bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

If you understood the masking capabilities released in the last year, you need the current subscription version of Lightroom Classic.

(I couldn't resist!!)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Even the LR basics, the clone and heal tools, work faster and just as good as PS without futzing around with layers and poorly selected source locations. You can reach LR limits, where PS is a must, but you might ask: is this image so important that I need that level of editing? My answer 100% of the time: no, I surely have another version that doesn't need that level of edit.

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

Being a card carrying geek I find that yes, I need that level of editing at least 62.738% of the time. LR doesn't (yet) have image combination features. I can't swap heads in group shots just with LR. LR does do panos, but not yet focus stacks. LR is definitely growing, but it's not PS yet.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

That's why your subscription gives both market-defining tools.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

If you understood that everything you stated above is your opinion and is worthless to me, because I have everything I need in Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Bridge;

If you understood that I have been using Photoshop daily since 1992 and I can do everything I need to do there, without a lot of extraneous bells and whistles that have nothing to do with photographs;

If you understood that all that fluff you warble on and on about above has nothing to do with better images, and everything to do with adding steps to your workflow;

If you were capable of understanding that you would likely still not understand why I DON'T NEED LIGHTROOM.

Sophistication is meaningless. Camera Raw has all the editing functions of Lightroom, because Lightroom is Camera Raw.

I have the edit history of my images in Photoshop, and I can walk back and forward to any state. Then, I can use the history brush to make changes to the image from that state. Where is the History brush in Lightroom? I don't need Lightroom for history.

I don't need "export presets," I have Save, Save As, Save A Copy, Save For Web; the choices are overwhelming. And I never use presets. But if want one-click anything, I can make a Photoshop Action to do it. I don't need Lightroom for actions.

I can't imagine why I would need "many" virtual copies, but I have lots of disk space for any copies I need. I usually save three or four in different file types. But if need be, I can make as many snapshots of History States as I need in Photoshop. I don't need Lightroom for any copy, virtual or otherwise.

After all these years, in February 2023, this month, they just now fixed the crummy database? Wonderful. I still don't need a database to find files that are still on the disk just like any other file, and can be found with a simple search using Bridge. When it's been working for a year without problems, get back to me. In the meantime, I don't need Lightroom.

If you understood that I never use presets, you would understand that understanding how Develop & Import presets works would save me no time at all. The ability to do something I don't do is not something I need Lightroom for.

I do, of course, have the "Image Compare Window" in Photoshop, just one more thing that I don't need Lightroom for.

I don't understand "Stacking images for organization and reference." I can't imagine why I would spend even a moment trying to. Just figuring out the jargon would waste lots of my time.

I manage my images or ("digital assets" if you think using esoteric terms is more important than making quality images) just fine, and I can even extract assets from a layer to a separate image if I need to use them again. I don't need a catalog for that. Where are the layers in Lightroom? I don't need Lightroom.

The OS is not my file manager. Bridge is my file manager, where I have Favorites, Collections, and a search feature. If my OS has Collections and Favorites that I can access across folders and disks, I was not aware of that. Bridge does. Where are the actual image files that are cataloged by Lightroom? Are they not on a disk?

If photography to you means only unlimited virtual copies, databases, catalogs, organization and reference, importing and exporting instead of just "Save," or "Save a Copy," bragging rights for using "pro-grade software" (Photoshop is not "Pro Grade??") and coming on to forums like this one constantly asking for help in finding the files that Lightroom's "urban legend" catalog has lost, or how to transfer the catalog and database without losing all the files, etc. (I think there are at least 4 active such posts here right now;) if that is photography to you, don't let me stop you from using all the great features in Lightroom.

I don't need Lightroom. I will never need Lightroom.

ronichas Loc: Long Island

terryMc,
Thank you so much for your awesome response. I also do not use Lightroom. I have been using Photoshop, bridge and ACR for over 25 years. I have never been successful using Lightroom. It was insulting what CHG_CANON wrote in response to my post about not using Lightroom.

I particularly liked your *Camera Raw has all the editing functions of Lightroom, because Lightroom is Camera Raw.* because Lightroom is based on Camera Raw

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"I don't need Lightroom. I will never need Lightroom."

This topic is getting weird!

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

Does it matter if the photograph was taken with a lens with a filter on it??🤣🤣🤣

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

You might have noticed that I joined this forum in 2016 and since then I have barely over 150 posts. That's because I rapidly lost interest and didn't come back for almost 7 years. (I suddenly received an email out of the blue from UHH, and for some reason, decided to come back for a look-see.) The pontificating by people who think they are the be-all, end-all of photography quickly soured me, not because I know everything, but because I know enough to know that no one knows everything, regardless of their pronouncements to the contrary. When someone tells me that I am ignorant and "don't understand" because I don't do it their way, it sets off all the alarms.

