Photoshop users over Lightroom

SsSsSsSsSnake

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,886
Edit My Images
Yes
I can’t remember who it was but it could have been Myotis who said they prefer using photoshop over Lr.


basically who uses PS over Lightroom and why,this is from scratch with the Raw file not Lr 1st then into

PS but all of the editing in PS.

thanks
 
I do 99% of stuff using camera raw in Photoshop and often only resize or print with Photoshop.

I did try LR once but didn't like it.
 
I`ve been using PS since CS3, so too familiar with it. Now use C1 to process raw, then edit in PS.

Tried LR one time, and hated everything about it (but I am an old fart ;)).
 
Both have equally important use in my workflow and ideally should be a single app.

For example lr clone feature is slow and limited compared to ps, and ps is missing even decent white balance tool save for acr plugin
 
I can’t remember who it was but it could have been Myotis who said they prefer using photoshop over Lr.


basically who uses PS over Lightroom and why,this is from scratch with the Raw file not Lr 1st then into

PS but all of the editing in PS.

thanks
I think what I said, if it was me, was a bit more nuanced than preferring Photoshop over Lightroom.

As background, if you don't already know this.

You can't open raw files in Photoshop, they need to be converted into a file that PS can read using ACR (Adobe Camera Raw): a program that comes with Photoshop.

Lightroom also uses ACR to process Raw files, but Lightroom is built around a database (catalogue) to manage your files (absent from Photoshop) and provides more flexible printing and other output tools than Photoshop does. Photoshop comes with Adobe Bridge to manage your files (tightly integrated with PS), but doesn't give the cataloguing tools that Lightroom gives you.

Once upon a time ACR was just a raw converter, with very few editing tools, used to process raw files before opening them in Photoshop. Nearly all editing was done in Photoshop. Capture One was originally a competitor for ACR (before Lightroom existed), and it was assumed you would use Capture One alongside Photoshop.

Apple brought out, the now defunct, Aperture program which was an "all in one solution" (like Lightroom) with a clear focus on the photographers market. Adobe then released its competitor to Aperture called Lightroom, which from a fairly simple beginning has added more and more editing features, as well as improving its database and output tools. Capture One, while starting out from a different place, has become more Lightroom like over the years, e.g adding cataloguing tools. But, Capture One is still very different to Lightroom in many respects.

As ACR (and LR) has developed and increased its editing tools working directly on raw files, the need for Photoshop has declined. When working on Raw files you don't physically alter the raw files, you simply create a series of commands that tell Lightroom/ACR what the file should look like when you view it in ACR (or LR), or how it should look once exported as a JPEG or TIFF or PSD.

Photoshop, works on the "raster" or pixel files (TIFF or PSD files) that ACR/LR exports. This has the immediate impact that in PS you are working on files that are much larger than in Lightroom, which can rapidly grow in size as work on your edits in Photoshop.

But, working directly on pixel files allows more precise and subtle edits than can be made in Lightroom (not normally an issue, but it can be). Cloning and healing, and object selection all tend to work a bit better and faster in PS. Sliders and curve tools work a bit more smoothly and some things like composites and layer blending can't be done at all in LR.

But for me the big reason for photoshop is the layers, as this gives a structured way of building up your edit a step at a time and to easily keep track of those edits; switch them off and on individually or in groups, and easily adjust their strength. For example, f you use an external de-noising program (or any other external program that works as a plugin with PS) you can apply the de-noising on a photoshop layer and then adjust the strength of the de-noising from inside Photoshop.

So while there are some technical reasons for "maybe" preferring Photoshop, it's the layer based workflow that I like. I like the structured approach it offers and the feeling of being able to see what I have done, being in control of where my edits are going and being able to see where they have come from.

PS is much more difficult to lean than LR, and the benefits will depend on how you want to work, and the type of work you do. There are many more reasons to prefer PS, and many reasons to prefer LR. Most people would probably benefit from learning, and using, both.

There are lots of videos around comparing specific features of LR vs PS and how the "same" tools work slightly differently between the two. Here is a recent one comparing the new masking tools in LR and ACR with the masking tools in PS. The video use a PS plugin called TK8, but it's only providing shortcuts to PS tools and shouldn't influence the comparison.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMlmpC3F9Yg
 
For Raw editing, I used to use ACR in Photoshop, but with the last couple of updates, I've found myself using Lightroom almost entirely as I find the new layout in ACR in Photoshop to not be very nice.
 
