Photoshop or Lightroom

I use both, But i find lightroom easer to use - i love having all the sliders infront of me.
 
posiview said:
Quick question, can anyone explain why people use LR to edit their photographs instead of PS?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Because most edits most people do are global changes to things like levels, exposure, saturation etc. which would normally be done in the raw import dialogue rather than inside PS itself. It's basically a simpler and less complex (you don't have to open the picture and edit it then save it as you would in PS) way of applying global changes to the image.

I edit 95% in LR and only drop into PS when I want to do more complex things. If you're doing more than LR can handle (e.g. layering to improve modelling shots) LR won't be as useful.
 
For doing all the basic and repetitive adjustments, LR is way quicker.
 
Lightroom catalogues your pictures and is 100 times faster than PS for editing. It was designed for digital photo editing - PS was not! There are a few things you can only do in PS but I use Lightroom 98% of the time.

Lightroom is also NON destructive - photoshop isn't!
 
Thanks all.

Much appreciated.

I've used a friends LR and CS5, and have, up until now, done 90% of my edits in CS5.

Might flip that figure.
 
I think it is a very goog question but no-one seems to have given a valid answer except "Lightroom catalogues your pictures" as most of the editing can be done with Bridge and ACR (same engine as Lightroom) and if you know what you are doing in Bridge output of certain types of files can be produced much faster!
 
The quick answer is why pay £600+ for ps when you can get LR for £200 ish?

I have a very old version of PS which won't edit my nef files. Why upgrade when I can work faster in Lightroom with lots of extra advantages over PS that a database system brings.
 
Last edited:
Paul MR said:
I think it is a very goog question but no-one seems to have given a valid answer except "Lightroom catalogues your pictures" as most of the editing can be done with Bridge and ACR (same engine as Lightroom) and if you know what you are doing in Bridge output of certain types of files can be produced much faster!
Click to expand...


Quite.

Lightroom is for people in a hurry, which is necessary for a lot of pros, but if you have time and patience (both quite useful attributes for photographers ;) ), even Photoshop Elements can do a far better job. Photoshop can do a lot of things that Lightroom can't. As far as I am aware there is nothing that Lightroom can do that you can't do with Elements - if you are prepared to learn how.

The full versions of PS with Bridge will catalogue your shots perfectly well, and is a hugely more powerful editor.
 
Lightroom does a few things to a lot of photos, photoshop does a lot of things to a few photos is one way to look at it.
Lightrooms good for the basic edit and ajustments to a lot of images fairly quickly. Photoshop on the other hand is harder to "batch" ajustments but has a lot more options for editing and can do a lot lightroom cant.
 
If you have CS5 then you have the same develop module that is in Lightroom. So you could do all the same adjustments in ACR ( within Photoshop) as you could with Lightroom. However the user interface with Lightroom for this is much neater and better laid out. Plus Lightroom has a much more integrated approach to workflow. It also catalogues your images for you, which if you only have a few hundred, or thousand then Bridge maybe more than good enough. However when you approach tens of thousands then you really do need a more optimised approach.

I use Lightroom for over 90% of my image work, only going into Photoshop for those things I can't do within Lightroom such as cloning and similar adjustments. I suspect that I could get away with Elements, but as I have Photoshop it's seems pointless to to switch.
 
awp said:
Lightroom is also NON destructive - photoshop isn't!
Click to expand...

I think that's very misleading - Photoshop is very capable of editing non-destructively with a decent workflow. If you start with a RAW file then ACR will open that and when you come to save will save the file as a PSD, the RAW is untouched. If you start with a JPEG, then either Save As, or use smart objects either way the original is untouched.
 
The RAW may be untouched in your situation but if you want to re-edit you have to start again from scratch (or start from the PSD) - with LR you have the edit history and go go back as many or as few steps as you want. Either way LR is a lot faster to work with - and a third of the price. I know which one I'm sticking with.
 
irelanst said:
I think that's very misleading - Photoshop is very capable of editing non-destructively with a decent workflow. If you start with a RAW file then ACR will open that and when you come to save will save the file as a PSD, the RAW is untouched. If you start with a JPEG, then either Save As, or use smart objects either way the original is untouched.
Click to expand...
I.e. you have to understand what you are doing to use PS in the same way as LR. LR is just easier to use for 95% of the things you want to do. Yes, you can do these things in ACR, but it is easier and more intuitive in LR. In particular, LR makes better use of dual monitors compared to ACR and Bridge.
 
awp said:
The RAW may be untouched in your situation but if you want to re-edit you have to start again from scratch (or start from the PSD) - with LR you have the edit history and go go back as many or as few steps as you want. Either way LR is a lot faster to work with - and a third of the price. I know which one I'm sticking with.
Click to expand...

