You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I've always used PS camera RAW to process by photographs and then just store them in folders but it's a slow workflow and the organisation is a mess.
From what I've read Picassa would sort out my organisation issues but would Lightroom be worth spending £100 on for the ability to perform quick digital processing tasks like correcting exposure and sharpening which camera RAW does but is a bit clunky sometimes?
Oh and before someone recommends downloading a Lighroom trial I did that but because of 'stuff' I got didn't manage to use it during the trial period.
Can you not uninstall and reinstall LR. I use it an pretty much couldnt do without.
Try the 3.2 trial or the 4. trial depending on which you used before.
Wow, didn't realise Lightroom was up to V4!
I can't really comment on Picasa, but since getting Lightroom I rarely venture into Photoshop any more. It's made my life MUCH easier. Well, my photo sorting life anyway.
I haven't used Picassa, but someone on these forums was trying to convince me it was a viable alternative to Lightroom. i.e. it could do processing, etc.
Here's what I love about LR and you can see if Picassa/Photoshop do the same for you:
1) All-in-one programme - it handles RAW, JPG, ETC all the same, so I don't need to care. If I decide to edit in something else (Photoshop for e.g., it keeps the result in it's catalogue.
2) Non-destructive editing - originals stay as originals and only the LR adjustments are stored in the catalogue. This means they can be changed, reset, etc at any time.
3) Availability of adjustment presets (or make your own), can shortcut processing immensely
4) Rapid viewing of large volumes of photos - easily select and filter by your favourites and cut out the chaff. Great if I'm working on a commercial project (I've only done a couple).
5) Remembers export options so that I can have a 'save for flickr' option, 'save for print', etc
6) Just allows enough control over adjustments that I don't feel bogged down. If I really want layers/cloning/etc then I can drop back to photoshop.
Of course, there may be features in Aperture, Picassa, etc that I haven't currently got and would really appreciate, but these are the things I appreciate about LR.
Hope that helps!
BTW - I'm only on LR 2.0 - I didn't realise there was a v4 either!
Still using [url= http://www.capturenx.com/en/index.html ]Nikon's CaptureNX 2[/url] here. Does pretty much everything I need.
I should probably venture into Lightroom, but it is expensive and all my existing files are done in NX.
I had the trial of LR. Really liked it, but it kicks the hell out of my laptop; I can't use it for long or it gets too hot and shuts down.