PS over LR?

[Walter Baliero]

I am a Photoshop user over Lightroom because I consider it to be much more complete, with more tools and post-processing options, because of this I'm striked that some experienced photographers sometimes use LR over PS. I would like to read comparisons and opinions about it.

 

[FB101]

It’s pretty simple really, I start in LR because that’s my catalogue and management system of choice. I use it to cull, label, tag etc...
second, LR is very easy to make raw file adjustments right into the catalog, create versions, experiment etc... it’s just simple and fluid, some pictures don’t require much and LR makes that a breeze.
anything heavier in terms of editing goes to PS.

if you use ACR in PS, as soon as you hit done, you are not editing the raw anymore. If you want to make more changes to the raw file you need to process a new one. LR is far more convenient for those early steps until you are set.
If you are not going to use masks and layers, you are much better off in LR which in this case is non destructive vs PS.

 

[aolander]

I'm not an expert nor a professional, but I use LR for 99% of my post-processing. This may be in part due to the fact that I don't do a lot of processing on my images, but LR's capabilities of cataloging, processing, printing, and more make it a one stop shop for me.

 

[DRwyoming]

I am a Photoshop user over Lightroom because I consider it to be much more complete, with more tools and post-processing options, because of this I'm striked that some experienced photographers sometimes use LR over PS. I would like to read comparisons and opinions about it.

I used PS as my only image processing tool for more than a decade and it certainly is a more powerful tool. But I switched to using LR as my primary image editing tool and only move images into PS when I need to do something not supported by LR such as extensive layer work. There's a few reasons I made that switch:

- LR has vastly superior cataloging and library features compared to Bridge
- LR's parametric image editing is inherently non-destructive without the extra step of working on duplicate images in PS
- LR's Raw converter controls layout is very clean and logically laid out compared to PS (though the underlying Raw conversion software is the same)
- LR is much faster for bulk processing of images shot under the same light which can really speed up the workflow for some kinds of shooting

I still use PS when an image needs a lot of localized adjustments via layer masking, explicitily needs layers such as: stacked astro images, focus stacks, HDR, etc. or when there's going to be a lot of very precise local editing like removing a lot of cluttering branches that would be tough with LR's relatively limited brush tools. There are other things like canvas extensions and the use of the Free Transform tool where PS really shines and FWIW I prefer printing out of PS compared to LR. But since making the switch to LR as my primary tool and optimizing my library structure for LR (e.g. extensive use of keywords and collections), I've gotten really comfortable using LR for most of my image editing and only moving images into PS when necessary.

Nothing wrong with a 100% PS (or other editing tool) workflow and I did it for many years but personally I'm really glad I transitioned to using LR as my library management and primary image editing tool though I certainly still want quick access to PS for photos that need the extra features PS provides.

 

[Viathelens]

Both applications have strengths and I use them accordingly. My main processing application is LrC, every image is imported onto my desktop catalog. I process everything in LrC, the processing engine is the same processing engine that PS uses for Camera Raw in PS. I've only used Camera Raw once or twice in the last 8 years. About 90% of what I do never sees PS. But there are images that need additional help, mostly by using the clone, spotting, and brush tool in PS. I use these fairly often. I also use PS to do layering projects, such as adding a background texture to an image as this is not possible in LrC. I do all exporting, cropping and printing directly from LrC and never use PS for printing or exporting, although I have occasionally cropped an image as needed in PS. LrC allows me find my images almost immediately based on my image organization or keyword setup and this is a life-saver when looking for a specific type of image. I like that I can do multiple processing takes on one image very easily using a virtual copy or a snapshot. I love how easy it is to print from LrC, even if an upsize is required from the original image. The application saves me so much time and effort that I can't imagine anything else would replace it.

 

[SandyW]

I used PS as my only image processing tool for more than a decade and it certainly is a more powerful tool. But I switched to using LR as my primary image editing tool and only move images into PS when I need to do something not supported by LR such as extensive layer work. There's a few reasons I made that switch:
....

What DRwyoming said!

Are you processing RAW or something else such as JPG? If you do not deal with RAW images there is no reason to switch to LR unless it is for cataloging. I use LR as much for cataloging as processing. PS is not needed for every image.

 

[Walter Baliero]

Are you processing RAW or something else such as JPG? If you do not deal with RAW images there is no reason to switch to LR unless it is for cataloging. I use LR as much for cataloging as processing. PS is not needed for every image.

