Lightroom vs Photoshop Elements vs Photoshop

[annamaria]

Wanted to share this link for those that may have questions about the pros and cons of each.

Lightroom vs Photoshop Elements

 

[Derrel]

It's nice to read an article where the inability of Photoshop and its ACR module to deal with hundreds of raw image files is exposed, instead of disingenuously talked up, as happens here on TPF quite often.

There's a strong voice present here on TPF , one which almost always advances the theory that the shared ACR module that Photoshop and Lightroom both happen to have makes Photoshop somehow "equivalent" in speed and ease of use for normal editing involving large numbers of images, when the truth is that Lightroom is faster, and more-efficient, and flat out easier to use for "photographic edits" on simple things like exposure adjustment, contrast adjustment, sharpening,noise reduction,vignettes, and the application of basic, global edits.

The acknowledged leader in speed and efficiency when handling many raw files is Lightroom. And yet there are those who keep trying to convince anyone who will listen that the in-common ACR module similarity makes Photoshop just as fast to use as Lightroom. I thought this article was okay, although it does seem the author's native language is not English, and he takes some pointed criticism in the comments section for the way he organized the article. But he did a GREAT job of describing the drawbacks Photoshop has as a generalist tool: too many controls, too many options, poor organizing capabilities, and an emphasis on pixel-level editing of SMALL numbers of images, or those that require "heavy editing", layers, etc..

The author did a POOR job however of describing the way Lightroom offers simpler alternatives to complex masking; I really do not think the author is very fluent in Lightroom, actually, but has the basic concepts down, but he utterly failed to mention advanced Lightroom possibilities, and in fact, the article is at least two versions out of date in terms of what Lightroom can do NOW.

Photoshop Elements...I have not used it since a free trial of 10.0, but I found it challenging to get things done in it, and I prefer the older full versions of Photoshop for the way access to classic tools is handled. Elements has always been stripped down.

 

[SpikeyJohnson]

I didn't see the article but I read Derrel's reply and I agree completely. Lightroom is my go to color/raw working program. But the second I need to clone or "heal" stamp stuff I finish up color working, sharpening and such, then output to Photoshop. I don't have to do it often but it happens more when photographing women with fly away hairs. I don't generally work with single images in photoshop until I recognize a need to get into photoshop. Lightroom generally does what I need and I rarely break out photoshop. Lightroom encorporates a much better "raw converter".

I haven't used Elements but I'm positve (from what I have seen) it wouldn't really work into my workflow due to the other two programs covering what I need as well as they do.

 

[annamaria]

It's nice to read an article where the inability of Photoshop and its ACR module to deal with hundreds of raw image files is exposed, instead of disingenuously talked up, as happens here on TPF quite often.

There's a strong voice present here on TPF , one which almost always advances the theory that the shared ACR module that Photoshop and Lightroom both happen to have makes Photoshop somehow "equivalent" in speed and ease of use for normal editing involving large numbers of images, when the truth is that Lightroom is faster, and more-efficient, and flat out easier to use for "photographic edits" on simple things like exposure adjustment, contrast adjustment, sharpening,noise reduction,vignettes, and the application of basic, global edits.

The acknowledged leader in speed and efficiency when handling many raw files is Lightroom. And yet there are those who keep trying to convince anyone who will listen that the in-common ACR module similarity makes Photoshop just as fast to use as Lightroom. I thought this article was okay, although it does seem the author's native language is not English, and he takes some pointed criticism in the comments section for the way he organized the article. But he did a GREAT job of describing the drawbacks Photoshop has as a generalist tool: too many controls, too many options, poor organizing capabilities, and an emphasis on pixel-level editing of SMALL numbers of images, or those that require "heavy editing", layers, etc..

The author did a POOR job however of describing the way Lightroom offers simpler alternatives to complex masking; I really do not think the author is very fluent in Lightroom, actually, but has the basic concepts down, but he utterly failed to mention advanced Lightroom possibilities, and in fact, the article is at least two versions out of date in terms of what Lightroom can do NOW.

