This is only partially correct. LR gives the option of exporting as JPG, PSD, TIFF, DNG, or the original image format.

Once you have done as much as you wish or can do in LR, you may continue in PSE or PS, by simply right clicking the image in LR, selecting "Edit In" and a list of your other available external editors is available to select from. This is different from the export command.

I am far from a professional photog and have both LR5 and PSE11. More than 95% of my work can be done in LR. Of course I am mostly interested in improving the images I capture as opposed to adding items to them or making pictures that did not or could not exist.

For great LR training, I recommend the DVDs from Laura Shoe or the free webinars from Creative Live.

This is very much my philosophy and workflow. I seldom even create JPEGs unless I Know I will be uploading to a photo sharing site. And LR does not alter your out of camera raw files, so you always have access to the original that contains all the data that was captured.

Great shots. Unfortunately, the Bigma is not a consideration for me due to cost and it's more than I want to lug around.

Paul, several posters have given good feedback, but some may have missed points that may be important to you.

You mention not being pleased with the performance of your "does it all" lens. Well, if you are committed to using only one lens, even the best of these will negate most of the benefits of going FF vs. APS-C unless you don't mind bulk and especially weight.

You could probably improve image quality by sticking to a zoom with more limited range. It used to be a rule of thumb that going past 3:1 in focal length range was a sure way to degrade optical performance. Things have improved since those days, but there comes a point where pushing the range makes the optical design more difficult and costly.

If I were you, I would look at some of the offerings in smaller crop frame DSLRs, micro 4/3 and other mirrorless cameras. You might even see if you can rent from one of the on line rental sites or borrow from an acquaintance.

In my own situation, I am taking a trip to Alaska and plan to take a 12-24, 18-55, and 50-300 all in a small backpack. I realize this is a lot and would not be the best is a city environment, but I don't want to miss the opportunities for both scenics and wildlife.

If you are printing at home, Epson printers natively want 360dpi, while HP and Canon use 300. If sending out for printing, 300 is the accepted norm for highest quality results for pictures up to 11x14. As one of the other posters noted, you can use lower res for larger prints (such as the mentioned 20x30"), as their normal viewing distance will not show the pixellation or any interpolation added by the printer or software.

As far as high res cameras are concerned, just think about cropping for best composition. It is better to start with more res if you have a picture that you may want to keep only 1/3 of.

I believe I would be using a PSD while in Elements or PS and still not have a need for TIFF unless going to the outside world.

Some excellent points. DNG is not proprietary to Adobe although they developed it. In fact, both Pentax and Leica have the option of shooting in their native proprietary format or in DNG (which I always choose) right in the camera. There are also viewers available for Windows computers that permit seeing the images directly in file viewers or "Libraries". Such DNG images are not defaulted to 8-bit.

As a LR user, I appreciate the fact that any editing information is not applied to the Raw image, but is carried in the metadata as a set of instructions rather than a sidecar file. I am not sure I understand the impetus to convert to TIFF unless it is a requirement of a customer or printing service. The files are huge, and I would certainly not do so until I was finished manipulating them in whatever post software was being used.