Photographer preferes PS over Lightroom.

[sanj]

I know most of you prefer Lightroom. So wondering why this guy prefers PS. I use PS and have never worked on LR.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/04/25/the-eternal-question-why-i-use-photoshop-over-lightroom/

 

[unfocused]

I use Photoshop.

Partly it is what you are used to. I started using Photoshop before Lightroom was available and stuck with it, because for my workflow it is easier and faster and more flexible.

I use Smart Objects - a lot. If you make multiple rountrips from Camera Raw to Photoshop with multiple smart object layers only the first layer can be processed in Lightroom, every subsequent layer must be opened in camera raw, so I see no advantage to starting out in Lightroom. it just adds a second interface that I don't need. Since camera raw and Lightroom do the exact same things I have found it easier to use photoshop and camera raw.

More detail - Let's say I've shot a portrait of three people. One is very fair skinned, one medium and one is African-American. In camera raw I'll first adjust the exposure for the main subject and then send the file to Photoshop as a smart object. In Photoshop I'll make a couple of new smart objects from that original layer. I can double click on one of the smart objects and be back in camera raw to optimize the exposure for the second person. Return to photoshop and thendo the same with the third layer for the third subject. Back in photoshop I use layer masks to blend the three layers together into a single image that is perfectly exposed for each subject . And since I've used layer masks and smart objects I can go back at any time and tweak a layer or even make a new smart object to adjust something else inthe picture .

I used multiple smart object layers on probably 90 percent of my photos - adjusting exposures for individual areas of the photo. I'll optimize one layer for the sky and another for the foreground and the used layer masks and the paintbrush tool to combine the layers.

Some people say photoshop is destructive and Lightroom isn't, but that's only if you don't know how to use photoshop. As long as you use layer masks and create new layers along the way, you have the ability not only to go back, but you can turn specific changes on and off or rearrange the order anytime you want. That means you can go back six months later, look at every step you used and adjust any step if you want to do something a little different.

I know some people swear by Lightroom. Me, I found myself mostly swearing at it. I didn't like the way it catalogued files and since the exact same development tools and settings are available in camera raw - plus the flexibility to use layers in photoshop, I've found photoshop is just a better interface for me.

 

[siegsAR]

Started using Photoshop when I was 15; for almost 4 years now I'm also using Lightroom. I'm now using LR more than ever but with images that requires "heavy" lifting PS is king. I'm equally good w/ both programs but I'm a lot faster in PS. I kind of treat them as inseparable, best of both worlds editing and cataloging, I don't like bridge even after using it for 2 years. But if I have to choose just one now, ofcourse I'll pick PS.

 

[sanj]

Your responses make me breathe easy. I had a nagging doubt that I was missing something. But now I know I am not.

The other thing I want my mind to be clear about is DPP and Capture 1. I don't use either but keep hearing that these two softwares give better IQ. Hope not, slowly I have become comfortable with PS and would hate to learn another software. People say that DPP/C1 have better processing and that makes me doubt myself.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

PS is more powerful than Lightroom, and requires more training to use all those surpurb features. Its not a friendly interface, but once you have used it,like anything else, it becomes second nature.

Many people prefer DXO, it can operate at a very simple level, or you can use the less obvious tools to make serious edits. Capture One is another high end editor.


At the low end, another often overlooked editor is ACDSEE Ultimate 8. It has all the tools and a Database to manage images, it even has layers. I bought it for $49 last weekend, my wife likes it for her editing, Lightroom / Photoshop overwhelms her. There is something for everyone.

 

[Dylan777]

I use LR 95%. Other 5% is DxO. I plan to add PS in my work flow near future. I've seem PS in action through Wedding Pros. It's very powerful tool.

 

[agierke]

i have different workflows for different types of jobs.

for event work i use LR exclusively. if i have to get through 1000+ images fast, LR is the best option for me.

for product and studio work, i use Capture One. i really like the tools available in C1 that allow me to quickly and critically make assessments on focus, exposure, contrast, color etc and to apply those adjustments while shooting.

for headshots i use canon utility and bridge to view and select images quickly. for each individual, a single file is tagged and then processed in camera raw and PS.

architectural work is all done in PS as my technique relies heavily on blending different layers.

all portfolio work ends up finding its way into PS as i have a host of plugins i like to use to polish the image off to its best.

different tools for different jobs. may seem convoluted but within each type of job different programs offer me the speed and flexibility to finish those jobs in a way that works best for me.

 

[zlatko]

I use both and never thought about using just one. Each has things I need, so it's not a question of one vs. the other.

