Lightroom vs Adobe Photoshop

Stone 13 wrote in post #15922536
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.

Wow, that's an expensive 5%. Just saying !

EDIT: I'm not a professional, so I use LR4 about 95% of the time, and Perfect Photo Suite 7 for layers, masks, special effects, and resizing. It is a very powerful tool, and much cheaper than CS6. I can see pros wanted CS6, but for me as an "enthusiast and/or advance amateur," Perfect Photo Suite works for me and my budget.

spur wrote in post #15924090
Yes, Lightroom is totally non destructive.

kjonnnn wrote in post #15927340
How is PS Not? Changes in the raw file are in the sidecar.

Exactly. You can also choose to store the changes to the RAW file in a database format as well if you don't want to keep up with the xmp files.

Agree.

kjonnnn wrote in post #15927340
How is PS Not? Changes in the raw file are in the sidecar. In PS once you duplicate the background original layer (CNTL J) the file is changed to a .psd. Theres no reason to mess up an original image in PS if you know what youre doing.

What he means by non destructive is that in LR no changes are made to the original image, they are all overlays to the image. That means you see all adjustments in LR as overlays to the RAW file including those LR adjustments that go beyond what I believe is available in Camera RAW like spot removal and local masking. You only need to create an new file when you export it to Tiff or Jpeg. A .PSD is a new version of the image containing the adjustments, is it not? Therefore you have the original RAW file as well as a .PSD file where in LR you only need the original RAW file. To be sure, PS can do a lot more than Lightroom, but within its feature set, LR 4 is quite extraordinary and many professionals use it as their front end to PS. Lightroom 5 will significantly expand on local adjustment brushes which will also be overlays to the RAW file and not require saving the changes to a separate file.

Oldschool1948 wrote in post #15927390
Wow, that's an expensive 5%. Just saying !

EDIT: I'm not a professional, so I use LR4 about 95% of the time, and Perfect Photo Suite 7 for layers, masks, special effects, and resizing. It is a very powerful tool, and much cheaper than CS6. I can see pros wanted CS6, but for me as an "enthusiast and/or advance amateur," Perfect Photo Suite works for me and my budget.

I use LR4 for almost all my processing and the new and very powerful PSE 11 for everything else. If I was a professional, I might opt for PS, but PSE 11 is by far the most powerful Elements yet and for the few times I need it, along with LR 4 it takes care of 99.9% of any processing issues I have.

It should be noted that the OP is using CS2, not one of the later versions of CSx.

Among other things, the later versions of CS have both dramatically updated Raw processors (if the OP is shooting Raw or is interesting in exploring Raw) and also tools that were added to Bridge to "catch up" with some of the organizational features introduced by Lightroom (and ones begun with Elements).

It's really up to the OP whether the integrated features of Lightroom, with Digital Asset Management (DAM) at the core of its functionality, will be an advantage or seen as "in the way". Lightroom was designed to be a photography workflow manager integrating most of our most common tasks, but many of us happily worked with (older versions of) Photoshop before Lightroom came along.

But as to the Raw processor and Bridge functions, again if the OP is shooting Raw, LR would certainly be more cost-effective than upgrading to CS6 (or going the cloud route) for the Raw processor alone and/or the Bridge DAM functions.

If the OP is shooting Raw, and if DAM is a perceived want/need, then Lightroom can certainly fill a big workflow "gap", keeping CS2 for the occasional graphical editing needs.

Depending on what the OP is using PS CS2 for:

For pixel editing, PS CS whatever is a better option then LR will ever be. The question should be in that case "is it worth upgrading to a newer version: PS CS6 or PS CC or PSE10 (I think?)).
To answer that we need to know more details from the OP.

If the OP is shooting Raw, IMO havng a different raw converter then ACR 3.x will be a huge leap forward, whether it is LR4 or 5, C1 or DPP. All are better then that old version ACR.

And yes, ACR can do all that a comparable version of LR can do WRT raw conversion (exceptions: "Match total Exposures" and Virtual Copies, that is LR only), albeit that some things are easier LR, or even require a bit of a workaround in ACR.
Then again, I'd choose LR4 over ACR 3.x any day of the week, and twice if it's a workday.

I have converted raw files with the canon utility. I've then saved them as .tif files and adjusted color, contrast and saturation curves in photoshop. I'm really very new to editing and not sure, to be honest what is necessary to make a picture pop. I've done it through trial and were for the last 8 months or so. When you guy and girls take a raw file or even a jpg for that matter off the camera, what is you objective with the file? How do you go about doing it? I burn all my original raw and jpg on DVD for safekeeping and have a copy to edit on the pc. As an example, if you take a photo of a landscape, ad then export it to your pc, what on average are you doing to that sort f picture? This is mainly what i do. I would also like the ability at some point in my travels to take out certain obtrusive things in a photo that I may not want to be there. But mainly, my goals are to make a picture to from a raw file to have that beautiful postcard look.

