I started with Lightroom 4 and "owned" it. I gradually gained skill and confidence. The $10 rental plan came along and suddenly I had both Lightroom and Photoshop. I kept wondering what Photoshop was for! I started thinking of Photoshop as a primary plug-in accessory to Lightroom. I started looking for information on when and why a dedicated Lightroom user would take an image to Photoshop. There are no such courses or books! Everything I found was about one or the other, not both together. I've started topics here and elsewhere asking the question. Two of the more well known Lightroom trainers have replied to my requests for information. One is working on a book and the other has promised to unveil a full course tomorrow.

The course treats the Lightroom/Photoshop combination, synergistic "system" of the two parts. He has already released two "teaser" videos that preview the thought process for potential students. They are good.

If one wants a logical place to start looking at the differences, try experimenting with removing unwanted objects like power lines, trees or tourists. Another is background control.

I'm not trying to start an argument here about the rights and wrongs, but have some genuine questions.

I've used Photoshop for years for design, creating ads for publications, and graphic design. For photography post production, I've used Lightroom, Aperture, Luminar, Aurora and host of other tools. I've used Aperture and Lightroom for cataloging and organization.

My question is, why do so many people go directly to Photoshop for post production? Surely Lightroom, Luminar and the others are more appropriate for post production? Photoshop seems overly complicated and more suited to graphic design.

Just a question!

I'm not trying to start an argument here about the rights and wrongs, but have some genuine questions.

I've used Photoshop for years for design, creating ads for publications, and graphic design. For photography post production, I've used Lightroom, Aperture, Luminar, Aurora and host of other tools. I've used Aperture and Lightroom for cataloging and organization.

My question is, why do so many people go directly to Photoshop for post production? Surely Lightroom, Luminar and the others are more appropriate for post production? Photoshop seems overly complicated and more suited to graphic design.

Just a question!

Photoshop is an "editing program" and has the same exposure sliders as LR. However one of the functions that LR has that PS doesn't, is the ability to export all same sized files, all at he same time, where in PS you need to set up an "automation" function that takes several ,individual steps, to do the same thing that LR does in one step. For me I only need to do exposure adjustments to my RAW files, & all of the images are the same size, which makes exporting much faster. I do commercial photography and my files are extensive and I have many, so cataloging is essential as well. I do like that I can save a catalogue and go instantly to LR "development" mode, at a later date, and re-do any file repeatability, without searching for a single file and then have only a JPEG file.
Aside from the exposure sliders, I use the sharpness/ noise functions as well.
Again, I understand why someone that just takes a few photos or needs to make major editing would use Photoshop only. Actually I use both programs, using Photoshop infrequently.

I'm not trying to start an argument here about the rights and wrongs, but have some genuine questions.

I've used Photoshop for years for design, creating ads for publications, and graphic design. For photography post production, I've used Lightroom, Aperture, Luminar, Aurora and host of other tools. I've used Aperture and Lightroom for cataloging and organization.

My question is, why do so many people go directly to Photoshop for post production? Surely Lightroom, Luminar and the others are more appropriate for post production? Photoshop seems overly complicated and more suited to graphic design.

Just a question!