Jsykes

I am evaluating subscribing to the Adobe Lightroom “Photography” offering that covers: Lightroom CC, Lightroom Classic CC & Photoshop CC. I understand the difference in buying versus subscription specifically the software updating drawbacks around the purchase option.

My understanding is that Photoshop is an editing tool versus Lightroom's capabilities also in editing and its' organizing capabilities.

What I would like to understand is the specific differences in "editing scope" between Photoshop versus Lightroom. I have got hold of a free 7-day copy of Lightroom Classic and got a feel of its capabilities while playing around with the menu from WB through to Calibration.

Does Photoshop (i) do all, or the majority, of the Lightroom Classic capabilities (in a similar or dissimilar way) (ii) edit “better” than Lightroom Classic (iii) or are its' editing capabilities more around "Lens Correction" and "Transform"

Depending on the answer to this scope question I will have follow up question(s) on Lightroom presets and overall strategy for utilizing this Adobe offering.

TIA

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

First of all, Adobe only offers the subscription model nowadays - unless you purchase an outdated version of the software subscribing is the only option.

No doubt others will chime in, but at core the difference between LR and PS is the former is designed to enable mass changes and powerful organizing of the images taken in, while the latter is a pixel-level editor that is "destructive" in nature (although there are ways to do non-destructive edits in PS). And in fact, they can best be used in tandem.

Imagine a pro shooting a wedding or sporting event who takes 2,000 images there. Importing them to LR makes it easy to quickly review and assess them, toss out the obvious loser shots (blurry, say) and even make mass alterations if, for instance, the light balance was wrong. Importantly, so-called keywords can also be applied en masse, so "Sally's Wedding" could be applied at one time to all the wedding shots, making it easy to relocate these images years later. LR even has facial recognition capability, and (with a bit of assistance from you) can start to identify all the images that show Sally's face, applying that as another keyword. So if Sally were actually a family member who appears in a multitude of images that you've shot over the years, it becomes a simple thing to find all the photos where Sally appears regardless of when they were taken.
LR also has some impressive editing capabilities, from cropping and leveling/rotating to color balance, shadow enhancement/highlight reduction, healing tools etc. Importantly, none of these alterations directly change the original (hopefully raw) file; instead they are saved as a set of instructions that LR will apply the next time you look at or export or print the image in question. What this means is that if you crop an image to fit, say, and 8x10 standard print size and export it as a JPEG or TIFF file to send to a print service, and then later decide you want a print in the original 1x1.5 aspect ratio (like an 8x12) then you can simply return to that image in LR and change the crop (well, perhaps remove it altogether) - the original image was never actually sliced up.

Where LR leaves off in editing, PS picks up in spades. An entire cottage industry has grown up in the past two decades to address all the amazing things that PS can do, which gives you a sense of how powerful it is. As such, a common technique is to start with LR (where the images are catalogued and organized and basic edits can be made) and then, for those images that require it, doing additional edits in PS. Obviously, a lot depends on your individual photographic style - personally I am more of a "SOOC" (straight out of camera) kinda guy - I try to capture what I someday intend to display to others (either on my website or on poster sized aluminum prints, whatever) when I take the shot. Others have all manner of creative vision that often cannot be achieved in "real life" and so start with the image taken but do tons of post-processing on it. As such, I use LR for 95+% of my images and rarely will further edit an image in PS (or for me, more often Luminar). Others may go in the opposite direction, though even so would benefit form the organizational features that LR affords.

The Classic version of LR (which for some really stupid marketing reason Adobe named Adobe Lightroom Classic CC) is the same in concept as the LR program that has been used for years; you download the install the software on your local computer and take it from there. It only needs to "phone home" once every 45 days or so to ensure you have been paying the subscription. You can also use it on up to two machines at one time without issue, I believe. The CC versions of these programs are web-only; that is, there is little stored on you local computer but rather everything is in the cloud, which makes it easier to work form any of your devices, from desktop/laptop to tablet and phone. The CC versions today do not have the extent of functionality that their local-based brethren do, but no doubt that is in Adobe's plans.

