, but I came here to ask… guess what? My wife and I are fairly keen amature photograhers and use iPhoto for filing etc. my question is should we be switching to Lightroom or Apeture? and why?

Lou

[The Repro Kid]

I've given my take on this a few times Lou, and I know I usually just get a lot of eye rolling :rolleyes: from the photo crowd, but I'll throw it out there again. I don't take as many photos a "real" photographer does, so I use Extensis Portfolio to catalog my photos. I already use Portfolio to catalog my Art Jobs, so it's very easy for me to make catalogs of my photos as well, and I don't have to spend any additional money and I already know how to use the program. It's probably the most comprehensive and yet easy to use cataloging programs out there.

Someone recently wrote in to respond to a similar post oh mine and stated that Portfolio was "cumbersome." Well that comment sent me into a ROFLOL response. Portfolio keywords your files for you, you don't even need to enter keywords, it uses the file name and the names of folder containing the files to enter default keywords for you. That's cumbersome ??? I'll admit, if don't already know how to use you may need to spend 15 minutes with the manual. Maybe that's what they meant?

Oh well, there's my 2¢.

[staciecd]

I was a huge Bridge fan. I tried the Lightroom beta and hated it. But Scott Kelby's book and blog finally convinced me to give Lightroom another chance - and I don't know what I did without it. First, for managing photos, it's the way to go. The collections alone help me to organize, tag, rate, and label photos. Second, the developer tool is just like Camera Raw in Photoshop and sometimes, I don't even need to bring my photos into photoshop. Third, I like that that I make simple web galleries very quickly. I haven't touched Bridge since I got Lightroom.

Hope this helps.

[The Repro Kid]

OMG she's back! :o

[Techboy]

There are many photo managing softwares, if you must talk about it, you should really compare Apple's Aperture vs Adobe's Bridge vs Lightroom.

If you actually try running all three and compare them side-by-side, you'll noticed they have more features in common than not. Personally, I don't agree with everything Scott Kelby does. He tends to over simplify everything as if there is only one way of doing things.

Managing your personal photo/art work collections should be a personal experience not a "I'll do what this other guy is doing because he is a pro". After actually using and comparing all 3 softwares, I prefer Bridge itself. Just take a closer look at Lightroom and Aperture, it's just a specialize version of what Bridge is already doing. I suppose if you like working only in one program then Lightroom or Aperture is great... but nothing replaces Photoshop for me right now.