Lightroom and Elements...

Ok from my understanding, betweent the two, Lightroom is a more a professional approach in developing/organzing your pictures as opposed to Elements which seems to be a more click click method for the less knowledged?

I'm trying to eliminate redundancy in my workflow and although I know how to use Photoshop, do I really need Elements, if I have both LR and PS?

I should try out Elements but I did go to the Adobe website for Elements and did the walkthrough and this is the impression that I got...simple click, click interface. Well "click click" is not a good term, but less learning curve.

Learning Curve (low to high)

Elements > Light Room > Photoshop

Of course there are "additional" benefits to using one over the other, in terms of, advance editing and organization.

Didn't you already ask this yesterday?

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=353329

IMO Elements is not needed if you have LR and PS.

Actually it does sound the same thing but yesterday's post was asking about "What is Elements?"

The question that I had over my head was, why have two softwares "Elements and Lightroom" by the same company if it essentially did the same thing?

This topic is about, ok, two ways was presented by the company...so it might be due to pleasing all different people (knowledge wise).

I answered in my post yesterday in other topic. But anyway:

They DON'T do the same things (LR and PS Elements).

Elements can do selective edits, and pixel level edits, plugin filters, layers, etc. And has only a bare-bones RAW editing interface. And basic (albeit better in some key areas) organizer.

LR has a full featured RAW interface. A more powerful organizer. But it cannot do pixel level edits, layers, or selective adjustments (ie: lasso an area of an image and limit changes to that area.)

LR and Elements make a good pair, IMO. Use LR to organize and do RAW edits, global adjustments to images, then hand it off to Elements (if needed) to do selective adjustments, etc.

Harder question to me is does LR + CS3 benefit you since CS3 has raw editing power + pixel level edits built-in. Then it comes down to: does the workflow, library concept etc. appeal to you enough to have both CS3 and LR?

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #3608805
I answered in my post yesterday in other topic. But anyway:

They DON'T do the same things (LR and PS Elements).

Elements can do selective edits, and pixel level edits, plugin filters, layers, etc. And has only a bare-bones RAW editing interface. And basic (albeit better in some key areas) organizer.

LR has a full featured RAW interface. A more powerful organizer. But it cannot do pixel level edits, layers, or selective adjustments (ie: lasso an area of an image and limit changes to that area.)

LR and Elements make a good pair, IMO. Use LR to organize and do RAW edits, global adjustments to images, then hand it off to Elements (if needed) to do selective adjustments, etc.

Harder question to me is does LR + CS3 benefit you since CS3 has raw editing power + pixel level edits built-in. Then it comes down to: does the workflow, library concept etc. appeal to you enough to have both CS3 and LR?

Actually it does do selective edits. I think, at least according to this tutorial (http://pictureflow.fil​eburst.com …hotoshop_LR/08/​index.html). I may be wrong..on the other hand.

nutsnbolts wrote in post #3608869
Actually it does do selective edits. I think, at least according to this tutorial (http://pictureflow.fil​eburst.com …hotoshop_LR/08/​index.html). I may be wrong..on the other hand.

I think you may be referring to the Targeted Adjustment tool?

That's different from selective edits.

Selective edits are where you draw a polygon around an area, and any changes are confined to that area (ie: lassoing a bright sky area and adjusting the levels only there to darken it a bit, while leaving the rest of the image alone.)

Targeted adjustment is cool, but different.
(with tone curve) it lets you select an area (say the sky again) and you can drag it up or down to lighten or darken that tone, but it affects the ENTIRE image... any part of the image (say a white builiding in foreground) judged by LR to be part of the same tone as you selected will be adjusted also.

Oh I never answered another question from above. Using ACDSee and then trying out LR, I am just beginning to understand the concept of workflow and catalogue'ng (?) Developing photos is still another learning curve but after going through a few tutorials, I can see how powerful it is. I haven't shot in RAW yet but I'm about to give that a try. Although I don't understand the actual differences other than hearing from people saying that RAW comes out better and more editing capabilities? I still don't understand because aren't we making edits now on the JPEG file? *shrug*

As far as workflow is concerned, I like the idea that you can go step by step and then produce a final product to send to someone or print while retaining powerful developing capabilities. I just don't want to have 10 different softwares to fix one photo or to complete a workflow.

I guess part of the problem is the not having the "eye". People who have posted comparison pictures is sometimes difficult for me to distinguish, other than obvious pictures. For example, some zoo picture of a giraffe somewhere here I thought was nice and beautiful done, then again someone responded that there is a bluish tint and it should be warmed up a bit....I'm like huh?

nutsnbolts wrote in post #3609086
I haven't shot in RAW yet but I'm about to give that a try. Although I don't understand the actual differences other than hearing from people saying that RAW comes out better and more editing capabilities? I still don't understand because aren't we making edits now on the JPEG file? *shrug*

example, some zoo picture of a giraffe somewhere here I thought was nice and beautiful done, then again someone responded that there is a bluish tint and it should be warmed up a bit....I'm like huh?

The "eye" part is acquired, and subjective. What one person may love, may not do anything for the next guy. Also, monitor calibration could affect whether, for example, someone else saw a blue tint and you did not.

There's a number of good threads on RAW here, so I won't attempt to duplicate their efforts but heres the "nutsnbolts" :

In LR, you can edit either RAW or Jpeg. If working with RAW, it does not convert it to jpeg first... you are actually working WITH the RAW file (ok, a rendering of the RAW file) until you export it to another file format.

You also have more latitude in edits with RAW before artifacts start showing up in the image... more bit depth: meaning more color information, etc to work with than in the jpeg,. Also, WB can be changed in RAW without introducing artifacts, whereas its "cooked" into the jpeg. All of this likely also means more work on your part... YOU are doing what the chip in your camera usually does on the fly for a jpeg image... it may take longer, but you get to choose every setting exactly as you want it (and go back and try it a different way, if desired.)

Thanks, I think I understand.

After using both programs for a while, I've found some overlap, but there are profound differences too.

The filters and layers of Elements simply have no parallels in LR (I have 5.0).

And I find I can more quickly adjust the WhiBal, etc in LR.

And of course LR gives me a method of filing and sorting that is quite flexible.

There are more differences, but these come to mind immediately.

I use PSE5 on a daily basis and have tried out Lightroom. Lightroom is great no doubt and as mentioned above it does not do everything. I like to use layers and filters so I will always need something to do that, so PSE5 or CS3 will always be around for me. In trying out Lightroom I thought it was fantastic, but for how I work it was not worth $299 worth of cool. It did not offer enough for me to spend that money, at least not now, perhaps later. PSE5 meets my needs at the moment and costs 1/3 of Lightroom. I would rather spend the money on glass.

pgiancola wrote in post #3614354
not worth $299 worth of cool. It did not offer enough for me to spend that money, at least not now, perhaps later. PSE5 meets my needs at the moment and costs 1/3 of Lightroom. I would rather spend the money on glass.

I have to agree, actually, even though I am a LR user. (I got it early on for $170 before the price hike.)

No way I could justify to myself paying $300! I would have stuck with DPP at that price. (I much prefer DPP over PSE for RAW processing.) But, others have more cash to spend than me, just look at the number of people using CS3 already!

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #3614689
I have to agree, actually, even though I am a LR user. (I got it early on for $170 before the price hike.)

No way I could justify to myself paying $300! I would have stuck with DPP at that price. (I much prefer DPP over PSE for RAW processing.) But, others have more cash to spend than me, just look at the number of people using CS3 already!

Me either. I got LR for $95 through Academic Superstore. Otherwise I probably would have stuck with CS2 and Bridge.