LR vs PS

D

Dangerous

Suspended / Banned
Messages
414
Edit My Images
No
I use Photoshop CC for editing photos. Everyone seems to rave about Lightroom for DAM & editing but many then go on to say that they often do additional editing in PS.

I believe PS is a more capable editor but is there anything you can do in LR that you can't do in PS to make using both worthwile?
 
The key advantages of LR is the DAM which would be enough for me to use it for that alone. LR becomes your command centre and you can access other editors (such as PS, Elements) and many Plug-ins (e.g. Topaz, On1, Nik etc.). Editing is non-destructive but I still find PS valuable for layers and cloning and a few actions. However, when it comes to printing LR is much better than PS as it has a much more advanced proof printing system and can create print virtual copies for different paper/ink combinations. I could probably just about survive with LR alone but would not like to only have PS. However, as they come as a pair, I can benefit from the best of both.

Dave
 
Lightroom can be very annoying if you don't want software that wants to take control of you images ... I've tried it several times and always end up hating it! I use Photoshop CS6 and don't feel I am missing anything ... and, ss above, layers & cloning are great in Photoshop.
 
Dangerous said:
Everyone seems to rave about Lightroom for DAM & editing
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone "rave" about LR, however I think most people, most of the time find LR good enough for getting the most out of a RAW file. Sometimes it is necessary or desirable to go to PS for advanced cloning, layer masks, etc. but probably 90% of the time I don't bother with PS, a few slider adjustments in LR, a bit of spot removal, may be a grad filter and I am done. Other than the cataloguing, which TBH is only as good as the data you put into it, LR gives you all the basic photography controls in an easy to use application.
 
the only time I use photoshop is
1) when there are a few images to process
2) the photo needs a lot of work , (eg repairing old photos)
3) when there was something in the image I could not avoid whilst taking the photo
4) to crop an image when theres not many to do
the rest of the time LR does everyting I need to to an image

photoshop is primarily a image creation tool but can do what lightroom excels at which is basic changes in images eg (brighten, apply filters. and process lots of images vey quickly.

they are designed to do 2 different jobs , so in my opinion they work together to achieve the required results
 
Last edited:
I only use Lightroom for Dam and output from file.
All my raw and other editing is done in Photoshop.
I have used Photoshop since long before lightroom came on the scene.
 
gramps said:
Lightroom can be very annoying if you don't want software that wants to take control of you images ... I've tried it several times and always end up hating it! I use Photoshop CS6 and don't feel I am missing anything ... and, ss above, layers & cloning are great in Photoshop.
Click to expand...


Word for word what i would have posted :)
 
Have a look at ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2020. Does what PS & LR do but in one programme (and a one-off price). Also you don't have to 'import' the images.
 
I tend to use Lightroom first and then switch to Photoshop if I need to clone something out that I can't do with the spot removal tool in Lightroom. I like Photoshop bit I feel I spend too long editing one image
 
They are different tools for different purposes.

Lightroom is designed for image development, management and cataloguing. All manipulation is non-destructive, permitting multiple edits and for images to be exported in many forms.

Photoshop is a pixel-level editor for making fundamental and permanent changes to an image.

They are designed to work together for photography, as complimentary packages. Yes, you can develop images with Photoshop, but it's not a smart way of working. Yes you can do stuff like cloning in LR but it's not the best tool for the job. They don't compete with each other because they're intended for different things.
 
But surely PS is non-destructive as you never alter the RAW file, do the adjustments on layers and you can save as any file type.
 
I have started using LR for DAM and am getting to grips with it although I still haven't figured out how to do one or two things I want with the ease I'm used to. No doubt I will figure it out. I find that the basic editing & adjustments in PS very quick & easy, printing photos simple & if I need to do more advanced editing I'm already in PS..

I can either save 2 or more PSD files (-A, -B etc.) or create groups with different editing processes in each group and switch them on/off so I can print photos with various different effects applied, all non-destructively.
 
Dangerous said:
But surely PS is non-destructive as you never alter the RAW file, do the adjustments on layers and you can save as any file type.
Click to expand...

