Is Adobe Lightroom enough?

or do you have to have Photoshop, Gimp, or some other program? PP RAW.

For what? It depends what you want to do. For 90% of my shots it is. For 10% it isn't.

tzalman wrote in post #12025058
For what? It depends what you want to do. For 90% of my shots it is. For 10% it isn't.

I guess I'm having trouble figuring out when I'd use Photoshop if I had lightroom. I've used PS to make logos and do touch ups, other various things, but with lightroom it was just what I needed to change a picture. So what do I need PS for if I have LR?

Probably could be for me, but I wanted the capabilities in PS that LR did not offer. So I have both.

I do commercial retouching, so I have CS5. No Lightroom.

Pick up an inexpensive Photoshop Elements program to go along with your Lightroom.

lightroom is perfect for global changes to the photo, like contrast/sharpening etc. For local fixes and touch ups, that's where photoshop shines

There could be lots of things, but I'll mention just the first ones that come to mind. Ever tried to do any cloning in LR? Ever tried to mask an intricate shape, like wind-blown hair? Ever wanted to do different types of sharpening in different areas of the image? Ever wanted to change a color? Or a background?

Lightroom is all I need for a print. When desiging a poster, I use PS Elements. I have CS5 but find that it's overkill for my needs and some tasks are easier to accomplish in PSE

What short time i tried CS5. I found a few things in there like touching up face blems and such more forgiving to me than in LR. But i love LR. And would not be with out it. Also i am really new to all of this so i am no expert at anything. If i had $$$ that i would not miss right now i would own CS5.

I would always advise having a capable image editor along with a Raw processor because it's just good to be prepared for any task. I go for long stretches without using Photoshop but on occasion it does "fit the bill".

But that doesn't mean that everybody needs/should have the full-bore Phtotoshop CSx -- it is a program aimed at professional use (as is Lightroom, actually) and it costs what a professional "toolbox" costs. For most folks, Elements can do the job nicely, especially for those who have Lightroom.

I normally just use DPP and Corel PaintShop Photo Pro. However, I'll sometimes use Corel PhotoPaint if I need more control in some specific area that I don't get from PaintShop.

tonylong wrote in post #12028327
I would always advise having a capable image editor along with a Raw processor because it's just good to be prepared for any task. I go for long stretches without using Photoshop but on occasion it does "fit the bill".

But that doesn't mean that everybody needs/should have the full-bore Phtotoshop CSx -- it is a program aimed at professional use (as is Lightroom, actually) and it costs what a professional "toolbox" costs. For most folks, Elements can do the job nicely, especially for those who have Lightroom.

And it's a bargain when you consider all it can do.

Two different tools in my book. Lightroom is not a photo editor. It's a photo catalog and adjustment tool. Photoshop is an editor. It's terrible at cataloging, can do photo adjustment, but shines when photo manipulation is needed. I need both in my tool box.

I often do basics in lightroom then flip cs5 open to do more difficult tasks.

One of the biggest joys of cs5 is content-aware fill.

That saves me lots and lots of time for basic removal of objectionable items.

It works best when the surrounding area is pretty plain however.