patrick28 Loc: Port Jeervis, NY

I've been using PS since PS7 so I've not worked with LR as it appears to provide merely a subset of CS5. A great bang-for-the-buck however if one does not have PS.

I don't understand why it is preferred over PSE 10 however. My impression is that PSE 10 provides the same RAW processor (ACR6.6) plugin that LR provides but adds many local effects that LR lacks.

It could be that LR's cataloging is more powerful but I just don't know that.

I frequently help newcomers get started and for them the cataloging features of either program are not yet important as most shoot fewer than 50 photos a month and prefer to skip the cataloging features to get right to the photo editing processing.

So . . . . why LR over PSE?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

LR is a very powerful cataloguing program, but lacks many of the editing features found in PSE 9 or 10, as well as PS CS5.

Josie

Lightroom on sale at adorama.com for $75.95...next 25 hrs

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

What I like about Lightroom is that it is Photographer-centric. It's built around the "digital darkroom"(lightroom).
Lightroom is built around the concept of streamlining workflow for a photographer.
For instance, I go to the same rink to shoot hockey games. So after one batch of photos, I imported them to LR and then began by adjusting the first two or three photos. Finding what I felt was common adjustments for these, plus adding the noise reduction and then bringing back detail after noise reduction; I saved all that into a preset for that rink.
I have done the same for the arena I shoot in.
So now, when I do games, I just come home, download my photos onto the pc. Import them into Lightroom, and then process the whole batch using the appropriate preset that I created. Then I export to jpg and publish to my website(s).
And the cool thing is, that for the most part, once I set off the preset, it's mostly hands-off. I might do a few crops, but that's easy in LR too.

So to me, LR is a time saver.
I know you can do the same thing in PS or PSE, as well as other tools, but it never was so easy for me before. Plus, the cataloging is great.
So unless I need to do some super-duper editing and adjusting with multiple filters and actions, it's rare for me to ever use PS now.

I wont say that one is better than the other. I just know what has worked out better for me.

I'll add that for some people, this question is one of religion. There are people in the PS group. There's the folks from the LR group. There are folks from the PSE group, and then there are folks that don't do any post processing at all.
To each his own.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Adobe's products are a bit difficult to understand at times. You aren't alone in your confusion.

The simple answer is that PSE targets the consumer market. It is intended to give the hobbyist photographer the means to manage their library of photos AND edit them. If you feel you are more of a photographer than a hobbyist, then the next level up is LR + PS, where you use LR for the management of your library in a very robust fashion (and can do probably 75% of the needed edits), then for the pixel level edits, step over to PS to finish the job. Of course, you're free to do all your editing in PS, if you want, but LR makes some edits very easy by comparison.

I've contemplated PSE, and it's a very enticing piece of software, but I already have LR and PS. Getting PSE would be a duplication of software I already own.

ShakyShutter Loc: Arizona

Lightroom may not be for everyone. If your shooting volume is low and you are able to track your originals and working files then Lightroom isn't necessary.