Lightroom & Photoshop

GrahamBackhouse

GrahamBackhouse

Messages
13
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Can you experts tell me in simple terms what can be done in LR that can't be done in PS and vice-versa
Why do Adobe have two products when most of you have both anyway,
Would it not be simpler to have both programs rolled into one?

Cheers.

By the way the Photography show at the NEC was excellent on Sunday and well worth a visit.
 
GrahamBackhouse said:
…tell me in simple terms…
Click to expand...
•


LR (not my choice!) is a raw converter. PS (not my choice either!) is not.
PS is a pixel editor, LR is not!


Simple enough? …I hope it helps!
 
Lightroom is quick and easy, aimed more towards fine tuning an image by tweaking settings.

Photoshop is editing software which allows you to alter an image significantly, it can make similar tweaks to what Lightroom can accomplish but a whole lot more on top.
 
I believe it can with plugins.

I don't use it that often and certainly not for RAW files so I can't confirm for certain.
 
For image editing lightroom does nothing that Photoshop cannot do. All the editing tools in lightroom are available through Adobe camera raw in Photoshop which is available as an import converter for raw files or as a filter for all other file types.

Lightroom offers features for file management via cataloguing, exif tagging and searching which are not available in Photoshop. Lightroom makes editing large batches of photos much easier and offers a powerful set of tool for most standard edits people will make in a non destructive manner. On top of image editing lightroom has built in modules for creating web galleries, books, print layouts, geotagging, facial recognition and probably a bunch of other things I don't use. It works with all image and most videos and is not simply a raw converter.

Photoshop is an image editor, also videos if needed, and offers much more advanced and powerful tools for editing at a pixel level. Tjis allows much more complex and destructive efits to be made and opens options such as compositing and similar.
 
CraigDHD said:
For image editing lightroom does nothing that Photoshop cannot do. All the editing tools in lightroom are available through Adobe camera raw in Photoshop which is available as an import converter for raw files or as a filter for all other file types.

Lightroom offers features for file management via cataloguing, exif tagging and searching which are not available in Photoshop. Lightroom makes editing large batches of photos much easier and offers a powerful set of tool for most standard edits people will make in a non destructive manner. On top of image editing lightroom has built in modules for creating web galleries, books, print layouts, geotagging, facial recognition and probably a bunch of other things I don't use. It works with all image and most videos and is not simply a raw converter.

Photoshop is an image editor, also videos if needed, and offers much more advanced and powerful tools for editing at a pixel level. Tjis allows much more complex and destructive efits to be made and opens options such as compositing and similar.
Click to expand...
This ^^^
Saved me a lot of typing ;)
 
pjm1 said:
Another way of looking at it is...

Lightroom will suck up days of your time when you're learning how to use it, playing with the sliders and options on your photos to see the effects.

Photoshop will suck up months of your time while you're learning the basics... and only gets more addictive from there!
Click to expand...

More like "years of your time" but for certain genres I'd say that's a necessity. :wacky: I've probably learnt 10% of what PS is capable of in 20 years or photography but what I do know is invaluable in correctly (at least to my eyes) developing my digital negatives.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
would you say PS is more aimed at pro photographers mostly?
Click to expand...
Deffo not, in my opinion. I think they serve a different purpose. I do most of my work in LR, and only move into PS when I need to do some hard editing. I think LR is highly under-estimated as a powerful image editing and file management system, all rolled into one. But that's just one woman's opinion... :)
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
would you say PS is more aimed at pro photographers mostly?
Click to expand...
Yes - and no!

Would you say Lr is more aimed at pro photographers mostly?
Yes - and no!

Both are fantastic packages but very different animals - in short, Lr is a catalogue and Ps is an image enhancer but to limit the descriptions to a single word for both programs does neither any favour. They are both market leaders in what they do.

And it depends on what the "pro" photographers are doing - landscapes are probably best done in Photoshop, but not all the time and motor sports best in Lightroom but not all the time - this is a generalisation but if one is taking many photographs of an event, Lightroom makes it very quick and easy to post process a bulk of images to a generally, good standard. And you can create a slideshow, book and so on. Generally with landscapes one wants to spend more time and concentrate on different parts of a photograph to bring out the best. The same with portraits and studio work with skin softening and the like. And with these latter subjects, Photoshop tends to be better.

