PS over LR?

[dutchbenke]

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.

Very well said!

 

[dabhand16]

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.

I beg to differ. Yes, for some LR is all they need - and I know people exactly like this, but that does not mak it a a complete editing package otherwise it would be able to be used instead of PS, where most use it alongside PS. It has no layers, until the latest update the magnify tool was really awful, cloning is cumbersome, to mention just a few. It is closer to Bridge than PS.

LR is always my first step in post production and sometimes, depending on what the images are going to be used for/viewed with, images might not ever see PS, but that does not mean that LR is a complete editing package because on other occasions only PS will do the job.

 

[Calson]

If you like the workflow of Lightroom then its utility has increased tremendously over the years (as well as the cost to use it). I dislike the Lightroom workflow and prefer a real DAM and use iMatch for windows for our image files. Lightroom is fine for a single user with a single computer but not for a multi user environment with multiple users accessing files on a server.

I used Photoshop since 1.0 when Adobe bought up the company whose product I had been using (as they have done with so many companies over the years) but my companies CS 6 enterprise license was terminated by Adobe and so we switched to Affinity. Affinity is the only application I have found to be 100% compatible for editing my old PSD files with layers. All the other applications would scramble the layers.

 

[Wapiti]

I've had On1 software for several years and never use it. I'm an LR and PS guy.

 

[bleirer]

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?

As far as one image is concerned photoshop can do everhthing lightroom can do and much more. But lightroom can do everything the camera raw part of photoshop can do, which is quite a lot because this is the raw converter. Plus lightroom is a good organizer. For me lightroom is for things affecting the whole image or global edits, brightness/exposure, contrast, curves, bringing up shadows, noise reduction, input sharpening, lens correction, etc. Photoshop is for refinement and selective edits that impact only a portion of the image, spotting, healing, moving or removing objects, adjusting a color, compositing, focus stacking, adding lens blur, replacing a background, more complex things involving selections and much more.

 

[Viathelens]

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?

Hi. I process an image in LrC using multiple tools, both general and local tools. I do a lot of work with the brush tool in some cases, which is a kind of layering technique. But some images have a lot of debris, maybe it's debris in water when I've photographed a bird in the water, and I like my images to be "clean" of that type of thing so I'll use the spotting tool, the content aware replacement tool, and/or the clone tool to "clean up" the image. Sometimes I like to add a background texture to an image so I'll use layers to do that. I might use the clone tool on an image to smooth out the brush in the background on an image. I've also done that thing that people seem to get upset about to some degree, fixed a wingtip or some other portion of an animal (I'm more into the "art" of wildlife photography and don't consider myself to be a documentary wildlife photographer). I've included a screen shot to show an example of where I decided to use PS to clone out some debris. LrC is really poor when it comes to removing things artistically and PS excels at that. And I've included a screen shot where I removed the wing of a mallard that had been injured...I got to magically heal him! I also use PS to sharpen images when I think they need it.

 

[PhilcTx]

Photoshop is for refinement and selective edits that impact only a portion of the image, spotting, healing, moving or removing objects, adjusting a color, compositing, focus stacking, adding lens blur, replacing a background, more complex things involving selections and much more.

I'm still on LR6. It's Develop module seems to provide at least some of the capabilities frequently quoted as only being available in PS. It has tools for spotting, gradient and radial filters, and Adjustment Brush all of which can be used for many types of localized adjustments/effects. Adding presets increases their utility even more with tools like localized Dodging or Burning, skin and teeth whitening, etc.

Obviously layers is not in LR as well as other PS specific tools but so far I'm not missing them. Admittedly I cull my images ruthlessly to try to avoid advanced editing of images - no replacing skies or swapping heads, etc. I'm always trying to simplify my workflow to reduce post-processing.

With recent advances in cameras' in-camera processing abilities the siren song of shooting in JPG is even more tempting. Yeah I know - heresy

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

I primarily use / prefer PS for editing, but I ALWAYS start in LR for many reasons, not just cataloging as a "visual representation of your existing file system organization". A photographer that gets into a wide variety of shooting genres (various types of stacking, time-lapse, panorama, etc.) can benefit from this management system. Old school Adobe users know that all of that can happen without LR (using Bridge, stand-alone ACR), but it's clunkier to me, and I don't think you can do everything LR does.

