Is anyone using Adobe Lightroom 1.1? What do you think? I have the 30-day free trial installed, and I'm really liking it. If, like me, you tried one of the early beta versions and weren't convinced, you might want to take another look.

Lightroom combines the workflow features of Bridge, the developing/adjustment features of Adobe Camera Raw (both much improved in Photoshop CS3) and the nicer cataloging/organizing features of the consumer oriented Photoshop Elements 5 Organizer into a single application that does it all and does it faster and better in most cases.

Read more...

Summary

• Fast, efficient, streamlined, self-contained workflow.

• Powerful, flexible RAW conversion, everything in Adobe Capture Raw plus more.

• Enhanced metadata editing, advanced library/catalog management.

• Easier batch processing and print/web output, much improved over Bridge/Photoshop.

• Big step up from Photoshop Elements, step "over" from Bridge/ACR/PS.

• Tools should be organized in tab groups to eliminate excessive scrolling.

• Color management can be tricky, no "soft proofing".

• No upgrade from Elements or "add-on" pricing for Photoshop CS3 users.

• Performance is acceptable with enough RAM/CPU power.

• Polished, professional tool for pros and serious amateurs.

Review

Lightroom has five basic views, Library, Develop, Slideshow, Print, and Web organized around the typical digital photo processing workflow.

Library view

In the Library view, you can quickly and easily import, sort, select, reject, tag, and organize your photos, and there are lots of advanced tools to manage your libraries and folders. It is much easier to use and more intuitive than Bridge, and sorting and searching is a lot faster because it's all done from a catalog database instead of searching through XMP files in folders (you can export XMP files for compatibility if you want, though, but performance is much improved if you turn off the "auto export" feature and only use it when you need it).

The automatic importer is very nice, too, but it's a lot faster if you turn off the option to render full size previews as photos are imported. All EXIF data is captured in the catalog, and you can apply "boilerplate" IPTC metadata on import. You can also convert/import existing Photoshop Elements catalogs and/or file folders, and all your metadata/keyword tags are preserved. (This created somewhat of a jumbled mess for me, because I had folders of images tagged using both Bridge and Elements, and there are some duplicate keywords because Elements and Lightroom support "nested" or "grouped" entries where Bridge did not.)

The keyword and tagging features are similar to Elements, although they are more complicated and not quite as intuitive. But, they are far more advanced and you can edit standard IPTC metadata. The Metadata Browser feature lets you browse folders, collections or your entire library by basic EXIF data such as camera, lens, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc. Or, you can perform complex searches of any metadata and keywords, and automatically create collections from the results.

Develop view

In the Develop view, you "develop" your raw image files (or files in any other supported format) and make fine tuning adjustments to exposure, white balance, tone curves, color balance, hue and saturation, sharpening, and more. The adjustments are similar to Adobe Camera Raw, except greatly expanded. The cropping and straightening tools are improved in Lightroom, and so is the spot removal/healing tool, and it includes a redeye removal tool.

All editing is "non-destructive", meaning Lightroom "remembers" your settings for each adjustment, and applies them dynamically when you view, output or export the photo. This is similar to ACR, except it is more flexible and the changes are stored in the catalog database instead of "sidecar" files (you can output sidecar files for compatibility if you want). This has huge advantages in terms of being able to fine tune adjustments, turn them off and on to compare their effects, go back to previous revisions, etc., without creating multiple copies of the original image.

Color management is all handled "under the hood" by Lightroom. It works in ProPhotoRGB by default, or uses the embedded profile for rendered files such as JPG or TIFF if present (or defaults to sRGB if not). You can specify a different color space for output and it will do the necessary mapping and conversions automatically, and it automatically selects sRGB for web/email JPG output. About the only thing missing is "soft proofing", which lets you preview an approximate idea of what the output will look like in the target color space.

Note that Lightroom does not let you specify a color space for print output. The best bet, which most people use in Photoshop and other applications anyway, is to let Lightroom handle color management for printing and specify a target paper profile. Conventional wisdom says that Adobe does a better job than most printer drivers, which can sometimes be a little dodgy. There is an option to let the printer handle color management, but it's not clear what gets sent and whether the printer will understand it. If using this option, the recommendation is to set your print driver to ICM (ColorSync for Macs) and it's all supposed to get taken care of automagically.

More

Once you have the image how you want, you can export one or more photos to virtually any format, with complete control of the output format, dimensions, resolution, quality settings, etc. There are built-in presets, or you can make your own and save them.

The other views do what they say. In Slideshow you create slideshows that you can play from Lightroom our output to a PDF document (there's no capability at this time for output to standalone EXE or DVD). In Print you have complete control of layout, color management, printer/paper profile selection, rendering, etc., and it's much easier and more intuitive than Photoshop CS3. In Web you can output a very nice web gallery in either HTML or Flash with about two clicks of your mouse.

The only minor complaint so far is about the user interface. There's a lot of scrolling and expanding/collapsing in the sidebar tool sections to get where you want to be for various adjustments and functions. It would be nice if these were organized into tab groups for faster, one-click access, or better yet letting you organize your own tab groupings.

Conclusion

So far I am very impressed. You can work through hundreds of photos from an outing in far less time than it takes using Bridge, ACR, and Photoshop. You don't have to open each file in ACR for adjustments, or open it in Photoshop for more complicated fixes or printing. 99% of what you need to do can be done right in the Lightroom Library and Develop views without ever using ACR or PS, and you can output it however you want with a few clicks of the mouse, all without ever leaving Lightroom. Batch operations on multiple photos are far easier, faster, and more intuitive than any of the other Adobe applications mentioned.

Performance is acceptable, but I've got a high-end desktop with 2GB of RAM. Your mileage may vary, but the real time responsiveness while handling, rendering, and updating large, 12MB RAW image files as you work on them is impressive. Setting off automatic export of XMP files and setting off automatic preview rendering on import improves performance.

This is a polished, professional tool that in my opinion sets a new standard for library and workflow management. It looks like a home run for Adobe. If you have a point-and-shoot digital camera or an entry-level DSLR and you shoot mostly JPG, you probably don't need this software. Your camera probably came with something adequate, or Photoshop Elements is an excellent and inexpensive solution. But if you're a serious amateur with a high-end DSLR and you mainly shoot RAW, you should take a look at Lightroom. (You'll still need Photoshop or something similar, though, for more complicated fixes and for advanced processing such as creating HDR images and panoramas and the like.)

My only real complaint is the price, which is currently $299. Although that's actually a great value for a standalone tool that does all this, there should be a discounted upgrade for Photoshop Elements users, or "companion" upgrade pricing if you've already shelled out for the full Photoshop CS3. Or better yet Adobe should just dump Bridge and include Lightroom in the CS3 package, even if they have to charge a little more.

Here's a more detailed review with more screen shots. Note that it's for version 1.0, and some of the reviewers complaints have been addressed in version 1.1, specifically the improved sharpening tool.