Lightroom VS Photoshop

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jbwise01

Guest
I have LR 3.5, Photoshop CS5, and Apple Aperture 3, and I can say that.. for light image editing (e.g. minor touch ups, Exposure Work, and Color Tweaking) LR is king, for serious editing (heavy retouching, local color adjustments, and image enhacement) , you can't beat PS..

Now Apple Aperture 3 is interetsing, i have found it comprable to LR, it loacks graduated filter adjustments whihc can be quite time savings adjsutments... the touch up brush is better, and it does give some interesting local adjustment capability that LR3 lacks, i would warn that Aperture is a huge memory Hog, it creates and saves multiple versions of your RAW files in random places, and has its own trash bin, you can quickly find a 16 GB photo card eating up 50 GB of space in no time!

All in all i would recommend getting LR with the NIK software suite, the plug ins are what really make most photo editors shine, and having image management, image uploading, and a quick UI, LR is my perosnal favorite.
 
Upvote 0
Ditto what neuro said... Lightroom is for overall collections, can quickly make changes here and there and keep batches of files organized... Photoshop, you're working with each image individually, doesn't organize squat, other than your own storage system, and you can go into depth and make major changes, blend images together, do whatever your heart can dream of... but requires a larger learning curve than light room.
 
Upvote 0
NOTNIKON! said:
Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.

Depends what you are doing.

I use both. I use lightroom to work with general exposure and adjustments, especially when doing global changes like applying color management across all photos shot (see ColorChecker Passport)

I will then use photoshop to do my editing, especially when working with fashion or beauty shots, tools like clone, patch, etc can do wonders with skin blemishes, etc. that are far easier in photoshop than lightroom, and I find lightroom much more capable at doing things like lens correction, dealing with shadows, blacks, highlights, etc.
 
Upvote 0
N

NOTNIKON!

Guest
Maui5150 said:
NOTNIKON! said:
Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.

Depends what you are doing.

I use both. I use lightroom to work with general exposure and adjustments, especially when doing global changes like applying color management across all photos shot (see ColorChecker Passport)

I will then use photoshop to do my editing, especially when working with fashion or beauty shots, tools like clone, patch, etc can do wonders with skin blemishes, etc. that are far easier in photoshop than lightroom, and I find lightroom much more capable at doing things like lens correction, dealing with shadows, blacks, highlights, etc.

I'm just doing small adjustments, no major manipulation to photographs. Just trying to figure out if photoshop is the right tool for me. I dont have a mac so aperture is out, hence wanting to get others opinion on lightroom as I have never used it. I should mention all of my photos are shot in RAW, not jpg.
 
Upvote 0

JR

Sep 22, 2011
1,229
0
Canada
I use both as well. If only to make small adjustment, I think Lightroom is easier and you can use it for library management as well. I must say as well that the new LR4 seem to go further in terms of possible adjustment I had to do in Photoshop before. Shadows and highlight recoveries is much better then in version 3 for sure...

I keep Photoshop for HDR, Black and white pictures and other limitted editing.

J
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
Mine is definitely a minority opinion, but as a non-professional who only has to manage his personal photo files, I say stick to Photoshop.

I bought Lightroom, tried it a few times, just couldn't get excited about it. (Okay, maybe I need to give it another shot, but I didn't find it all that useful for me).

My point: I can do everything in Adobe Camera Raw that I can do in Lightroom. They are the exact same tools, just different interface. I'm used to the ACR interface after several years of using it, so I'm comfortable with it. I do a lot of work with smart objects. Going back and forth between Photoshop and Camera Raw. (As an aside, I believe smart objects are absolutely the best way to dodge, burn and adjust image areas.)

One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom. Instead, you end up back in ACR. So, since at least half the work is going to be done in Camera Raw anyway, what's the point of processing some in Lightroom and some in Camera Raw? None that I have found.

For file organization, I've used Bridge for so long that I'm pretty comfortable with it. Not as sophisticated as Lightroom, but it works fine for me.
 
Upvote 0

Z

Jan 15, 2012
189
0
unfocused said:
One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom.
Ouch... is this a fact? It's not something I've considered, but at present I use smart objects quite often with Photoshop/ACR.
 
Upvote 0
Like many, I use LR3 for RAW processing and basic editing, such as highlight and shadow recovery, lens correction (profile or manual sliders) and some highlights/lights/darks/shadows adjustments, then I do a bit more fairly light editing in CS4, such as curves adjustment to give it a bit more punch and the clone stamp/spot removal to remove the dust spots that weren't obvious in LR without having to look around (mainly for the 5D MkII and not the 7D). When I do a bit more, such as B&W conversions and the occasional heavier editing, then it is always CS4.
 
Upvote 0
unfocused said:
Mine is definitely a minority opinion, but as a non-professional who only has to manage his personal photo files, I say stick to Photoshop.

I bought Lightroom, tried it a few times, just couldn't get excited about it. (Okay, maybe I need to give it another shot, but I didn't find it all that useful for me).

My point: I can do everything in Adobe Camera Raw that I can do in Lightroom. They are the exact same tools, just different interface. I'm used to the ACR interface after several years of using it, so I'm comfortable with it. I do a lot of work with smart objects. Going back and forth between Photoshop and Camera Raw. (As an aside, I believe smart objects are absolutely the best way to dodge, burn and adjust image areas.)

One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom. Instead, you end up back in ACR. So, since at least half the work is going to be done in Camera Raw anyway, what's the point of processing some in Lightroom and some in Camera Raw? None that I have found.

For file organization, I've used Bridge for so long that I'm pretty comfortable with it. Not as sophisticated as Lightroom, but it works fine for me.