My workflow often requires PS, so I shell out from LR (whether it's one image or a larger number). Also, tools for some techniques require Lightroom in the workflow, such as LRTimelapse. PS is not the only thing I shell out of LR for. I just think of LR as a home base. And if you use collections, tags, and rating systems, so much the better.

"LR is not an editing program": yes, it is. The adjustments in LR Develop module (ACR) are everything some photographers need for standard processing that don't require heavier PS processing. For many of them (even pros), that's all they ever need, not requiring layers, masks, etc. Such photographers could exist in either ecosystem, so it's really just preference.

Chris

 

[SBurkholder]

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.

This isn't true any more. You can use ACR in PS and then open as a smart object and you will have full capabilities to return to the image for additional tweaks in ACR.

 

[Ken Miracle]

When I had to move from Apples Aperture when they discontinued it I moved to LR and then to Adobe Creative Cloud and have both LR and PS. As Adobe has dramatically improved LR and moved more photography specific details to LR I find I have not used PS in over a year. As @Andrew Lamberson mentioned I am not a creative artist working with a blank canvas but a photographer creating art with light. After many classes and one on one help etc. I still find PS very baffling and cumbersome and part of that has been because of all the graphics art creative stuff. One of my instructors put it this way about LR and why they recommended me to go that way is that Adobe has taken many of the primary photographic editing elements our of PS and put it into LR. I also have my own cataloging system that a pro sat down and helped me learn and develop over a long lunch once. I am a birder have done a lot of photographic work for non-profits so looking for something by date or "shoot" is not what my primary need it hence I developed a key word structure and it makes life much easier for an old codger like me

 

[bleirer]

When I had to move from Apples Aperture when they discontinued it I moved to LR and then to Adobe Creative Cloud and have both LR and PS. As Adobe has dramatically improved LR and moved more photography specific details to LR I find I have not used PS in over a year. As @Andrew Lamberson mentioned I am not a creative artist working with a blank canvas but a photographer creating art with light. After many classes and one on one help etc. I still find PS very baffling and cumbersome and part of that has been because of all the graphics art creative stuff. One of my instructors put it this way about LR and why they recommended me to go that way is that Adobe has taken many of the primary photographic editing elements our of PS and put it into LR. I also have my own cataloging system that a pro sat down and helped me learn and develop over a long lunch once. I am a birder have done a lot of photographic work for non-profits so looking for something by date or "shoot" is not what my primary need it hence I developed a key word structure and it makes life much easier for an old codger like me

Phitoshoo can be daunting at first, i agree. My only small disagreement is that they haven't moved anything out of photoshop into lightroom, but as you said they have improved the lightroom library quite a bit for organizing. Everything in the lightroom develop module is in photoshop. You could open a raw file in photoshop and figure out the camera raw part instantly because it now looks like lightroom for the most part. In pgotoshop if you went to the menu filter/camera raw it would also look very familiar.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Phitoshoo can be daunting at first, i agree. My only small disagreement is that they haven't moved anything out of photoshop into lightroom, but as you said they have improved the lightroom library quite a bit for organizing. Everything in the lightroom develop module is in photoshop. You could open a raw file in photoshop and figure out the camera raw part instantly because it now looks like lightroom for the most part. In pgotoshop if you went to the menu filter/camera raw it would also look very familiar.

Phitoshoo can be daunting at first, i agree. My only small disagreement is that they haven't moved anything out of photoshop into lightroom, but as you said they have improved the lightroom library quite a bit for organizing. Everything in the lightroom develop module is in photoshop. You could open a raw file in photoshop and figure out the camera raw part instantly because it now looks like lightroom for the most part. In pgotoshop if you went to the menu filter/camera raw it would also look very familiar.

Sorry for the misunderstanding the trainer did not mean that the features were no longer in photo shop but that they had been added to Light Room and the trend is continuing. With the type of photography I do I really do not need to go to PS anymore.

 

[bleirer]

Sorry for the misunderstanding the trainer did not mean that the features were no longer in photo shop but that they had been added to Light Room and the trend is continuing. With the type of photography I do I really do not need to go to PS anymore.

It's all good, youv've got a process that works for you and that's what matters.

 

[dabhand16]

After many classes and one on one help etc. I still find PS very baffling and cumbersome and part of that has been because of all the graphics art creative stuff.

