photoshop or Lightroom?

gjl711 wrote in post #18352297
You should be able to go to the Adobe site, download the software and check you licenses for your key.

assuming i can remember any of my information.

Well I use LR for managing my images, as well as of course the RAW conversion. Probably 98%, or maybe even a few more, of images they only require processing in LR. For the other small minority of images, that require work that needs either layers, or specific pixel level manipulation, they go over to PS for editing. They then go back into the LR catalogue to await final output. With LR I also only produce output files when I have specific needs for one. Once the file has been used for it's purpose it is deleted from the local computer. This ensures that you are always using the most up to date version of the image.

I use the CC versions of the Adobe programs, I actually use the full suite, not just LR and PS, but that is not really important. One important thing to know about using the CC version of LR is what happens when you stop your contract. Unlike most peoples expectation it does not simply stop working. Actually it mostly carries on working normally, you can even import new images if you want. You cannot access the Develop or Map modules, so you cannot Geotag images, and other than using the quick edit tools, which are available directly in the Library module, and allow you to add a saved preset, although you can't save a new one, adjust the WB and also the basic tone sliders, like Exposure, contrast, highlights/shadows, blacks/whites, and clarity/vibrance. All of your export options are also available, as well as the Print, Web, Book, and Slideshow modules.

So even if you stop being a keen photographer, and stop your subscription to LR, you still have pretty much full access to your existing work, and even basic manipulation of new images is still available. You can even keep downloading the program updates. So all is not doom and gloom as many would paint it. Oh and the programs are full versions, installed and running on your computer. They are not as many think thin clients, well unless you are using the LR web/mobile functionality. It does use the internet to check on your subscriptn status, but if you don't have web access it will run for just about 90 days between checking in with the Adobe servers.

Alan

I have a question, not trying to hijack the thread. Whenever I use Adobe DNG converter then do the file with Adobe Camera Raw, when opening the jpeg in Photoshop CS4 the files are blue tinted. Anybody?

Ditto. both.

Late to the show but...

I use LR to look for photos in my libraries since 2005 (lots of photos.) I use PS to correct photos beyond what RAW processing can do when necessary. I use DXO or sometimes DPP if I don't like the way DXO is handling the conversion for RAW processing. (I've tried most of the major RAW conversion programs and at least for me DXO is superior.)

Depends; I used to use LR a lot for my ecom (ie. bulk images, consistent lighting) stuff just to get the batch processing of color and basic adjustments sorted out, then export as tiff and retouching in PS. Lately I just use PS for everything.

gscrocker wrote in post #18352042
I feel like I'm about to open a can of worms but I'm going to ask, what do you like to use - photoshop or Lightroom?.

This is like asking, "what do you like to use...a full toolkit (with absolutely every kind of tool imaginable) or a hammer with set of screwdrivers and with a set of wrenches?"
Photoshop is a SUITE of tools for beginning to end of process for both graphic artists and photographers

1. ACR: RAW conversion to 16-bit internal workspace
   
2. Pixel-level ('micro') editor ('Photoshop' manipulation at individual pixel level)
   
3. File/print output in sRGB/aRGB/CYMK (JPG/TIFF)
   
4. Bridge: baseline photo data management
   

1. RAW conversion to 16-bit internal workspace
   
2. Photo-level ('macro') brush editor (no manipulation at individual pixel level)
   
3. File/print output in sRGB/aRGB/CYMK (JPG/TIFF)
   
4. Full digital photo database management

IF I used Lightroom, the answer would still be "yes"

ie: I need both.

I use photoshop or a raster editor as the last step for RAW files, the only step for jpeg.

I use a RAW converter/editor like Capture One, DPP (or lightroom for others) as the first step in working with RAW files. I could not imagine being forced to chose one over the other.

Wilt wrote in post #18361900
This is like asking, "what do you like to use...a full toolkit (with absolutely every kind of tool imaginable) or a hammer with set of screwdrivers and with a set of wrenches?"
Photoshop is a SUITE of tools for beginning to end of process for both graphic artists and photographers

1. ACR: RAW conversion to 16-bit internal workspace
   
2. Pixel-level ('micro') editor ('Photoshop' manipulation at individual pixel level)
   
3. File/print output in sRGB/aRGB/CYMK (JPG/TIFF)
   
4. Bridge: baseline photo data management
   

Lightroom is a set of photographer-oriented tools

1. RAW conversion to 16-bit internal workspace
   
2. Photo-level ('macro') brush editor (no manipulation at individual pixel level)
   
3. File/print output in sRGB/aRGB/CYMK (JPG/TIFF)
   
4. Full digital photo database management

#2b < #2a, the level of editing possible
if you want pixel-level editing for LR, you must use an auxiliary program to manipulate pixels (e.g. Photoshop/Elements/Pai​ntshop Pro)

#4a < #4b, the management of digital photo data (often referred to as 'digital asset management'
the tools in LR are far more powerful in allowing a pro photographer to make random or keyword collections of images from many different folders into 'collections' of images gathered to accomplish specific tasks/goals

Close, but not complete.

