- Messages
- 611
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As I said above look at ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2020. Meets all those criteria and more i.e. not having to move between programs for editing with layers. No connection only a recent convert.
and help to keep the site free for all
LR vs PS
- Thread starter Dangerous
- Start date
As I said above look at ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2020. Meets all those criteria and more i.e. not having to move between programs for editing with layers. No connection only a recent convert.
- Messages
- 2,247
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The title of this thread implies there is some sort of contest between Lightroom and Photoshop.
The fact is they are two different programs with different functions.
Lightroom is a raw development program which includes image management software.
Photoshop is primarily a bitmap image adjustment/manipulation program.
In basic operation, you develop your image file in Lightroom and then, if necessary, pass it to Photoshop for further modification.
The fact is they are two different programs with different functions.
Lightroom is a raw development program which includes image management software.
Photoshop is primarily a bitmap image adjustment/manipulation program.
In basic operation, you develop your image file in Lightroom and then, if necessary, pass it to Photoshop for further modification.
- Messages
- 15,406
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
I use both , couldn’t manage with either as a stand alone
- Messages
- 1,620
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Moving between LR and PS could not be easier. If you set your main editing software in the LR preferences and preferred format (I choose PS 16 bit TIFF). When in the LR catalogue or development module just type Ctrl+E and a TIFF version is rendered and placed in the LR catalogue, PS is run and your file opened for editing in PS. When you have completed your editing, you can just Save and your edited file will be waiting in the LR catalogue for you. No idea why some folks find importing files into LR an issue. I use LR to copy the files from my camera, make a back up on my NAS and import into the LR catalogue in my chosen folder in one operation. Simple!!!!
Dave
Dave
- Messages
- 1,130
- Name
- John 'Jack'
- Edit My Images
- No
It's like people are still comparing LR and PS as if they're a F-14 Tomcat and a F-18 Hornet when in reality, it is more like trying to compare an aeroplane against a helicopter!! Or like trying to compare them as if it's like a Mercedes-AMG F1 car against a Scuderia Ferrari F1 car, when it is more like trying to compare a Formula One car against a MotoGP motorbike. Or Word against Excel.
They are different from each other, you can't say PS is better than LR, and you can't say LR is better than PS, in a similar way as you would say F-18 is better than F-14, or the other way round. They're not meant to be rivals, they do totally different jobs.
Lightroom is really more of a catalogue system, a database of your photos, a filing system. It's there for you to view all your photos, search for the photo you want. Like we used to use a contact sheet to search for the photo we want, in order to find the negative we needed for printing. This is LR's main and primary purpose, it exists as a filing system, with editing software built-in and as a secondary role. Granted, some people would claim that LR's editing is better.
Photoshop is really more of a raster graphics editor. Granted, in the past, it was built as photo editing software, but nowadays it is no longer is a photo editing software by itself, it's more of a raster editor that not only is for photo editing, but also for other artwork, such as drawing cartoons, creating painting, other digital art, graphic design, etc.
Actually very much more like trying to compare using a 3"x5" cards to search for your negatives (Lightroom) against a pen, pencil, and painting brush (Photoshop).
I use both, I use LR mainly to look for photos, and edit them if needed, also to print them out, or export them. I use PS mainly for photo manipulation, doing graphic design, drawing, painting, and I admit, sometimes also for editing the photos if needed. I edit my photos either in LR or PS, either way, but I really use LR for searching for photos, PS for doing art.
Therefore for me, having both is worth it.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,638
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Adobe has really made them to be complementary tools. Sadly one doesn't do everything what the other does and vice versa. At least not easily. Photoshop can invoke Camera RAW filer to apply some of the lightroom features, but it is not as good or convenient. Otherwise something as simple as white balance is a pain in photoshop. HDR merge only works in LR. It is still an absolute 2000s level abomination in PS. On the other side, cloning is miles ahead in photoshop, layer support, brushes, etc. You have to start in LR and just hand it over to PS if there are outstanding edits.
