bsprague wrote:
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.
I started with Lightroom 4 and "owned" i... (
show quote)
Why take a file to PS? PS, is an editing program. You can move and adjust "pixels" where LR is a "selection & cataloguing" program, for photographers, like myself, that need to make selections from hundreds of images, then develop them. If there is a need to edit pixels, then PS is the program. I like that if I do need, from time to time, alter and edit the file, that I don't have to leave LR to go to PS and back again.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
Martino wrote:
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!
I'm not trying to start an argument here about the... (
show quote)
Lightroom is Adobe Camera Raw in a slicker faster user interface with some other features like tethering, publication, printing, Geotagging etc. It is a busy photographer's perfect complement to Photoshop for workflow-based operations, cataloging and single user digital asset management. Photoshop is still the professional's choice for finishing work, compositing, etc since it has all the tools and the best support in the industry. It's only overly complicated until you learn to do what you need to do, which follows from learning to know what you can do with it. Seldom does anyone "need" to know every single command and procedure possible in PS, unless they teach it.
bdk
Loc: Sanibel Fl.
I dont use lightroom. I dont need the interface for cataloging and filing pix. My workflow is much different from most people here, and most dont understand it.
I use 2 monitors I open the current shoot pix to the monitor to my right. I open PS in front of me. I can then see every pic, I can see which have been worked on, I can enlarge it on the right screen if need be.
when I work on the pix, I just drag it into PS and and it opens in ACR. when I'm done, its saved into the same directory . If Its a TIFF its done, if its an adobe file its being worked on. etc.
If I want to comeback to the files. I just open JohnDoe wedding and everything is right in front of me.
Please dont send messages that I'm doing it wrong or harder, it works for me and thats what counts.
Martino wrote:
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!
I'm not trying to start an argument here about the... (
show quote)
I don't think Photoshop is complicated in any way and I don't think it is suited to graphic design very much, for that I much prefer a vector based program, maybe in conjunction with PS!
canon Lee wrote:
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.
Photoshop is an "editing program" and h... (
show quote)
Thanks. I do know the advantages of Lightroom over ACR and use it as a front end to PSCC. However there are some people that don't see any advantage using LR and do all their processing in PS.
I agree with "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".
For me, simple, I hate the file management system of lightroom.
Martino wrote:
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!
I'm not trying to start an argument here about the... (
show quote)
Lightroom with Photoshop when needed IF you can deal with Lightroom's controlling Library module. Photoshop only if you know how to use it and don't need the Library module witch I personally find frustrating.
PS. IMO Lightroom Sucks!
I know there are many that use Lightroom and think the world of it! But, I have never seen so many problems and so much confusion with a "state of the art" program! If you shoot for a living, do weddings, have clients, then for you it is probably a must and well worth using. For the rest of us I really don't think it is worth the possible trouble and the learning curve. I have heard Lightroom can do everything Photoshop can but that is not the case. It does have the advantage of cataloging but if you don't need that then....
What do you mean. Up until recently I only used PS and have always shot raw.
I have taken courses from three professional photographers, two learned and use LR, the third learned PS years ago and did not want to take the time to learn LR.
Martino wrote:
My question is, why do so many people go directly to Photoshop for post production?
I'm not exactly sure of your question, but if you're asking why so many people choose to acquire PS, I'd say it was name recognition. When a newcomer decides to try photography, the question we often get is, "Canon or Nikon." Everyone has heard of PS and the wonders it can perform, so when they decide to do some post processing, naturally, they want PS. I use LR most of the time, seldom opening PS.
If you're asking why photographers with multiple programs use PS first, it's probably because of past experience, and possibly because they plan to do more than LR or the others can do.
rjaywallace wrote:
On1 Photo Raw and Lightroom (with Topaz and Nik tools) work for me. Don't presently use Photoshop.
I see On1 has a new upgrade offer. I'm skipping this offer since I don't use it often enough to justify the cost.
bsprague wrote:
...the other has promised to unveil a full course tomorrow.
That would be today. Please let us know when you hear about this. I seldom buy courses, but I'm willing to consider it.
johnst1001a wrote:
For me, simple, I hate the file management system of lightroom.
Funny you should say that. It seems to be a separate project I have to deal with occasionally. I have my own folder system set up to store and find images, but I find myself wasting time working on LR's system - keywords, folders, resorting, etc.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.