nikonwaddy

russelray...CC learner here. Thanks for the excellent "tut" on saving original files in CC. When I figure out how to copy and print it I will do so and keep it for my editing lessons. I will note that for me now, at my level, I just simply copy my original image into a separate folder and work from the copy, never the original. Thanks again....

caljr Loc: Indiana

What about using iPhoto library manager for organizing your photo library? Anyone have comments, please.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

:thumbup:
On edit. I do find the batch Export helpful when reducing photos and rename them for an event.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Actually they don't....

You never hear Photoshop say, "My, you are looking good this morning" to Lightroom. Nor do you ever hear Lightroom comment, "You handled that problem very well." to Photoshop.

OTOH, they do complement each other very well.

Lightroom is designed for organizing and rapidly "lite processing" large numbers of images with mostly global adjustments and minor retouch, especially RAW conversions. It also has capabilities for making slide shows, printed or digital proofs, maintaining website galleries, and more.

Photoshop is required for finer image finish work, such as working with layers and masks, pixel level editing, more freely combining photos with other graphics (text, etc.), and much, much more. I've been using PS over progressive versions for about 20 years now, and still feel like I have only "mastered" about 20 or 25% of it. Much of it I don't need to use, but I bet there are some shortcuts and tricks I haven't learned yet, that I would find useful. I'll have to take another class or buy another book sometime.

Adobe Elements is a "Lite" software that draws upon both Lightroom and Photoshop for many of its features. It's a really good starting point for folks who have never worked with PS or LR, a lot less intimidating and overwhelming for beginners, yet a good first step on the path to learning to post-process your images well.

I use both LR and PS. Within the past week I processed 4000 images from a photo shoot... checking each was in focus, setting initial crops and making minor exposure and color balance adjustments, renaming images, adding copyright info and keywords, choosing the best 1800 or so RAWs, then batch processing them into lower resolution proofs (8 bit JPEGs, 700 pixels on the longest side) with watermarks, which were posted to online galleries through another program.

Some prints and digital files were ordered from those. I used Lightroom to quickly locate the original RAW file again, then to individually do another maximum resolution conversion (16 bit TIFF) that was passed off to Photoshop, where I did more or less final work as needed. That might include localized color correction if needed, dodging and burning where needed, final curves and levels adjustments, added signature (instead of watermark), any necessary pixel level retouching, any noise reduction that might be needed, final sizing and/or cropping per the planned usage, and any localized sharpening or softening (various methods, depending upon the image and its planned usage).

On average, I probably spend less than a minute working on an image in Lightroom... But might spend 10 or 15 minutes, a half hour, an hour, sometimes even several hours working on an image in Photoshop.

I don't consider either LR or PS "complete" without the other (Yeah, there's a Tom Cruise movie quote in there somewhere). I've used PS Bridge alone and it's fine for lower volume work, but was way too slow when dealing with hundreds and thousands of images on a short deadline. LR, on the other hand, just doesn't have the tools I need to give all the finishing touches to my images that I want, to bring them to the level I expect to be able to offer to my clients. But you put them together, and they make for a very complete package.

There is a learning curve to both LR and PS. Elements is a very good and affordable way to start that process without getting overwhelmed. Someone new to post processing can put the money saved buying elements into a graphics quality monitor and a computer/monitor calibration device.

MtnMan Loc: ID

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey

With the brush feature and the filters, I would never say LR is "lite" processing. As an amateur I do 95% of processing in LR and have been quite pleased with the results. Professionals might want more options and often need them to get exactly what they need. But to each his own

elliott937 Loc: St. Louis

I'm reading with great interest the comments about PS vs. LR. Kymarto, I think your use of PS is very similar to mine. I'm an avid user of PS, and have been for many years. Here's what I'd like to learn from all of you during this discussion: I will gladly spend hours on a single image, building layers to achieve that perfect capture. To work on a single image, what would I NOT be able to do in LR that I currently doing in PS?

MtnMan Loc: ID

I understand your point. The difficulty exists in many fields with the experts often speaking in acronyms that are almost another language. It would be far too time consuming for them to communicate to each other going back to terms that don't incorporate the specialities of the field.

I know I was intimidated by it by my first post-processing program beyond Picassa. I had no clue as to what "dodge" and "burn" meant and thought of layers as having to do with cake.

It gets compounded in discussions like this where some people get themselves attached to a particular program.

To keep it simple, if you want to start simply, get Lightroom and learn it. Then move on to Photoshop Elements.

