Lightroom has a great parametric, or rules-based editor. It can make fast work out of making broad, sweeping global adjustments. It is already included in Photoshop in the form of Adobe Camera Raw.

What you can't do in LR is make precise, local adjustments, work with layers, merge two images, use layers, brushes and blend modes to enhance or repair an image, content aware operations, etc etc etc. The functions are not interchangeable, so the answer is yes, editing is more comprehensive and precise in Photoshop.

HDR is the same in both, but you have additional tone mapping you can do in PS that is not available in LR.

Part of what you will discover over time is that the images that you once thought were ok out of LR really aren't. LR is a very fast way to get to proof stage, but not for proper image finishing. I haven't seen a raw converter alone that could produce finished images.


If you "buy" software (you aren't really buying anything but a license to use it) thinking you own something tangible, think again. Also your LR 6 is out of date. In automobile terms it's an Edsel - no longer made and soon to be completely abandoned. As new computers with greater processing ability, newer operating systems, new cameras and lenses hit the market, you will find support for your current license of LR as well as the new stuff - to diminish. One day you will get a new computer, camera or lens and won't be able to use it, and you'll realize the benefit of having software that is current and aggressively updated/upgraded.

Subscription model of software delivery is only a way to even out cash flow for a company and it's endusers. Photoshop used to cost $1000 and LR $300 - and another $300 and $100 at upgrade time - usually every 18 months. Not needing to manage a hugely expensive distribution channel - packaging, printed manuals, media, inventory, return of defective media, pricing etc - ends up being a big benefit, both in price and software quality. Essentially, by cutting out the middlemen - you are buying software at whole cost. May this way of looking at it can help you get over your hangup

Hello...
My current objective for now is editing real estate photographs which I am just getting into.
I am editing photos in Lightroom 6 which I bought outright.
If my out of camera photos are good there can generally be only a few adjustments needed My biggest friend seems to be the adjustment brush which works out fine most of the time, but I am still working on cloning and healing.

I watch two real pros on You Tube and everything they do starts in Lightroom and then goes right into Photoshop, generally into layers. Then I stop watching because for now I do not have Photoshop.

Just trying to make this a general question. If my out of camera shots are good most of the time is Lightroom fine?
And, does photoshop bring a whole higher level of editing esp. in problem areas?

I rely on HDR when I have to. Does photoshop do that better?
And lastly, I 'm not big on monthly subscription bills. Buying it outright would be ok?
Thank you...

Hello...
My current objective for now is editing real estate photographs which I am just getting into.
I am editing photos in Lightroom 6 which I bought outright.
If my out of camera photos are good there can generally be only a few adjustments needed My biggest friend seems to be the adjustment brush which works out fine most of the time, but I am still working on cloning and healing.

I watch two real pros on You Tube and everything they do starts in Lightroom and then goes right into Photoshop, generally into layers. Then I stop watching because for now I do not have Photoshop.

Just trying to make this a general question. If my out of camera shots are good most of the time is Lightroom fine?
And, does photoshop bring a whole higher level of editing esp. in problem areas?

I rely on HDR when I have to. Does photoshop do that better?
And lastly, I 'm not big on monthly subscription bills. Buying it outright would be ok?
Thank you...

I am not arguing. It is a compliment to Photoshop. It was developed as such. It is also a very powerful tool in its' right when it comes to external editing with a remote source.

It is also interesting to note that with camera raw in either Elements or Photoshop, one can accomplish 80% of what Lightroom can do. It is that other 20% that advanced users really take advantage of.

On the other hand, there are tools in Elements and Photoshop that do a better, quicker job than how it is done in Lightroom. Spot healing is a good example. So yes, Lightroom is a compliment to, not an instead of to Photoshop. It does not matter what other external editors one has in their repertoire.

Affinity photo is a standalone program although it also integrates well with affinity designer and affinity publisher and even shares some tools between them.

Affinity photo can also host a lot of photoshop plugins e.g nik collection and topaz.

Affinity photo does not do anything with 3d modeling or 3d printing or allow you to edit and color grade movies, which photoshop can do.

It can generate LUTs which can be used to color grade your video footage in something like davinci resolve ...

To be fair photographers use just a fraction of whats available in photoshop and affinity photo is able to match pretty much everything thats in photoshop that you would use.Thats pretty much true of most photo editors.

It's a shame Adobe has killed off Lightroom standalone but there is still Bridge and they give that away for free. That may be an alternative for lightrooms organisational abilities. I would still miss Lightroom thou.