don26812 Loc: South Bay of Los Angeles, CA

By now you have seen a lot of good information from the group. In many respects, they are opinions and preference. So let me throw mine into the pot.

1. Remember, Lightroom was initially designed for professional photographers to help them manage and edit their huge quantity of photos efficiently. Elements on the other had was designed for the amateur consumer.
2. Both have evolved over the past years and are good at managing and editing photos.
3. Traditionally, Lightroom has been viewed as harder to learn than Elements. But, to a large extent, I believe that is based on what you started with first.
4. There is no question that Lightroom is more powerful program than Elements. But, for example, Elements has an Organizer that easily and efficiently can manage large numbers of photos. Photo collections of greater than 50K are easily managed. Like Lightroom, it uses database technology.
5. Like Lightroom, it can handle RAW images but as expected its options are less powerful.
6. And of course, its Expert mode is similar to Photoshop CC but simplified.
7. I am not sure about Lightroom, but I do know you can download a free 30-day trial of Elements. I my gues in that amount of time, you will be able to see if it satisfies your current needs and gives you room to grow.
8. If and when you outgrow Elements, Lightroom Classic provides a command to automatically convert your Elements Organizer Catalog to Lightroom with your keywords etc intact.

I started with Elements in 2001 or so. I have used it, taught it, and tested it for Adobe since then. But I have also been testing Lightroom for a few years. Last year I converted my 80K collection of photos/videos to Lightroom classic. It was time for me to move on and learn new things.

The bottom line is Elements served me well, and I still revert back to it from time to time, and continue beta testing. I also use Photoshop CC when the other two programs do not meet my needs.

FWIW

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

As an architectural/designer photographer I only use photshop Elements. It's simple to use and learn. And I use only about 20% of it's tools. It get the job done.

If I was to get those bigger programs I would be spending more time nit-picking the photos.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I read it somewhere. Also they are databases with very similar features in viewing but with cosmetic differences plus some major feature differences. Elements is a stripped down Photoshop and it’s Catalogue is a stripped down version of what LR uses in its Catalogue structure, thanks to Adobe. A backup in LR just backs up its catalogue but not the original photos. Elements backup does both. Some guy on this forum told me that.

Jeffers

I'm a long-time user of Elements and can't speak to the others.
I fully agree with reusselray that Elements is just a tool set, but it's a very powerful one. Gvarner is very accurate in his description of what you can do with it. I've used Camera Raw on digitized old images to bring them back to life and in some cases, to remove aging redness. I've also used other techniques to rid aging redness. I seldom use Camera Raw on modern digital images, but if you shoot in Raw you'll have to. It's not that hard to use and it is quite powerful. I've got post-processing of family images down to two minutes average, for cropping, levels adjustment and haze removal. Occasional Masking and other tools take a little longer. It takes a combination of keyboard commands, mouse, and touchscreen to achieve that speed.
The advantage of Elements is that it isn't a subscription. And mostly, when they issue their annual upgrade, it just has a few new Guided tools that are already in Expert.
Big rule! Never, never, never work on an original! Always work on a copy.
Although there are three modes, I wasted time in the beginning with Beginner and Guided. It's worth taking the time to learn Expert because you will get better results.
If you decide to go with Elements and want some training sources, feel free to message me.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I always start with the original and save as a PSD in version sets. It won’t let me save over the original. If I save as a JPEG it adds "edited" to the file name.

Jeffers

I don't use the Elements Organizer, I prefer File Explorer. My camera only shoots in JPEG. When I shoot at family gatherings I shoot anywhere from 50 to 150 images, although when it's at the higher end, there are some bursts that will yield one or two images each. I download them into an Event Folder that has the date and name of the event. In the Event Folder, I have three sub-folders; Originals, Working and Discard. I move all the originals into the Originals folder and copy them to the Working Folder. I load Elements, 10 at a time from the Working Folder, process them and Save them to the Event Folder. I don't necessarily save the PSDs themselves, but I save them from the PSD either as JPEGs (if I want to transmit them), or PNG's if I want to print them. When I'm done, everything is either in the Event Folder (processed), or the Discard Folder. The originals are still in the Originals folder. When completely satisfied, I dump the Originals, Working and Discard Folders, leaving me with the processed images in the Event Folder. Of course, I save Originals and PSD's of ones that I might want to work to further salvage. Those are rare.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

As long as your system works for you, I can't recommend that you change anything.

However, it would not work for me. File Explorer is certainly one way to organize things, by placing them in named folders. But it's organization on the event level, not the individual image level. It can be extended somewhat by placing keywords on the images. You can do that in File Explorer, but I find it cumbersome.

