LR instead of PS?

[Denis de Gannes]

I'm an adept, longtime photoshop user. Although I subscribe to CC and can download LR without additional charge, I've never done so based on my (erroneous?) belief that (other than LR's advanced file handling/naming tools), anything that can be done in LR can also be done easily by experienced users in PS, with the added benefit of adjustment and masking layers. Am I misinformed? I'd love to hear from any experienced PS users who also use LR, including reasons why they might use LR instead of PS.

 

[MarkNicholas]

I'm an adept, longtime photoshop user. Although I subscribe to CC and can download LR without additional charge, I've never done so based on my (erroneous?) belief that (other than LR's advanced file handling/naming tools), anything that can be done in LR can also be done easily by experienced users in PS, with the added benefit of adjustment and masking layers. Am I misinformed? I'd love to hear from any experienced PS users who also use LR, including reasons why they might use LR instead of PS.

I started out using Photoshop and converted to LR when it first came on the market around 10 years ago. I have used LR ever since.

In my opinion Photoshop is over-kill for every day RAW development of photos. LR is much better for plain / basic photography, not just because of its management system but I can develop a batch of photos faster and easier in LR than I can in Photoshop. Occasionally, Photoshop with its more extensive tools is required for certain Photos.

Of course LR is not for everyone.

 

[OzarkAggie]

Look again, or not. Plenty of tutorials on YouTube.

 

[Graham Meale]

I'm an adept, longtime photoshop user. Although I subscribe to CC and can download LR without additional charge, I've never done so based on my (erroneous?) belief that (other than LR's advanced file handling/naming tools), anything that can be done in LR can also be done easily by experienced users in PS, with the added benefit of adjustment and masking layers. Am I misinformed? I'd love to hear from any experienced PS users who also use LR, including reasons why they might use LR instead of PS.

I was in much the same boat. I've always used PS, but somehow managed to acquire LR many years ago. I had a reasonably good look at it, but have stayed with PS. For a start, I rely heavily on layers for what I do in PS, and LR doesn't have these (or didn't, when I looked). I also found the DAM to be an unnecessary complication. I've coped perfectly well just using Windows' (and DOS's) folder and file system. That's just me.

 

[lumigraphics]

I'm an adept, longtime photoshop user. Although I subscribe to CC and can download LR without additional charge, I've never done so based on my (erroneous?) belief that (other than LR's advanced file handling/naming tools), anything that can be done in LR can also be done easily by experienced users in PS, with the added benefit of adjustment and masking layers. Am I misinformed? I'd love to hear from any experienced PS users who also use LR, including reasons why they might use LR instead of PS.

 

[JulesJ]

Check out the free tutorials on photoserge.com

The way he uses Lr will give you an idea of its advantages, especially if you're doing quick edits.

I don't see free tutorials on photoserge - they seem to be all for pay

 

[OzarkAggie]

Does she take you on a shoot, select an image, and then edit it?

BTW, I'm not knocking Kost, or playing the "what's best" game.

There's probably other resources, but if you go photoserge.com/free-lessons you'll see why I recommended this crazy Frenchman.