I only process .raw files - obviously via ACR> PS - and I don't see the need for cataloging by LR - I do it by my self - so that's a presumed advantage that I don't consider.

 

[bleirer]

I use both in my workflow. Lightroom is essentially identical to the Adobe camera Raw that opens if you open a raw in Photoshop. Plus it has a super organizer. From Lightroom after making basic adjustments I right click and choose edit in Photoshop as smart object. This gives you the ability to double click that layer in photoshop and re-edit the raw in Adobe Camera Raw as many times as you wish. Of course you could do the same in Photoshop in Adobe Camera Raw by choosing 'open as object' rather than 'open' in the dropdown at tge bottom right. You have to work in layers above the smart object for things like healing, but that is a good nondestructive practice anyway.

 

[SandyW]

I only process .raw files - obviously via ACR> PS - and I don't see the need for cataloging by LR - I do it by my self - so that's a presumed advantage that I don't consider.

I have found LR's cataloging very intuitive, but I know there are those that hate it! If your cataloging system works for you, there is probably no reason to switch. I know other photographers that prefer the ACR>PS route and never touch LR.

 

[Viathelens]

I only process .raw files - obviously via ACR> PS - and I don't see the need for cataloging by LR - I do it by my self - so that's a presumed advantage that I don't consider.

I assume you understand that LrC only reflects YOUR OWN filing system, but it allows you to see everything at once or individually, as you desire. Just an FYI.

 

[Strodav]

It's all about building your own personal workflow. I start off in Lightroom for it's ability to sort through, flag, rate and catalog the images I want to keep. Most of the time the LR toolkit is all I need to produce my final image, but when I need the horsepower, I can call up the PS and the Topaz suite right from the LR -> Photo -> Edit In menu where a copy is created and sent to the chosen program, so the original is available.

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

I can't help but wonder if Adobe is moving Lightroom to become the primary photography program and Photoshop to be the primary creative platform. When you look at the images on the Photoshop webpage they are really focused on creativity.

I don't do artwork creative, I do photography so I am making the effort to really learn Lightroom.

 

[bleirer]

I can't help but wonder if Adobe is moving Lightroom to become the primary photography program and Photoshop to be the primary creative platform. When you look at the images on the Photoshop webpage they are really focused on creativity.

I don't do artwork creative, I do photography so I am making the effort to really learn Lightroom.

They are like a long married couple. Each says the other is the 'better half.' Photoshop can literally do everything the develop module of lightroom can and so much more but photoshop does nothing the lightroom library module does. Lightroom can do anything the Adobe Camera Raw module in Photoshop can do, plus an organizer whIch photoshop doesnt have. If you subscribe to the $9.99 photography plan both are included and they make a good team.

 

[Viathelens]

I can't help but wonder if Adobe is moving Lightroom to become the primary photography program and Photoshop to be the primary creative platform. When you look at the images on the Photoshop webpage they are really focused on creativity.

I don't do artwork creative, I do photography so I am making the effort to really learn Lightroom.

PS was created in 1988, long before digital photography became popular and common, and was originally created for graphic designers and is still heavily marketed to that sector. It was only when digital photography came into being and there were no software programs available for the most part that PS became popular for photographers. Adobe stepped up at some point and created LrC (in 2007) for photographers. The two programs together create one of the best options possible for fine tuning digital images. Both applications (LrC and ACR-Adobe Camera Raw) have the same processing engine so processing in one or the other is the same. For PS, it's about all of the other things that a photographer can do. The basic tools a photographer might use the most are the clone tool, the spotting tool, the brush tool, maybe the sharpening tool and many photographers use a layering approach for sharpening. (Looked the dates up so hope they are correct.)

 

[dabhand16]

I am a Photoshop user over Lightroom because I consider it to be much more complete, with more tools and post-processing options, because of this I'm striked that some experienced photographers sometimes use LR over PS. I would like to read comparisons and opinions about it.

LR is not editing software. It is a RAW converter and digital asset manager and never designed to be the complete editing package. I've never even thought about it as the only software I need and always use it along with Photoshop mostly to finish an image, but there are some who will flit from PS back to LR and back again. Colin Smith of Photoshop Cafe does this.

 

[bleirer]

Ok

LR is not editing software. It is a RAW converter and digital asset manager and never designed to be the complete editing package. I've never even thought about it as the only software I need and always use it along with Photoshop mostly to finish an image, but there are some who will flit from PS back to LR and back again. Colin Smith of Photoshop Cafe does this.