My workflow is exactly the same. ACR + PS CS5. I see so many people talking about Lightroom that I wonder if I am missing out on something. Is there any editing benefits to using LR over ACR? I have used ACR for years and have my own file management system that I don't know what benefits LR offer.
 
Upvote 0
NOTNIKON! said:
Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.


It depends on your preferred workflow and/or if you have a workflow already established. And LR is a bit like a Swiss Army knife - which is a problem if you need a jackhammer.

I use both and you'll find people that will tell you you only need the one or the other (or something entirely different). I would make the argument that there are good reasons to own both.

As far as my personal preference is concerned: I've been using PhotoShop in one way or another since the early 90s or so. I'm not saying I'm very good at it or even know everything it can do - but I know how to find what I need and learned how to use. LR can do a lot of those things as well. And the things it does it does pretty quickly and very well when it comes to editing. It has a few features that PS does NOT have but that are pretty nice. But then again there are some things that LR can't do - even pretty basic things like dodge and burn, which I like using. Yes, I know people will tell you that there are all sorts of workarounds and how it really is the only tool a "serious" photographer will ever need.

I think the main reason this is so popular with the pro folks is that it is great for batch processing and quickly going through a hundreds of photos from a shoot. It beats Bridge with that (once you've learned some rather quirky things in the user interface...).

But here is the bad part in my opinion: it is horrible when it comes to its original core function as a library management tool. It only knows one way of doing things. It's Lightroom's way or the highway. The whole concept of an image editing database doesn't fly with me. I want to have an original and an edited version. I don't care for "virtual" copies and non-destructive editing. And now with the switch from LR3 to LR4 I care even less about it because all of a sudden if you switch from one version to the next you run the risk of having all new settings applied to your entire inventory if you import everything under the new development process.

Even worse: it is extremely cumbersome to work on more than one PC with this. The new version still has no official network support and syncing and exporting databases always makes me nervous.

So, I do use it. Actually a lot more than I originally thought, since there have been more and more reasons for me to go through larger numbers of pictures at a time (event and concert shoots for example). Making selections and quick adjustments to those is pretty nice. But then I end up exporting the edits to a network folder and its backup locations - so exactly what LR really isn't meant for.

You could argue now that at that point it's pretty easy to go back later and change the editing - if you remember which PC you originally worked on...But honestly, that usually never happens. If there is a reason to than get into deeper editing on a few pictures you're much better off with PS.

There is one other important difference: LR is relatively cheap (and just got cheaper). PS is very expensive unless you have access to a student/teacher version or so. I picked up a copy of LR3 for under $100 and I have yet to see a reason to upgrade to LR4. And one more: LR (as far as I know) easily transfers between Mac and PC. With PS it's either one or the other. If you want or need both you (usually) pay twice.

Hope this helps. Again, this is my personal observation and experience with these. Some people have very strong feelings one way or the other.
 
Upvote 0
Lightroom is really the best place to start, I just installed Lightroom 4.0 and it's a great update from the previous version, I only ever use Photoshop CS5 for real gritty editing - removing subjects from the scene etc. (and for my other design work) The Spot Removal tool in Lightroom is fantastic but you have a lot more options and control in Photoshop CS5 but for standard photo editing like adjusting white balance, tones, sharpness etc Lightroom is your best option. I've used other similar programs but Lightroom is the best and it gets rid of the need for all those silly dedicated RAW editors
 
Upvote 0

thepancakeman

If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving
Aug 18, 2011
476
0
Minnesota
For me one of the biggest differences is the ability to do things in bulk. I can have a whole set of photos that need some basic editing such as changing the color balance and bumping up the blacks. I can do them all at once in LR. There may be a way to do it in bulk in PS, but not that I've found (granted I'm a PS novice). I also find the crop functionality of LR to be quicker and easier. I own them both and do about 95-98% of my work in Lightroom.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
Z said:
unfocused said:
One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom.
Ouch... is this a fact? It's not something I've considered, but at present I use smart objects quite often with Photoshop/ACR.

That's been my experience and I just double-checked Scott Kelby's book on Lightroom 3. Page 267: "...go to the Layer's panel and double-click on the duplicate layer's thumbnail, which brings up the Camera Raw window (Emphasis added.) If there is some secret, easy way to take a smart object from Photoshop and have it open in Lightroom, I certainly haven't found it.
 
Upvote 0
pdirestajr said:
unfocused said:
Mine is definitely a minority opinion, but as a non-professional who only has to manage his personal photo files, I say stick to Photoshop.

I bought Lightroom, tried it a few times, just couldn't get excited about it. (Okay, maybe I need to give it another shot, but I didn't find it all that useful for me).

My point: I can do everything in Adobe Camera Raw that I can do in Lightroom. They are the exact same tools, just different interface. I'm used to the ACR interface after several years of using it, so I'm comfortable with it. I do a lot of work with smart objects. Going back and forth between Photoshop and Camera Raw. (As an aside, I believe smart objects are absolutely the best way to dodge, burn and adjust image areas.)

One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom. Instead, you end up back in ACR. So, since at least half the work is going to be done in Camera Raw anyway, what's the point of processing some in Lightroom and some in Camera Raw? None that I have found.

For file organization, I've used Bridge for so long that I'm pretty comfortable with it. Not as sophisticated as Lightroom, but it works fine for me.

My workflow is exactly the same. ACR + PS CS5. I see so many people talking about Lightroom that I wonder if I am missing out on something. Is there any editing benefits to using LR over ACR? I have used ACR for years and have my own file management system that I don't know what benefits LR offer.
LR has quite a few extra options than ACR in CS4. CS4 narrowed the gap though compared to CS3, so CS5 may have narrowed it further. The one thing that swayed me towards LR2 (which I since upgraded to LR3) was the CA correction, it was the only system that worked most of the time to remove the worst of it out of everything I tested.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.