There are numerous Photoshop experts who have websites, YouTube channels and lecture at the various Adobe seminars et., who don't use Lightroom. Two who come to mind are Colin Smith and Blake Rudis, but there are others as well.

Another thing that always stands out to me about many of the Lightroom people is the fact that they use Lightroom because they simply don't know how to use Photoshop and can't figure it out. Just yesterday, on another forum, I saw someone asking for help with how to cut an image in half, and do a mirrored image of one half, using Lightroom. Most responses said that it would be much easier in Photoshop, but his response to them was "I am too old to be learning such a complicated software package." You might be surprised how many times I have seen similar comments. Or, you may not be. When you understand Photoshop, you understand the plethora of things that you can do better and faster than in what is essentially a raw file developer with a database that has mostly given people headaches since its release in what, 2017?

As I said, I don't know everything, and that may be why I don't know how file management systems make better photos. Yet, how often do the Lightroom advocates ignore the editing portion, which is identical to Camera Raw, and tout the database as the reason to use it? I use Camera Raw for many things, and I go into the Camera Raw filter often. There is no need to export/import, just click "camera raw filter," do whatever you want, and click "okay," like any other filter. For instance, I think the new people selection AI stuff is great, but guess what? It's all there in Camera Raw, and I don't need Lightroom.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

If you understood that the identical masking capabilities are in Camera Raw, you would understand that for masking capabilities, you don't need any version of Lightroom Classic.

If you understood that Photoshop also has AI masking but with better and more accurate refining capability than clumsy brushes, you would realize that you don't need Lightroom.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

LOL

Talk about someone who thinks they know everything. Very UHH, welcome back to the community full of these types!

BTW - What is now LR Classic started back in 2007 as LR1. It really started to get good around v4 in 2012. I've never personally moved on from LR6 that still operates on Win10/11, dating back to 2015. The current subscription model, and the variety of flavors and mobile platforms, dates only to 2017.



I haven't touched the 'newest' Adobe Camera RAW, not being a subscriber to the current updates. What I do know of the software is that it is a cruel joke when compared to Lightroom Classic. From the earlier back n forth, LR may be everything that ACR is, but it doesn't go the other way; ACR is not even close to everything that LR is. ACR is so incomplete and cumbersome, the comparison is laughable, a cruel joke ...

So, the proper phrasing of the earlier statement is:

When you understand Lightroom, you understand the plethora of things that you can do better and faster than trying the same thing in ACR & PS. You understand when to expend the extra effort to work in PS for the relatively few images where this time and effort is needed.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

Here you are again talking about the superiority of Lightroom editing tools while refusing to acknowledge that the tools in Camera Raw are identical. Why is that?

Why is it that I can make much more accurate selections in Photoshop when I need to, and so there is really no reason to start in Lightroom and then export to Photoshop to do anything because Photoshop does it all? Where are the Pen Tool and the Polygonal Lasso in Light room?

Spotting and touchups? Who "futzes with layers" for that? Cloning on a separate layer is non-destructive, is that what you mean by "futzing"? I create a layer with a click.

Faster? How many milliseconds? Poorly selected source locations? The Spot Healing brush has rarely failed me, but if it does, say near an edge, the Healing Brush and Clone Stamp allow me to select my own sources and vary opacity to build up as slowly or quickly as I wish, and the patch tool works magnificently for flawless blending. Where is the Patch Tool in Lightroom?

I don't need Lightroom for any level of photo editing, basic or advanced.

When you understand the depth of Photoshop, and all the things it's capable of, you don't need Lightroom. You WANT Lightroom. I don't want it, lots of people with vast knowledge of both don't want it either.

ronichas Loc: Long Island

I am not surprised you don't about ACR, you are using LR6. That is 8 years old. Adobe products, LR, PS, Bridge and ACR have come a long way in the past 8 years. Maybe if you upgraded, you would be able to see more clearly.

***I haven't touched the 'newest' Adobe Camera RAW, not being a subscriber to the current updates.****

ronichas Loc: Long Island

He is using LR6, a program from 2015!!!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Yes, I use the software I paid for. Not paying monthly and then proudly and loudly telling others how smart I am to not use it, and naming-checking others doing the same. Even though, that population is rather small relative to the majority that use LR only, or use LR and PS together, as intended by Adobe. Adobe just cares you pay them monthly. I'd like to help you do more with less effort, to maximize the value of your monthly payment. But all things considered, I don't really care either.