With a database organization system you can collect things by several different criteria simultaneously. If you have a photo of Joe in Event 12 and another photo of Joe in Event 37, a database can easily correlate things and show you the one photo of Joe in Event 12 and the three photos of Joe in Event 37 and even the photo of Joe you forgot about but it is in Event 2. You could prepare a folder named Joe, but you would have to copy the appropriate photos into that folder, duplicating the effort. Then, if you later want to edit one of the photos, you have to remember which folders have that photo and distribute the new version to all of them. Otherwise you wind up with different versions in different folders.

Another thing, I would probably dump the working and discard folders, but never the originals. The original image is the starting point for all future editing efforts. And since software changes (usually for the better) there will be opportunities in the future to improve an important image. For that you will want the original.

Jeffers

I agree about any original, where I'm not satisfied with the processed result. In circa 2001 I digitized images going back to 1965. Most that I wanted to save, have been processed and their originals are gone. But there a few originals that I have never been satisfied with, that I store in a Fix Folder, along with their last PSD. They are backed up on multiple media on and off premises. I keep hoping that someday I'll find the magic bullet to make them better. I do this for any image that I truly believe I want to improve.
We visited Yellowstone Park last August and I'm not done with those images. We won't dump the originals until we are done with the whole set and agree that what we have is the permanent round.
The family gatherings images, probably make up more than the rest of the images taken at a gathering. I provide the images to the family through Google Photos, and keep the ones we want for our permanent memory folders. The rest we dump.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"I read it somewhere." "Some guy on this forum told me that."

I read that a lot too. But, I don't think it is true. The coding teams are separated by a couple oceans. One appears centered in North America and the other is near Mumbai. Read the scrolling credit screens in Help > About.

One has "Quick", "Guided" and "Expert" modes. The other has endless graphics tools. That's different code. Tool icons and workflows are similar. The update and release cycles are very different.

It may be that at one time an early version was "dumbed down", but the two products went different ways for different markets.

In the end, it makes no difference. They both work well at what they are supposed to do for the people they are targeted to help.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Now that you’ve shown me and everybody else how stupid I was about being honest with you, all I have to offer is that I’ve used Elements for several years and I know pretty well how it works. You initially asked me about how I knew that the databases were similar. My reference is that they are both Adobe products and that I assume they wouldn’t waste a lot of effort unnecessarily inventing code. A database is a database. Both LR and Elements keep track of where your files are. Both allow you to set up categories and sub-categories ad nauseum and to tag photos in numerous ways for efficient sorting.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I can't speak to Lightroom as I do not use it, but I am a committed Photoshop Elements user. Elements has a RAW processor, Adobe Camera RAW (that can also edit JPEGs). I shoot RAW exclusively; I will process my RAW files in Adobe Camera RAW and then further edit them in Elements.

If you go the Elements route, I suggest you buy Scott Kelby's "Photoshop Element for the Digital Photographer." Buy a copy of the book that is one or two versions older that the PSE version you use. The book will be cheaper and nearly (like 99.99%) identical to the version you would use.

Jeffers

photoman022's advice about Scott Kelby's books is spot on. Also, look at Rick Peterson's You Tube videos. Both talk about keystroke commands but neither of them emphasize the importance of keystroke commands. Unlike Windows which is Menu centric, Adobe products are keyboard centric. Kelby lists the keyboard commands so concentrate on learning them. In most cases, keyboard commands work much faster then menus. In some cases, keyboard commands are essential.

don26812 Loc: South Bay of Los Angeles, CA

Both Lightroom Classic and Photoshop Elements use database technology, Elements in its Organizer, and Lightroom Classic in the Library module. Using database technology to manage images yields a much more robust approach than simply using a file manager.

Jeffers

I agree that for a professional photographer, a database organizer such as Elements Organizer would be better than File Manager. I've been burned by camera organizers when I switched cameras, so I was leery of Elements Organizer in the beginning. If I had gone with Elements Organizer at the start, I'd probably be very happy with it. Since I take only family and vacation photos, File Manager works for me. But I defer to those who use Elements Organizer as a recommendation.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Many years ago, when I decided I wanted something more than Picasa, I asked a friend what he thought I should do. He was a graphic designer and photographer and well-versed is all things editing. He told me that Lightroom was what I should get. He said that it's learning curve was nowhere nearly as steep as Photoshop and that it was designed for photographers. He was so right! I've been using it for about 10 years and am very happy with it. I have the $9.99 monthly subscription and get everything!