But thats not non destructive, thats just creating a separate file and not overwriting the raw data. LR allows editing of the RAW in real time and the edits remain/store on 1 file only, instead of multiple files, you can also create multiple virtual copies/variations.

I find it much more effective to do initial edits in LR then if LR cant handle retouching I need to do or need layers I go directly from LR into PS as a copy. They work well together.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
But thats not non destructive, thats just creating a separate file and not overwriting the raw data. LR allows editing of the RAW in real time and the edits remain/store on 1 file only, instead of multiple files, you can also create multiple virtual copies/variations.

I find it much more effective to do initial edits in LR then if LR cant handle retouching I need to do or need layers I go directly from LR into PS as a copy. They work well together.
Click to expand...

I will give LR a try. I must admit I have used it much as I find it so hard to use, maybe because I started with PS.
 
Dangerous said:
I will give LR a try. I must admit I have used it much as I find it so hard to use, maybe because I started with PS.
Click to expand...

Youll pick it up quickly, I also started on PS way before LR was released. Adobe stuff is pretty similar across all CC apps.
 
I was advised to use LR Classic for DAM which I did.

I have a done a quick google of LR CC vs LR Classic assuming that LRCC was the latest & best version of LR. From the comments I've seen LR CC means Lightroom crap copy [or cutdown copy] (of classic) especially where keywords are concerned. I didn't see it specifically stated that it was better at editing but that you would use CC for some stuff, classic for DAM.

Seems like CC has a lot of catching up to do.

Is that right?
 
I also hate the way Adobe thinks I should keep my photos in their cloud and while I can pause sync I can't disable it completely.
 
I prefer a combination of Bridge and PS. I just don’t get on with LR despite trying to switch last year, it’s so slow and I usually end up completing the edit in PS anyway. Having said that PS is occasionally extremely laggy now too and feels dated and cumbersome compared to apps like Snapseed...itonly you could get that for desktop...I’m tempted to give Affinity a try
 
Dangerous said:
I was advised to use LR Classic for DAM which I did.

I have a done a quick google of LR CC vs LR Classic assuming that LRCC was the latest & best version of LR. From the comments I've seen LR CC means Lightroom crap copy [or cutdown copy] (of classic) especially where keywords are concerned. I didn't see it specifically stated that it was better at editing but that you would use CC for some stuff, classic for DAM.

Seems like CC has a lot of catching up to do.

Is that right?
Click to expand...

Yes, classic is better, much. Pausing stops it, I also don't do cloud. By cc I mean the suite of Adobe products.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
Lightroom can be very annoying if you don't want software that wants to take control of you images ... I've tried it several times and always end up hating it! I use Photoshop CS6 and don't feel I am missing anything ... and, ss above, layers & cloning are great in Photoshop.
Click to expand...

+1 for that. Dont like any software that wants to import stuff for me and catalogue it. I just stick with PS, does everything I have needed to do.
 
I mainly use Bridge and Adobe Camera Raw for most of my images, and very occasionally go into PS for something above and beyond.

I wanted to get on with LR, and for the most part the RAW processing is the same. Having started with PS/ACR though, I am more proficient with it. One of the main differences between ACR and LR for actual processing of the images was when it came to straightening images for me. This was more of a problem before the various automated straightening options, but still sometimes arises, and that is that in LR you can't, as far as I know, zoom into and image to draw a line to straighten something to that object, you have to do it with the whole image in view. Which to me, coming from ACR felt like a backwards step, and something, you would think, easy to fix, but it never was afaik. Maybe it wasn't that much of a problem for a lot of people. With ACR you can zoom as much as you want into the image to draw a line to straighten. There have been many times, particularly in old European towns where the buildings on a street or canal may not be straight in comparison to each other, and a particular building may have to be chosen to make it look 'right'. ;)

For those that make use of the DAM, printing, social media image dissemination, Bridge and ACR/PS, or indeed any other software, may not be able to replace LightRoom.
 