Frodge wrote in post #15928972
I have converted raw files with the canon utility. I've then saved them as .tif files and adjusted color, contrast and saturation curves in photoshop. I'm really very new to editing and not sure, to be honest what is necessary to make a picture pop. I've done it through trial and were for the last 8 months or so. When you guy and girls take a raw file or even a jpg for that matter off the camera, what is you objective with the file? How do you go about doing it? I burn all my original raw and jpg on DVD for safekeeping and have a copy to edit on the pc. As an example, if you take a photo of a landscape, ad then export it to your pc, what on average are you doing to that sort f picture? This is mainly what i do. I would also like the ability at some point in my travels to take out certain obtrusive things in a photo that I may not want to be there. But mainly, my goals are to make a picture to from a raw file to have that beautiful postcard look.

Many if not most of us who have waded into the "world" of Raw processing do so in order to use the Raw data and good Raw processors to get the optimal value from that data and processing. We approach Raw processing as the "digital darkroom", the digital equivalent to bringing undeveloped film into the wet darkroom and "working it" to bring out the full potential of your film. Otherwise, well, why shoot Raw?

So, my one bit of encouragement here is to suggest you look at our "RAW Conversion" thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …w+us+your+raw+c​onversions

Many POTN members have contributed "Raw conversion only" projects, and if you browse the many entries you may find some very impressive work!

Frodge wrote in post #15925319
So let me ask. When you guys go to edit your photos. What is your actual workflow? What programs, in what order and what do you mainly do?

Now I use LR4 almost exclusively. I will buy LR5 when it comes out. I use Elements 10 only when I want to do additional manipulation.

Frodge , yes Perfect Photo Suite is awsome it only lack Luminance ( lil handy tool to quickly remove dust & imperfections & creates a smooth pic ) but Acdsee does have it as it also works as a picture manager, editor ,Developer & Batch image formate converter whci makes Acdsee Pro an all around very handy tool to use with Perfect Photo Suite & like some mentioned before i use & have Cs5 Cs6 Xara Designer & alot of graphic programs & even then ill use Pps7 over Cs6 & often Acdsee over Lightroom

& lil trick all ill say is dig on the net u can find progs around to ''try''
i have over 30 000$ in audio video picture editing softwares

kjonnnn wrote in post #15931187
Those arent semantics. Adobe purchased lightroom to have a software package for simple basic adjustments that the average photographer wanted to make quickly. Photoshop comes with capabilties used by photographers and graphic designers. I has many Illusrator like capabilties. Lightroom doesnt fill the gap of what Photoshop cant do, Photoshop and do anything, but lightrrom but provides easier program for some users rather than having them delve in to learning PS. As a photographer and designer I have no use for Lightroom I dont take 1000s of photos at one time, so I can easily organize my photos in bridge.

Ditto!

kjonnnn wrote in post #15931187
Those arent semantics. Adobe purchased lightroom to have a software package for simple basic adjustments that the average photographer wanted to make quickly. Photoshop comes with capabilties used by photographers and graphic designers. I has many Illusrator like capabilties. Lightroom doesnt fill the gap of what Photoshop cant do, Photoshop and do anything, but lightrrom but provides easier program for some users rather than having them delve in to learning PS. As a photographer and designer I have no use for Lightroom I dont take 1000s of photos at one time, so I can easily organize my photos in bridge.

Whatever works for you! However, you make Lightroom sound like an entry level application for amateurs. Its a very powerful and flexible package and lots of pros use it as a front end for Photoshop. Many pros here and elsewhere have said they can accomplish most of what they need to do quickly in Lightroom and then finish up in PS as needed. You may not agree and that's fine. But there are a lot of Lightroom users here that see its strengths as a front end.

yup Lr is far from an entry level software , if u look at the Adobe line up Lr is their specialized post editing program , as simple as the prog is one could easily get lost with the terms use & its advance features just like Acdsee Pro

It always seems people want to compare LR and PS forgetting that PS also includes Bridge, ACR, and the Photo Downloader. LR & ACR have basically the same RAW editing capabilities. LR has a slight edge in file management while PS wins hands down in editing capability. Once Adobe added local adjustment capability in ACR the trips into PS are becoming less needed. I don't need or use LR as I can do everything I need within CS6. There are very few things that LR can do that CS6 can't. A lot of people like LR,I'm just not one of them.

its also depends on ur cpu capabilities & getting to get use to Cs6 , ill often see my self using Pse11 even if i have Cs6 master collection as most of my plugins works more on it & few works in Cs6 , but i will use Cs6 for heavy editing & photo manipulation & even ill do a secong process in Xara Designer X as all of adobe plugins works in it & its a 3D software