Martino Loc: Northwest Florida

I'm not trying to start an argument here about the rights and wrongs, but have some genuine questions.

I've used Photoshop for years for design, creating ads for publications, and graphic design. For photography post production, I've used Lightroom, Aperture, Luminar, Aurora and host of other tools. I've used Aperture and Lightroom for cataloging and organization.

My question is, why do so many people go directly to Photoshop for post production? Surely Lightroom, Luminar and the others are more appropriate for post production? Photoshop seems overly complicated and more suited to graphic design.

Just a question!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Actually they are best used together. Lightroom as a front end to first adjust the image's exposure and than transfered as a tiff from within Lightroom to PS as a back end to utilize the myriad of tools and features not designed into Lightroom. This is an approach many pros and advanced amateurs use. Others prefer going straight to PS. Lightroom is terrific at what it does, but it is designed primarily to make exposure modifications to raw files.

canon Lee

For photographers like myself that do commercial and paid shoots that take hundreds of shots per shoot, LR is essential. Occasionally I might need Photoshop to do some editing ( moving pixels around). I can understand why those that take a few shots would go directly to Photoshop.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

As far as photography is concerned I use Lightroom for 95% on my post production corrections and the rest I do in Photoshop and other 3rd party programs like Topaz

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Agree, but from what I've read some prefer to work within a single package and believe that using ACR in PS is no different than using Lightroom.

rwilson1942 Loc: Houston, TX

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

Lightroom and Elements works for me

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

On1 Photo Raw and Lightroom (with Topaz and Nik tools) work for me. Don't presently use Photoshop.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I started with Lightroom 4 and "owned" it. I gradually gained skill and confidence. The $10 rental plan came along and suddenly I had both Lightroom and Photoshop. I kept wondering what Photoshop was for! I started thinking of Photoshop as a primary plug-in accessory to Lightroom. I started looking for information on when and why a dedicated Lightroom user would take an image to Photoshop. There are no such courses or books! Everything I found was about one or the other, not both together. I've started topics here and elsewhere asking the question. Two of the more well known Lightroom trainers have replied to my requests for information. One is working on a book and the other has promised to unveil a full course tomorrow.

The course treats the Lightroom/Photoshop combination, synergistic "system" of the two parts. He has already released two "teaser" videos that preview the thought process for potential students. They are good.

If one wants a logical place to start looking at the differences, try experimenting with removing unwanted objects like power lines, trees or tourists. Another is background control.

jgunkler

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Many photographers use LRCC not only for initial editing but for its capability in file management. Others go straight to PSCC and begin their edits in ACRCC which has the same editing features as LRCC sans file management and the can still use the plugins. I started with LRCC and it has become a habit for quick edits. I do not use LR for file management. Maybe some day I may just use Bridge to open my files and manage my photos – I don't know.

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

While Lightroom and ACR share the same engine, I much prefer Lightroom's interface.

canon Lee

Photoshop is an "editing program" and has the same exposure sliders as LR. However one of the functions that LR has that PS doesn't, is the ability to export all same sized files, all at he same time, where in PS you need to set up an "automation" function that takes several ,individual steps, to do the same thing that LR does in one step. For me I only need to do exposure adjustments to my RAW files, & all of the images are the same size, which makes exporting much faster. I do commercial photography and my files are extensive and I have many, so cataloging is essential as well. I do like that I can save a catalogue and go instantly to LR "development" mode, at a later date, and re-do any file repeatability, without searching for a single file and then have only a JPEG file.
Aside from the exposure sliders, I use the sharpness/ noise functions as well.
Again, I understand why someone that just takes a few photos or needs to make major editing would use Photoshop only. Actually I use both programs, using Photoshop infrequently.

TheDman Loc: USA

If you shoot raw it is not possible to start in Photoshop, as the raw data needs to be converted to pixels before you can edit in a pixel editor. LR or ACR are meant to be used in conjunction with Photoshop as the raw converter. How much editing you do in either one is up to you.

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

I used to be a fanatic about removing power lines, and doing it in LR, well, just don't. PS is the tool for that job. Nowadays, if I can't shoot around them, I leave them in.