Is Lightroom overkill for a JPG-oriented workflow?

Question

I am a passionate not a professional, I shoot most of the time in jpg because:

1. I usually don't have the time to process raw
2. raw takes a lot more space (and I feel my D700 jpgs are huge already!)
3. and I'm not sure I'd be better in processing the raw that the in-camera settings

I currently use Picasa for organizing my files (that I store under a flat structure in DATE-Subject folders) and apply very simple contrast/color optimization.

I have a good and recent Windows 7 laptop.

I've tried PhotoDirector 2011, and I might not have given it enough time but I don't feel like I'm getting huge improvements wrt simpler Picasa presets for my pics... and skills.

I'm wondering if it would make sense to invest in Lightroom, or Capture NX 2 (or something else, but I'm under the impression there's not much else worth it), knowing that:

1. I'd rather have a single-stop software or at most a well integrated catalog+edit couple
2. It will still be JPG most of the time, but a few RAWs when I really feel enthusiastic or I take important pics for friends

The question is not much about /which/ software (though hints are welcome!), rather if Lightroom or a similar software would be a worthwhile step up from Picasa, or just overkill for JPGs...

Related

While there are a few questions about somehow similar topics, most of the time I hear answers related specifically to RAW... which just isn't my target right now.

Otherwise, these are the closest questions I could find:

• What are the differences between Picasa and Lightroom, other than price?
• Which is best as part of a fast workflow: Picasa, Lightroom, Photoshop or other?

Answer 1

Not at all. Lightroom is a great tool with many well-integrated features. Version 4 which is roughly half the price of previous one adds maps, book publishing, soft-proofing to the already useful organization and processing tool.

The organization tools are probably worth the price alone and the export feature is the best one I've seen. So what if I don't use processing other than crop? Can I ask for a $10 discount from Adobe? The rest saves my time finding and preparing photos for print. I calibrate my cameras to do the processing which suits my style of photography and shoot JPEG as well. Like you I would rather spend more time shooting than processing.

Answer 2

You can buy a small editing program that you can evoke from Picasa instead of buying Lightroom. I use Snapheal and Pixelmator for any editing that is missing in Picasa.

Having tried Lightroom in every stage, I still find it too confusing with importing/exporting/databases and moving between computers; Picasa is clean and safe, saves your work and keeps the originals, so far better for big collections on limited harddisk space and when you want to use photos outside the programs (directly from finder/explorer).

The main thing missing in Picasa is some kind of fast rating. Starring is halfway there, although being able to mark keepers&rejected as well as good ones would be great.

Answer 3

This is a matter of personal preference. People say they'd rather spend more time shooting then processing. I look at it differently but I am no pro just an amateur with a demanding job and 3 small children at home so my time with photography has to be optimized; I spend half my time thinking where, what, when and how to shoot and then the remaining time is probably equally spent on shooting and processing. I enjoy both equally as much.

Back to Picasa and Lighroom;

I think you might find Lightroom to be an overkill for your purposes. Picassa is fast and simple to use and has almost no learning curve. If you are using Picasa online albums or frequently email batches of photos to people from picasa then then you might end up using both Picasa and Lightroom whereas now you are only using one. Besides, if need be, Picasa lets you work with RAW files too and all editing is non-destructive. To utilize Lightroom to its full potential you will need to take a tutorial or a course or read a comprehansive manual and then keep practicing. It's not as complicated as Photoshop but if you have never done any "serious" image editing there will be a steep learning curve. This is unlike Picasa which is designed to be used by anyone who likes to snap a lot of pictures.

Lightroom is certainly more powerful and feature-rich and personally it is where I do bulk of my editing but in terms of quickly navigating through thousands of photos from last several years I still prefer Picasa. (I have one Lighroom library per batch of photos within a dated folder and the root of this structure is also mu watched folder in Picasa. However, I don't ever use Picasa for processing.)

In terms of processing, everything in Lightroom is better then it is in Picasa allowing you to have more artistic control over the final look. Colour, Noise removal, sharpenning, effects, etc. Lightroom is superior to Picasa BUT NOT top notch. In order to get the best noise removal, best sharpenning and best effects many still use specialized software dedicated to those particular tasks each one costing as much or more then Lightroom itself.

So Lightroom is definitely a big step-up from Picasa in terms of features and the quality of the final rendering but I am not convinced you would find it a better organizer for your photos. The structure you describe is very much Picasa friendly and you don't do any processing that would warrant the more complicated and more epxpensive Lightroom.

Answer 4

Gimp is definetly worth a try, at least for kind of basic things like level, curves, color modifications. I am not a big fan of Lightroom, since it is very powerful, but rather clumsy and slow on my machine, making an overkill choice for amatuers. I prefer Camera raw + photoshop by far, which is much more powerful and more responsive.

Beside that it depends if you have 100 photos and want to spend 30 seconds each (in that case maybe picasa is perfectly fine) or if you prefer to spend 1h on a single photo, in that case Gimp or Photoshop would be better imoh.