I hope that helps.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Lightroom and Photoshop should be thought of as two different and complimentary tools, not a choice of one or the other.

The Adobe Photography subscription gives you both Lightroom and Photoshop for 1 cost.

Lightroom is a “parametric editor”, it never changes the original file, only merges the original plus parameters to display the adjusted image when it edits, Photoshop on the other hand is a pixel editor, meaning it will allow you to manipulate individual pixels and change the actual image if you desire.

Of course Lightroom adds digital asset management with its built in database as well.

For me, every image edited starts and ends in Lightroom, some get “roundtripped” to other editors, some get worked on in specialized plugins to Lightroom, then “roundtripped” to Photoshop for finishing.

For editing, Lightroom is really Adobe Camera Raw, which is part of Photoshop as an initial raw developer when you open a raw file in Photoshop, or as a filter that can be used on any image from within Photoshop, but Lightroom is a nicer interface and always works in non destructive mode.

Subscribe to the plan and you get both

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Thanks, Don - coming from you that's a real compliment!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Though I have both, 99.9% of my processing is done in Photoshop. It's been that way for years. ACR is my equivalent of developing my film, PS the equivalent of making the print. LR came along after I started using PS and I never found a need to use it. Realizing early on that I needed a method for keeping track of photos, I developed my own database and have kept that plan going all along.

I've never worried about updates. They happened when they happened. Then, I had the choice of when to apply the update. The one drawback to the subscription service, as I see it, is that if a disastrous bug is inadvertently residing in the update, it gets installed. I believe this has happened with the subscription service, at least once. So, like many things with photography, the choice is yours.
--Bob

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

LR and PS are both editing tools. Actually ACR(adobe camera raw) is LR with a different front end(GUI). PS can do everything LR can do and phenomenally powerful. But don't under estimate what LR can do. Depending on what functions you will need you can do 90-100 of you editing in LR. Similarity is close but different, Not being vague but the difference is subjective. LR is very strong, much more than just a lens correction, transform.

LR has presets built in plus you can create your own, or grab both free and purchase and install them. Depending on you workflow, presets can be handy but you soon discover they can at time get you close but usually have to further adjust. More power is to have say NIK or Topaz along with PS installed and can edit-in those tools, with the results coming back into LR with the catalog and keywords and powerful search.

Start in LR, do what you need. Need more simply edit-in one or more others. LR with its database capabilities is incredible.

For my workflow, i find LRs virtual copy function invaluable. You can create N virtual copies of a photo and edit them N different ways. The virtual concept is one master and non-destructable and have N copies. LR keeps track of changes for each photo is a small separate file(mini macro) based off the single master While disk space is cheap, in PS you have to make a separate copy for each and can be destructive if not careful. in LR You can take any photo and process in B&W, color, etc etc. You're doing a wedding and you want to offer both color and B&W - trivial.

I'm a user of the LR/PS and fills every need. And for $10 a month you get both fixes and new function in the service stream.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Lightroom and Photoshop are different. Lightroom is non-destructive and Photoshop is a pixel editor and can be very destructive if you don't pay attention. I do 95% of my image editing in Lightroom Classic and I find it to be really good. Photoshop can do anything but dance if you work with it enough. It has some very powerful features I find very useful for my style of editing. Most of the applications on the market play well as plug-ins with LR and PS. If you are serious about photography and if you are doing your editing this is a great choice. If you were to have an outside entity do your processing the chances are better than good that they are using one or the other Adobe programs. I have been using the Creative Cloud since the very beginning and I have nothing but praise for Adobe.

Jsykes

Guys many thanks for the very detailed and quick responses and I wait with great interest to other inputs.
As you have clarified the capabilities of optimization of LR and which answers part of the editing “strategy”question I had, leads to the following questions, both related to other costs
i. LR Presets. There appears to be a plethora of (limited) free and (multiple) purchase options. I have seen a lot of common categories (Portrait, Landscape, Monochrome etc.) but.....
a. How difficult and time consuming is creating one’s own preset (categories)? Is there a recommended standard process for this?
b. How does one make the best/optimum choice between similar third party preset offerings or are they pretty much awash in terms of effective solutions? (Obviously important if the free ones are of a similar standard to purchased options.) I understand the subjective nature that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.
c. Any recommendations on the BIC third party offerings (free and purchased) that contributors have found.
ii. LR Training. Depending on the number of presets that might be acquired, presumably primary use of the editing tool is for those that don’t fall into a preset category that have been acquired. Which leads to the level of utilization of the editing capabilities and the respective training issue. As there is a vast range of training options with books, videos, You Tube et al. any recommendations introductory and next step courses?