I don't get why you say lightroom is not editing software? It doesn't do layers, but most things you can do on a flat file can be done. I agree I prefer photoshop once the raw edits are to my liking.

 

[PhilcTx]

Had PS on my old iMac for over 9 years - LR was added in later years and my workflow became LR centric.
When the iMac was retired & replaced last year with a new W10 PC I was only able to move LR 6 over to the new PC.

But so far for my workflow I've not really needed or missed anything in PS.

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

I have been taking some online classes on how to use all the tools in Lightroom Classic and I am to the point now that on most (80% ?) of my images that I keep, they have been done 100% in Lightroom Classic 2020. I never thought I would say that a couple months ago!!

 

[Charles Loy]

I have never used lightroom, doubt I ever will. I appreciate photoshop, staying put.

 

[Wapiti]

It’s pretty simple really, I start in LR because that’s my catalogue and management system of choice. I use it to cull, label, tag etc...
second, LR is very easy to make raw file adjustments right into the catalog, create versions, experiment etc... it’s just simple and fluid, some pictures don’t require much and LR makes that a breeze.
anything heavier in terms of editing goes to PS.

if you use ACR in PS, as soon as you hit done, you are not editing the raw anymore. If you want to make more changes to the raw file you need to process a new one. LR is far more convenient for those early steps until you are set.
If you are not going to use masks and layers, you are much better off in LR which in this case is non destructive vs PS.

 

[ccirelli]

For my workflow & photographic goals, PS is a companion app to LR. LR covers a good 95% of my needs (and I'm using the cloud-based version - originals instantly backed up to cloud, smart previews sync'd to mobile devices - perfect).

PS is mainly used for general graphics needs (logos etc.) and when I need to do significant fine-tuning or use plug-ins on an image. Common uses for my photos: cloning / healing (much better control in PS than in LR), background extension, focus stacking, sky replacement / foreground blending for multi-pass astro, Topaz DeNoise AI plug-in.

PS is magical, but for me it's like driving a Ferrari in traffic most of the time. LR organizes and covers the vast majority of post-processing for me.

 

[Viathelens]

LR is not editing software. It is a RAW converter and digital asset manager and never designed to be the complete editing package. I've never even thought about it as the only software I need and always use it along with Photoshop mostly to finish an image, but there are some who will flit from PS back to LR and back again. Colin Smith of Photoshop Cafe does this.

I have to admit I am scratching my head on your comment that "LR is not editing software...and never designed to be the complete editing package." I think the original group that wrote the code and designed and developed the software package would disagree mightily with your comment. I believe their specific intent was to develop the program as editing software as a "complete editing package" for photographers. For many photographers it might be all they need, there are so many different types of subjects that we shoot and so many different types of photography that no one say it would or would not completely suffice for someone. As Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe state in their book, Image Sharpening, "Both Camera Raw and Lightroom employ the same processing pipeline, assuming an equivalent version of each application." Thus, if LrC is not editing software than PS would not be editing software either. I could probably go on but I think the important point here is to clarify for readers that LrC is intended to be a full-bodied image processing program, not just a DAM or RAW converter. Having said that, I do often use PS to finish an image but that is because of my intent with the finished project and I need to do something that LrC can't do and PS can, I never use the editing part of PS, Camera Raw, everything is processed in LrC first.

 

[PhilcTx]

Having said that, I do often use PS to finish an image

I've seen the statement "...use PS to finish an image" in one form or another previously by others. I'm curious what this means in practical terms?

 

[ccirelli]

I've seen the statement "...use PS to finish an image" in one form or another previously by others. I'm curious what this means in practical terms?

Basically what I wrote in my reply above. Much of my "finishing" list comes from PS tutorials that Steve has provided here / on his YouTube channel. And again, the controls for intricate edits are much nicer to use in PS, with more options (speaking mainly of cloning / healing).

 

[Andrea]

Since two years I’m using ON1 Photo Raw which give you the possibility to make very accurate editing using layers and masks directly on the RAW file in a non destructive way. You have to covert the Raw in jpeg or Tiff just at the end of the process before printing o share the image in the web. It has also an embedded browser to archive , select and create albums like LR. Another advantage is that you have not to pay a yearly licence to use. You buy the program with one year updating, the following year you can decide to keep it as it is (you own the tool) or to buy an additional year update.
I like it because you have a single tools which is able to do what PS and LR do together ( probably with less features respect PS) but it is much simpler to use and cheaper.
Is there any one using it, what do you think about?