I think what I said, if it was me, was a bit more nuanced than preferring Photoshop over Lightroom.

As background, if you don't already know this.

You can't open raw files in Photoshop, they need to be converted into a file that PS can read using ACR (Adobe Camera Raw): a program that comes with Photoshop.

Lightroom also uses ACR to process Raw files, but Lightroom is built around a database (catalogue) to manage your files (absent from Photoshop) and provides more flexible printing and other output tools than Photoshop does. Photoshop comes with Adobe Bridge to manage your files (tightly integrated with PS), but doesn't give the cataloguing tools that Lightroom gives you.

Once upon a time ACR was just a raw converter, with very few editing tools, used to process raw files before opening them in Photoshop. Nearly all editing was done in Photoshop. Capture One was originally a competitor for ACR (before Lightroom existed), and it was assumed you would use Capture One alongside Photoshop.

Apple brought out, the now defunct, Aperture program which was an "all in one solution" (like Lightroom) with a clear focus on the photographers market. Adobe then released its competitor to Aperture called Lightroom, which from a fairly simple beginning has added more and more editing features, as well as improving its database and output tools. Capture One, while starting out from a different place, has become more Lightroom like over the years, e.g adding cataloguing tools. But, Capture One is still very different to Lightroom in many respects.

As ACR (and LR) has developed and increased its editing tools working directly on raw files, the need for Photoshop has declined. When working on Raw files you don't physically alter the raw files, you simply create a series of commands that tell Lightroom/ACR what the file should look like when you view it in ACR (or LR), or how it should look once exported as a JPEG or TIFF or PSD.

Photoshop, works on the "raster" or pixel files (TIFF or PSD files) that ACR/LR exports. This has the immediate impact that in PS you are working on files that are much larger than in Lightroom, which can rapidly grow in size as work on your edits in Photoshop.

But, working directly on pixel files allows more precise and subtle edits than can be made in Lightroom (not normally an issue, but it can be). Cloning and healing, and object selection all tend to work a bit better and faster in PS. Sliders and curve tools work a bit more smoothly and some things like composites and layer blending can't be done at all in LR.

But for me the big reason for photoshop is the layers, as this gives a structured way of building up your edit a step at a time and to easily keep track of those edits; switch them off and on individually or in groups, and easily adjust their strength. For example, f you use an external de-noising program (or any other external program that works as a plugin with PS) you can apply the de-noising on a photoshop layer and then adjust the strength of the de-noising from inside Photoshop.

So while there are some technical reasons for "maybe" preferring Photoshop, it's the layer based workflow that I like. I like the structured approach it offers and the feeling of being able to see what I have done, being in control of where my edits are going and being able to see where they have come from.

PS is much more difficult to lean than LR, and the benefits will depend on how you want to work, and the type of work you do. There are many more reasons to prefer PS, and many reasons to prefer LR. Most people would probably benefit from learning, and using, both.

There are lots of videos around comparing specific features of LR vs PS and how the "same" tools work slightly differently between the two. Here is a recent one comparing the new masking tools in LR and ACR with the masking tools in PS. The video use a PS plugin called TK8, but it's only providing shortcuts to PS tools and shouldn't influence the comparison.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMlmpC3F9Yg
Thankyou to everyone so far replied but this was a wonderful explanation, thankyou.
 
I have never used Lightroom, used Photoshop for years, in fact my first time use was about version 2 I think around 1993. Came in a box on 5 floppy disks with a printed manual..... those were the days.
 
I have never used Lightroom, used Photoshop for years, in fact my first time use was about version 2 I think around 1993. Came in a box on 5 floppy disks with a printed manual..... those were the days.
But if you open a raw to edit in photoshop it goes to adobe camera raw which is practically the same as Lightroom without the importing and catalogue thing.
 
Barely ever use PS, all my editing is done in LR, largely on an iPad or even my phone these days. I very rarely use a desktop or laptop for editing now
 
Photoshop is great at doing a lot to a small number of files. Lightroom on the other hand is great for handling a large number of images, but it cant do a lot of the stuff Photoshop can do.
If I'm doing a few pics or want to do a lot of fiddling or clever stuff it's Photoshop, if it's a few hundred pics or more then Lightroom. They compliment each other rather than rivals IMHO.
 
Lightroom does everything I need to 'develop and print' my photos. The only time I use anything else is to make graphics from photos, or graphics on their own.
 
I have always considered that they work together.

