Lightroom vs Bridge/Photoshop Advantages/Disadvantages

[smoke665]

In another thread there was a discussion about LR being superior to PS for most applications. I've developed a working knowledge of each to where I'm able to actually work without searching instructions constantly, but in the interest of expanding my knowledge I'd like to hear some comments from others more experienced.

In particular there were comments about the file management capabilities of LR. From a personal use standpoint I've found Bridge easier to use and manage files, but that might be because I don't know enough about the file management capabilities of LR. I've downloaded some recommended reading material and will continue to study, so I'm not looking for links to reference materials but real life opinions on which module you use, it's advantage/disadvantages?

Other comments were made regarding the ease of use of LR presets and adjustments vs PS actions, and adjustment layers. From a newbie standpoint and having used both I personally like the PS actions. Again not looking for reference links but opinions from those who use both, why and where each would/would not have advantages?

Real time, real life users speak up please!

 

[table1349]

Capture One Pro 10 Imaging Software | PhaseOne

 

[smoke665]

Capture One Pro 10 Imaging Software | PhaseOne

Had I known more about this a year ago it might have been an option, but for better or worse I'm now committed to Adobe. The monetary commitment is minor compared to time required to fully learn a new software.

 

[KmH]

Bridge is a file browser/manager designed to be used with most of Adobe's software applications - sort of a jack of all trades.
Lightroom's Library module is a database management application - a more specialize kind of application.
Put another way, Lightroom is not a file manager like Bridge.
Files have to be imported into Lr's database first, and files are moved using the computers file management feature Lr no longer 'knows' where moved files are
Because Bridge is designed for use with most Adobe applications Bridge can open many more image formats and file types than Lr can open.

Photoshop has more editing options and tools/tool options allowing for much more precise editing than what's available in Lightroom.
However, for most photographers Lr is able to do most of the edits they want done to most of their photos.
Consequently, where each would/would not have advantages is somewhat of a moving target depending on just edits a user wants to make.
Indeed that was Adobe's design intent for Lr. To be a front end processor of photographs for photographers.

The 2 together are the industry standard for raster editing of bit mapped files, which was the intent when .
That's also why Adobe includes both Ps & Lr in their Photography subscription.
Lr was not designed to replace Ps.
Photoshop and Lightroom are intended to compliment each other.

I use Photoshop's Selection tools a lot because I have always found them very handy for local edits of people photographs.
While Lr is a parametric or non-destructive editing application, Photoshop offers a broader range of non-destructive editing possibilities by using Smart layers.

As far as use of both Ps (Camera Raw) & Lr's (Develop module) Raw converter, they both uses the same application - Adobe Camera Raw - though each has a few slightly different features.

For image database management I rely on PhaseOne's software.

 

[smoke665]

Lightroom's Library module is a database management application - a more specialize kind of application.

Ok, so kind of like comparing Windows File Explorer to SQL server? But I was under the impression that LR didn't actually import the file but rather virtual copies of the file?

For image database management I rely on PhaseOne's software.

Ok if LR's Library module is a database management why do you choose a third party software for that function? What don't you like about the database mgt in LR?

files are moved using the computers file management feature Lr no longer 'knows' where moved files are

So you're saying if I move a file with anything other than LR I would have to import it again?

Photoshop and Lightroom are intended to compliment each other.

Ok this is sort of where I was going. I'm trying to understand when, where and how to utilize each, and not to exclude one or the other, because I believe they can compliment one another. Are there specific examples of when you see them complimenting each? I know that in Bridge, you're limited to opening for editing to ACR or PS. In LR when you right/click to edit in PS, then save, the image shows up in LR as a new image. Is that a real duplicate copy of the image file or a virtual copy?

 

[Derrel]

[QUOTE"] In LR when you right/click to edit in PS, then save, the image shows up in LR as a new image. Is that a real duplicate copy of the image file or a virtual copy?[/QUOTE]

Right here is a big warning sign of the beginning LR user who needs more time using LR . I think the real issue is that you need to cut the ties that compel you to worry about the need to "edit in PS", after Lightroom handling. Why would you want to edit in PS? If you think, "Oh, I need to edit this in Photoshop", you're not really using Lightroom the right way, at all. Why would you want to edit images in two, different apps, and why would you worry about virtual versus "real" copies?

