ob1sage Loc: New Jersey

For years now I have been using Photoshop to tweak my photos. Adjusting exposure, color, cropping etc., but there is so much talk about Lightroom that I am wondering am I missing something? Any thoughts?

GDRoth Loc: Southeast Michigan USA

LR will do 90% of what most photogs do in Photoshop PLUS manage your images. It will certainly adjust exposure, color and cropping, as you mentioned. If you need the capabilities of Photoshop for a specific image, you can "Edit" the image using Photoshop from within LR easily.

I'd recommend taking a look at one of Scott Kelby's books on Lightroom for his explanation.

Dr.db Loc: Central Point, OR

I'm a long-time Photoshopper, too, who recently got Lightroom. If you already have a decent filing/organization system, you ain't missing much (I.M.O.!). I've been compiling a list of things that LR can and can't do for me, and the "can't" list is getting pretty long... (of course I expect to be severely chastised here for preaching such heresy! :) )

ob1sage Loc: New Jersey

Thanks for the reply. I will take a good look at Kelby's book to see if there is anything in Lightroom that would make me want to buy it. It is hard to change ones work pattern after many years of Photoshop use.

GDRoth Loc: Southeast Michigan USA

It's not an Either/Or question............you can use them both together in your workflow

lloydl2 Loc: Gilbert, AZ

i subscribe to CC, but first I had a LR prescription on an old laptop. I upgraded my computer so that LR 5 would run on it and at that time signed up for CC. I have become quite expert in LR and only pop over to PS when I need to do something involving layers, selections, removals.. Now that said the Camera Raw part of PS is essentially lightroom x the photo organization part and with a few added bells and whistles like being able to do some masking on local brush and radial filter..

As an alternative, if you already have a good folder system for organizing your photos then the choice between using PS/camera raw or lightroom is pretty much a was.

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

LR and PS work well together. For me, the advantage of LR is the catalog. Since you've been using PS for years, I presume you have your own way of keeping track of things, so that part of LR won't be a real advantage to you, and it will be another thing to learn (or reformat your workflow).

The LR UI is different from PS. What LR does, it does well, but in a slightly different way from PS. I think it's easier, but that's because I've been using LR for a long time. 90% of my images are processed in LR. The other 10% get touched by PS for more advanced stuff or maybe for panoramas or focus stacking.

Eventually, if you want to upgrade PS, the new version will probably only be available through CC. The photographers package at $10/month is (I think) the best deal, so you will get LR included. You don't have to use it if you go that route.

LR is available on a trial basis, so you can see how you like it. In my opinion, a 30 day trial is really too short to get a good feeling for a program, since most people would be trying it out in your spare time, rather than really getting into it. But at least you will get some idea how it works.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I find LR beside organizing the Develop Module (ACR) is much easier to use than ACR in PS

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

Lightroom if you want to bring out the best of what you've got. Photoshop if you want to change it into something you haven't got.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

I make use of Lightroom to manage my photographs, apply keywording, ratings, etc.

I also make us of the editing capabilities within Lightroom.

I also send files from Lightroom to Photoshop to do things that cannot be done, or cannot easily be done in Lightroom.

Basically, I would say Lightroom is a front end for ACR, with management and a few other utilities added in. It has the ability to send images to Photoshop or any other external editor, keeping your image library intact.

So instead of looking at should I use Lightroom or Photoshop - I prefer to use them both for their strengths.

BTW - Lightroom, Photoshop latest and greatest, updated/upgraded when needed for 10.00 a month with the CC subscription - great deal in my opinion.

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

LR's editor is exactly the same as ACR - it is a parametric (rules-based) editor. Photoshop is a pixel-level editor - therefore much more accurate.

But LR has an excellent catalog-based file management system, as opposed to Bridge, which is a file browser. LR's catalog only works with image files and .mov files, Bridge works with all of Adobe's products and file formats. LR's interface allows for the creation of collections and smart collections, tethering, slide show creation, printing, etc. As opposed to duplicating images for tests, you can easily create virtual copies which occupy a fraction of the disk space that a dupe would - for the purpose of comparing different treatments, doing a B&W version of an image, etc.

At this point I am going to suggest that you google Lightroom vs Photoshop - there are numerous in depth articles that compare and contrast them - so you can see if it makes sense to you.

Personally I use both - LR is faster, the catalog is awesome, saving me 100s of hours a year, and I get them both for $10/mo. I use PS for all of my quality retouching, restoration, and finishing.

If you don't see value in tethering, catalog, and other features that LR has that PS does not, then PS is a more complete application. But using the two in tandem, at least in my case, helps me work faster and smarter.

As has been suggested, as far as photo editing is concerned, it does 90% of what needs to be done on an image. If you are happy with unfinished images, ok. Photoshop gives you the same 90% (in ACR), but you can finish the images.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

If you feel the need to catalog your photos give them keywords tasty little stars and pretty flags LR is the best. Its batch processing cannot be beaten and when in your studio you can tether your camera directly to it lol.
If you use Photoshop already as far as as editing goes LR is the most frustrating piece of software ever made! You start to edit and quickly come up against things it just cannot do.
If you just tidy up a few snapshots its fine if you want to seriously enhance and edit photos Photoshop is the only way to go. I find many who swear by LR have just never mastered PS. It is as you know not the easiest of programs to use.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Lightroom is not a replacement for PS, nor was it intended to be. It is a raw processor intended to be used to adjust exposures and also contains a number of additional bells and whistles. For many it is used as a front end to PS, or PSE, since unlike those programs, LR is not a pixel editor and does not support layers. However, many people find that they perform 90+ percent of their adjustments in LR and only transfer their images to a pixel editor like PS on an as needed basis. By comparison, LR is far easier to learn and use then PS CS6

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

:thumbup:

ralphc4176 Loc: Conyers, GA

I have both programs. I don't like the way Lightroom wants to catalog my images, so I have been sticking with Photoshop. Other photographers may prefer the way Lightroom finds and organizes images. Depends on your preferences. My preference is Photoshop, but many others prefer Lightroom.