Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

I 'grew-up' using Photoshop over the years, and still do, but I notice there are many on the Hog who use both Photoshop and Lightroom. Just curious what the advantages of Lightroom are, over Photoshop, or in addition to Photoshop?

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

For me, I think lightroom is more intuitive.

Lanny Loc: Houston

To me, Lightroom is Adobe Bridge on steroids. I use it as a companion to Photoshop. It brings my raw files into my computer and organizes them and performs many basic, non-destructive, enhancements to them. If the process calls for layers or specific jobs Lightroom can't do, I pass it off to Photoshop then save it back into Lightroom when completed.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I use Photoshop Elements and Lightroom. A big part of the fun is learning both and how each does things differently. I'm a rank amateur and use none of it to make money.

It's like needing box wrenches, open end wrenches and a socket set. They all tighten the nut, but differently.

wisner Loc: The planet Twylo

Lightroom is essentially a data base program designed to catalog lots of images; a production based program. Photoshop is a paint program which is used in many industries other than photography.
Start with Lighroom, finish with Photoshop.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

speed...I can batch process hundreds of files in the faction of time that i would take me in photoshop.

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

For me they both work fine together.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I think that's where it started. But with later versions, especially 5.x, Adobe has gone well beyond the catalog and organization functions.

I'm doing some update training at Lynda.com this month. "Lightroom 5 Essentials: 04 Develop Module Advanced Techniques" is full of techniques with the Adjustment Brush, Radial Filter and Graduated Filter that are blowing my socks off.

The Adjustment Brush even has a has an effective version of layer masking.

For a good demo of Lightroom vs Photoshop, Terry White does a Portrait Retouch in this 30 minute video: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adobe-evangelists-terry-white/how-to-do-a-complete-portrait-retouch-in-lightroom-5/

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Photoshop is designed to enable editing of one image at a time. LR (and Aperture for Mac users)) is capable of performing some basic kinds of edits but is primarily designed as a workflow tool for photographers who take many similar images. The best way to understand the difference is to think of an event photographer's "workflow" - say a wedding shooter takes a thousand images and plans on showing a few hundred to the bride and groom. Using LR, he or she can quickly review all of the images as well as rank them on a 5 star scale while winnowing out the duds. If necessary, multiple images can be altered in one fell swoop - say to correct light color temperature or perhaps crop a bunch of images that inadvertently included some superfluous and distracting objects on the left side.

The editing capabilities of LR are not as massive as what can be done with PS, and indeed the two work hand in glove so one can, while reviewing photos in LR, decide to select one and do more advanced edits as needed (which then gets reimported into LR). LR is also non-destructive - that is, when you correct color temp or remove red eye or flip and crop a shot, the original (hopefully RAW) image is untouched. Rather, the program creates a connected file that contains all the instructions to perform those edits when that image is viewed or printed.

So, if you were in LR and selected 5 images and converted them all to B&W and then cropped them to square format, and then later realized that the 2nd one was one that you also wanted to have the full 1x1.5 aspect ratio and also meant to keep in color (while still keeping that square B&W one you made earlier), with LR it's no big deal as you can create another version from the original RAW, which was never altered even with all that stuff you did.

I hope that makes things a bit clearer for you.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

LR is fast to use and designed for high volume work... but has minimal image editing and optimization tools.

Photoshop is slower and designed for very precise individual image adjustments, optimization and retouching... with a host of tools for those purposes, but very little in the way of cataloging and sorting tools.

Lightroom is a cataloging, sorting, keywording, search, slideshow, website maintenance, high volume batch RAW conversion tool... with quick, light, mostly global editing ability (to proof/thumbnail image quality, IMO). It's non-destructive, meaning that the changes you make are only applied to a new file upon export (unless you set it up to overwrite an existing file of the same type).

Photoshop is an intensive, fine and precise, pixel level image editing tool with light RAW conversion, cataloging ability. In Photoshop you can work in layers and with masks for example, while in Lightroom you can't. Photoshop is "destructive", meaning that it will directly effect any file, unless you specifically save each change as a new version or otherwise prevent it from making permanent changes (Note: RAW files excepted... Adobe Bridge, the RAW editor within PS is non-destructive, too... it's sort of a "lite" version of Lightroom.)

