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

PS CC photoshop cc - sorry

pego99

Try the free trials of both.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Enlighten me.. What needs are different when it comes to photography? Do they not want exceptional results? Are they (amateur and professional) not willing to invest in equipment. I have have known some award winning "enthusiasts" who rival and exceed the results of so called professionals. Yet they do not engage in commercial ventures, are not involved in production output, do not do weddings but for their own sense of well being and accomplishment produce outstanding gallery and publication quality prints.

Yes, I too am very skeptical of anything offered in these forums. Most of the time I find myself correcting a misguided view and arguing terms and terminology for which they vaguely understand.. And yes, they are most often someone's very limited point of view and personal preference, and what they do they like should be what you like and should do- sigh ....

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

Mark, with all due respect, I mentor dozens of photographers - from "I just got my camera as a graduation gift" types to one guy who is an accomplished photographer for 25 years shooting high end real estate and corporate events - and wants to take his game up a couple of notches - and everyone in between. And yes, they ALL have different needs, and ALL have different goals and expectations. The 25 yr guy has outgrown Photoshop. There are things he needs to do that CC just doesn't do well, and some things not at all. I have a weddings and events guy that needs to display images on a screen as they are taken, sort of like a Photo Booth, but in a running slide show - try and set that up in Photoshop. . . :)

Production commercial photography is very different from fine art photography. You have no time to waste on getting quality images to a client. When I do a wedding, I may shoot 1000 images, or more if I have a second shooter, and I will have proofs on a website for the couple to peruse 3-4 hours after the event is over, or by the next morning at the very least. Photoshop and Bridge "can" do this, but having done it that way for years, I can say without any exaggeration, Lightroom cuts the time to half. I can also pretty much say the same for Capture One, which is another workflow-based raw converter. OH, btw, did I mention that I shoot weddings in raw and have done so since 2006? I don't do weddings or commercial work anymore. Got tired of the running around.

I can spend 2 days on a photo restoration or 3 hours (or more) per image on a fashion retouch and there is no program I would rather do that in than Photoshop. It just rocks and I am so comfortable using it that it fits like an old pair of shoes. But when it comes to volume work, raw conversion, etc - Lightroom is in a class of its own, being conceived as a Photographer's tool exclusively, and without all the bells and whistles Adobe puts into CC that most photographers never use anyway.

Yes, every photographer is different, and each uses his/her tools in different ways. Which is why I suggest to the OP that it makes good sense to get CC/LR while the offer of $10/mo is still good - he will learn LR and avail themselves of its ease of use, and in time figure out what parts of CC he can use - and that will make him a happy camper. For the record, I have been involved with photography since 1967 - so I have been around the block more than a few times. :)

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

No doubt the quantity and the kind of work is different but the expectation/want and need is always the same - high quality. I think that is true from amateurs and professionals. How you go about that is up to you. Whether you use addons. plugin or not, the goals is always the same - the high quality, brilliantly composed and technically perfect. LR has its place but it is not better in output than Photoshop , though I would argue that I can take you further in PS than LR. They both have their place. I would agree that the $9.99/mo is well worth it. And I would learn both applications. Yes, there are some functions and features you would not use but if you learned both, you could expand your profession father than if you used LR alone.

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

:thumbup: :thumbup:

bobfitz Loc: Kendall-Miami, Florida

Follow this link for the answer to your question...

http://photographylife.com/photoshop-vs-lightroom

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

DxO Optics Pro is worth a look for you if you need automatic, sophisticated and quick batching of raws to a variety of target formats.

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

bingo!!! I have a better grasp on it now......thanz

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

actually just found DxO yesterday in a photo mag. have a shortcut on labtop and will look at in next couple days..

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Not a good article. First he says, "Lightroom can be considered a subset of Photoshop with specific functionality that Photoshop does not and probably will never have". And the says, "To sum it up, everything you can do in Lightroom can be done in Photoshop, plus much more". What this idiot fails to tell you is "what is more in Photoshop that you would want and perhaps need such a working with multiple images, selections tools, correction tools, the fabulous content aware tools, special filters, etc. Those who pontificate the attributes of LR over PS just don't use PS and are missing functions and features that would take their work from ordinary to extraordinary.