Compliment one another? No, not really. The idea that one decides when to use one, when to use the other, on a more or less daily or weekly basis is not the way these products have been designed.

STOP right-clicking to work in Photoshop. Learn to use the new app and the way it works, rather than trying to work the way you're used to, with outdated tool sets, and the Layers mentality. There's no need for layers on 99% of images. The tools allow you to set their strength, which is something you were worried about in an earlier post, about the degree of effects. Work on new, virtual copies, if you are worried about making errors....instead of 168 megabyte blunder-files, and 1-gig on a 10-step image, you have 50k .XMP files, and half a megabyte in blunders.

I think what would be really most helpful would be a printed book on Lightroom, which would reveal so,so much about the application, with a good overview.

How to "utilize each" application is not the way to approach learning how to use Lightroom. The development engine, AKA the "sliders", is easy. There are a host of basics, basic commands,etc. Plus...how to use the Adjustment Brush, and NOT worrying about making mistakes and having the set of two,three,four,five layers to process images.

Sorry if the tone of this sounds harsh, but this is 25 yeas of PS and 4 years of Lightroom learning, distilled into the most basic concepts. Stop the Photoshop "safety net" as soon as you can. Within a month or so, you'll understand where I'm coming from in this post. But, ASAP, stop "opening and editing" in Photoshop, and start the learning process on how to actually EDIT, as in really, truly perform edits, in the LR Develop module, using the adjustment brush, and the sliders in the development engine.

To correct a misconception from an anti-LR poster, Lightroom is not intended to be only the "front end processor" for later handling in PS. NO. That's yet another of the back-handed disses he's been putting on every LR post here for years.

I learned to edit in Photoshop using version 2.5: BEFORE LAYERS were invented. I learned to edit on the actual, original, FINAL image (with safety back-ups of course), with basically ONE "undo" option....wayyy before History, and multi-level un-dos. Layers to me are typically a half-measure. This is one way to avoid that overly-Shopped, ridiculous-looking image. Realize what really, truly NEEDS to be done to an image, and do that stuff in the proper order, working on the "whole" of the image, and doing the editing that needs to be done, and avoiding anal-retentive worries about .012 density errors in the mid-tones, etc, or the .1 EV more of tooth whitening the image allegedly "needs" to be perfect.

 

[Ysarex]

For me what matters is the workflow distinction between a completely parametric single-event edit as opposed to a mixed parametric/raster (LR/PS) edit that is spread out over multiple files and multiple apps. I see this as evolutionary for our industry. We have been evolving steadily toward a workflow based on a single parametric edit as much as possible and moving away from the split parametric/raster edit. The benefits of this evolution in one word: efficiency -- saving time and money is a good thing.

We'll never completely cut lose the raster editor (Photoshop). But the more we can relegate it to occasional use the more efficient we become. The complicated clone operation and what I refer to in the classroom as "extreme editing" will remain the province of the raster editor. But when I see my students wanting to tackle an extreme edit or complicated cloning job my first response is to smack them back of the head and ask, "Why did you take that photo in the first place? Did you realize when you were behind the camera that you were setting yourself up for 45 minutes of processing work that you don't have the skill to complete? Can you really tell me that photo is worth it?"

Where we've come from: Go back a decade plus and our workflow required the parametric/raster split because the raw converter of that time lacked the capacity to perform local edits (burning/dodging, local color changes, etc.). So we typically used a raw converter as a stage one edit to produce an RGB file that then went into Photoshop for additional processing. Let's do an example:

That's the unedited default open of my raw file in LR (needs some work). In the past I would have done basic preparatory editing in my raw converter and set WB, basic tone response (on the flat side), input sharpening, CA removal -- getting the photo converted to RGB for further processing. My raw converter would save that work for me parametrically -- in Adobe an .XMP file. BUT to continue editing I have to generate the full RGB file which should be a 16 bit TIFF file. It might look like this:

And then on to Photoshop for the finished photo which I'm going to save as what? Do I have to save that 16 bit TIFF file? 16 bit TIFF files from my XT-2 are 130 megabytes. I could save a JPEG but if I do and don't save the TIFF I'll be freezing the editing I did in PS -- no going back. What if I change my mind and want to make an additional change when I wake up sober in the morning? Wait a minute! that 130 megabytes was for a flattened TIFF file. If I save layers in PS to really make my editing non-destructive that file is headed to 250 megabytes and bigger. What if I'm processing a lot of photos? You can shrug you shoulders and just say good thing I can buy cheap hard drives?

