Photoshop VS Lightroom

foodpoison

foodpoison

Messages
6,253
Name
Sean
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to get a photography specific post-processing/editing software, and have read in computer shopper that Lightroom is the best.
Only thing is, I already have photoshop cs2, and I'm wondering.
Is there much point in getting lightroom?
Is it that much different that I need it?

Cheers
 
I don't think you'll gain much by getting Lightroom if you already have Photoshop CS2, which is a much more powerful tool and camera raw is quite sufficient for some basic editing and fixing that sometimes needs to be done before using image editors.
 
I thought Lightroom and Photoshop were two different entities and used to complement each other? Lightroom for applying basic editing, renaming etc to batches of images and PS for more complex PP?
 
Well, I tend to shoot in jpeg anyway, but I suppose getting lightroom would give me an excuse to shoot in raw.
I've become pretty alright at photoshop, and managed to do the following edit in it (which I am quite proud of :D)

bythelakeuneditednd1.jpg


bythelakeedited150907v2eb8.jpg


So really, does anyone have a quick list of features that I won't get in photoshop compared to lightroom?
 
foodpoison said:
So really, does anyone have a quick list of features that I won't get in photoshop compared to lightroom?
Click to expand...

non-destructive editing, automatic importing and renaming, library management, really powerful keywording, a slick RAW editor

Then there's lots of output options for printing and exporting to the web, but I've yet to explore these
 
AdWright said:
non-destructive editing, automatic importing and renaming, library management, really powerful keywording, a slick RAW editor

Then there's lots of output options for printing and exporting to the web, but I've yet to explore these
Click to expand...

Most of those are available in bridge that comes with photoshop. Bridge is a more powerful tool than lightroom, and it has direct integration to photoshop, for running actions and batching, and other options.

You have to remember to do anything advanced you have to export from lightroom into your editing package,

To the OP if you have CS2 i suggest you take a serious look at bridge and get a good book or course that shows you all the possibilities with it. As lightroom matures and Adobe and other companys make extra modules for lightroom then it will start to show it full potential, lightroom is still way of being what it was billed to be.

Lightroom is a workflow solution, of which there are many, if you can do all you need to without leaving lightroom its wonderful for you, but if you have any special edits you do you will still have to leave lightroom to do them.
 
mho said:
Most of those are available in bridge that comes with photoshop. Bridge is a more powerful tool than lightroom, and it has direct integration to photoshop, for running actions and batching, and other options.

You have to remember to do anything advanced you have to export from lightroom into your editing package,

To the OP if you have CS2 i suggest you take a serious look at bridge and get a good book or course that shows you all the possibilities with it. As lightroom matures and Adobe and other companys make extra modules for lightroom then it will start to show it full potential, lightroom is still way of being what it was billed to be.

Lightroom is a workflow solution, of which there are many, if you can do all you need to without leaving lightroom its wonderful for you, but if you have any special edits you do you will still have to leave lightroom to do them.
Click to expand...

I'd tend to agree with this, I tried Photoshop CS2 and Bridge, but for the type of photography I do I find that Lightroom is far quicker for my workflow than Photoshop/Bridge was.

If you are comfortable using Photoshop then try using Bridge, it might be just what you need. You can also download a trial version of Lightroom and give that a try.
 
Hi Kasalic - just a fyi: your gallery is unavailable on dot Mac...!!
 
No matter which version of bridge I use, I still find it slower then Lightroom.

Lightroom and photoshop are not interchangable. Lightroom is much more competent on the photo organisational side, and basic editing is included for people who shoot alot but don't need to do alot of editing. For pixel editing there is still not much better then photoshop. Fortunately it is quite easy to roundtrip from lightroom to photoshop.
 
theMusicMan said:
Hi Kasalic - just a fyi: your gallery is unavailable on dot Mac...!!
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, not due for renewal until next year. Will have to sort that out.

Also I found this on the Lightroom site :-

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/productinfo/faq/lr_bridge.html

EDIT - Gallery now working - helps if I type the address right on the signature page :bonk: There are only a few shots from Snetterton on there atm, looking to get the rest up in a day or so.
 
I find that Lightroom is way better for basic editing of RAW files i.e. exposure, contrast etc. It is much faster and has more functionality than CS2 for this type of work. I still use PS for everything else, for me they complement each other perfectly.
 
Hacker said:
I find that Lightroom is way better for basic editing of RAW files i.e. exposure, contrast etc. It is much faster and has more functionality than CS2 for this type of work. I still use PS for everything else, for me they complement each other perfectly.
Click to expand...

Thats not a fair comparison comparing to CS2, as the ACR 4.2 from CS3 is identical to lightroom as its the same engine and algorithms, both suck big time for RAW conversion.
 
mho said:
Thats not a fair comparison comparing to CS2, as the ACR 4.2 from CS3 is identical to lightroom as its the same engine and algorithms, both suck big time for RAW conversion.
Click to expand...

Seeing as I have CS2 it's the only comparison I can make. Out of interest why do you think they suck for RAW conversions?
 
I must say that since Ive used Lightroom for RAW conversions it seems to apply its own sharpening even if I drag all the sliders down and turn the turn the clarity off............shots then open in Photoshop already sharp but not the type of sharpness Id like.

Im seriously thinking of trying ACR again..although Lightroom is excellent to work with in general.
 
Hacker said:
Out of interest why do you think they suck for RAW conversions?
Click to expand...

The detail in the converted image is not as good as it can be, it looses a lot of fine detail, and the tones in the image are a bit muddy and suppressed, the image also has a feel of being smoothed over (even when all forms of smoothing and noise reduction are turned off).

There are better RAW converters out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top