Photoshop Elements...I have not used it since a free trial of 10.0, but I found it challenging to get things done in it, and I prefer the older full versions of Photoshop for the way access to classic tools is handled. Elements has always been stripped down.

Very well explained Derrell and I agree with you. I happen to have Elements 7 that was given to me as a gift. I have problems being able to open raw photos as it needs camera raw which I did download, install, but it never worked. So I had been thinking of whether it was worth upgrading to a newer version or get Lightroom when I get some extra cash ;-) I know Lightroom is geared more to serious amateurs and professionals. Even though I am an amateur I thought perhaps I am better off purchasing Lightroom in the future.

Derrell I always like your comments, advice and critiques because you explain it well and are always tactful.

 

[annamaria]

I didn't see the article but I read Derrel's reply and I agree completely. Lightroom is my go to color/raw working program. But the second I need to clone or "heal" stamp stuff I finish up color working, sharpening and such, then output to Photoshop. I don't have to do it often but it happens more when photographing women with fly away hairs. I don't generally work with single images in photoshop until I recognize a need to get into photoshop. Lightroom generally does what I need and I rarely break out photoshop. Lightroom encorporates a much better "raw converter".

I haven't used Elements but I'm positve (from what I have seen) it wouldn't really work into my workflow due to the other two programs covering what I need as well as they do.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience. I agree with you as well. As I was telling Derrell I received Elements 7 as a gift, but have some problems with opening raw, the camera raw plugin did not work for me. Thinking of purchasing Lightroom in the future.

 

[Derrel]

You can handle Lightroom!!! It's not that difficult, and there are plenty of good tutorials on how to use the adjustment brushes to be found on YouTube. Lightroom is really a good way to "handle" images...it has a few quirks, yes, but it really is pretty simple, and it makes life soooooo much easier for me. The problems with Photoshop and with Elements stem from the fact that BOTH were invented way BEFORE digital cameras were popular. The entire concept of how photographs would be edited was layed down in Photoshop back when a "scan" was a $100 thing, made by "a lab", and one, or two images per day or per week! would be worked on extensively, laboriously, one-at-a-time. The entire pixel-level, layered,laborious,resource-intensive, memory-hog program, the one-app-at-a-time concept is the era that Photoshop was created in, and it never made much progress, since that is what it is supposed to be.

Lightroom was developed only AFTER digital photography became popular, and it was developed because a BETTER WAY to handle photos was invented by Apple Computer, in 2005. That better way was called Aperture. It took Adobe a mad, two-year scramble to cobble together an answer, and they did it because for the first time ever, Adobe was faced with a competing product from a deep-pockets corporation that they could not ignore or buy out and bury. A big dog, Apple, had entered Adobe's monopolistic yard, so Adobe simply was FORCED to make a better product, one designed fresh, and in the actual digital era.

You WANT to have Lightroom. I disagree with his use of the term "professional". He's using the word in a weird way. I would say Lightroom is designed for modern photographers shooting with digital cameras. It is designed as a NEW method for dealing with lots of images; Photoshop once again, was meant for editing all types of scanned image data, in the era BEFORE most people even had access to a digital camera. Lightroom is from the start of the smartphone era; Photoshop's origins are from the phone booth and answering machine era.

 

[hamlet]

Having used both lightroom and photoshop. I can say that i rarely have to bring up photoshop. I see photoshop as both a sledgehammer and a scalpel where i can completely overhaul an image. I rarely have to get those tools out because of my inexperience with photoshop.

 

[Derrel]

Lightroom is my go to color/raw working program. But the second I need to clone or "heal" stamp stuff I finish up color working, sharpening and such, then output to Photoshop. I don't have to do it often but it happens more when photographing women with fly away hairs. I don't generally work with single images in photoshop until I recognize a need to get into photoshop. Lightroom generally does what I need and I rarely break out photoshop. Lightroom encorporates a much better "raw converter".