Ummm, not at all. Just use a layer for each part of the edit, or use edit>undo. In the edit history in Photoshop. Which is rather like the edit history in Lightroom...

If you are unhappy with any RAW edit in Photoshop, it can be undone. Non-destructively. As often as you like.

Perhaps you find Lightroom quicker. Others may have a different view.
 
Your method also uses a lot more disk space. Yes, I much prefer LR.
 
jon ryan said:
Ummm, not at all. Just use a layer for each part of the edit, or use edit>undo. In the edit history in Photoshop. Which is rather like the edit history in Lightroom...

If you are unhappy with any RAW edit in Photoshop, it can be undone. Non-destructively. As often as you like.
Click to expand...
Does PS store more undo states than is shown in the history panel? My understanding was not, so unless you are very meticulous about how you edit, you can't do infinite undos with PS unless you go back to the original image.

Also, everything is done from one image in LR. You can snapshot an edit, and then totally reset everything and start again and do this again and again to produce different looks without having to manually save/export/use whatever other mechanism PS uses. You only have the raw file with the xmp sidecar alongside.

jon ryan said:
Perhaps you find Lightroom quicker. Others may have a different view.
Click to expand...
That statement sounds like someone who is at one with PS and not with LR (when I first used LR, I found it confusing as I'd been used to a particular flow in PS). LR IS quicker to edit images IF it does what you want it to do. There are some things that LR just does not do and if you want to do those things, you will need an additional editing program of some description.
 
I too used to be in favour of PS for editing my images and found LR far to confusing. With a little time and patience I found LR to be very intuitive for both sorting and modifying my images. Personally I found my workload has decreased dramatically using LR.

I belive that LR should be the first port of call for any image and PS to be used to modify the very best of your collection, thats if your lucky enough to own both pieces of software:-)
 
Best way I can some it up is this -

PS elements for cheap editing

PS CSx for photo editing and graphic design and manipulation

Lightroom for photo editing and organised filing system
 
Richmate said:
I too used to be in favour of PS for editing my images and found LR far to confusing. With a little time and patience I found LR to be very intuitive for both sorting and modifying my images. Personally I found my workload has decreased dramatically using LR.

I belive that LR should be the first port of call for any image and PS to be used to modify the very best of your collection, thats if your lucky enough to own both pieces of software:-)
Click to expand...

I use Lightroom to sort thorough and flag the best images then do batch edits of flaged images exposure & wb correction & crop if needed, I then export to low res web size image to put on a private gallery to let clients choose which ones they want.
Then I will edit there chosen images in PS CS5.
 
arad85 said:
Does PS store more undo states than is shown in the history panel? My understanding was not, so unless you are very meticulous about how you edit, you can't do infinite undos with PS unless you go back to the original image.
Click to expand...

Well, you can set up to 1,000 history states in CS4 (the one I use for work). I imaging it'll be about the same for the other versions. Though if you regularly need to go back more than a few states, perhaps something is going wrong?



Also, everything is done from one image in LR. You can snapshot an edit, and then totally reset everything and start again and do this again and again to produce different looks without having to manually save/export/use whatever other mechanism PS uses. You only have the raw file with the xmp sidecar alongside.
Click to expand...

In PS, you also work from a single image. Work from RAW or an unadulterated jpeg and you can pull as many different shots - different crops, perhaps a mono version - as you like. Non-destructively.

That statement sounds like someone who is at one with PS and not with LR (when I first used LR, I found it confusing as I'd been used to a particular flow in PS). LR IS quicker to edit images IF it does what you want it to do. There are some things that LR just does not do and if you want to do those things, you will need an additional editing program of some description.
Click to expand...