LR and PS complement each other... two sides of the same coin, so to speak. IMO and for my purposes, neither is complete without the other.

Plus Adobe is offering that deal where you can get both for $9.99 a month (though I don't like the subscription model). I'm sure that's why many people have both... though they may primarily or only use one or the other. (Note: due to the low cost, I bet there are many who are way, way over their heads with these two softwares... They might be better served using Elements, which borrows a bit from LR and a bit from PS, to be more of a single, stand-alone software. Elements is generally designed for less experienced users or those who just don't need or want the complexities of LR or PS.)

I've been using both for some years now (LR for as long as Lightroom has been around... PS for many years prior to that)...

My work flow after a shoot - which typically is 1000+ images, sometimes upwards of 4000 and very occasionally (thankfully) over 10,000 - is to first copy all the RAW files from my memory cards to my computer, then Import them into LR.

During Import there are a couple things automatically applied (copyright info, lens correction profiles, etc.). During import, LR also automatically makes backup file copies to a second location (after which I can erase the files from the memory cards).

Then in LR I work through the images, checking focus and composition, cropping and straightening, making global exposure and color balance adjustments. More rarely I'll use the clone tool in LR to retouch certain things. LR has several sorting and ranking tools.

Once I've determined my "keepers" (usually about half my shots), I'll do an Export where I batch create watermarked proofs that are around 700 pixels on the long side, or make thumbnails if needed for website display. I also use LR to make printed thumbnail catalogs. I don't consider LR capable of producing finished prints, for my purposes.

But, thanks to Lightroom I can handle 1000-1200 images in an 8-hour day, putting them through this first pass, selecting keepers and converting the RAWs to "proof" quality level. When I was using PS alone, I could only handle about 200-250 images a day.

After my customers make selections from the proofs, I go back into LR and look up the image, re-crop as needed, maybe do a little more careful global adjustments if needed, then pass the image off to Photoshop where I do all the rest of the finish work. PS allows for far more targeted adjustments and retouching. More or less might be needed, depending upon the particular image and it's intended use. A large print may take some time to finish... while an image destined to be put up on a website may only need a little work.

It is possible, too, to create a "virtual copy" in Lightroom, where it will be exported twice (or more often if needed) each with different exposure or color balance adjustments. I use this technique occasionally for HDR type images (not the other-worldly looking type... but a method of dealing with extreme dynamic range situations). I also sometimes use it for alternative crops of a particular image, or to make proofs in both color and B&W.

But, for me, both softwares are essential... and neither is complete without the other.

MW

While I understand the concepts of masks and layers I have never been able to use them effectively or efficiently. Also my taste doesn't run to compositing although I admire the skill of those who are good at it. Thus, 80-90% f what I want to do can be handled by LR. Another 15% by plugins and since I don't make a living at that I can shrug off that last 5%.

As an aside I'll also say that with use I find that LR can do a lot more than you might think when first using it. It's a good idea to poke around with any adjustment feature you DON'T use - you may find capabilities that are not obvious.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

Excellent explanation, thank you.

bebo1998 Loc: Baltimore MD area

best explanation I've heard - thanks.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Well, I haven't grown up yet, but I have been using LR for about 8 years and PS for about 4 years. Went for the CC package about a year ago.

I start my workflow with LR. Photos go into LR and get basic adjustments. LR puts them into the catalog, which helps me to find things later. The LR catalog is what differentiates it from PS. The advanced capabilities are what differentiate PS from LR. The ability of these two programs to work together is what makes it worth using both of them.

LR is a basic editor with a few fancy things attached. There are many things it can't do, but it compensates for this by talking to PS. I can send an image from LR to PS, work on it there, and when I'm done in PS, saving it will send a PSD (or TIFF) back to LR, where it goes into the catalog so I can find it later. LR is the front end and PS is the workhorse. I probably only need to go to PS for about 10% of the shots (counting only the keepers here).

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I began with PS and then got LR when I heard friends and people online talking about it. Now I use LR almost exclusively, since it does most of what I want. I have CS6, and don't plan to go to the CC, so this will be my final version. I'll probably get PSE at some point.