Lightroom vs Photoshop ?

[JP Scherrer]

Basic (?) question: apart from the "cataloguing" side, is there something that LR does better than PS, or is there something that LR does and PS doesn't ?

TIA for your comments !

 

[Johanfoto]

Basic (?) question: apart from the "cataloguing" side, is there something that LR does better than PS, or is there something that LR does and PS doesn't ?

TIA for your comments !

 

[JP Scherrer]

Basic (?) question: apart from the "cataloguing" side, is there something that LR does better than PS, or is there something that LR does and PS doesn't ?

TIA for your comments !

 

[Denis de Gannes]

Basic (?) question: apart from the "cataloguing" side, is there something that LR does better than PS, or is there something that LR does and PS doesn't ?

TIA for your comments !

 

[Jim B (MSP)]

Basic (?) question: apart from the "cataloguing" side, is there something that LR does better than PS, or is there something that LR does and PS doesn't ?

TIA for your comments !

Of course, they are quite different programs. Lightroom can make books and make slide shows, for example. And Photoshop can do a lot of edits that Lightroom can't do.

Indeed ! Hence, for someone who doesn't take a lot of image and/or doensn't need the "cataloguing" facility, Lightroom is not useful, if one already have Photoshop !

Correct ?

You cannot draw that conclusion from just one simple sentence.

I use both - both have strengths and weaknesses.

It is like buying a vehicle for transportation and trying to decide between a truck, a suv, and a sedan.

Take LR for a test drive, then decide for yourself. LR's engines are similar to PS. PS has more options.

If you don't take a lot of images, and PS does what you want, then continue on your path.

 

[JP Scherrer]

Basic (?) question: apart from the "cataloguing" side, is there something that LR does better than PS, or is there something that LR does and PS doesn't ?

TIA for your comments !

Of course, they are quite different programs. Lightroom can make books and make slide shows, for example. And Photoshop can do a lot of edits that Lightroom can't do.

Indeed ! Hence, for someone who doesn't take a lot of image and/or doensn't need the "cataloguing" facility, Lightroom is not useful, if one already have Photoshop !

Correct ?

You cannot draw that conclusion from just one simple sentence.

I use both - both have strengths and weaknesses.

It is like buying a vehicle for transportation and trying to decide between a truck, a suv, and a sedan.

Take LR for a test drive, then decide for yourself. LR's engines are similar to PS. PS has more options.

If you don't take a lot of images, and PS does what you want, then continue on your path.

I did -softly- try LR for years, and only recently have I started to use it a bit much, but I always find myself going back to PS !

...so I believe I'll simply drop LR, as it doesn't bring anything that PS offers !

Thanks everybody for your opinions...

 

[graybalanced]

...so I believe I'll simply drop LR, as it doesn't bring anything that PS offers !

For editing one or two images at a time, you're probably happy with PS. But like many, I switched from PS/ACR/Bridge to mostly LR because LR was so much more efficient at organizing, processing, and outputting large numbers of frames. The same process in PS does not scale as well as the number of images goes up. PS is indispensable for the things LR can't do, but for most of the things both PS and LR can do, I'd much rather use LR.

LR vs PS is not an either/or answer for most, who see them as complementary, with different strengths.

 

[Ken Seals]

Basic (?) question: apart from the "cataloguing" side, is there something that LR does better than PS, or is there something that LR does and PS doesn't ?

TIA for your comments !

 

[digidog]

Basic (?) question: apart from the "cataloguing" side, is there something that LR does better than PS, or is there something that LR does and PS doesn't ?

The Develop module in LR is pretty much functionality equivalent to ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). There are a few features in LR you can't find in ACR; virtual copies, proof copies, unlimited history and so forth. But you can bounce back and forth between the two if you wanted to (assuming both were on version parity).

Then there are the various modules which may or may not be important to you. For me, the Print module is worth the price of admission alone. Photoshop has, from day one, been a 'one image at a time' affair and if you need to print a lot of images, it's really slow! The Print module is much more efficient in so many ways. We can go there if a printing workflow is something you need to discuss.

Like printing, if you need to prep lots and lots of images, LR is vastly more streamlined. Say you want to take 100 raw's and process them to a smaller size, convert to sRGB, create JPEG's and strip out some EXIF data. Select, pick an Export Preset (build it, use it as often as you desire); done. In Photoshop, you'd have to spend the time opening each 100 images just to start the process (and no, droplets are not the answer; PS still has to open each image before you can do anything, one at a time).

