via the lens wrote:
Curious why you say this as LR has many of the same algorithms as PS? " HOWEVER, it's more of a catalog and archiving tool than an image editor. Lightroom is designed to work in conjunction with Photoshop for advanced image editing..." Perhaps you were not successful in using it and that is why you have this opinion? I've processed about 10,000 images on LR, and I also use PS, many of which have won awards and been sold so I am of a different opinion on the subject. I like to let the individual user decide which program works for them without a blanket statement of its usability based on one opinion. Yes, in general, PS can often improve an image, as can other programs, but that does not mean the LR is not a good image editor. Just my thought on the subject.
Curious why you say this as LR has many of the sam... (
show quote)
Like you, I use both Lightroom and Photoshop. I've used PS for around 25 years and LR for over 10 years now. I have 16 LR catalogs, each containing on average approx. 75,000 images... upwards of 1 million images total. I'm setting up my 2019 Lightroom catalog now, in fact.
LR is great for what it is.... a versatile, dynamic archive organizing and management tool with light, rapid image editing tools and batch RAW conversion capabilities. It's good for web gallery maintenance, producing thumbnail catalogs and making slide shows, too! I use LR to gather images, straighten them as needed, make tweaks to exposure, color balance, etc., and make proof quality image files in batches. But have never fully "finished" an image with LR alone. For that, PS is absolutely essential, in my opinion.
LR simply doesn't have a lot of the fine tools that PS has... LR cannot work in layers and masks and it's clone brush is downright crude in comparison to PS. Selective editing in PS can be done right down to the individual pixel level, if need be, while LR only offers a wide brush for that purpose. Ever tried to replace a sky in LR? Or attempted to blur a background while sharpening a subject? You can't "soft proof" an image with a particular print profile in LR either, the way you can in PS. There are myriad other things that can be done in PS... but not in LR.
Don't get me wrong... I wouldn't want to be without LR. I worked large numbers of images without it for many years and LR
really speeds up my work flow! I rely on it heavily. After a major shoot I can work through 1000 to 1200 images a day in LR, taking them from RAW to a "proof" quality level so that my customers can see them and make their selections. I spend less than a minute per image tweaking things in LR. The same work in PS (Bridge), takes much longer. Someone who is merely converting RAW images for posting online in typical Internet size, resolution and color space might find LR does all they need. But anyone truly finishing an image for more advanced purposes... prints larger than 5x7 and/or various client uses up to and including commercial printing... really needs to use PS too, with it's much more powerful images editing capabilities. After my customers (or I) make their selections, I use LR again to locate the image, change the crop if needed, then pass the image off to PS for finishing work that can take anywhere from a few minutes to some hours per image, depending upon what's needed.
I'm not saying Photoshop is "better" than Lightroom or vice versa. They simply serve different purposes. LR is an intensive cataloging and image archive management tool with light image editing capabilities. PS is an intensive image editing and optimization tool with limited archive management capabilities. They're designed to complement each other, like two sides of a coin.
https://www.creativelive.com/blog/use-photoshop-lightroom/https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/adobe-photoshop-vs-adobe-lightroom/ https://photographylife.com/photoshop-vs-lightroomI also use various "plug ins" with both LR and PS... third party "extensions" of each program's capabilities. For example, I have several in LR that make for rapid uploads of proofs to galleries online and help me maintain those galleries. In PS I have several noise reduction plug-ins, as well as others for specialized image optimization techniques. There are dozens of other plug-ins available for both.
The original poster asked about "purchasing" a program... and both LR and PS are now only offered by subscription. You "rent" them rather than "purchase" them.
Adobe Elements is available to "purchase" with a perpetual license, combines major aspects of both LR and PS into one program, although it uses it's own distinct format. Elements has both archiving and image editing capabilities. In fact, it's more complete for image editing than LR and it's more complete than Photoshop for archive management. On the other hand, Elements
is not as powerful (or as intimidating) as the Lightroom/Photoshop
combo. And recent versions of Elements have significant support for new users, which both LR and PS completely lack. There are also plug-ins available for Elements (and even when not, some of the plug-ins I use can be bought and used as separate stand-alone programs instead).
Our goals are the same... to give the original poster information to help them decide what's best for them: A one-time $100 purchase of relatively easy-to-use Elements that will serve until they upgrade to a new camera or Adobe adds some gee-whiz, just-gotta-have-it feature to a future version of Elements? Or rent LR and PS for $120 a year from now to infinity, get continuous updates, but plan to buy a bunch of books, take a number of classes and spend the next months and years learning to use them well? LR isn't difficult to learn... most people get adept at using it within a month or two. Might to buy a book or take a class or two. PS is much more complex and involved... probably will take a year's worth of college level books and classes to truly master it.