Photoshop or light room

[habeebms]

Hi all,

I've been using photoshop for a quit a bit but I don't have it installed on my computer. I've seen some pro

photographers using light room. I am considering to but one of them. What makes that choice hard is that I used to

deal with photoshop more but the disadvantage is that it is way too expensive. The advantage for light room is its

price. I would like to hear from you suggestions and feel free to share your experience with one of these programs.

 

[Light Guru]

Yes photoshop and Lightroom do some of the same basic photo editing they are really each designed for different things.

http://photographyconcentrate.com/photoshop-vs-lightroom-epic-battle/

 

[habeebms]

Thanks that was a great article. But I found one thing confusing when it says that photoshop is not a raw file editor because I used it

to edit raw files.

 

[Light Guru]

Thanks that was a great article. But I found one thing confusing when it says that photoshop is not a raw file editor because I used it

to edit raw files.

Photoshop converts the raw file. Notice how when you go to save it you must save as a new file. When you do a raw edit in Lightroom it saves your changes as metadata in the raw file, photoshop cannot do this.

 

[sapper6fd]

As others above have said, both have their place in the photography world. Photoshop does many things Lightrom does, and vice versa.

When editing an image with Lightroom (Raw for example), the file is save in a non destructive way. Any changes you make are saved and can be undone at a later time - escentialy reverting the file to its original state when taken by the camera. Photoshop does the same but in a different way. It saves the image as a PSD file. Honestly its up to personal choice. Anything you do in Lightroom can be done in Photoshop (Lightroom was developed off of the Photoshop Camera Raw add on). Photoshop allows you more control over the finer details down to the pixel. This however comes at a much higher hit to your pocket book. If your just starting of - go with lightroom. Its going to help you learn how to use PS which has a much higher learning curve. Anything you want to do with your images in the beginning, intermediate, even the advanced stages of learing photography can be done in LR. In a few years, if you feel you dont have enough control - move to PS if you feel you need that extra edge. This however if when your at the magazine level.

 

[bratkinson]

I used to use an 'antique' version of Photoshop that came free with my Canon G3 in 2001 or so. That is, until I needed more capability than it could deliver. So, I found LR 3 at a closeout price as LR 4 had hit the street. Running Windows XP, I had to stay with LR 3. Problem was, on my single processor XP computer, LR 3 was at least a minute to bring up each picture for editing.

So, I built a new Windows 7 computer (quad processor, lots of RAM, etc), and found my antique Photoshop wouldn't work any more. So, I opted for Photoshop Elements rather than full-blown Photoshop. I found it does what I want to do with only my learning curve holding me back.

I now use both Lightroom AND Photoshop Elements on my Win 7 box. Some things are easier to do in Lightroom, and some easier in Elements. And, of course, there's things in each that the other can't do (or, at least, I haven't figured out how to do it in the other). So, my workflow this days is put the RAW on my SSD with backup to HD, run them through Lightroom, and then making a second pass using Elements, and I'm done.

Total cost for LR 3 and Elements 10? A tad over $200 at B&H this past winter.

 

[KmH]

Photoshop is not a Raw converter. The Photoshop plug-in Camera Raw is a Raw converter.

Lightroom's Develop (editing) module (1 of 7 modules), and the Photoshop plug-in Camera Raw both use the same edit rendering engine, which is known as ACR or Adobe Camera Raw.

ACR first appeared with Photoshop 7. Photoshop Lightroom 4 uses ACR 7, and Photoshop CS 6's (Photoshop 13) Camera Raw also uses ACR 7.

Lightroom is designed as a compliment to Photoshop, not as a replacement for Photoshop. While a photographer can do a lot of editing in Lightroom, Lightroom has only a small fraction of the editing capabilities Photoshop has. For instance Lightroom cannot edit pixels and has no precision selection tools. Photoshop can edit pixels and has a variety of precision selection tools.

Lightroom's advantage to photographers is based in the other 6 modules it has, and how those modules can be used to manage an efficient workflow.

Photoshop Elements (which includes a de-featured version of Camera Raw) is consumer grade software and thus has about 30% of the capabilities CS 6 has, but is still handy for a hobbyist to have..

 

[sapper6fd]

Lets not also forget the best part of using LR is the image management. Sure Adobe Bridge does a good job - but LR in my opinion works better, is laid out in an easier to access method and is easy to rearange.

 

[jwbryson1]

For instance Lightroom cannot edit pixels and has no precision selection tools. Photoshop can edit pixels and has a variety of precision selection tools.

Keith, can you expand on this concept to give us CS6 Noob's a better understanding of how this works? I do not understand how or when you would want to edit a single pixel versus an image as a whole. To me, a Photoshop NOOB, I find the idea of editing specific pixels a bit of overkill and time consuming...but, I don't know what I don't know.

Also, is there a "normal" workflow for those who want to use both LR4 and CS6? Does the file normally start with LR4, then go to CS6, and then finish in LR4? Can you flush this out a bit more?

Thanks.

 

[ghache]

For instance Lightroom cannot edit pixels and has no precision selection tools. Photoshop can edit pixels and has a variety of precision selection tools.

Keith, can you expand on this concept to give us CS6 Noob's a better understanding of how this works? I do not understand how or when you would want to edit a single pixel versus an image as a whole. To me, a Photoshop NOOB, I find the idea of editing specific pixels a bit of overkill and time consuming...but, I don't know what I don't know.

Also, is there a "normal" workflow for those who want to use both LR4 and CS6? Does the file normally start with LR4, then go to CS6, and then finish in LR4? Can you flush this out a bit more?

Thanks.

in digital retouching, retouching an image at 100% view is making a big difference between an OK edit or a good clean edit. you want to go right to the pixel. why would you edit pixels you don't need to edit?

in example, when you remove small blemishes, removing the blemishes only using a small brush will give you way better result than brushing off the whole skin with the blur crap skin softening brush in lightroom...


i use both because both software are powerful and work well together.