 

[lumigraphics]

Basic (?) question: apart from the "cataloguing" side, is there something that LR does better than PS, or is there something that LR does and PS doesn't ?

The Develop module in LR is pretty much functionality equivalent to ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). There are a few features in LR you can't find in ACR; virtual copies, proof copies, unlimited history and so forth. But you can bounce back and forth between the two if you wanted to (assuming both were on version parity).

Then there are the various modules which may or may not be important to you. For me, the Print module is worth the price of admission alone. Photoshop has, from day one, been a 'one image at a time' affair and if you need to print a lot of images, it's really slow! The Print module is much more efficient in so many ways. We can go there if a printing workflow is something you need to discuss.

Like printing, if you need to prep lots and lots of images, LR is vastly more streamlined. Say you want to take 100 raw's and process them to a smaller size, convert to sRGB, create JPEG's and strip out some EXIF data. Select, pick an Export Preset (build it, use it as often as you desire); done. In Photoshop, you'd have to spend the time opening each 100 images just to start the process (and no, droplets are not the answer; PS still has to open each image before you can do anything, one at a time).

 

[digidog]

I can do things in PS with scripts and actions that aren't possible in LR. For example, if ABC.jpg is the file name, put text on the image saying ABC.

Yes, you can do things in PS you can't do in LR but that doesn't change it's limited mode of operation; one image at a time. Open, load into ram, apply edits, save, close. Very time consuming and unnecessarily IF (big if) the edits can be applied parametrically, in LR.

And I can batch process hundreds of images with one click. I find Bridge and Photoshop MUCH better for image processing than Lightroom.

And by the time you do this, with functionality that DOES exist in LR, I've batch processed 5X more images and had time left over for lunch!

Again, LR and PS are differing tools. There are tools and functions in PS that are simply not available in LR. But there is lots and lots of functionality that is available in LR. And LR will burn rubber on those tasks compared to Photoshop.

While you're running that action, you can sit back and do nothing in PS. While I run a batch in LR, I can move to another module and work away. Or start and run yet another batch on another group of images. Not possible in PS.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[lumigraphics]

I can do things in PS with scripts and actions that aren't possible in LR. For example, if ABC.jpg is the file name, put text on the image saying ABC.

Yes, you can do things in PS you can't do in LR but that doesn't change it's limited mode of operation; one image at a time. Open, load into ram, apply edits, save, close. Very time consuming and unnecessarily IF (big if) the edits can be applied parametrically, in LR.

And I can batch process hundreds of images with one click. I find Bridge and Photoshop MUCH better for image processing than Lightroom.

And by the time you do this, with functionality that DOES exist in LR, I've batch processed 5X more images and had time left over for lunch!

Again, LR and PS are differing tools. There are tools and functions in PS that are simply not available in LR. But there is lots and lots of functionality that is available in LR. And LR will burn rubber on those tasks compared to Photoshop.

While you're running that action, you can sit back and do nothing in PS. While I run a batch in LR, I can move to another module and work away. Or start and run yet another batch on another group of images. Not possible in PS.

 

[digidog]

I can do things in PS with scripts and actions that aren't possible in LR. For example, if ABC.jpg is the file name, put text on the image saying ABC.

Yes, you can do things in PS you can't do in LR but that doesn't change it's limited mode of operation; one image at a time. Open, load into ram, apply edits, save, close. Very time consuming and unnecessarily IF (big if) the edits can be applied parametrically, in LR.

And I can batch process hundreds of images with one click. I find Bridge and Photoshop MUCH better for image processing than Lightroom.

And by the time you do this, with functionality that DOES exist in LR, I've batch processed 5X more images and had time left over for lunch!

Again, LR and PS are differing tools. There are tools and functions in PS that are simply not available in LR. But there is lots and lots of functionality that is available in LR. And LR will burn rubber on those tasks compared to Photoshop.

While you're running that action, you can sit back and do nothing in PS. While I run a batch in LR, I can move to another module and work away. Or start and run yet another batch on another group of images. Not possible in PS.

 

[JP Scherrer]

I can do things in PS with scripts and actions that aren't possible in LR. For example, if ABC.jpg is the file name, put text on the image saying ABC.

Yes, you can do things in PS you can't do in LR but that doesn't change it's limited mode of operation; one image at a time. Open, load into ram, apply edits, save, close. Very time consuming and unnecessarily IF (big if) the edits can be applied parametrically, in LR.