 

[JumboShrimp]

Just me, but I vastly prefer plain old PS with a few plug-ins.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

I use Bridge for editing, PS when needed (~2% of the photos I edit), and have never once used Lightroom. I have it installed, but might as well uninstall the thing. It just sits there... sad... wishing I would click on it at some point...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Lots of good comments here.

The bottom line is to use what works for you and your photography. They are all good, so the right choice is the one (Or many) that work for you.

 

[IgotGASbadDude]

People say that DPP/C1 have better processing and that makes me doubt myself.

Been using Photoshop for several years (never touched LR). Yes, I'm still using CS3 so maybe my situation is different.

This past week I tried DPP. There was a learning curve, and it was a bit frustrating, but after a couple of days I've found that almost everything I use PS for I can do in DPP.

One thing I like better about DPP is I can view and open CR2 files. I can't get CS3 to view or edit CR2 files (maybe I'm doing it wrong?)

The thing I can't do in DPP is save the file as a TIFF.

So the process I've been using this week is open in DPP, edit as usual, transfer to PS, save as TIFF.

Anyone know a shorter way to get a TIFF file in DPP? I hate that extra step of sending it to PS.

 

[motorhead]

I use Photoshop.

I did try Lightroom and found that it wanted to rule my life. Refusing to allow this or that and generally trying to force me into certain decisions against my wishes.

Theres no way I will ever tolerate that kind of thing, from people or machinery! I will do things my way and only my way!

Richard

 

[D.]

IgotGASbadDude, to save a file as a TIFF in DPP select File, Convert and Save, and under the Save as Type drop down menu choose TIFF. Then proceed with the conversion. If you have DPP 4 the auto gamma adjustment feature is new and worth checking out.

 

[LDS]

One thing I like better about DPP is I can view and open CR2 files. I can't get CS3 to view or edit CR2 files (maybe I'm doing it wrong?)

PS uses Camera RAW to open RAW files. You can thereby only open RAW files the version of Camera RAW supported by your version of PS can open. You can still try to convert them to DNG, if you like, and open them.

 

[LDS]

The bottom line is to use what works for you and your photography. They are all good, so the right choice is the one (Or many) that work for you.

Right. Every tool is designed with a different philosophy that can match your better or worse. There are also different price points, and depending on if you make a living out of images or not, and how much you make, you may need or want to choose a cheaper option or vice versa.

Choose what work best for your tasks and deliver the results you need, be pragmatic instead of being a "worshipper" of a tool. But be open minded, and sometimes also give a try to something new. You may discover it could also be useful or open you new possibilities.

The "definitive tool", like the "definitive" camera or lens, doesn't exist yet. After all, what is important is the quality of the final image, not what used to achieve it.

 

[keithcooper]

Lightroom? No thanks...

I've tried LR several times and dislike it despite repeated attempts ...I just don't like using it.

In fact, the more I used it, the more I appreciated using Bridge and Photoshop for my relatively low volume 'big pictures' workflow.

I just don't like the whole catalog concept, which is a pretty fundamental sticking point. I'm not convinced either with a non destructive editing approach. In fact I ended up using LR as a glorified RAW converter (which it does well) since my workflow then goes right into PS.

I do quite a lot of large prints (I've just finished a lengthy pre-release review of Epson's new P-800 printer) so the print workflow in LR doesn't cut it either, nor do I use mobile devices (I rarely take a mobile phone with me when out) or need web galleries. I've already tried LR6 and find no use for faces (I don't do people stuff), HDR or its stitching, and LR Mobile still mystifies me as to what I'd ever do with it.

I'm very much not in the LR target market (but still heartily recommend it to people to try).

 

[Halfrack]

To each their own. There is no 'right' way, just the way that works for you.

With that, PS is an editor, while LR is a light editor, with cataloging and other fun things. Adobe has to be lots of things to lots of people. It comes down to work flow, work load and time. Lightroom helps a lot of folks work faster, with an easy click out to Photoshop for those key images.

 

[agierke]

LR shines for event type work. if you have to get through 1000's of images quickly and still want access to ACR then LR is great. not that you cant do other work with it...i just find myself preferring other editors for small volume stuff.

 

[Mr Bean]

LR for me. I used to be a heavy user of PS, but two things changed that for me. I went digital (previously I was film-scanned) which meant I was recording more shots and therefore, classifying images became difficult, and secondly, Adobe stopped the sale of PS and went for the subscription approach. I still have CS5.5 which I might use 5-6 times a year. But most of my tweaking or changes can be handled in LR. The cataloguing of images to me, was an important factor. The subscription approach won't work for me in the long term.