I, and many others, use Lightroom to catalogue the photographs and do a fairly decent post processing on most of them - but where I want to do some more on a particular photograph I will continue and finish processing it in Photoshop.

In summary - Lr and Ps are two fantastic packages and compliment each other.

In case it's been missed, Adobe has a package where it's only £9 a month to have both packages - for those using them 3-4 days each week this is a bargain.
 
Thanks for your explanation but i wonder how many hobbyists use PS,when you yourself as a pro tog only use it much less than lr.
Adobe are doing a special show price of £6.80 or thereabouts for first year so definitely worth getting if you are thinking of it
 
For me both have their place. I use Lightroom to develop a raw picture and photoshop to do the more complicated stuff. Do the trail of them and see what you make of them
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Thanks for your explanation but i wonder how many hobbyists use PS,when you yourself as a pro tog only use it much less than lr.
Adobe are doing a special show price of £6.80 or thereabouts for first year so definitely worth getting if you are thinking of it
Click to expand...

Hi Chris, I'm a hobbyist. I use Lightroom and Photoshop. I sort of know my way around Lightroom - but I've grown to use its more complicated editing features less. I primarily use it for cataloguing and doing basic editing, especially "macro" (image-wide) edits such as cropping, exposure, white balance, sharpening, etc. It's awesome at replicating such actions across a number of photos - brilliant if you've been shooting in consistent conditions and your white balance is identical (but off) in each, or you've messed up your exposure in the studio. Again :oops: :$

I use Photoshop slightly more now - as I'm finding my images fall into four categories: (i) delete; (ii) keep just in case but no edits; (iii) quick edit - per above - in Lightroom; or (iv) detailed manipulation because I really like the image. Not many images make it into (iv) to be honest... But I'll maybe have a good play for 15-20 minutes (occasionally more) if I want to learn some new skills or just test different looks. I'll be honest and say I've been using PS for about a year now and frankly haven't a clue what I'm doing. I can occasionally get things sort of right, but I don't do it efficiently and I almost certainly don't do it very well. But I do enjoy doing it badly and slowly :)

It's worth bearing in mind that for us hobbyists, we may actually find ourselves at a slight advantage and with the luxury of time which pros sometimes don't have. We're shooting for fun and choosing to spend time on our hobby. Pros have to turn their images into profit. So if they're shooting 400 images, there is likely a very limited amount of time they're able to spend on each image - even each "selected" image, because it's about making that image pay. That's not a consideration for us - I can spend an hour mucking around with a fairly rubbish photo just because I want to try a new technique and that photo happens to be a good example of "bad shadows" or whatever I'm trying to fix.

With Lightroom I'd recommend the trial. A month is a good amount of time to learn (with tutorials and online guides) how it works and how best to use it. I wouldn't say the same with PS - perhaps stick with LR first and get used to that. After 3-6 months by all means take a trial of PS but be prepared to learn a whole new way of image editing (unless you've used PS or Gimp etc. before). And you may well want to buy a book/guide to show you the basics, which can otherwise take months to get your head round (well, it did me).
 
I see LR as a workflow tool and PS as a proper image manipulation tool.

LR has some tools that I don't think ACR has - namely merging to HDR/Panoramas, local adjustments (with a brush) - including a really good auto mask - and the storage of all your edits in a "History" view that you can step back and forward through. You can make virtual copies of images to work on (colour vs b&w for example) without duplicating the image file. If you find a group of settings you like, you can save them as a preset. ACR users please correct me if I'm wrong here!

As well as the above though, LR really shines as a workflow tool.
- Import your photos - adding © data, converting to dng (if that's your thing), make duplicate copies to a backup location, organise into your folder of choice.
- Reviewing your images - Using the grid view, or the (even better) survey mode to whittle down your shots to a select "best" few.
- Editing your images (covered above)
- Tagging your images in a variety of ways - colour, star ratings, keywords etc so you can find the images you're after quickly and easiy. Also Collections which allow groups of images to be collected together.
- Help with Presenting your work - using the various modules (book, web, slideshow) or the Export/publish function to put images on the Web (Flickr) or the Print module if you print at home.