I feel your pain Ken! However, maybe you have been approaching it in the wrong way. Classes and one to ones probably don't deal with what you need and will often follow pre-set programs. Forget about the graphics and art stuff. I am a philistine when it come to art. Photoshop is only cumbersome because you don't know the layout and how to use what you need. I know a guy who has a lot of photography knowledge. He is trying to become a PS expert before he has even started to do any editing!!! Needless to say, he will never do it. I'd say that 95% of us only scratch the surface of what PS is capable of.

When I went digital after close on 50 years of using film, I did not have a clue on what was possible - or how to go about it. Back then Photoshop Elements was way out of my grasp as was Rawshooter - the company Adobe bought to make it into Lightroom.

For me the key was to only learn what I needed to get by. This was initially the basic global adjustments such as contrast, levels, brightness, sharpening and resizing. Back then I was only using jpgs. I knew that RAW was better but could not get my head round the RAW concept over jpgs. Such was my ignorance about digital. Gradually I grew in confidence at this level, helped along with tutorials I found in books first, then more increasingly on line. My book selection method was to go to a book store (fat chance now in the UK!) and look at a few books for something I knew how to do. When I found a book that kind of matched the way I thought I figured that it was the one to get. I found that my elderly PS books were still useful even when PS had been updated several times because the things I was doing back then did not change in the updates, so the books served me well for a long time.

So using my key, I gradually expanded my skills. Yes there were many trial and errors on the way but with digital it did not matter, unlike wet processing. I quickly learnt to make a new layer copy if I was doing work where if I went wrong I could ditch the working layer and not loose much of my efforts.

Now, I'm no Lightroom and Photoshop expert by a long stretch, but I am a confident user and still use my key. I now find that I can pick things up fairly easily - and if I don't use a technique for a while I forget it, but getting it back is easier too.

I think you are a confident camera user, but you had to start somewhere, didn't you? So how did you go about that? I guess lots of trial and error, learning from books, maybe on line too, learning from mistakes updating your kit when it did not do what you wanted to do, finding out what would be the best new kit to get..... sound familiar?

 

[EricBowles]

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 start by using Photo Mechanic, then just import my Selects to be edited to Lightroom. If necessary, I handle the basic editing in Lightroom and use other products for a small portion of my images. Photoshop is an excellent tool when you need it. In Photo Mechanic I ingest, rate, cull, keyword, title, caption, identify location, etc. It's much faster than Lightroom for the front end work but its not an editor.

I use Lightroom over Photoshop for several reasons.

I shoot a lot of events and other high volume work where turnaround is important. I may have to provide 500 individually edited images in 48 hours. Lightroom has tools that make a big difference in editing large numbers of files. Tools like Previous and Synch allow you to apply settings to successive images or groups of images.

Lightroom does provide a catalog for organization and I use that catalog as well as features like collections for images from multiple folders.

Lightroom is an advanced editor with excellent local adjustment and masking tools. It's not perfect, but it's quite good if you know how to use it.

Lightroom works with the original RAW file and stores changes and previews as an instruction set in a database. Versions are handled virtually. That eliminates versions of RAW and edited files. I have 400,000 files and 11 TB of image files. TIFFs other PS files are large files and would mean a lot of additional storage space.

Many images involve a series of edits depending on how the image is used. I may start with a 30 second edit, then a month later make another edit to some details and a different crop for a specific use. Edits in LR can be adjusted at any time without starting over. Those changes literally take seconds.

Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom are used by 80% of photographers. That means if someone needs help, or if I need help, its readily available. There is probably a YouTube video that shows exactly how to handle the edit - even very advanced work.

 

[EricBowles]

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.

That may have been the case in the early versions - just as Lightroom Classic is a more robust editor than Lightroom Mobile today. But by Lightroom 5, Lightroom is a first rate image editor if you know what you are doing. It depends on what edits you are making. Most likely you could achieve the same results in Lightroom that you produce in Photoshop for most images.

 

[dabhand16]

That may have been the case in the early versions - just as Lightroom Classic is a more robust editor than Lightroom Mobile today. But by Lightroom 5, Lightroom is a first rate image editor if you know what you are doing. It depends on what edits you are making. Most likely you could achieve the same results in Lightroom that you produce in Photoshop for most images.

I don't disagree with you, and over time it has gained a lot more features. But it is not a compete editing package as it has been described. Yes, many will find it does all of what they want, but that does not make it 'complete'.