Here's the processed photo:

All processing done parametrically using a single software application. Let's do a total disk storage space comparison. My camera's raw files average 48 megabytes. To save the parametric processing such that I can return and make a change I needed 80 kilobytes. For a total of 48.8 megabytes. To save the raster processing including all layers I'm likely to need 48 megabytes + 250 megabytes + do we even care about that 80 kilobytes for nearly 300 megabytes. Now multiply that by a few hundred, a few thousand, 10 thousand photographs.

What did I do parametrically? I set WB, tone response, CA removal, just as above but then I was able to remove one of the holes in the wall, burn down the foreground, remove vertical keystoning, remove barrel distortion, crop, apply a vignette, alter just the color of the green foliage, dodge the green foliage and finally size and output a JPEG.

What if I wake up sober in the morning and want to make a change? Every parametric edit can be accessed singly and removed or altered without changing anything else -- 100% non-destructive and 100% re-editable. What if I had done it the old way? What if I realize I need to make a change back at the raw converter stage? Oh Sh*t!! That sets me up to re-do all the PS work from scratch. If you use PS and make the effort to use layers appropriately you can work non-destructively sort of -- it's not 100% non-destructive in the same way a parametric editor is. Occasionally PS will trip you up and force you to re-do some work to make a change.

Working exclusively parametrically I stay in one app. I keep only one file, the raw original, plus a tiny text file containing the parametric instructions. The raster editor is more powerful. Yes it is, but the parametric editors in the 10 years since Lightroom's debut have come to the point where I can now do nearly everything I want to do except complicated cloning and "extreme editing." I can even use a parametric editor now to change the color of just half the stripes in a US flag. Five years ago that job required Photoshop; today it doesn't.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Ysarex has brilliantly defined the Lightroom way: the single-application, parametrically-edited, finalized image.

 

[Ysarex]

[QUOTE"] In LR when you right/click to edit in PS, then save, the image shows up in LR as a new image. Is that a real duplicate copy of the image file or a virtual copy?

Right here is a big warning sign of the beginning LR user who needs more time using LR . I think the real issue is that you need to cut the ties that compel you to worry about the need to "edit in PS", after Lightroom handling. Why would you want to edit in PS? If you think, "Oh, I need to edit this in Photoshop", you're not really using Lightroom the right way, at all. Why would you want to edit images in two, different apps, and why would you worry about virtual versus "real" copies?

Compliment one another? No, not really. The idea that one decides when to use one, when to use the other, on a more or less daily or weekly basis is not the way these products have been designed.

STOP right-clicking to work in Photoshop. Learn to use the new app and the way it works, rather than trying to work the way you're used to, with outdated tool sets, and the Layers mentality. There's no need for layers on 99% of images. The tools allow you to set their strength, which is something you were worried about in an earlier post, about the degree of effects. Work on new, virtual copies, if you are worried about making errors....instead of 168 megabyte blunder-files, and 1-gig on a 10-step image, you have 50k .XMP files, and half a megabyte in blunders.

I think what would be really most helpful would be a printed book on Lightroom, which would reveal so,so much about the application, with a good overview.

How to "utilize each" application is not the way to approach learning how to use Lightroom. The development engine, AKA the "sliders", is easy. There are a host of basics, basic commands,etc. Plus...how to use the Adjustment Brush, and NOT worrying about making mistakes and having the set of two,three,four,five layers to process images.