Photoshop is best for (as said above) pixel editing. Want to remove a head or composite a person on your sandy beach? PS is the tool for the job. Combined with Camera Raw, it will do all the editing LR can and more, but it can't manage workflow. Not at all.
 
Harlequin565 said:
I see LR as a workflow tool and PS as a proper image manipulation tool.

LR has some tools that I don't think ACR has - namely merging to HDR/Panoramas, ACR comes with Photoshop, so you have these options in Photoshop if you need them local adjustments (with a brush) - including a really good auto mask - ACR has an Adjustment Brush and the storage of all your edits in a "History" view that you can step back and forward through. You can make virtual copies of images to work on (colour vs b&w for example) without duplicating the image file. You can make Snapshots in ACR anytime you want, and easily flip between them If you find a group of settings you like, you can save them as a preset. You can save Presets in ACR ACR users please correct me if I'm wrong here! Well you did ask. ;)

As well as the above though, LR really shines as a workflow tool.
- Import your photos - adding © data, converting to dng (if that's your thing), make duplicate copies to a backup location, organise into your folder of choice.
- Reviewing your images - Using the grid view, You can do this in Adobe Bridge or the (even better) survey mode to whittle down your shots to a select "best" few.
- Editing your images (covered above)
- Tagging your images in a variety of ways - colour, star ratings, keywords etc You can rate and keyword in Adobe Bridge so you can find the images you're after quickly and easiy. Also Collections which allow groups of images to be collected together. I think you can make Collections in Bridge, though I never have
- Help with Presenting your work - using the various modules (book, web, slideshow) You can do a slideshow in Adobe Bridge or the Export/publish function to put images on the Web (Flickr) or the Print module if you print at home.

Photoshop is best for (as said above) pixel editing. Want to remove a head or composite a person on your sandy beach? PS is the tool for the job. Combined with Camera Raw, it will do all the editing LR can and more, but it can't manage workflow. Not at all.
Click to expand...

Before Lightroom, I think a lot of people were using ACR more and more, and needing to go into Photoshop less and less, I know I hardly need to go into Photoshop anymore, and people were upgrading Photoshop less and less. When you could still upgrade Photoshop of course. ;) And so they made a separate product.

I use ACR over Lightroom for one feature where I find ACR and LR different, and that is straightening. You can't zoom in to straighten if you need to. There are various Auto straightening options in ACR and LR, but sometimes they don't work, or work correctly, and so I need to straighten to a small element in the image. I don't need the print module, the geotagging, and uploading content to the web.

The main difference between Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw and Lightroom for me is that you need to import files into Lightroom, whereas I can open any folder with Adobe Bridge and open a file in Camera Raw, be that a RAW file or a Jpeg to process/edit.

Where I do use LR is that I can import files as Smart Previews, and then take a Catalog on a portable HD to edit files away from my desktop PC on my Laptop, and then sync the edits to original files later. I can more easily look at my rated images across many folders in LR too, when deciding on images to edit, and use Smart Collections.

If someone does not want to subscribe to Adobe's CC plan, but want to use Adobe products, then I would advise getting Lightroom 6, and then if you find you need to do some more complicated pixels editing, then maybe get Photoshop Elements, which can do about 80-90% of what the full Photoshop can do for image editing, but in a more user friendly way. There are other options, but they are just not as popular.
 
What about PSE as a standalone product,dies that combine editing catologuing and raw conversion all in one similarly to LR but with more PS stuff?
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
would you say PS is more aimed at pro photographers mostly?
Click to expand...
For an amateur who might use PS, say, twice a week, the monthly charge works out a about £1 per use. So although cheap for pros or heavy users, there are much better value alternatives for many people, where you can achieve the same results.
 
ianp5a said:
For an amateur who might use PS, say, twice a week, the monthly charge works out a about £1 per use. So although cheap for pros or heavy users, there are much better value alternatives for many people, where you can achieve the same results.
Click to expand...
This of course is true and for me it's more economical as I use both packages just about everyday.

