Thanks everyone. This is very helpful. I am on a tight budget and your expertise in the matter is appreciated.
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Photoshop is a graphics editor that works hand in hand with Lightroom. Lightroom is seecifically intended to work with photographs. Right now, you can’t get one without the other.
I got PS alone (without LR, because I don't need it)!
Soans Pics wrote:
I would live to hear from those of you who are experienced in using these editing programs. I am trying decide which one to use.
They are entirely different programs and are also used for different purposes or applications, if at all they can be used together very efficiently, but choosing one over the other, one has to think about the priority of uses, because that will be the deciding factor. Each program is very good at what it suppose to do!
jamesl wrote:
For someone that feels they always have to have the absolute newest version and all the updates even if a lot are things you don't and may never use, then it would be a good idea to pay the $10.00 per month. Not everyone is that way. In my case, I used Photoshop 7 until I decided to update to Photoshop CS3 and then for the last time to Photoshop CS6. I used Lightroom 2 until I decided to update to Lightroom 5. In all cases, I find there were improvements but none of them important enough for me to be constantly updating to a new version. I have no need for new camera definitions if I don't have, use or plan to buy any of the new cameras covered by the new version. I am retired and I don't need or want any unnecessary ongoing expenses. I still have my Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 5.7 that I can use if and when I want and without continuing to pay for it every month. So it isn't a matter of the $10 per month being too much to pay, it is just an unnecessary expense. With good replacements available that we can just buy outright like "Affinity Photo", "Luminar 2018" and "ON1 Photo RAW 2018" we aren't stuck with everlasting payments. For those that think the monthly fee is a good deal and want to use it that's fine, enjoy. Rather than paying a fee to use Photoshop I would rather just buy Photoshop Elements which I have done before.
For someone that feels they always have to have th... (
show quote)
So, you assume that everyone thinks and does as you do? I'm not critical of your choices, but any person who is going to 'get busy' with photography would be significantly hampered by your recommendation. Plus, the OP asked specifically about LR & PS. The only way to acquire that software today is by subscribing to the Creative Cloud (regardless of how you pay the tab). Some of us are rather serious about this stuff, even if it is a hobby. We aren't looking for CHEAP.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
Soans Pics wrote:
I would live to hear from those of you who are experienced in using these editing programs. I am trying decide which one to use.
Raw converters are great at making very good proofs, but they are not great for finish work. With Ps, you have the same raw conversion engine as Lr, and you have one of the best bitmap editors on the planet. So if you have to choose one, it would be Ps. But the current versions of both are bundled - so why not use Lr for cataloging and file management, gps tagging, etc etc, and use Ps for the finish work? They do work seamlessly together.
There is a lot of detail editing, masking and other operations that are just not possible with Lr.
I've been using both since CC became a real product, and the benefits of using both are clear.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.