You import and work in a "digital darkroom" with LR, then "manipulate" or refine in PS. I tend to sharpen in PS once I've resized & added borders. Fuji images don't like sharpening in LR, mine are set up to have sharpening at "0" on import.
 
I have Capture One Pro (rather than Lightroom) and Affinity Photo (rather than Photoshop). I used to use the great, lamented Aperture, but C1Pro is a pretty good substitute now I've got used to it. I like having the Digital Asset Management stuff and some pretty powerful post processing in the one program. I end up using Affinity Photo way less than once a month (although I need to explore its printing capability, as C1Pro is a bit weak in that area compared with Aperture). C1Pro is a lot more powerful than I need: just the basic tweaks and the occasional heal layer to get rid of fluff or scratches on the scans (I'm a hybrid film photographer, FWIW).

I'm a member of a local U3A photography group, though it's a bit moribund since the pandemic. What surprised me is that only 2 others out of the dozen or so use LR/DAM or similar. The others (generally less strong photographically or technically) just manage their files in the filestore, and PP with Elements or a very old version of Photoshop. PS seems overkill to me, for what they want to do most of the time, but each to their own I suppose.

I would be completely lost without the star ratings and keywording in C1Pro, which is why I don't use Apple Photos.
 
I have Capture One Pro (rather than Lightroom) and Affinity Photo (rather than Photoshop). I used to use the great, lamented Aperture, but C1Pro is a pretty good substitute now I've got used to it. I like having the Digital Asset Management stuff and some pretty powerful post processing in the one program. I end up using Affinity Photo way less than once a month (although I need to explore its printing capability, as C1Pro is a bit weak in that area compared with Aperture). C1Pro is a lot more powerful than I need: just the basic tweaks and the occasional heal layer to get rid of fluff or scratches on the scans (I'm a hybrid film photographer, FWIW).
For printing, it might be worth looking at Qimage One. https://www.binartem.com/

I have it set up as as the output application for a C1 recipe and it's a very powerful printing app.

It's main benefit is its sharpening and resampling tools. You can probably run it from Affinity Photo as well. It has lots of printing options, templates etc, as well as high quality output.

It has an annual paid upgrade (and free interim upgrades and bug fixes), but it carries on working without upgrading. It's easy to just upgrade when a new feature looks worth upgrading to.

In fact I rarely use it now (as I rarely print), but last week I needed to print out a sheet of passport photographs and couldn't work out an easy way of doing it in C1, but it was easy to sort out in QImage.
 
Photoshop all the way for me.. tried lightroom.. i struggled just loading and saving one file and knowing where it was... what a complete faff of a program..... photoshop does everything I need and does it well :)
 
Photoshop all the way for me.. tried lightroom.. i struggled just loading and saving one file and knowing where it was... what a complete faff of a program..... :)
I totally agree with you :)
 
I have Capture One Pro (rather than Lightroom) and Affinity Photo (rather than Photoshop). I used to use the great, lamented Aperture, but C1Pro is a pretty good substitute now I've got used to it. I like having the Digital Asset Management stuff and some pretty powerful post processing in the one program. I end up using Affinity Photo way less than once a month (although I need to explore its printing capability, as C1Pro is a bit weak in that area compared with Aperture). C1Pro is a lot more powerful than I need: just the basic tweaks and the occasional heal layer to get rid of fluff or scratches on the scans (I'm a hybrid film photographer, FWIW).

I'm a member of a local U3A photography group, though it's a bit moribund since the pandemic. What surprised me is that only 2 others out of the dozen or so use LR/DAM or similar. The others (generally less strong photographically or technically) just manage their files in the filestore, and PP with Elements or a very old version of Photoshop. PS seems overkill to me, for what they want to do most of the time, but each to their own I suppose.

I would be completely lost without the star ratings and keywording in C1Pro, which is why I don't use Apple Photos.
Chris are You aware of this?

i just ❤️ photos for initially organising my photos into dates etc and then I can easily create albums,
that being said I’m a simple soul lol.
 
I totally agree with you :)
As my reply to Chris Paul,
I dislike LR’s cataloguing options,I’ve seen that there are even just books on how to organise it which put me off straight away.
I know a lot of people turn their nose up at Apple photos for organising but I find it a breeze and it suits my modest workflow perfectly but yes agree about LR.
 
