Pixel Painter Loc: Ogden, Utah

I know this topic has probably been kicked around in this forum dozens of times, but I need help in understanding why I need Photoshop AND Lightroom. I've been a Photoshop user for, well almost since it came out, and I have a lot of time invested in knowing about a third of the power of Photoshop. And when Lightroom first came out, I got that too. But I noticed a lot of duplication between the two. I mean I would first take the image into Lightroom as recommended, do some stuff, and then pass it to Photoshop for finish. Well, it just seems to me that Lightroom is an added step that I don't really need. Other than the Catalog feature (which I have my own way of doing that), Lightroom just seems to be an additional cost and a whole lot of duplication of effort. To me, it just seems like a way for 'ADOBE' to suck more money out of us and confused the hell out of me. And yet I hear of people that do their 'workflow' from Lightroom to Photoshop ... and I don't understand this because ALL that Lightroom does can be done in Photoshop (except the cataloging thing). What am I missing ... besides a few brain cells?? Any help will be greatly appreciated.

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

I don't think you are missing anything.

With that said, there are going to be a lot of folks who use LR and swear that is all they need, and for them that is true, just as those who swear YOU must use PS to be a real photographer.

Software is a wonderful tool and there are a wide variety of options available these days however, it is just another tool.

What works for one does not necessarily work for all.

This reminds me a bit of the canon vs nikon debate, or insert xxxx vs xxx. Some feel they have to be right.

To get back to LR, when it first came out it was designed to be a highend cataloging program and then each new version began to add more enhancing options which many find that is all they need.

Well, now I am just rambling, so i shall go eat strawberry ice cream instead of chocolate and won't mix the two :)

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

I use both LR3 and CS5.

I use LE for culling, RAW processing, Cataloging, and imbeding metadata. LR is great for culling as it let's you compare twig images side by side, rate the images and the filter them so I am left with the best of the best to export directly in to CS5.

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

Much better reply. :thumbup:

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

remind me not to reply to post while on my cell phone... the auto correct one day might prove to be very embrassing. It does like to auto correct the word pens... it adds an "i" between the N and the S. Very embrassing and hard to explain to my husband why I needed to run to the store to pick up PENS when it added that "i". :thumbdown:

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

not to worry, i can't type or spell and am considered to be over educated. Go figure. :oops:

mgstrawn Loc: Atlanta, GA

Whatever you're doing in your photo editing, don't change it! Just visited your website and your photos are incredible!

normanhall Loc: Leslie Missouri

I like LR3 for cataloging my images and culling out the bad stuff and sometimes i do some basic editing in it as well. but all my major work is done in cs5.

the main thing i like about LR3 is nothing is permanent when it comes to editing there vs. CS5.

You can do it all in CS5 cataloging and anything else but i find it easier to do in LR3 as far as cataloging

Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey

Well I'm one of those people who do just about everything in Lightroom. Since I have always used Elements rather then the full Photoshop, Lightroom has been a better fit for me. I can do about 90% of my work in Lightroom and only go to Elements if I have some graphic to add. I also like that I can upload directly to Facebook and Smugmug. But it is different strokes for different folks. If one has CS5 and has invested the time, Lightroom might be an uneccessary expense

normanhall Loc: Leslie Missouri

I agree, there is no right or wrong answer here it is all in what someone prefers.

photogrl57 Loc: Tennessee

You aren't missing anything....I have both also and don't bother with LR

wildman Loc: Bluffton, SC

Lightroom only works in the RGB color space. If you want clear separation between colors (say in canyon shots) and want to use L*A*B* color space, you must do that in Photoshop. Photoshop also allows you to convert to CMYK before you send to the printer.

wildman

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

For quick and easy common corrections (exposure, straightening, red eye, etc.), I use Lightroom 4 Beta.

For adding a frame around a picture, I'll use PaintShop Pro X4, Photo-Paint X5, CorelDRAW X5, and even Word 2010.

For everything else, I was using CS5 from June 2011 to December 31, 2011. After six months of pushing CS5 to the limits, I terminated my Adobe lease on CS5 because I determined that with PaintShop Pro X4, Photo-Paint X5, and CorelDRAW X5, I could do everything that CS5 did but at half the cost.

For down and dirty

Carmine Loc: Westport, CT

"ALL that Lightroom does can be done in Photoshop" ?? You need to look closer. You could almost say LR and PS are two different applications. They are made to work together. There are too many features to mention in LR that are not offered in PS or PS Bridge. I shoot mostly in RAW so I instruct LR to import as a 16 bit/Pro-Photo color space until I output to the space my client requests use which is usually Adobe 98/8 bit but there are other options listed in the File>export window.
For me LR streamlines my workflow. Upon import LR takes my images into the computer, stores them where I direct, gives each file a unique name that helps me find it later, provides me with a thumbnail I can play with, create and keep track of multiple iterations of the same image, maintain a data base with key words, build "collections" across you whole photo library and a host of other features like dealing with meta data, copyright protection, etc. The only time I export an adjusted copy of a file into PS is to work in layers or if my client wants a CMYK but that is rare today as offset printers like to convert based on the calibration of their own presses. Your printer, ie: Epson whether at home or a service bureau ( even COSTCO) do their own conversion with your output RGB file. There's been a lot of confusion about this topic but there's a wealth of information on the web from many sources including videos.
On another slightly different topic I would not recommend leasing access to the Adobe products, you're not saving anything unless you like paying as you go. One of the great benefits I find, is the ease of moving back and forth between LR and PS and the consistency of key commands, etc. Adobe offers. A great time saver.......

senad55verizon.net Loc: Milford, NJ

Lightroom (LR) isn't really an alternative to Photoshop, it's an alternative to Adobe Camera Raw (aka ACR). ACR is a component of Photoshop.

If you do a careful comparison you'll find out that the differences aren't that great between ACR and Lightroom. Of course, Adobe gets more money if you buy Lightroom.

Photoshop is an entirely different ball game.If you don't need or can't use all that power, don't buy it. Just don't think, even for a minute, that LR (or ACR, for that matter) is a substitute for Photoshop.