WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

I understand that there are many "preferences" about various editing software programs and many preferences of workflow within the various programs themselves.
My question is Specifically aimed at Adobe LR and PS users. Primarily at those who use both LR and PS

For those who use both programs can you tell me in a broad brush sorta way what you do with each. I'm thinking that it makes sense to uses LR primarily for collection and organization and PS for serious editing? Granted that LR can handle good deal of basic editing.

Thanks

IDguy Loc: Idaho

95% Lightroom only.

Photoshop for stuff that requires layers such as composits. The new sky replacement is awesome. Removing or moving stuff.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Ever since I attended a Photoshop conference in 2012 and found out just how awesome Bridge is, and vastly better than Lightroom for collection and organizing, I quit doing anything in Lightroom. It's Photoshop & Bridge all the way. I have never questioned my decision, and a few hundred of my Clients over the ensuing 8 years agree with me. My biggest complaint about Lightroom is that it has always had problems keeping track of files if someone did something outside of Lightroom. The cool thing about Bridge is that it never has that problem, and Bridge even keeps track of non-digital files—Word, Excel, InDesign, Illustrator, etc. etc. etc.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

All the composition, exposure, contrast, etc adjustments work well in Lightroom. But let's say you're on a trip and waited for that perfect sunset shot. You get it. Then you get home and discover a stray tourist snuck in and you didn't notice. Photoshop is a lot stronger than LR at getting rid of ugly tourists.

bleirer

Lightroom classic is basically identical in features to opening a raw file in adobe camera raw directly from photoshop. But once you leave lightroom you are editing a tiff or psd and no longer have all the capabilities of adobe camera raw because the file is no longer raw. If you leave lightroom with a right click 'open as smart object in photoshop' you retain the ability to re-edit the raw file from within photoshop with just a double click on the layer.

So a good workflow is to start in lightroom, make all basic edits there, go to photoshop as a smart object where you can add the levels adjustment layer, the brightness adjustment layer (both things lightroom doesn't have) or any adjustment layer, or anything that needs refined selection tools or layers.

The only thing about working with the smart object is that all your edits have to be in a layer above the smart object, which makes for a nondestructive workflow, or you can make a copy and rasterize that layer into a regular layer that can be worked on directly. And if you do go back and re-edit the raw layer, you will have some work to re-do if you change too much in the raw.

Ruthlessrider

I agree. I find LR, as an organizing tool, frustrating. I download everything into Bridge by date of exposure, and then reorganize if necessary. I get frustrate by the various versions of LR. Once you get the hang of PS, especially with the latest versions of RAW and the initial versions it offer, I don’t know why you would still use LR. Just my two cents worth.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you started with PS as your digital editor, you'll tend continue to use PS primarily as your editor, especially if you think working harder must indicate better results. If you started in LR as your editor, you'll probably complete 90% to 99% of your editing on LR, even after moving from an LR-only platform to the LR/PS subscription. These users tend to see less effort for same result as a better proposition.

"Serious" editing depends on what you want / need to accomplish. Merging images (aka composite) is exclusively a PS function. Complex content replacement is faster / easier in PS, where "complex" depends on both the problem and your creativity and knowledge of using LR's cloning tools.

My own suggestion to someone starting out would be to maximize the editing tools and available free video training for LR. LR is (a) easier to use and (b) to learn and (c) more efficient for the majority of editing needs and (d) specific to image editing, as was Adobe's purpose for developing the product. Few images require the complexity and power of PS. How much text do you add to images? How many graphics do you add? How often do you need to replace a sky or a background or reposition image content? Do you purposefully capture images that require pixel-level edits on a regular basis? For the majority of photography and photographers, the answer is 'no', that Adobe recognized and created Lightroom.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

LrC and PS (the RAW image processor) have the same base for editing images, thus both can do a stellar job, depending upon the skill of the person using the software. We don't talk a lot about the skill of individual users here, mostly people just want to bash some programs and most likely it is because of their low skill level with the software. Most software today does a great job of processing an image, although there are many differences between processing programs. I have used LrC and PS (not ACR) for about 10 years now. I use LrC for both editing and organizing of images and it does a "serious" job of it. When you say "serious," what would that mean? I'm serious with each and every image that I process in both LrC and PS. I use PS mostly for layering, removing bothersome spots and specs, and sometimes for a touch of editing, maybe some dodging and burning and often for sharpening (again, not the RAW processor). I do most of my general and local work in LrC. I like the way LrC works for local adjustments much better in many cases than PS. Any editing is about skill, knowledge and the basic tenet that the image is worth processing. I see way too many images put on this site that should have simply been tossed. On other forum sites I see a much better quality of image in general. Knowing what your software can do and how you can do it is almost more important than what software you use.

jwreed50 Loc: Manassas, VA

I use Lightroom for 95% of my post-processing -- easier and faster. I move into Photoshop on those few occasions where I want to do something in layers or use some of those special PS editing tools that are not in LR.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

BTW I find the Photoshop interface mostly confusing. Stuff is hidden in various places (menus, icons, top bar, right side) and procedures are not intuitive. Doing a graduated filter, for example, frustrates me every time. Selection and masking likewise.

Lightroom is simple and intuitive. Go down the workflow and (almost) everthing is evident.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Most of what I do, as a Landscape photographer, I can handle in Lightroom. Exposure adjustments, cropping, rotation, etc. Plus editing in various applications like Luminar, Topaz, EFx. One of Lightroom genius capabilities is creating virtual copies of your image so you can edit without disturbing the original. Plus it's reset function when you've gone too far and need to start over again.

I edit the images in Photoshop where I want to work with layers like with a painterly approach or sky replacement where I want to blend the new sky with the foreground to achieve the look I want. Or for blending a series of focus stacked images into a final version.

Lightroom is excellent at image collection, organization, but using it solely for that purpose is like keeping a camera in "P" mode all the time and never turning the dial to S, A or M. And, both applications are great for "serious" editing

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I started out with the first version of Photoshop, way before Lightroom came out, and by then I had my own system of organizing my photos with folders. It seems to me the organizing system in Lightroom is the thing that confuses new users the most. I have the subscription now, but I still process RAW files in ACR from Photoshop, and I like having all my adjustments on layers so I can go back and tweak them. I have never opened Lightroom.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

The Lightroom folder management is straightforward and simple. I think what might confuse some is that you must actually use it to manage your folders and images.

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

This is something that LR is terrible at and PS shines.

Having access to all of the tools and procedures possible in Photoshop is priceless. I use raw converters as a first step in my workflow. LR is a very important part of that workflow because of its organizational capabilities. The editing is pretty good to, but it runs out of steam when really trying to perfect an image - and it is not at all suited to a lot of editing. Simple broad strokes is what parametric editors like LR are best at. The fussy editing required when doing image restoration, head shot retouching, etc etc etc just is not as easy to do in a raw converter as it is in a raster image editor.

In many cases, an image may be fine with just raw editing. But if you are a "gild the lily" type, a raw editor will fall short of your expectations (or those of a client).

(Download)


(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I use Ps almost exclusively. The only time I've used Lr is during an online class I took. Otherwise, it sits dormant. For organization of photographs, I use SQL. I think it's unwise to use any processing software to do that part of the process.
--Bob