Mojaveflyer Loc: Denver, CO

I shot the attached photo last Monday night about 100 miles east of Denver, CO, while doing some night sky photography. I edited it in Photo Shop Elements 11. I realized I was seeing what I believed to be the aurora borealis to the north and started taking pictures of it.

A friend sent me a link of a 'professional' editing a shot of the Milky Way using Lightroom. I've used Photo Shop Elements for years, in several versions and currently use PSE 11. After watching the video, I'm wondering if I should purchase Lightroom to give me more tools to edit my night sky shots...

The attached was shots at ISO 3200, f8, 20 second exposure with a 17 - 35 mm lens set at 17 mm.

What does the panel of experts think? How much will I gain by going to Lightroom from PSE?

(Download)

mikedidi46 Loc: WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA

I do not know about the experts, but I started with Photoshop Elements 5 years ago and have now switched to Lightroom. I seem to have more flexibility with Lightroom and will never go back to Photoshop, especially if I shoot RAW.

MtnMan Loc: ID

I doubt it is the aurora but you can talk to the astro folk on that. There is a separate forum on UHH for that. (Maybe Laramie, WY?)

For this type of editing I don't think you'll see much difference between what you can accomplish with Lightroom vs. Elements. You don't mention if you took the image in RAW (which I recommend) but editing full images in ACR (the Elements RAW editor) and Lightroom is very similar.

Lightroom has many features that make it worthwhile in addition to Elements. You'd still keep Elements for pixel level editing. Search some of the UHH topics on Lightroom to see what they are.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I got PSE years ago, as a freebie when I purchased a scanner. My opinion was that it was a pig. Ran exceptionally slow, took forever to start up, and commands just didn't respond with the same speed as PS. I gave up on using it.

In all fairness, it could have been the computer configuration, but then I was running PS on it at that same time. So, I never felt PSE was worth my time.

I have both LR and PS CS6 currently and should learn a bit more about LR. But, I keep falling back to my comfort level, PS.
--Bob

--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Quite lovely. I read where the auroras were visible as far south as FLA.
--Bob

MtnMan Loc: ID

The new PSE is far superior to the old. When my CS6 wears out I'll go back to PSE for layers and pixel level stuff.

Meanwhile I do over 95% of my stuff with Lightroom. It is much easier to learn and use and has features that CS6 does not.

mdsiamese Loc: Maryland

I have been in the same quandary. I have used elements for years, although only for the most simple of tasks. I don't do serious manipulations, mostly just cropping, adjusting white balance or lighting, etc. But I've decided to try Adobe's subscription service. For $10 a month, you get full Photoshop and Lightroom. You don't have to sign up for a whole year, so if you decide you like Lightroom after one month, you could buy it and turn off the subscription.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Being able to cancel in less than a year is a nice change indeed. Now they are getting to where I might give it a try!

But I recently upgraded my Lightroom to 6 instead of signing the contract so maybe when the next upgrade comes around...

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

If you shoot raw and use ACR in PSE to do much of the manipulation, well, that pretty much is Lightroom.

Lightroom excels at image MANAGEMENT. It is a DATABASE of your images, and it is ACR with perhaps a nicer GUI on it.

Lightroom is a parametric editor, where PSE & Photoshop are PIXEL editors - they each do different functions in reality.

I myself switched a year back from Aperture to Lightroom CC, and PSE 12 to Photoshop 2014 CC, Now of course I am using Lightroom 2015 CC & Photoshop 2015 CC and would never consider going back to PSE, Mainly due to PSE supports 8 bit files, and Photoshop supports 16 bit files.

If all you do is JPG that may not be a big deal though.

Lightroom and Photoshop (or in some cases PSE) compliment each other and your workflow should make use of the best tools for the job.

MtnMan Loc: ID

ComplEment..

lemontart Loc: uk

I used pse for many years before I got l/r and now do most of my edits in l/r very rarely do I use pse now. Defo get l/r will maybe upgrade from pse to ps in fullness of time dependant on what path my photography takes me down.

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

There is a Zombie Myth that says that LR can effectively replace a pixel-level editor. This is strongly supported by the marketing for LR and other parametric raw converters, like Capture One and DXO.

Two words for that - It Doesn't.

Parametric editing is very powerful but basic. Easy to adjust color and white balance, exposure, black, dark, white and highlight levels, clarity vibrance and saturation, color by color hue, saturation, luminance, lens corrections, limited sharpening and denoising. There are some local adjustments that can be made, but with minimal precision - it offers a customizable brush, radial gradient, and linear gradient tools, red eye removal and spot removal tool (resembles a Photoshop Patch tool but not nearly as effective). That pretty much sums it up.

If you want to make precise layer masks, color channel based operations, extremely precise local adjustments. use layers brushes and their blend modes to alter or adjust your images, use non-destructive dodge and burn layers, perform frequency separation to address inconsistent color in areas that contain texture (cloning, patching and content aware does not preserve texture), and a very long list of etcs that will boggle your mind, you need a pixel editor.

LR and its PS companion, Adobe Camera Raw, are intended to complement each other.

Raw converters produce excellent proofs in the shortest time possible. Pixel editors are used for image finishing, particularly if you go to print. LR-only printed images are relatively easy to tell apart from those that have been carefully "finished" in Photoshop.

Best thing to do if you want to improve your images, since you are already familiar with Photoshop Elements, is to get the LR/PS subscription and don't look back. It's the best package out there, with few compromises. And it is the best supported by the third party plugin market.

LR is not a replacement for a pixel editor.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

I awoke this morning relaxed and in a good mood... then my day was ruined. Before reading this post, I knew that East is East and West is West, and "God's in his Heaven/All's right with the world!"

To me Lightroom was a tool to wake up Raw Files for those who could not afford a camera that did it for them generating fine JPEG photos within. Those cameras that were poorly engineered that they needed sensors that were the size of old 35mm film instead of neat efficient sensors in compacts with one-do-all lenses. Raw sort of being a film base throwback. Lightroom had limited abilities compared to PS... simple and comfortable way to view life in the Digital Age if Images, OK?

Then, this upstart Dngallagher made the absurd disturbing statement "Lightroom is a parametric editor, where PSE & Photoshop are PIXEL editors - they each do different functions in reality." Parametric editor??? What the hell?

Now instead of taking photos I will sitting with friends Friday night discussing Philosophy of PIXEL vs PARAMETRIC EDITING. Probably my friend Jim, blind since birth, having a PhD in Philosophy and Suzan a Psychologist will be the major forces in the discussion especially when the reality that Dngallagher spoke of dissolves in ethanol. Both feel that Reality is Now, not some 2d photo of the interpretive past.

Dngallagher go soak your head in Developer, Stopbath, and Fixer.... I only need to DO, not Know... yet I am now compelled to dig deep into the LR vs PS editing philosophy vs taking great photos... MY DAY IS RUINED....

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

:) My job is done!

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Right On