Photoshop is a SUITE of tools for beginning to end of process for both graphic artists and photographers

1. ACR: RAW conversion to 32-bit internal workspace and associated toning in ACR at 32 bits, 16, and 8 bits
   
2. Pixel-level ('micro') editor ('Photoshop' manipulation at individual pixel level)
   
3. File/print output in sRGB/aRGB/CYMK (JPG/TIFF)
   
4. Bridge: baseline photo data management
   

Photoshop, because I like to work with layers and masks, and avoid destructive edits as much as possible. I do commercial retouching and don't have to manage a lot of images, so I really don't have any use for Lightroom.

I find the Adobe Creative Cloud fits me perfect. Took me a while to get used to the idea of a subscription, but now that I have it I like it. I do 99% of what I need in Lightroom and find it is most of what I need. If I want to edit and get artistic I can go to Photoshop, but realistically I prefer to keep to the photos I have shot without creating something different. Lightroom has the ability to do whatever I need for the most part.

I use both in Adobe CC. LR is essentially PS's Camera Raw (Develop Module) with photo management, geotagging, custom printing, slideshows, etc. built in.

I use LR mostly for image management and RAW processing. I also like its print module a lot. It can't do heavy-duty edits like PS, since it's a non-destructive editor.

PS is for the things I can't do in LR like editing with layers, adding text/graphics, skin smoothing for portraits, etc. More of the "heavy lifting" type stuff. I also use PS for graphic design type stuff that LR can't do.

Jere Lee wrote in post #18353086
I have a question, not trying to hijack the thread. Whenever I use Adobe DNG converter then do the file with Adobe Camera Raw, when opening the jpeg in Photoshop CS4 the files are blue tinted. Anybody?

I can't remember where but I read about this in the last month.
The answer was something to do with the colour space being used in ACR and it was causing the blue tint.
Sorry I can't remember the exact details but it may be worth investigating.

Hen3Ry wrote in post #18362010
Close, but not complete.

Photoshop is a SUITE of tools for beginning to end of process for both graphic artists and photographers

1. ACR: RAW conversion to 32-bit internal workspace and associated toning in ACR at 32 bits, 16, and 8 bits
   
   

If the data comes from the camera as 14-bit RAW data, what on earth is the advantage of 32-bit internal representation within Photoshop, besides selling more harddisk capacity for Western Digital?!

BTW, both LR and PS have had this 32-bit snake oil, with LR 4.1 having it in Lightroom

Wilt wrote in post #18362803
If the data comes from the camera as 14-bit RAW data, what on earth is the advantage of 32-bit internal representation within Photoshop, besides selling more harddisk capacity for Western Digital?!

BTW, both LR and PS have had this 32-bit snake oil, with LR 4.1 having it in Lightroom

Wilt you have to remember that the 14 bit RAW data that comes from the sensor, and is stored in the CR2 file has no colour data. The RGB pixel colour data is interpolated using knowlege of the Bayer Colour Filter Array individual chromatic responces, for the sensel location, and surrounding sensels. Using 16, 32, or even 64 bit data structures internally during these mathematical computations can be very beneficial.

The larger bit spaces allow you to perform operations with either more prescision, or larger ranges than smaller data structures allow. It is actually probably allowing both at the same time.

What is important to remember is that what we are talking about is the way that RAM is allocated when holding the data in memory during the conversion process. It doesn't affect the long term storage of image files, since for Canon CR2 files at least that is set at 14 bits/sensel, and includes lossless data compression.

The large data structures actually encourage the installation of more system RAM over anything else. HDD capacity only becomes an issue if you run out of RAM and need to rely on the swap file. Using a swap file is something you want to avoid if possible, as it is several orders of magnitude slower.

Actually even working with 50 Mpix images using 32 bit data is not hugely demanding on system resources. Back in the mid 90's I was writing accoustic propogation simulation programs. This used two dimensional arrays, just like image files, but with 10000×10000 nodes (think pixels). Each node had to hold nine 64 bit variables, plus a couple of 8 bit integers. This was on high end Unix workstations, with a huge 64 MB of RAM. That was a lot in the days of 8 MB in a PC being really good, and 4 MB was average.

The programs would compile and run under DOS 6, but was limited to a maximum of about 10K nodes. Running 10K iterations of the simulation on a 486 DX 66 MHz processor with 8 MB RAM would take about 24 Hrs. The Unix workstations could do the 10K iterations on 10000×1000 nodes in about the same time.

The output from the program, that was saved to disk, was a single 16 bit value for each node of the array. You just needed the large data values to allow for range and precision during the calculations.

Alan