Sorry if the tone of this sounds harsh, but this is 25 yeas of PS and 4 years of Lightroom learning, distilled into the most basic concepts. Stop the Photoshop "safety net" as soon as you can. Within a month or so, you'll understand where I'm coming from in this post. But, ASAP, stop "opening and editing" in Photoshop, and start the learning process on how to actually EDIT, as in really, truly perform edits, in the LR Develop module, using the adjustment brush, and the sliders in the development engine.

To correct a misconception from an anti-LR poster, Lightroom is not intended to be only the "front end processor" for later handling in PS. NO. That's yet another of the back-handed disses he's been putting on every LR post here for years.

I learned to edit in Photoshop using version 2.5: BEFORE LAYERS were invented. I learned to edit on the actual, original, FINAL image (with safety back-ups of course), with basically ONE "undo" option....wayyy before History, and multi-level un-dos. Layers to me are typically a half-measure. This is one way to avoid that overly-Shopped, ridiculous-looking image. Realize what really, truly NEEDS to be done to an image, and do that stuff in the proper order, working on the "whole" of the image, and doing the editing that needs to be done, and avoiding anal-retentive worries about .012 density errors in the mid-tones, etc, or the .1 EV more of tooth whitening the image allegedly "needs" to be perfect.

Cut the cord!

Joe

 

[smoke665]

@Derrel You're mistaken if you think, I'm locked into PS, last night I processed 49 images from Christmas Eve. All adjustments, including crops were completed in LR, as were exports to JPEG, uploads to FB and Google Drive. Took a little over 2hrs, a lot of which was uploading. Not once was I tempted to right click on PS. I get a lot of the features in LR, but I'm a nuts and bolts kind of person, I like to know the why behind how something works. I started the thread in hopes of getting more about "why this works better/worse" and "why I like it". I also understand there are some pretty strong opinions one way or the other, and don't mean to create a "my way is better war". I value your input, you've given me some sound advice previously, so please don't take my comments the wrong way.

@Ysarex I can relate to the comment about "why did you take this photo in the first place". Over the past year I've leaned that just because I can correct an image, doesn't mean I want to. It can get old real fast. I also understand the significance of the file size. I've asked this question previously but I don't believe it's been answered, "does LR import a "Virtual" copy of the image file or a "duplicate" copy, into the Library Module. I heard you mention something in the other thread about including the parametric processing in an image file as a standard practice, did you mean when you export to a JPEG?

Also this question is to both Derrel and Joe - Do you use the database management functionality within LR and why or why not?

 

[Derrel]

I was just going by what you wrote in the other threads about preferring the Corel/Photoshop approach, layersetc. and what was written here.

Lightroom's Database Management. Honestly, I do not value it much. I started my file and archive system well before Adobe had any involvement, and before keyword application was "a thing". My system is based on years, and date shot, and title keywords. Keywords not embedded in metadata, but actually attached to the folders/archives, and to a few KEY FILES, themselves.

"Chinook, coho,steelhead,Task,Nestucca,Columbia,zinfandel,chardonnay,St. Michelle, Tillamook, Hereford,Holstein,dairy,wheat,oats,corn, Father's Day, Christmas, person's name, Mother's Day,graduation, diploma, first ____,school play, soccer match, football game, basketball game....really simple yet very valuable plain-English words attached to photo folders and files, allows searching using a multitude of simple search tools, none really dependent upon Adobe or its products.

Last: I am a long-time Mac OS user. Apple has long offered file color-coding. Seven color-code dtags, plus un-tagged, as well as a Comments field, and a pretty inventive search system based on a multiplicity of user-selectable options, like Date Created, Last opened, Modified Date, type, creator (was that made on a scanner? or a Nikon? or a Canon? or by Adobe? or SilverLight?,etc). File type, Folder, app, Archive,etc.. Apple has now added Tags.