I totally know what you mean with the cloning and healing features, but over the past two years, I've become better and better with Lightroom's cloning tool and healing brush, and although it is NOT as easy to customize or modify as Photoshop's, Lightroom can do simple, 1, 2,and 3-click clones "okay",much of the time. But yeah...if it comes down to needing to clone out anything tricky, I bring the file right directly into Photoshop and save as a .PSD file when I get the needed cloning and healing done. But for simple stuff like sensor dust bunnies in the sky areas, Lightroom does okay.

 

[snerd]

......... Lightroom was developed only AFTER digital photography became popular, and it was developed because a BETTER WAY to handle photos was invented by Apple Computer, in 2005. That better way was called Aperture. It took Adobe a mad, two-year scramble to cobble together an answer, and they did it because for the first time ever, Adobe was faced with a competing product from a deep-pockets corporation that they could not ignore or buy out and bury. A big dog, Apple, had entered Adobe's monopolistic yard, so Adobe simply was FORCED to make a better product, one designed fresh, and in the actual digital era........

Competition makes the pie bigger for all of us!!


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro

 

[annamaria]

Having used both lightroom and photoshop. I can say that i rarely have to bring up photoshop. I see photoshop as both a sledgehammer and a scalpel where i can completely overhaul an image. I rarely have to get those tools out because of my inexperience with photoshop.

I like the way you described your use of photoshop ;-) good way to look at it.

 

[annamaria]

You can handle Lightroom!!! It's not that difficult, and there are plenty of good tutorials on how to use the adjustment brushes to be found on YouTube. Lightroom is really a good way to "handle" images...it has a few quirks, yes, but it really is pretty simple, and it makes life soooooo much easier for me. The problems with Photoshop and with Elements stem from the fact that BOTH were invented way BEFORE digital cameras were popular. The entire concept of how photographs would be edited was layed down in Photoshop back when a "scan" was a $100 thing, made by "a lab", and one, or two images per day or per week! would be worked on extensively, laboriously, one-at-a-time. The entire pixel-level, layered,laborious,resource-intensive, memory-hog program, the one-app-at-a-time concept is the era that Photoshop was created in, and it never made much progress, since that is what it is supposed to be.

Lightroom was developed only AFTER digital photography became popular, and it was developed because a BETTER WAY to handle photos was invented by Apple Computer, in 2005. That better way was called Aperture. It took Adobe a mad, two-year scramble to cobble together an answer, and they did it because for the first time ever, Adobe was faced with a competing product from a deep-pockets corporation that they could not ignore or buy out and bury. A big dog, Apple, had entered Adobe's monopolistic yard, so Adobe simply was FORCED to make a better product, one designed fresh, and in the actual digital era.

You WANT to have Lightroom. I disagree with his use of the term "professional". He's using the word in a weird way. I would say Lightroom is designed for modern photographers shooting with digital cameras. It is designed as a NEW method for dealing with lots of images; Photoshop once again, was meant for editing all types of scanned image data, in the era BEFORE most people even had access to a digital camera. Lightroom is from the start of the smartphone era; Photoshop's origins are from the phone booth and answering machine era.

Thanks Derrell for the history behind all these programs and of course your well explained comment. Lightroom sounds like a program that will simplify my managing and post of photos.

 

[SpikeyJohnson]

Lightroom is definitely the program for catologing and keeping track of photos as well as post them to various services. It also has a "Camera Raw" much like photoshop. I use it ALL the time!

 

[annamaria]

Lightroom is definitely the program for catologing and keeping track of photos as well as post them to various services. It also has a "Camera Raw" much like photoshop. I use it ALL the time!

Definitely sounds like the software of choice for most photographers. Have heard a lot of good things about it. It sure would make my life a little easier.
Thanks for your comment.

 

[theraven871]

Both Photoshop and Lightroom have their uses.
Most people (myself included) only use Photoshop sparingly as Lightroom has become more powerful over the years
Lightroom is so much easier to learn and is very user friendly.
If someone could only afford one, I would always suggest Lightroom over Photoshop.

 

[annamaria]

Thanks so much for your comment. I'm thinking more and more that I might get that for myself for Christmas. Seems most people use LR.