Lightroom VS Photoshop

[Dnd]

We use both.. Lightroom for minor stuff along with cataloging. Photoshop for real editing.. definately use both all the time... could probalby get by with just lightroom and elements 10... Had been using apeture and since lightroom have not looked back.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have lightroom and Photoshop CS5. Lightroom fills 99 percent of my needs. Only if you get into heavy duty editing does photoshop becomew necessary.

Note, you do need some training, just like any other piece of complex software, just trying to learn lightroom by trial and error will giver you the wrong impression. Fortunately, there some on-line tutorials on the adobe site to help you out. A good Lightroom book is also worth many times its cost.

 

[briansquibb]

I still use DPP for my lightroom type pp and Elements 10 for the extras (plus a bunch of filters)

 

[CowGummy]

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.

Batch actions in PS would handle all of that quite nicely.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

Batch actions in PS would handle all of that quite nicely.

True, but you'd need several hundred batch actions to cover the possibilities that lightroom lets you do in seconds. With lightroom, You just check those attributes you want copied, and select just the images you want them applied to. You do not have to do a whole folder. The flexability is what sets it apart.

 

[briansquibb]

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.

DPP does that easily too

 

[Bosman]

At the price of Lightroom and all the capability it has there is no real need for photoshop unless you shoot professionally in which case you spend the vast amounts of cash on the programs that get you the results. If i put a value on how much i use photoshop it would be 5% of my work.
Photoshop $699
Lightroom $149
Easy decision...

 

[pdirestajr]

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.

Batch actions in PS would handle all of that quite nicely.

True, but you'd need several hundred batch actions to cover the possibilities that lightroom lets you do in seconds. With lightroom, You just check those attributes you want copied, and select just the images you want them applied to. You do not have to do a whole folder. The flexability is what sets it apart.

You can do this with PS/ ACR too!
While in Bridge highlight one photo you have edited and press shortcut [option+command+C], then highlight any number of photos shot in the same lighting conditions and hit [option+command+V] and ALL of the settings will be applied to the photos. A dialogue box will even pop up with options to select which changes you want to apply.

Note: This is obviously only for ACR edits.

 

[skitron]

At the price of Lightroom and all the capability it has there is no real need for photoshop unless you shoot professionally in which case you spend the vast amounts of cash on the programs that get you the results. If i put a value on how much i use photoshop it would be 5% of my work.
Photoshop $699
Lightroom $149
Easy decision...

Just get Elements for the 5% pixel manufacturing. It's surprisingly capable if you don't need to do volumes of work. The things that allow you to do volumes of work efficiently are conspicuously missing, but that's a fair trade for the low price.

Similar situation with Capture One Elements if you want a RAW editor and don't need tools to do high volume workflow. They took the Pro version and disabled several key tools related to fast workflow, but otherwise the same product.

 

[Tracy Pinto]

PS has a much greater capacity for post-processing than Lightroom does. Lightroom can do most anything a beginner requires and most of what a busy professional needs for shots in similar lighting environments. For the finer work and the more creative effects you need PS and maybe additional software from companies like NIK.

Most people have a harder time deciding whether to use Bridge (which is free with a PS purchase) or Lightroom to manage and access their photo libraries. If that is an issue for you I recommend this video and all the lessons from Julieanne Kost at AdobeTV to get better at their products: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-complete-picture-with-julieanne-kost/should-i-use-lightroom-or-bridge/

 

[ScottyP]

Photoshop: $600.00
Lightroom 4 : $145.00
Photoshop Elements: $89.00

If you are a professional photographer, you know way more than I do about whether you need the full $600.00 Photoshop leviathan. I have never used it, but I see posts all the time from self-identified serious photographers/students claiming they only use 10% of what it can do, and that they don't really even know how to do most of the rest.

I find Lightroom does everything I need 99% of the time, plus it is non-destructive, plus it does organize your stuff, and it can apply basic corrections to multiple shots instantaneously, instead of one at a time.

If you do photography as a hobby, and you don't have unlimited money and learning time to invest, you can probably make do just fine with PS Elements instead of the full version, PLUS Lightroom.

 

[Maui5150]

These are two very different beasts with a small core component of similar functions/features.

LR excels at organization of collections and "developing" or "adjusting" of photos. Think of it more of the software version of a "dark room"

Photoshop is more of a photo manipulation and creation tool, giving you far more editing, compositing, and retouching tools. Try removing hairs, cleaning facial blemishing, or say reshaping an arm or leg in LR vs PS. There is a reason covers of magazines are referred to as being "photoshopped" and not "lightroomed"

I use both. I use LR to do a lot more of global corrections like color (ColorChecker Passport), white balance and applying these changes across all images in a shoot, as well as making some image by image adjustments, but when it comes to heavy lifting, correcting, and polishing of images, then the rest of my work is in PhotoShop.

 

[LostArk]

Try removing hairs, cleaning facial blemishing, or say reshaping an arm or leg in LR vs PS. There is a reason covers of magazines are referred to as being "photoshopped" and not "lightroomed"

Another reason could be Photoshop was around for 20 years before Lightroom

 

[pdirestajr]

I don't think the decision is Photoshop or Lightroom, It should be Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom. But you obviously need to own PS to have ACR.

To me the workflow is edit the Raw DNG in ACR, then open in PS for any retouching. They are completely different programs. I'm a professional designer, so Photoshop has been open on my computer for over 10 years straight (I never shut down my computers). Based on my comfort level of knowing every aspect of Photoshop, I use ACR- and it's not an added expense or another open program. I believe the processing engine is the same as Lightroom too.

I guess like others have said, if you don't need photoshop, then LR makes perfect sense. But if you have PS (and ACR), then LR isn't necessary.

Also Photoshop CS6 looks pretty insane- you can edit video inside of PS!

 

[woollybear]

Photoshop has been open on my computer for over 10 years straight (I never shut down my computers).

Holy Cow!! You have a ten year old computer and it runs Photoshop!! ;D

 

[pdirestajr]

Photoshop has been open on my computer for over 10 years straight (I never shut down my computers).

Holy Cow!! You have a ten year old computer and it runs Photoshop!! ;D

I actually have a 6 year old 17" MacBook Pro I still use at home! It's amazing it still is running so well and has no problem handling CS5 and huge files. I keep the computer completely empty except for programs (work off of external HD). At work I have much newer desktops. My problem is every time I have extra money for a comp- it goes towards a new lens or other gear! You gotta trade off someplace.

 

[briansquibb]

DPP = free
PSE for individual image changes

 

[TotoEC]

To the OP - DPP is free and very easy to use. if your photos only need a slight color/exposure correction, sharpening, croping and converting RAW images to JPEG by the bulk. It can do most of your basic needs.

then, Photoshop for serious editing.

 

[briansquibb]

To the OP - DPP is free and very easy to use. if your photos only need a slight color/exposure correction, sharpening, croping and converting RAW images to JPEG by the bulk. It can do most of your basic needs.

then, Photoshop for serious editing.

What is wrong with Elements? For photoprocessing Elements has the majority of functionality of Photoshop

 

[TotoEC]

Why, what is wrong with Photoshop? If you are not afraid of the learning curve, I say go for the best!

To the OP - DPP is free and very easy to use. if your photos only need a slight color/exposure correction, sharpening, croping and converting RAW images to JPEG by the bulk. It can do most of your basic needs.

then, Photoshop for serious editing.

What is wrong with Elements? For photoprocessing Elements has the majority of functionality of Photoshop