For me, one of the key strengths of Apple computers is this file-labeling system and its color codes, which dates back many years (now in the third decade); I can search for files by their COLOR-coded value/state of processing/and quality grade, across literally now, 20 years' worth of photo and other work. I can search for Orange files or folders or archives. I can tell a finalized image, from an in-progress one, from one that is an original, or one that has been Offloaded or Backed Up to Other Media, and tell an A-,B-,C-,and D-list image without even opening it up. Or knowing its name, or year, or even the kind of file it "is". I can search an entire drive for the BEST images and files or folder, versus, 2nd, or 3rd best "stuff", and NONE of that has anything to do with metadata or writing or titles/names. I can search an entire drive, searching for finalized, perfected, top-rated images and folders, based on a color-code I have assigned. I can find my very-best photos dating back to the mid-1990's, based on "qualities" they posses, without even knowing the name,creator, or type of file.

 

[KmH]

Lightroom's Library module is a database management application - a more specialize kind of application.

Ok, so kind of like comparing Windows File Explorer to SQL server? But I was under the impression that LR didn't actually import the file but rather virtual copies of the file?

For image database management I rely on PhaseOne's software.

Ok if LR's Library module is a database management why do you choose a third party software for that function? What don't you like about the database mgt in LR?

files are moved using the computers file management feature Lr no longer 'knows' where moved files are

So you're saying if I move a file with anything other than LR I would have to import it again?

Photoshop and Lightroom are intended to compliment each other.

Ok this is sort of where I was going. I'm trying to understand when, where and how to utilize each, and not to exclude one or the other, because I believe they can compliment one another. Are there specific examples of when you see them complimenting each? I know that in Bridge, you're limited to opening for editing to ACR or PS. In LR when you right/click to edit in PS, then save, the image shows up in LR as a new image. Is that a real duplicate copy of the image file or a virtual copy?

Correct. Lr only keeps track of where the file is located rather than the file actually being 'imported'. Which is why if you move the file without using Lr's Library module, Lr no longer knows where the file is.
At that point yes, you have to re-'import' the file from it's new location in your computer's storage.

Lr can only open 1 catalog at a time and cannot be used simultaneously by a network of computers.
Phase One Capture Pro can do both.

 

[smoke665]

I was just going by what you wrote in the other threads about preferring the Corel/Photoshop approach, layersetc. and what was written here.

I probably did say I preferred. Coming from PXP which shared a lot of similarities with PS it was only natural that I'd feel more comfortable with that approach. I guess what got lost in the translation, is that with the subscription to Adobe I have Bridge, Lightroom and Photoshop I have the opportunity to learn all I can about each. Over the past year I've put a lot of effort into becoming more familiar with all of them. I have to admit I ducked a little when I read Joe's comment about slapping students on the head for shooting images that required a lot of editing post. The newness of the ability to edit has definitely worn off.

Coming from a business background, my file storage and database requirements were a lot different. Windows was the standard, because of the lack of business software for Apple. Otherwise I'd probably be an Apple fan as well.

 

[smoke665]

Which is why if you move the file without using Lr's Library module, Lr no longer knows where the file is.

So moving a step further on this, if LR no longer knows where the file is, does that mean that the parametric processing completed on that image is lost?

 

[Derrel]

By the way...."some people" create an ALL-new catalog for each job they shoot in Lightroom. I've head this way of working from a number of CreativeLive.com presenters, which is something I had never thought of doing. I think that for "regular users", with normal hardware and system resources, that a Lightroom catalog that tops out at about 50,000 to 80,000 images is easier to handle than anything larger than 80,000. The reason is the sheer size and length of time it takes Lightroom to close a session and then to do a "backup" and verifiication of the catalog. For me....80,000 images was the upper limit...I now have three catalogs, since 2012.

LR will recollect the changes made to previously-worked-on images on re-opening the earlier catalog. But I seldom work/browse the original raw files, but instead, the finished exported .JPG files made from LR.

I do not need to browse catalogs....I can browse the actual Folders, with the images, or by looking at the folders, on other apps, or directly, and if needed, can easily use the Mac search functions to find things I want to access by teaching by color (Perfected Print, Perfected web); A-,B-,C-grade images, etc. Even have a category for folders, and images, which are labelled by me as being Backed-up or Transferred to Other Media.

For me, a catalog is good for maybe 18 months, then it is time for a new one.

The light blue, transferred to other media is very helpful....it creates a wall, a line, between what is likely locally accessible, versus NAS or DVD-disc media backed up and not on the current drive or system being used.