Joshc Loc: Stockton, Ca

Heya all,
Next week I will be returning home (and to work ugh) after 3 weeks of honeymoon/meeting my wife's family. I currently have LR5 but have been considering Adobe Cc. How much do you actually use photo shop over lightroom??

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Lightroom handles 90+% of what I need - cataloguing, converting from RAW, editing, exporting for print and web posting, and printing. The rest move on into photoshop for special editing using layers, pixel editing tools like removing stop signs and wires, plugins, etc. Most of the photos that I print to frame or sell go through photoshop for fine tuning.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I have CC. I got LR 5 in the bargain.

I never use LR.

Other folks ONLY use LR so it really is your choice.

According to some here getting PS <any version> is a really bad thing. Read this thread to understand my comment.

By golly you have to learn something new!!! No one does that anymore!

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

They do different things. I use LR for 75%, NIK for 15% and PSCC for 10%. You are too newly married to spend much time at a computer unless that is how you make your living. Happy wife, happy life. Congratulations and I wish you happiness.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

All my images are initially edited, keyworded, rated, sorted and cataloged in Lightroom. I also use it to very quickly, lightly optimize each "keeper". It's mostly only able to do global adjustments. Finally I will output watermarked proofs with it, usually modest size digital files now, but occasionally thumbnail print catalogs or 4x6s. So literally every image I take will pass through LR, in the course of my workflow.

After orders are placed for an image, I locate the original file with Lightroom, establish the necessary crop, maybe make a few more global tweaks to it, then transfer it to Photoshop for finishing. All "selected" images (whether selected by a client or by me) are given finishing touches in Photoshop, necessary to pixel level retouching, other selective adjustments, noise reduction and sharpening as needed, and other precise optimization. My images are never ready to be printed as enlargements or for other high use (such as commercial applications), until they have been through Photoshop. (I use CS6... not really a fan of leasing my software month to month.)

I'd estimate about 10% of my images or less eventually see some work done on them in Photoshop. That's 100% of the "selects", chosen for final finishing, though. For my uses, they wouldn't and couldn't be finished without it (or some other pixel-level image editing, retouching and optimization s'ware... I may need to change, if Adobe sticks with the cloud-based model only... I haven't decided yet).

Lightroom is all about high volume, speed editing and batch processing/RAW conversions.

Photoshop is all about finishing select, individual images to a very high level.

Some folks who do very little printing or only make small prints might get by just fine with Lightroom alone. It's plenty capable for images intended just for web usage. Great, too, for maintaining websites and online portfolios or galleries... and for producing slide shows.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Josh, anybody who uses the words HONEYMOON and PS in the same sentence, has something WRONG with them!! :lol: :lol:

That said, LR and PS are completely different, not even close.
I have both and use LR WAY more, BUT, because of where my photography is going, I will probably start to reverse that.

GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA

hmm, maybe not

I'm sure there are photos from the honeymoon that the Bride is going to want to hold.
Happy wife, happy life!
If momma ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Congratulations! Hopefully we'll get to see some photos from your honeymoon...

I use LR for all import and cataloging. Then it is into PS ACR for most of my work, but, LR can do that too. I'm only SLOWLY converting to using LR for development of my RAW files.
Habit.

GT

Picdude Loc: Ohio

First off, congratulations on your recent marriage. I wish you many happy years together.

In answer to your question, I have both Photoshop (earlier CS3, now CS6) and 2 or 3 versions of Lightroom. I find anything I want to do I can do in Photoshop and rarely ever open Lightroom. I just never got the hang of Lightroom. But that's just my opinion. I know others here love it, so it would be hard to go wrong which-ever package you choose to use.

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto: "I have CC. I got LR 5 in the bargain.

I never use LR.

Other folks ONLY use LR so it really is your choice."

I would add I've read some users start in LR and then after go to the full Photoshop to do finish work.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I use both - LR 100% of the time to import from memory card to computer and to perform basic global adjustments (in place of Adobe Camera Raw), and Photoshop 90% of the time for finishing, after making adjustments in LR. The other 10% will be spent using OnOne, Nik, Topaz, Helicon Focus, Photomatix, PT/Gui, Potrait Professional, and various other pixel-based image enhancement applications to "finish" the images that were initially adjusted in LR. Seldom does LR provide an image that would not benefit from additional handling in a pixel-level editor.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Not quite correct. When you purchase PS, you get Bridge and Adobe Camera Raw. LR is Bridge but better at organization (database vs image viewer) but LR and ACR are the same. You can do all of your work in PS and never need LR for image editing and optimization. Over 65% of professional photographers work exclusively in PS as one hogger posted.

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto: "You can do all of your work in PS and never need LR for image editing and optimization."

That said, I do the lion's share of my processing in Adobe Camera Raw.

Adobe keeps making ACR smarter and more useful, too. For example. the Gradient Filter in ACR now includes a Brush that recognizes edges when erasing that part of the image the user wants to exclude from the effect of the GF. The GF and Brush together then allow doing a selection of, say, only the sky for processing in ACR.

But I may still do a selection of the sky after in PCC for a fine tuning of it.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

I use LR mainly, and if any other work needs to be done I use PSE. These two programs compliment each other very well and are much cheaper than CC.

Many others here do the same. For photography purposes they do most anything you would ever need.

Jim D

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I have both, but use PS far more than LR. However, I'm not going CC. PS 6 does everything I need and I don't feel like being sucked into a constant payment to Adobe for the same thing.
--Bob

anotherview Loc: California

You have made a decision re PCC.

Please note, however, it differs from CS6, in several ways. First, PCC offers Camera Shake Reduction. This filter effectively restores the image to a sharpness reflecting the native optics of a lens, by removing the slight blur that results from mirror slap in a DSLR. In my experience with CSR, its result looks so good I do not use any other sharpening.

Second, PCC now has a smart brush that works with the Gradient Filter in Adobe Camera Raw to erase that part of the image which the user does not want the GF to influence. This brush recognizes edges. The user can make selections in ACR with the GF and this brush. A powerful, useful capability in my opinion.

Third, Adobe periodically updates PCC with improvements -- for example, the brush noted above -- without the user having to await an upgrade, which typically costs a couple hundred dollars or more for existing users.

Finally, Adobe offers a package deal that includes both LR and PCC together for only $9.99 per month -- a bargain one cannot beat with a stick -- for the most sophisticated image-editing software on the planet.

I am not a shill for Adobe, only a satisfied user.

Have a good day.