I had noticed when I tried HDR in PS the results were crap compared to those from Canon DPP, I thought it was just me doing something wrong.
I'm beginning to get my head round LR and have realised that I get better results from some adjustments in LR than I can in PS. But then there are thing I need/want to do that I need PS for.
If I'm thinking right I would work on the RAW in LR (non destructively). then change to PS for the additional editing. Any edits I do in PS would get saved in the PSD which I could if I needed to edit again in LR (mainly resize, resample etc. to suit upload to a different site).
- Messages
- 1,534
- Edit My Images
- No
I use both but mostly PS. I hate the LR catalogue as I just dont get it plus its extra storage on the HD for the catalogue folder as well as your imported images from your SD card to computer. I do like the interface better than PS and only really use it if I fancy that change. PS does everything I need to do to my photos and doesnt add the annoyance of catalogues and double storage.
This might work better for others than me so this is just my process I'm talking about.
This might work better for others than me so this is just my process I'm talking about.
No, it's not extra storage, the catalogue is the container of all the images you copy from your sd card. PS creates double storage, not LR, because when you've opened your raw in PS, you edit then export as another format (storing the raw and exported copy). LR edits are all stored in a non destructive way with 1 raw and a very small xml file. Catalogues are incredibly powerful for image storage and fast reviewing vs opening each file in its own window in PS.
Last edited:
Having spent quite a bit time using LR now I can see the advantage of the catalogue system and with LR there are more adjustments that can be made direct using sliders rather than with layers as in PS. The thing I'm not so keen on it having to import every file I want to edit in LR so I edit those in PS instead.
I'm still working out in my own mind if I prefer exported images (can be png, jpg and the occasional tiff) in a sub-directory or the same directory.
Any images I further edit in PS I save as psd rather than tiff prior to final 'save as' as some of the PS edits are one offs for uploading/single use only.
LR catalogue does take up a fair bit disk space for all photos where as my RAW file is approx 36meg, PSD file is approx 95 meg and if I save the jpg that is approx 25 meg a total for the 4 files (xmp in #4) approx 150 meg plus. When you look at it that way the overhead of the LS catalogue pales in significance.
All the advice & help offered in this thread has been very helpful to me.
Why are you importing all your files, you can select individual files on import, alternatively, import and cull. X rejects a file, then control and backspace, then d for delete off disk, these shortcuts make culling very fast.
I have just over 31,000 files in my catalogue, 99% RAW and my catalogue file is about 15GB incl previews (old file previews can be deleted, it wont delete the changes in the XML, when you want to work/look at the file again itll just create a preview again), if those were full size jpeg exports of my RAWs Id be looking at 9mb per jpeg. Thats 280GB!! of exported duplicated data, imagine if those were PSDs or TIFFs.
Last edited:
I cull the RAW before transferring to their directory so all the photos on the hard drive I want (20,000 plus) Not using LR till recently I had to have the PSD files as well. As I said my RAW are 36 meg, my PSD are 95 meg and my full size JPG are 25 meg (although I don't store jpgs for long, as you say I can recreate if required). My photo files take up 200 gig and less than 25% are RAW and not many are duplicated as PSD. 10 RAW and their edited PSD will equal 1 gig hence why I am trying to get to grips with LR.
I often take 'one off photo' that after editing are printed, uploaded or inserted in to a PDF and then disposed of. It is easier for me just to edit in PS than import to LR to edit then have to delete.
We all work in different ways, there's no best workflow.
- Messages
- 1,534
- Edit My Images
- No
Ah well there you go. Doesn't fit with how I work. I like to get everything off the SD card onto the computer. Then I'll import single files because I dont want to import them all. Then when I export I copy the original and exported image to my storage drive. The catalogue remains in one location and I have the other files on other storage. For the way I work, it's double. Maybe my process is backwards but it works best for me
Thanks for the info.