Dave Canon said:
The key advantages of LR is the DAM which would be enough for me to use it for that alone. LR becomes your command centre and you can access other editors (such as PS, Elements) and many Plug-ins (e.g. Topaz, On1, Nik etc.). Editing is non-destructive but I still find PS valuable for layers and cloning and a few actions. However, when it comes to printing LR is much better than PS as it has a much more advanced proof printing system and can create print virtual copies for different paper/ink combinations. I could probably just about survive with LR alone but would not like to only have PS. However, as they come as a pair, I can benefit from the best of both.

Dave
Click to expand...

Word for word what i would have posted (thanks to Kippax for that line) :D

Dave
 
twist said:
Yes, classic is better, much. Pausing stops it, I also don't do cloud. By cc I mean the suite of Adobe products.
Click to expand...

By cloud I mean syncing files to cloud storage. I want my photos on my computer and have no need to view or work on them at other locations and although I have a couple of tablets I would never use them for photo editing. I may pot copies on to one of them if I needed to view away from home but that rarely happens.

Had a bit play at editing in LR, I see what you mean by non-destructive single file which I can see could be handy to me. I can see where the history steps are available and how a snapshot or a virtual copy can save different edits of a photo and still in a single file.

I have seen how to export to PS (as PSD) but what I haven't seen yet is how to bring it back any edit done in PS but maintain the 'single RAW file'. I could only do it and have the original RAW and a edited copy in PSD.
 
I've used LR since LR3 & I easily do over 95% of my editing within it. I use CS6 for any layers/masking, clone work, liquify & if I select "merge to pano in PS" etc which then re-opens the tiff back in LR anyway.
 
redhed17 said:
One of the main differences between ACR and LR for actual processing of the images was when it came to straightening images for me. This was more of a problem before the various automated straightening options, but still sometimes arises, and that is that in LR you can't, as far as I know, zoom into and image to draw a line to straighten something to that object, you have to do it with the whole image in view.
Click to expand...

I use LR5 still (too late to pick up 6) and have no plans to adopt the subscription model.

In lens corrections>manual adjustments you can zoom in to the image as normal, then when you hover over an adjustment slider, a grid overlay appears to aid alignment. The 'crop overlay' tool is for big, crude adjustments only.
 
Dangerous said:
I have seen how to export to PS (as PSD) but what I haven't seen yet is how to bring it back any edit done in PS but maintain the 'single RAW file'. I could only do it and have the original RAW and a edited copy in PSD.
Click to expand...
Yes. The thing is that LR doesn't really adjust anything in the raw file - its adjustments are virtual - until the adjustments are baked in at the time of export from LR as a conventional image file (psd, tif, jpg).

So if you want round-trip processing it's as you say. Plan the workflow accordingly - ie do as much of the work in a non-destructive way in LR on the raw first.

robinsslee said:
I use both LR Classic (light editing) and PS CC (serious edit with multiple layers) simultaneously
Click to expand...
You have four eyes & four hands ...?
 
ancient_mariner said:
In lens corrections>manual adjustments you can zoom in to the image as normal, then when you hover over an adjustment slider, a grid overlay appears to aid alignment. The 'crop overlay' tool is for big, crude adjustments only.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. :) That is the closest to what I can do in ACR, but the zoom levels are set steps, and from a pull down menu, the image rotates as you try and make changes, and the grid can be hard to see. In ACR I can zoom into images at multiple levels easily, draw a line on something, and the image rotates. But if I am ever stuck just with LR it may be a better option than the Crop Overlay. :)
 
Just spent a few hours messing about with LR Maybe because I've used and have become familiar with PS that this time I could understand what was happening and what I was doing (information overload with LR last time?). Seems like more of the features I use in PS are available in the edit panel as against drop down menus as in PS and it's not necessary to add numerous layers to make the adjustments. The spot remover is more of a spot clone out than after that PS would be needed but probably not many times.

Snapshots can set permanent edit points so you have an image with a number of edited looks but still only one file and the whole of the edit history is available at a later date. I still have to play with presets and probably other things but yes it is looking like I may use LR a lot more.