What many do is upgrade their software once every 2-3 years and this (in approximate round numbers) adds 10p per day for Lr (£120?) and 50p per day for Ps (£600+) or £18 per month for both packages - compared to the present £9(?) per month. The disadvantage of course is if you stop using the cc version you don't have anything whereas an old standalone version is better than nothing.

As you also say, there are other packages around which will be better value for others. I'm just adding to your post - not saying you're wrong at all! :)
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
What about PSE as a standalone product,dies that combine editing catologuing and raw conversion all in one similarly to LR but with more PS stuff?
Click to expand...
I think Elements has an Organiser for previewing images. Not sure how it compares to Bridge or Lightroom. You can see an overview of Elements 14 here.

Elements does have Camera Raw, but it does not have all the features of version in Photoshop. Depending on what is missing it may be all some need.
 
Lightroom has a modern, more intuitive interface, which is a benefit of being designed "from scratch" whereas Photoshop has the most complicated and unfriendly user interface of any piece of software that I've come across - probably as a result of having so many additions "tacked on" over the many years of its development.
I'm sure that if Adobe were writing Photoshop from scratch nowadays, the UI would look much different from the way it does.
 
when you take up the subscription you get lightroom and photoshop plus bridge. so as as said before give them a try it really is the only way to see if it suits you. i had to do this before i signed as i was an aperture user which i now a dead product so i had change. good luck
 
Brian G said:
Lightroom has a modern, more intuitive interface, which is a benefit of being designed "from scratch" whereas Photoshop has the most complicated and unfriendly user interface of any piece of software that I've come across - probably as a result of having so many additions "tacked on" over the many years of its development.
I'm sure that if Adobe were writing Photoshop from scratch nowadays, the UI would look much different from the way it does.
Click to expand...
If they upgraded the Photoshop interface, you can imagine the howling and wailing. People have been using that since the 90's. It'd be worse than when they changed Microsoft Word to the ribbon menu.
 
Because i was thinking if you were then you said you dont use it much and i was originally asking if it was used more by pros so if you as a pro dont use it much then possibly the hobbyist even less so i was just wanting to know because of that as far as i can remember but ive been to sleep since then and lost my train of thought lol, put it down to age;)
 
Re Pro or Amateur (let's say keen amateur :) ... in my opinion it's immaterial and much more to do with the genre.

A professional landscape photographer is more likely to use Photoshop as his/her main tool and perhaps have Lightroom. The reason being that adjustments are much more subtle in Photoshop and cloning is easier.

A professional event photographer (sport for example) is more likely to use Lightroom as his/her main tool as fine editing is not as necessary.

One may or may not agree on my reasoning but the difference will be the number of shots taken. A landscape photographer might take 200 on a busy day whereas a sports photographer will be taking over 10x this amount on a busy day.
 
every pro ive spoken to uses photoshop , hardly any hobbyistsive asked use photoshop and most use one of the free photo editing programmes so i think ive answered my own question lol
 
wave01 said:
when you take up the subscription you get lightroom and photoshop plus bridge. so as as said before give them a try it really is the only way to see if it suits you. i had to do this before i signed as i was an aperture user which i now a dead product so i had change. good luck
Click to expand...
I think you have to download Bridge separately if you want/need it, as it no longer installs with Photoshop as it always has. Bridge had an upgrade recently too.
 
CraigDHD said:
Photoshop is an image editor, also videos if needed, and offers much more advanced and powerful tools for editing at a pixel level. Tjis allows much more complex and destructive efits to be made and opens options such as compositing and similar.
Click to expand...

Great answer for the OP, but it should be said that you can edit in PS in a non destructive way by using adjustment layers within folders and even save as a PSD if you require to come back to it.

Not saying this is the right way, and I would always encourage somebody just getting into it, or not interested in editing particularly to go for LR but personally I only use LR as a catalogue and RAW converter, then I use PS for blending and post processing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top