Photoshop or Lightroom

[jon ryan]

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.

Sound more or less what I do with mine. Opening in RAW takes moments. I batch rename the whole lot, sort in Bridge for any duds, drag-and-drop the ones I want to a new file, edit as needed from there. I use very few batch processes, usually just file re-sizing depending on what they're needed for.

If I'm doing something like show jumping where a helluva lot of files will be needed quickly for immediate printing, I shoot in medium size jpeg and add some in-camera tweaks - sharpening because of jpeg compression, extra saturation if it's a dull day and so forth.

I'm sure that if I spent more time working with LR I'd speed up, but I have tried - and always go back to PS.

 

[DemiLion]

I'm sure that if I spent more time working with LR I'd speed up, but I have tried - and always go back to PS.

...and there I think that you've hit the nail on the head!

I really didn't get on with LR2 at all and stuck to DPP for RAW processing then edited in PS. When LR3 came out (and also at the insistence of a certain female Mod) I made the effort to learn it properly and haven't looked back since.

Having said that it's horses for courses, but for volume processing I find that LR wins every time.

Regarding that nasty incident and the loss of the hard drive...

...you mean that you don't back up your catalogue?

 

[itsdavedotnet]

...and there I think that you've hit the nail on the head!

I really didn't get on with LR2 at all and stuck to DPP for RAW processing then edited in PS. When LR3 came out (and also at the insistence of a certain female Mod) I made the effort to learn it properly and haven't looked back since.

Having said that it's horses for courses, but for volume processing I find that LR wins every time.

Regarding that nasty incident and the loss of the hard drive...

...you mean that you don't back up your catalogue?

and now you're becoming a press guy, you're gonna want to learn photomechanic cos that makes lightroom look slow

 

[jon ryan]

...and there I think that you've hit the nail on the head!

I really didn't get on with LR2 at all and stuck to DPP for RAW processing then edited in PS. When LR3 came out (and also at the insistence of a certain female Mod) I made the effort to learn it properly and haven't looked back since.

Having said that it's horses for courses, but for volume processing I find that LR wins every time.

Regarding that nasty incident and the loss of the hard drive...

...you mean that you don't back up your catalogue?

I keep hearing how more and more people are using LR + PS and finding the combo to be a Good Thing, so I guess it must be me getting it wrong. Thing is, the only time I do ultra high volume stuff these days tends to be equestrian gigs, and at those all I do is hand over a card to a bloke who comes around on a quad every so often, then the techies do mysterious things to turn the files into images. A couple of weeks later a cheque drops through the door. Quite enjoyable, really.

So, is the cost and time I would have to invest in learning LR going to give me a return? That is the question.

As to the nasty incident - have you seen the mess a baby seal can make when it falls through your roof? You wouldn't believe the difficulty I had with the insurance people...

 

[irelanst]

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.

I think that pretty much sums up my take on the 2 programs as well

 

[awp]

Presumably now that you have 'sealed your roof' you'll be fine and dry when it rains?

 

[DemiLion]

and now you're becoming a press guy, you're gonna want to learn photomechanic cos that makes lightroom look slow

Weeeell sort of - Yes and No!


I've got PM and it is utterly brilliant for IPTC (especially downloaded data sets) but you still need to edit externally. Lightroom doesn't take variables well (ie the PM text pad options) but it does have a more comprehensive work flow once you've selected the files that you are going to use - if only it could recognise locked files.

At the moment I tend to use FastStone as a rapid review/filter/selection tool and then move into LR for IPTC and editing/export. With the PM option you review, tag, export for external editing, import(ish) and then FTP.

Both methods have their pros and cons, although I suspect that I'm still using LR because I don't know PM well enough yet!