And I can batch process hundreds of images with one click. I find Bridge and Photoshop MUCH better for image processing than Lightroom.

And by the time you do this, with functionality that DOES exist in LR, I've batch processed 5X more images and had time left over for lunch!

Again, LR and PS are differing tools. There are tools and functions in PS that are simply not available in LR. But there is lots and lots of functionality that is available in LR. And LR will burn rubber on those tasks compared to Photoshop.

While you're running that action, you can sit back and do nothing in PS. While I run a batch in LR, I can move to another module and work away. Or start and run yet another batch on another group of images. Not possible in PS.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

You haven't done much heavy duty image processing, have you?

My first copy of Photoshop was 1.0.7 back in 1990, I've been a beta site for Adobe since version 2.5 and one of the few alpha testers. I've probably been processing images in Photoshop before you bud.

The facts of how PS and LR differ have been provided and you look rather foolish with the above statement that has zero to do with facts.

You might do yourself a service by looking at the chops of the people you poorly argue with.

You have issue with the facts of how the two app's differ, provide them. Otherwise, your comments have zero merit.

"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about". -Wayne Dyer

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Please guys, calm down ! No need to fight:everyone has a (or several) good reason(s) to pefer LR to PS or vice versa...

The OP has got the answer he wanted: in a few words, LR is extremely useful for those who take quite a lot of images and like/need to catalogue them, else, for those -like ME- who only shoot a little amount of images and do not need to classify/catalogue, PS is all is needed ! ....or not: seems that, for absolute beginners in post-process, LR is easier to "master" !

Peace.....

;-)

--
Photo Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer
Spherical Panoramas at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps or http://www.viewat.org/?sec=pn&id_aut=2489

 

[kilofox]

I do a lot of different versions of the same photo: B&W, Cropped etc etc. As a RAW shooter, LR's virtual copies saves a ton of diskspace.

Since LR arrived, I have always viewed PS as a pixel editor and photo editor only when needed.

 

[richardplondon]

The OP has got the answer he wanted: in a few words, LR is extremely useful for those who take quite a lot of images and like/need to catalogue them, else, for those -like ME- who only shoot a little amount of images and do not need to classify/catalogue, PS is all is needed !

I don't think whether you shoot a lot of images or only a few, is much related to how you might prefer to manage and process them.

So far as managing them conventionally as files, if you do shoot a lot you will probably soon struggle UNLESS you have come up with a quite carefully planned system. If you only shoot a little then you can get away with far less advance planning. But the individual effort expended on each image is going to fairly similar either way: there's a time and attention cost of sticking to and implementing your own 'system', whatever that consists of, complex or simple.

And reviewing that whenever you change your mind about what kind of physical organisation is going to best suit your evolving needs, and then carrying out that change.

But Lightroom is equally good in both situations; its strength is that it does not require EITHER a big up-front planning effort, OR an ongoing individual effort with each new file that you process. And there is no need to re-organise anything physically, if your needs or your ideas change - in fact the VIRTUAL organisation that you employ can switch from moment to moment, and be gone back to, and auto-updated without effort.

itially setting up a Lightroom (library based) workflow is no more difficult in either case, large volume or small - but we are talking about 20 minutes max, a little bit of testing and then it's done. The individual management effort per image once you have done this, is essentially zero going forward.

IMO the Catalog is not about adding more tedious work - instead, it's about avoiding much of the tedious work you'd otherwise need to do.

 

[digidog]

There's a pretty significant difference in how LR and Photoshop operate and there are some significant factual advantages to LR (assuming we're talking PS proper, not ACR):

LR processes all data high bit, wide gamut even if the data isn't such. PS doesn't.

LR has an adaptive interpolation, it's a steeples resampling so to speak. You don't have to set anything; it's smarter than PS and knows if you're sampling up or down. PS has five options for interpolation.

LR provides unlimited History steps which remain with the image data (database). Photoshop doesn't and you lose history the second you close the document.

LR provides all processing applied by the user in what Adobe feels is best order. You can move about the controls as often and differently as you wish, LR will process those steps based on best order of edits. PS doesn't. You can if not savvy editing, chase your tail and end up with more data loss depending on the editing order. PS burns the edits as you save the file (yes, layers provide some additional flexibility but outside of Photoshop, if you print the document, or save it outside PS, those edits are burned into the pixels; no free lunch here).