Quite right! I've been working professionally with Photoshop for about 10 years now. Hate to think how many hundreds of thousands of images I've used it for. You are spot on when you say that either version is the right one if it does what you want. I tried Lightroom for some months and found that, for me, it didn't make anything faster or easier. Possibly this was down to the way I was using it.

But, like just about everything in photography, there is no `right` way to do thing. Just a helluva lot of wrong ones!
 
awp said:
Your method also uses a lot more disk space. Yes, I much prefer LR.
Click to expand...

But "storage is cheap" these days!

Lightroom is great, 90% of my images never go into Photoshop at all, even the wife can apply a develop preset to a RAW and export an image to facebook unsupervised, but it is very limited if you want to edit at a pixel level - I would much rather work on a layer mask in Photoshop than use the adjustment brush in Lightroom.

If I had to pick 1 it would have to be Photoshop, you just can't do everything that I 'need' in Lightroom.
 
I used Photoshop for years - since v3 I think - so that is 25 years +. Lightroom is still faster and does 95% of my work. I think if you need Photoshop then either you're doing done really arty stuff - or you're just not getting it right in camera. However I don't really care what others do - I know which programme is best for me and that's all that matters.
 
jon ryan said:
Ummm, not at all. Just use a layer for each part of the edit, or use edit>undo. In the edit history in Photoshop. Which is rather like the edit history in Lightroom...

If you are unhappy with any RAW edit in Photoshop, it can be undone. Non-destructively. As often as you like.

Perhaps you find Lightroom quicker. Others may have a different view.
Click to expand...

jon ryan said:
Well, you can set up to 1,000 history states in CS4 (the one I use for work). I imaging it'll be about the same for the other versions. Though if you regularly need to go back more than a few states, perhaps something is going wrong?
Click to expand...

Do a couple of edits in Lightroom, and do the same in Photoshop. Shut both programmes down (save the PS file as a PSD if necessary) and wander off for a cup of tea.

Reopen both applications and the relevant files, and which one can you still view the editing history in?

Hint: It's not Photoshop.
 
Last edited:
It's not really an either or situation, for complete editing ability, it's both... :)


I rarely need to break open photoshop - but when I do, I'm glad it's there. Lightroom is the key to my workflow however.
 
DemiLion said:
Do a couple of edits in Lightroom, and do the same in Photoshop. Shut both programmes down (save the PS file as a PSD if necessary) and wander off for a cup of tea.

Reopen both applications and the relevant files, and which one can you still view the editing history in?

Hint: It's not Photoshop.
Click to expand...

Why shut them down if you're just going for a cuppa?
 
jon ryan said:
Why shut them down if you're just going for a cuppa?
Click to expand...
Teehee - straws, clutching, at - please rearrange into a well known saying ;) How about if you've suddenly discovered a much better way to edit something 6 months later and want to undo all your changes from an old file....
 
arad85 said:
Teehee - straws, clutching, at - please rearrange into a well known saying ;) How about if you've suddenly discovered a much better way to edit something 6 months later and want to undo all your changes from an old file....
Click to expand...

Well, during those six months, someone passing in a hot air balloon accidentally dropped a baby seal from the basket (long story...), which crashed through the roof of my office and damaged the hard drive on which the edited version was stored. Luckily, I had the original on the back-up, so was able to do the whole thing over. Using, I may add, the improved editing technique.

And I sold the dropped seal story for the price of a new 70-200 2.8 IS - result :D

Seriously, I often find new ways to edit old shots (and new ones, come to that). Always something new to be learned :thumbs:



nb: No baby seals were hurt in the making of this post.
 
Last edited:
Wow. Bad luck on that accident! And very lucky that the seal wasn't hurt. But point of order - that's not undoing changes, that's starting over ;)
 
Andy, I really don't get the point you're trying to make. If you are using Photoshop correctly then all of the adjustment layers will be intact and can be adjusted as and when just as easily as in Lightroom. It's easier to add steps and remove them in Photoshop than Lightroom (to me anyway) by inserting additional adjustment layers / masks as needed.

Seeing as your using a hypothetical situation to show that Lightroom is 'better' than Photoshop, then how about this - you have 2 images that you want to combine, add them as layers in Photoshop, add a layer mask and edit the mask to show / hide to varying extents the upper layer. Now open Lightroom to do the same....................