That isn't the way I did it. I went to Elements first and was completely confused by it for three months. Then I got the Elements book by Kelby and Kloskowski...and that put me on my way.

I was able to do pretty much everything but even a year later couldn't understand why some were such strong advocates of Lightroom. I finally decided to try it. Having learned Elements Lightroom was really easy. But it took me about three more months to learn to prefer it over Elements.

I also got Photoshop CS6 about that time. It has more capabilities than Elements but knowing Elements I am able to use it. It doesn't impress me much. I would never buy the full version again (I had a student discount when I got it). I can see how experts would like it, but don't think it is what most photographers need.

I'll likely go back to using Elements with Lightroom when CS6 no longer works (due to Adobe or Microsoft marketing strategies). Or buy into Adobe's subscription plan.

elliott937 Loc: St. Louis

MtnMan, I caught your last comment about "when CS6 no longer works (due to Adobe or Microsoft marketing strategies)". It would be my understanding that once any of us would have purchased CS5 or CS6, for example, we own the CD/DVD with the program on it, and it will continue to work (for a very long time) on our own computers. I'm much aware of Microsoft wanting future customers to "rent" OFFICE by making monthly payments for ""Cloud"" access. And Adobe seems well on its way to that marketing model.

Are you suggesting that Adobe will have the future (or current) ability to block us CS5 and CS6 users from continuing to use what is already on our machines?

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Why Lightroom over Photoshop when Photoshop is complete? Why learn multiple applications to tie into LR when Photoshop is complete? You say that LR is "complementary" indicating some important image editing function that LR has that Photoshop does not. Explain?

LR was created to give primarily photographers a simpler interface at less cost and limited functions. IF all you want to do is image edit, just stay in PS with ACR.

Granted LR has it's place but PS is the whole package and I don't have to go else where for the results and product I want and need. My learning curve is less and my creativity and utilization of my images are greatly enhanced.

Clarkster Loc: Germansville, PA

Rather than get into a lengthy discussion, download a trial copy of PhotoPaint and try it out. I believe Adobe has a similar offer for Photoshop.
A good place to start for comparison is the Camera Raw import filter.
I have used the Corel Graphics Suite since version 4. I've beta tested vers. 5, 6, 7 and 10. Wouldn't part with Draw (currently used ver. 16) for Illustrator, but left PhotoPaint for Photoshop in the dust long ago.
As I said, try them out; trial products are free :)

Ted Liette Loc: Greenville, Ohio

kymarto has just summed up the reason I like Lightroom, as I like to keep my adjustments simple and let the camera, filter, and the current conditions of whatever I'm shooting makeup my photo.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I find the Lightroom develop module is easier to use then ACR in Photoshop. I go to PS when I need layers, masks etc

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

I too am (was) a PS user that is completely flummoxed and frustrated by LR. I was a little spooked by not having my own software and paying a license fee instead. I am coming to the conclusion that that reasoning was a mistake.

Question: I use Silver eFex Pro extensively. Would this be a problem with PS CC?

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

I will try to explain:
1. I am an avid user of both LR and PS, both are essential to my workflow.
2. the ACR in LR is the same as in PS, it is not a "Lite" version,
3. I do not like Bridge, primarily because I find the interface difficult to see, everything (menus etc. are so small).
4. I use LR as the core to my image management. I now have approx. 106,000 images, any one of which I can find in about 3-20 seconds without knowing the file name (assuming I have the correct external drive plugged in).
5. As soon as my camera is attached to the computer, LR will open and copy those photos into the import module with no intervention from me. I choose a home made import preset to tell LR what to do with those images, ie whether to copy or move, whether to put them into dated folder or altogether into one folder for culling, press the Import button and a couple of minutes later disconnect the camera.
6. Next is to sort into collections, this is the crux of storing files for instant retrieval. Some images go into more than one collection. I rarely use keywords or tags to find images, but I usually do put them onto images in a general way. I do not date the images, the Exif data already contains dates and LR can search on Exif data.
7. All my images are raw files, so when I decide to edit I do that through the built in ACR (which is the same ACR as in PS but with a much better interface)
8. If I need to utilise the facilities offered by PS for further editing, 3 clicks will create a new copy (to preserve the original) open PS and load the image into PS for layering or whatever. PS editing done, just CNT + S and the updated image is back in Lightroom sitting next to the original.
9. No need to save, it's all there in the catalogue and xmp files already.
10. I can print from LR easier than from PS, make a movie, design book, run and save a slide show or just turn off.

Once the concept of how Lightroom works is understood, learning curve is minimal - its getting that concept that many find difficult.