LR doesn't have any need to open the entire document, raw or otherwise into RAM, pixel for pixel. It's a proxy editor meaning, it works with previews it generates. Then when you wish to render edits, it applies your parametric edits (instructions, text) to the source data. Photoshop can't even preview the image until it opens the entire document into memory!

LR is multithreaded. You can select 100 thumbnails in the Grid, apply one or multiple edits, apply an export preset, print and immediately move onto another task in that or another module while LR processes those 100 images. PS can't do anything like this! It has to process the images one at a time and you're freed up to work after it completes that task.

If you soft proof in LR, you can produce output specific edits on a virtual copy (dozens if necessary) and the rendering intent you select is honored when you print that document(s). Photoshop only saves the last settings for printing OR the last saved printing in that document, otherwise you get to reconfigure the Print dialog each and every time.

There's lots of functionality PS provides LR doesn't. Just like a 4 wheel drive Jeep can function in some situations a front wheel drive, sport's car can't and vise versa. Use the right tool for the right job!

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Patsy Murphy]

There's a pretty significant difference in how LR and Photoshop operate and there are some significant factual advantages to LR (assuming we're talking PS proper, not ACR):

LR processes all data high bit, wide gamut even if the data isn't such. PS doesn't.

LR has an adaptive interpolation, it's a steeples resampling so to speak. You don't have to set anything; it's smarter than PS and knows if you're sampling up or down. PS has five options for interpolation.

LR provides unlimited History steps which remain with the image data (database). Photoshop doesn't and you lose history the second you close the document.

LR provides all processing applied by the user in what Adobe feels is best order. You can move about the controls as often and differently as you wish, LR will process those steps based on best order of edits. PS doesn't. You can if not savvy editing, chase your tail and end up with more data loss depending on the editing order. PS burns the edits as you save the file (yes, layers provide some additional flexibility but outside of Photoshop, if you print the document, or save it outside PS, those edits are burned into the pixels; no free lunch here).

LR doesn't have any need to open the entire document, raw or otherwise into RAM, pixel for pixel. It's a proxy editor meaning, it works with previews it generates. Then when you wish to render edits, it applies your parametric edits (instructions, text) to the source data. Photoshop can't even preview the image until it opens the entire document into memory!

LR is multithreaded. You can select 100 thumbnails in the Grid, apply one or multiple edits, apply an export preset, print and immediately move onto another task in that or another module while LR processes those 100 images. PS can't do anything like this! It has to process the images one at a time and you're freed up to work after it completes that task.

If you soft proof in LR, you can produce output specific edits on a virtual copy (dozens if necessary) and the rendering intent you select is honored when you print that document(s). Photoshop only saves the last settings for printing OR the last saved printing in that document, otherwise you get to reconfigure the Print dialog each and every time.

There's lots of functionality PS provides LR doesn't. Just like a 4 wheel drive Jeep can function in some situations a front wheel drive, sport's car can't and vise versa. Use the right tool for the right job!

 

[billythek]

Basic (?) question: apart from the "cataloguing" side, is there something that LR does better than PS, or is there something that LR does and PS doesn't ?

TIA for your comments !

Of course, they are quite different programs. Lightroom can make books and make slide shows, for example. And Photoshop can do a lot of edits that Lightroom can't do.

Indeed ! Hence, for someone who doesn't take a lot of image and/or doensn't need the "cataloguing" facility, Lightroom is not useful, if one already have Photoshop !

Correct ?

You cannot draw that conclusion from just one simple sentence.

I use both - both have strengths and weaknesses.

It is like buying a vehicle for transportation and trying to decide between a truck, a suv, and a sedan.

Take LR for a test drive, then decide for yourself. LR's engines are similar to PS. PS has more options.

If you don't take a lot of images, and PS does what you want, then continue on your path.

I did -softly- try LR for years, and only recently have I started to use it a bit much, but I always find myself going back to PS !

...so I believe I'll simply drop LR, as it doesn't bring anything that PS offers !

Thanks everybody for your opinions...

 

[dj_paige]

So in an nutshell Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, is a subset of Photoshop.
Regards Patsym

Except for the parts of Lightroom that are not subsets of Photoshop. Specifically

• Library Module
• Web Module
• Map Module
• Slideshow Module
• Publish Services
• total workflow solution
• and small features of the Lightroom Editor which are not in Photoshop (but are in ACR) as mentioned by digidog