Lightroom vs Adobe Photoshop

I use Lightroom only about 99% of the time. Only a very small portion of my images need to go to Photoshop.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #15921357
I would like to know this too. I bought the first version of lightroom and uninstalled it after a few months since I never used it.

I get that the organization and inline editing abilities would be great if you are starting out with nothing. But I already have a self made rube-goldberg of a file structure/workflow with well over a hundred thousand pre-existing photos which I would have to organize in Lightroom just for starters. My system certainly isn't ideal but it works for me.

Is there something that newer versions of lightroom do that isn't accomplishable with ACR and Bridge beyond the aformentioned streamlined editing and organization?

Are there edits you can do in lightroom that you can't do in bridge/acr/ps? Not really.

The real reason to use Lightroom is for the more efficient workflow and non-destructive editing. Working in Lightroom is a completely different paradigm from using Bridge/ACR/Photoshop from a workflow perspective. For me, the beauty of lightroom is that I don't have to come up with file system acrobatics to track my files and edits. The files are stored in a simple layout and the edits are all stored purely in metadata. Storing only one version of the file in most cases is a great benefit for me.

Another big advantage is the ability to easily process groups of files at once. Mass applying changes like WB, NR and lens correction makes processing a lot faster.

A powerful import/export engine along with solid plugin library to further enhance functionality is another time saver for me.

Working with Lightroom efficiently requires you to rethink your workflow and thoughts around file management. If you are not willing to do this then Ligthroom is not going to be a good option for you.

John from PA wrote in post #15921388
I don' t use either but our local camera club just announced that one of them is moving to a subscription style service. Exactly what that means I can't say but it apparently had quite a few people concerned about future costs.

Photoshop is what is going subscription only. Lightroom will continue to have a perpetual licensing model.

We don't know this for sure; LR might follow the CS subscription road later on.

A good many CS users are not happy about another perpetual monthly subscription fee for something that you never actually own.

dalto wrote in post #15921438
Photoshop is what is going subscription only. Lightroom will continue to have a perpetual licensing model.

Phototeacher wrote in post #15921449
We don't know this for sure; LR might follow the CS subscription road later on.

A good many CS users are not happy about another perpetual monthly subscription fee for something that you never actually own.

It probably will if the subscription model is successful enough. This is why I am advocating aggressively for not buying in and continuing to push for Adobe to bring perpetual licensing back, at least for Photoshop.

I started out with CS5. I ended up buying CS6 and Lightroom 4 last fall. I now prefer Lightroom for almost all of my editing. I use CS6 to convert the edited files from Lightroom into .tif and .jpg files. I know I can export them from Lightroom but it seems to be easier to just do it in Photoshop.

Lightroom is intuitive for me, for some reason. I do have text-type books for both CS6 and Lightroom 4.

Well I have LR3 & PS 7. Regardless of how old PS7 is for whatever reason its what I find myself using 80% of the time, cant really explain it, I guess its just what I'm used to over many years.

Both.

The workflow is better and faster.

Faster color correction = LR

Fine detailing/masking = PS

So what version of Lightroom would be advised to go with cs2? I think after all these great replies I'm convinced I need Lightroom.

Lightroom 4 is currently being offer. If you can wait for lightroom 5 then I would wait. Lightroom 5 offers a better healing brush.

Frodge wrote in post #15922254
So what version of Lightroom would be advised to go with cs2? I think after all these great replies I'm convinced I need Lightroom.

What is it you want to be able to accomplish? I find that using Lightroom I can reach about 85% of my goals with the rest handled by feeding files modified in Lightroom 4 to Adobe Photoshop Elements 11. Unlike Photoshop, Lightroom is fairly easy to learn. While Lightroom will work with jpeg files, it was really designed with raw files in mind. It was designed with a completely different paradigm than Photoshop. You do not save files in it. It is non destructive and no changes are actually made to the RAW files. All changes you make are actually instructions that overlay the original files on the fly. A catalog manages these changes. You can, as a result, make multiple virtual copies of your RAW files which include different edits without actually making additional copies of the original files. Files you export will include these changes. It's really magical.

I have been using PS5 with Bridge and ACR for quite some time. I have my own file system with many GBs of pictures already in it. I loaded a trial version of Lightroom 4 a few days ago. After I managed to figure out where all the editing tools were lurking, I decided that I liked it about as well as PS. The problem as I see it is the photo management system. Starting over with LR would take me too long to convert everything with no real benefit. I don't think LR is for me unless someone can convince me that there is an easy way to keep using my current file system???

Billginthekeys wrote in post #15921357
I would like to know this too. I bought the first version of lightroom and uninstalled it after a few months since I never used it.

I get that the organization and inline editing abilities would be great if you are starting out with nothing. But I already have a self made rube-goldberg of a file structure/workflow with well over a hundred thousand pre-existing photos which I would have to organize in Lightroom just for starters. My system certainly isn't ideal but it works for me.

Is there something that newer versions of lightroom do that isn't accomplishable with ACR and Bridge beyond the aformentioned streamlined editing and organization?

LR can take use your existing file structure and rube-goldberg system, and either add to it, or work with it, or even help simplify it.

I use a comprehensive and well labeled file structure so if anything happened to LR I can find my images independently using a file browser.
But I also use LR to create collections and lables those images in away that makes it easy to access them.


Lightroom also has some very useful batch editing features that you will not find in ACR/Bridge, it's a huge time saver and a great way to get consistency in processing.

I only use LR to upload my files and to store them. I use PS4 Extended for all my photo editing.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Mavgirl wrote in post #15921411
I personally find it faster and easier to use than the Bridge/ACR combination for processing RAW. But that is a highly subjective thing.

Same here. The sluggishness of LR annoyed the crap out of me. I never liked the cluttered interface either. I prefer Bridge for preview, ACR for editing and PS for serious editing.
I prefer to separate files into folders as I copy to HDD. It takes all of 2 seconds to create a folder and it's good practice for having a proper file system for all other files also, not just photos.

dalto wrote in post #15921438
non-destructive editing.

The files are stored in a simple layout and the edits are all stored purely in metadata. Storing only one version of the file in most cases is a great benefit for me.

Another big advantage is the ability to easily process groups of files at once. Mass applying changes like WB, NR and lens correction makes processing a lot faster.

All this can be done in Bridge/ACR/PS!

Moppie wrote in post #15922437
Lightroom also has some very useful batch editing features that you will not find in ACR/Bridge

Such as?

I have LR4/CS6, I do ~95% of my work in LR4 BUT if I had to chose 1 product it would be CS6. The only thing I'd be giving up would be excellent LR catalog management which I could probably get elsewhere or make due with Bridge. Other than catalog management, CS6 can do everything LR can do and many things it can't.

Audionut11 wrote in post #15922518
Such as?

Copy and Paste settings
Sync Settings
Auto Sync Settings
Apply settings to different images in different folders
Create Virtual Copies