tropics68 Loc: Georgia

Having purchased CC2017 a while back and having played with Lightroom a bit, I have a question for the Lightroom advocates. Outside of all the cataloging/storage/sorting features in LR what else in LR do I get that cannot be had in Photoshop and/or Elements and Paintshop Pro?

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

I can't speak to Elements or Paintshop Pro, but it is possible to do everything in Photoshop that you can do in Lightroom (as you noted, except for the image management stuff). However, for the basic adjustments that will take you through the majority of your editing, the Lightroom user interface is simpler in my opinion.

I use LR/PS CC. 100% of my images go into LR. I'd guess about 10% of my images go from LR to PS and then back again so that the result is in the catalog.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Lightroom is quite a sophisticated application. One cannot learn much about it by clicking through the menus. There are many good books, but I'm partial to Adobe Lightroom Classroom in a Book. It is structured learning and exposes you to all that Lightroom will do. The organizational features of it alone are worth the money, but on top of that, you get ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) included.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

I have -- til now -- worked exclusively in Lightroom v5.7 (not the more powerful CC edition). I found it difficult to learn working mostly on my own, but once accustomed to it, I found I genuinely like it as an editing tool. The last version of Elements I used was quite old and not pertinant to this discussion. PSP does not work with my Mac laptop. I would recommend Lightroom CC as most definitely worth your time and more user-friendly than Photoshop. LR is far more than just a cataloger/organizer.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, White, Black adjustment. Panorama and HDR photo merge (superior, IMHO than Photoshop), White Balance adjustment, the list goes on and on. Suffice it to say that Adobe developed Lightroom specifically for Photographers.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I'm on the same plan and am a self admitted Lightroom fanboy. But, since Photoshop is thus "free", I thought it would be fun brain exercise to try to learn if, or what, I might be able to do better in Photoshop.

The first thing that I found was the ability to remove unwanted objects. Photoshop has more and stronger tools for that.

Since I shoot with cheaper cameras that have smaller sensors, I can't always control background blur as much as I want. Photoshop does a better job of blurring backgrounds than Lightroom.

Sometimes I want to get "arty". Photoshop will let me remove entire backgrounds or even replace them. It only works for the right image and is not for the "straight out of camera" shooters.

Another is portrait retouching. I'm nowhere good at it yet, but I have a couple granddaughters that I plan on turning in to "models" long enough for me to get some historical record of their teen life. As teens, "flaws" need to be fixed!

For landscape shots there is a process that I think is called blending. For example, your eye sees the perfect early morning image where the foreground, mid ground and (sky) background are perfect. When you print, the highlights are blown and the shadows blocked. If you take multiple exposures of for each, you can put them into a file as separate layers and "blend" them into an image that displays like your eye saw it. I've not yet been successful at it, but I'll keep trying.

Without doubt, most of what I will do with images can be done in Lightroom. But, I've learned some can be more fun in Photoshop. If you see post processing as "work" to be avoided, don't bother with Photoshop!

charles tabb Loc: Richmond VA.

===========================
I have and use Paintshop Pro.
I have found it to be all that I need to process and print the photos I take.
My only interest is having my prints come out the way that the subject looked to me when I took it.
I do admit that with other software on the market that you can do, much, much more than that.
I admire the results that others do get, but some look almost impossible to have existed in normal nature.
I feel that they are very good artists, however not real photographers.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Not much other than ease. Photoshop, Ps is a pixel editor, Lr is not.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

There is one other I forgot....

If you enjoy plug-ins like from NIK or Topaz, they are much easier to use inside Photoshop where they show up on the filter list.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I agree with Dirtfarmer's assessment. Here's an analogy: Lightroom is like having a well-equipped home workshop. PS is like having a small machine shop. You can do everything in the machine shop that you can do in your home workshop, and much more, but most of the time, you'd get the job done faster in your home workshop.

Also, if you start in LR, then using PS or other LR-compatible plug-ins results in your final photo being placed into the LR catalog. To me, that's pretty important, as I wouldn't like to spend time editing a photo and not being able to find it later.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

First, Elements is only an 8-bit editing program. Photoshop and LR are 16-bit and 32-bit editors. Elements does have cataloging capabilities, but when the catalog has more than 10,000 images it slows to a crawl. That's one reason why I switched to LR. LR has a much more robust catalog (databasing) capability. Photoshop comes with Bridge for organizing, but it's not quite as easy and robust as the LR cataloging system. Photoshop also comes with ACR (Adobe Camera Raw), which has the exact same editing sliders as LR. In fact, if you edit a file in LR using any one of the sliders, then open the same raw file in Bridge, it will open that file in ACR and you will see the exact same sliders with the same exact amount of adjustment as you did in LR. But that's not to mean that they are exactly the same. LR is more intuitive, has a undo and history feature that ACR doesn't have, and it has an easier way to share, print, slideshow, and do much more than Bridge and ACR combined.

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

You have pretty much echoed my feelings. As far as my tired, old, eyes can tell the same raw image processed with PS & LR both on the screen and in print are basically indistinguishable.

Thanks to all for your replies.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I do a lot of editing and I use LRCC for almost 100%. It's simple, quick and I like the vertical and horizontal guide (for RE photography) and I especially like the adjustment brush.

charles tabb Loc: Richmond VA.

Respectfully--
Your decision.


TO EACH HIS OWN.
I have my likes.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

That's because PS and LR use the same engine for RAW processing. The user interface is a little different, but the RAW editing engine is the same.