Am I right in my thinking?


One thing I'm struggling with is what do I do if I do need to edit in PS to do something I can't do in LR. How do I get the image back in to LR keeping all the PS edits and still have the LR history intact?
 
Last edited:
Dangerous said:
Just spent a few hours messing about with LR Maybe because I've used and have become familiar with PS that this time I could understand what was happening and what I was doing (information overload with LR last time?). Seems like more of the features I use in PS are available in the edit panel as against drop down menus as in PS and it's not necessary to add numerous layers to make the adjustments. The spot remover is more of a spot clone out than after that PS would be needed but probably not many times.

Snapshots can set permanent edit points so you have an image with a number of edited looks but still only one file and the whole of the edit history is available at a later date. I still have to play with presets and probably other things but yes it is looking like I may use LR a lot more.

Am I right in my thinking?


One thing I'm struggling with is what do I do if I do need to edit in PS to do something I can't do in LR. How do I get the image back in to LR keeping all the PS edits and still have the LR history intact?
Click to expand...

Save as a layered psd and not a tiff. You're working in two different software, Lr won't remember your ps history but layers will have adjustments.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Save as a layered psd and not a tiff. You're working in two different software, Lr won't remember your ps history but layers will have adjustments.
Click to expand...

Then do I do further LR adjustments if required in the PSD?
 
Dangerous said:
Then do I do further LR adjustments if required in the PSD?
Click to expand...

Yes. Sometimes after making pixel-level adjustments it will be necessary to alter development type parameters, and since the image after photoshop is a completely new photo, you can make all the LR edits you want without changing the .psd file underneath.

I use On1 Photoraw instead of PS this way, and the edits are saved as .psd files too. Just right-click the image in LR library view, choose Edit In and select the application - LR will then ask whether you want to edit a copy with or without LR edits, or if you want to edit the original, then export according to your choice & open PS (or whatever other software).
 
I figured out what was my issue, I did some edits in LR, edited it in PS (from within LR) then saved it as PSD. As I was just testing on some duplicated files I didn't realise the was a PSD with the same name (the CR3 file had been used to create a PSD & a JPG & I had also copied them without realising) which it overwrote. When opening in LR the thumbnail didn't show the changes. After a few tries and a bit time to think I spotted the mistake and can then edit the PSD in LR and while there isn't any history available I still have it in LR-CR3 file if I did want to go back before PS edits.

twist said:
Why would you keep going back and forth, do what you need in LR then into PS if required to finish.
Click to expand...

There are times I apply more/different edits to some images to suit what they are to be used for. For the most part these future edits would need to be done in PS but if I'm using LR as my DAM & gateway to PS there may be some edits that LR could do.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread, your help has help no end and I really do appreciate it.
 
Dangerous said:
There are times I apply more/different edits to some images to suit what they are to be used for. For the most part these future edits would need to be done in PS but if I'm using LR as my DAM & gateway to PS there may be some edits that LR could do.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread, your help has help no end and I really do appreciate it.
Click to expand...

You've also got "Create Virtual Copy" in LR too. But you may already know that?
 
LeeRatters said:
You've also got "Create Virtual Copy" in LR too. But you may already know that?
Click to expand...

Yep, saw that. and a couple of other thing I've not played with yet, The best bit is I can see the CR3 file thumbs and open them for edit in the same program.
PS doesn't get a preview although Bridge but that's a faff to see all the files on disk as each time you move off a directory it defaults to seeing only the directory selected and you have to right click and select show sub-directories

Oh for one good program that did it all.
 
Dangerous said:
Yep, saw that. and a couple of other thing I've not played with yet, The best bit is I can see the CR3 file thumbs and open them for edit in the same program.
PS doesn't get a preview although Bridge but that's a faff to see all the files on disk as each time you move off a directory it defaults to seeing only the directory selected and you have to right click and select show sub-directories

Oh for one good program that did it all.
Click to expand...

And did it subscription free!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top