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

answer the last part first. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ziLE2Gs9m0 it discusses both presets and profiles. In general morganti has an excellent set of free vidoes on LR, PS, On1, NIK. His general page is https://onlinephotographytraining.com/ for all of them. I would not buy the product doing without doing video homework. The catalog is a database and keeps track of everything - a set of pointers and data. You get into trouble trying to move/ rename files outside LR. For those used to using the OS to do this get into trouble.


a. trivial
b. You natch you needs with what is out there. Some people like Topaz, others like NIK, etc
c. I like the NIK set especially for processing black and white and removing grain. Totally subjective.

Jsykes

Fantastic, thanks

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Adobe Bridge comes with Photoshop (and possibly Lightroom too). It is an extraordinarily powerful organizer and, unlike Lightroom's organizer, Bridge never loses track of a picture or folder, even if you move it while in some other program.

I use Photoshop exclusively for my own pictures even though I also have Lightroom, Elements, Paintshop Pro, Photopaint, onOne, Topaz Studio, Watercolor Studio, Photomatix, Smart Photo Editor, Corel Painter, Snap Art, Landscape Pro, and some others.

An Adobe expert told me in 2012 something that I always tell my own clients who ask questions similar to yours: "Photoshop is the whole shop. Lightroom is a room in the shop. Elements are pieces in the room in the shop." So if you want the whole shop, get Photoshop. If you're happy with just a room, get Lightroom. If you only need a few elements, get Elements."

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

What no GIMP? :) :)

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

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

Photoshop CS6 is the last version that you may be able to still purchase, but it is no longer being supported by Adobe, so it is effectively off the table. So is Lightroom 6. The subscription versions are current, aggressively updated and upgraded, and have features not available in those old versions of software.

PHotoshop is a "complete" editor in that it has Adobe Camera Raw (the same engine for raw conversion as Lightroom), a pro-quality raster image editor, complete with layers, brushes, color spaces, blending, precise masking, content aware processing, smart object processing, compositing, text overlay, precise and accurate selection tools, and so on. A companion application is Adobe Bridge - a file browser that can launch various applications and can show numerous file formats - that all of the Adobe products produce. Being a browser, you point it to a folder and it will show you it's contents, just like Windows Explorer or Mac's Finder. It allows you to quickly view, rate, cull, keyword, group images as a stack, organize, batch process, and many other features. But it is not as efficient or as fast as Lightroom's Catalog based image management.

Lightroom is an image database with raw conversion capabilities. It does everything that Adobe Camera Raw does, but it is better organized and quite fast to use. It has some limited and imprecise masking capability for local adjustments, but it cannot compare with what you can do in Photoshop's raster editor. It can also easily export images to a variety of formats and you can save many of the things that you do repetitively as presets. Like PS, it plays well with plugins - virtually every plugin software title for image editing is specifically written for Photoshop/Lightroom.

The bid difference in raster editing vs parametric editing is the scope and accuracy, and the fact that raster editing is done on images that have had all the values in the image committed to what was converted from the raw file, as opposed to having all the raw data. Adjustments to raw data have greater latitude, but are less precise.

Editing-wise - Photoshop's Adobe Camera Raw does everything that Lightroom does. It does not have the same thoroughness of image management that Lightroom has. Photoshop's raster editor does considerably more editing than what is possible in a raw converter - making the two very complementary.

You can write about this all day long - with lots of questions and answers, but the two applications are not interchangeable though there is some overlap - and you will be able to better get your head around how best to use them both by taking a course, joining a local photo club, or reading and watching tutorials on line.