Lightroom is very good at what it does, but no one will persuade me that it is a better image editor than Photoshop, it simply isn't, you can do everything in PS that you can in Lightroom but not the other way around.

I think it's misleading to the OP to infer that things cannot be done in Photoshop when the reality is that they can if you know how.
 
If I had only Elements 6 or later, I could keep on working. It could get slow, but I could keep up with customer requirements. If I had only Lightroom, I would have to limit the range of services I offer.
 
Having tried both- I prefer my Photoshop CS 5 Extended- horses for courses I guess :thumbs:


Lets not start an editing suite WAR :lol::lol::lol:

Les :)
 
irelanst said:
Andy, I really don't get the point you're trying to make. If you are using Photoshop correctly then all of the adjustment layers will be intact and can be adjusted as and when just as easily as in Lightroom. It's easier to add steps and remove them in Photoshop than Lightroom (to me anyway) by inserting additional adjustment layers / masks as needed.

Seeing as your using a hypothetical situation to show that Lightroom is 'better' than Photoshop, then how about this - you have 2 images that you want to combine, add them as layers in Photoshop, add a layer mask and edit the mask to show / hide to varying extents the upper layer. Now open Lightroom to do the same....................

Lightroom is very good at what it does, but no one will persuade me that it is a better image editor than Photoshop, it simply isn't, you can do everything in PS that you can in Lightroom but not the other way around.

I think it's misleading to the OP to infer that things cannot be done in Photoshop when the reality is that they can if you know how.
Click to expand...

well said :thumbs::thumbs:

Les ;)
 
irelanst said:
I think it's misleading to the OP to infer that things cannot be done in Photoshop when the reality is that they can if you know how.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that LR is about a flow - import, develop, export/print. The UI is designed in that way and it's quite intuitive. It is clear you can do much, much more editing in PS, but most of what I do to my images I wouldn't think of as editing the image - more like developing what is already there (colour balance, lens correction, curves, exposure etc).

I see LR as a far more integrated tool - for example, it appears to me to be easier to move between images within the editor (left/right keys in the film strip), apply the same settings across images (sync), compare images side by side (compare) even whilst in the editing module etc... in LR. PS feels like 3 programs - browse in Bridge, simple edits in ACR, more complex in PS. The three cooperate, but aren't integrated into the same environment and you swap between them to use the different functionality. Where the two provide the same functionality, I think LR wins in ease of use and speed. Clearly, PS is a more powerful editor (in fact, you could claim that LR isn't an image editor and I wouldn't disagree), but as I said, I don't need to actually edit most of my images.
 
I got home last night at 9.30pm. I had more than 600 clicks from the days shooting - I sorted them down to around 100 processed them and got to bed by 11pm - with all the pics uploaded to a website for the paper to download first thing today. Show me how I could do that with photoshop!

I agree it's great for some things but not for every day editing.
 
posiview said:
Quick question, can anyone explain why people use LR to edit their photographs instead of PS?
Click to expand...

So to summarise my thoughts to the OPs question:

I don't use LR for editing, I use it for developing raw files. I use it because I find it is more integrated and quicker to sort through, compare images and develop the resulting good images than PS.

I use PS for editing images.
 
awp said:
I got home last night at 9.30pm. I had more than 600 clicks from the days shooting - I sorted them down to around 100 processed them and got to bed by 11pm - with all the pics uploaded to a website for the paper to download first thing today. Show me how I could do that with photoshop!

I agree it's great for some things but not for every day editing.
Click to expand...

Why should that be a problem? As long as nothing much needed doing to the images they could be run through RAW just as fast, I'd think. Did you tweak each image individually?
 
Just opening and saving the RAW files in PS would have taken me longer. They were processed in batches using the 'previous' command - and given little tweaks. They were then exported as jpegs.
 
I use both. But i always start in LR, it is just much faster and smarter.;)

Lightroom will handle and correct 95% of my images. There may be 5% that need some heavier image manipulation, then i would have to open CS5.

But thats not usual. There muist be something about that image that i think is worth pursueing.

If i had to lose one if would be CS5 without any doubt.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top