Photoshop all the way for me.. tried lightroom.. i struggled just loading and saving one file and knowing where it was... what a complete faff of a program..... photoshop does everything I need and does it well :)
Just realised your’re a pro tog,I like your work for the soccer world.
I still am suprised when I guess it should be obvious but this site has a great amount of talented photographers contributing their experince and advice etc .brilliant to humbly feel a part of it.
having been into football since the early 50’s I well remember the struggles of Accrington Stanley FC.interesting stuff.
 
Last edited:
As my reply to Chris Paul,
I dislike LR’s cataloguing options,I’ve seen that there are even just books on how to organise it which put me off straight away.
I know a lot of people turn their nose up at Apple photos for organising but I find it a breeze and it suits my modest workflow perfectly but yes agree about LR.
Catalogues were a no no for me to start with. I was happy with just using Bridge, for ages, bur C1 kinda forced me into it. Now I just make a new one for each month. That works for me (for now) ;)
 
Catalogues were a no no for me to start with. I was happy with just using Bridge, for ages, bur C1 kinda forced me into it. Now I just make a new one for each month. That works for me (for now) ;)
By kinda forced, do you mean your were forced into deciding that was the best choice, and you chose it in preference to using Sessions, which would avoid using a catalogue. You don't need to use catalogues with C1.

If you aren't aware of Sessions, then ...

C1 offers a couple of ways of using its "session" alternative to catalogues. This was how C1 originally worked before it added the catalogue option.

Sessions can work a bit like catalogues, but are based on creating a new C1 session per project, with C1 related information (previews, edits etc) stored alongside the raw files rather than inside a catalogue. It allows everything related to a project to be stored inside a single Operating System folder for management and archiving.

As an alternative to setting up a new C1 session per project (e.g every portrait sitting, every sports event etc), you can set up a single "empty" session, that you can use as a browser across all files on your Drives.

Of course the "for now" may well be an indication that you know about sessions, and are rethinking your current catalogue work flow. But just in case...
 
By kinda forced, do you mean your were forced into deciding that was the best choice, and you chose it in preference to using Sessions, which would avoid using a catalogue. You don't need to use catalogues with C1.

If you aren't aware of Sessions, then ...

C1 offers a couple of ways of using its "session" alternative to catalogues. This was how C1 originally worked before it added the catalogue option.

Sessions can work a bit like catalogues, but are based on creating a new C1 session per project, with C1 related information (previews, edits etc) stored alongside the raw files rather than inside a catalogue. It allows everything related to a project to be stored inside a single Operating System folder for management and archiving.

As an alternative to setting up a new C1 session per project (e.g every portrait sitting, every sports event etc), you can set up a single "empty" session, that you can use as a browser across all files on your Drives.

Of course the "for now" may well be an indication that you know about sessions, and are rethinking your current catalogue work flow. But just in case...
Yeah sessions. I know and read up on them. But only organise by date, so monthly catalogue worked better for me :)
 
Yeah sessions. I know and read up on them. But only organise by date, so monthly catalogue worked better for me :)
That's fine, but you can still organise by date (which is what I do) and use an empty session to browse the files organised by date, and avoid the catalogue.

There is no real need to "avoid" the catalogue but I know some people would rather organise their files in system folders and then just browse those folders, rather than add an extra layer of organisation (ie a catalogue).
 
I totally agree with you :)

As my reply to Chris Paul,
I dislike LR’s cataloguing options,I’ve seen that there are even just books on how to organise it which put me off straight away.
I know a lot of people turn their nose up at Apple photos for organising but I find it a breeze and it suits my modest workflow perfectly but yes agree about LR.

It's so funny.......I found Photoshop a real headache but took to LR straight away.....
 
on the editing side I agree but I dislike the catalogue faff
\
I suppose it is partly how your brain works and partly the need to invest some time in learning the software. I find the LR keywording and the editing intuitive, I do not often use catalogues.

PS just doesn’t work for me.
 
on the editing side I agree but I dislike the catalogue faff
\
Faff? For someone like me who can't organise files it makes life much easier as it does the basics for me putting files in date ordered folders on import. My image files are the only ones I can find quickly because of LR's cataloguing.

The keywording is great (so long as you use it!), and the ability to search by text has found me files that I missed keywording by searching for the file name. Love it.
 
The keywording is great (so long as you use it!), and the ability to search by text has found me files that I missed keywording by searching for the file name. Love it.
There is a "Smart Collection" that will automatically display all the images that do not have keywords.
 
I think what I said, if it was me, was a bit more nuanced than preferring Photoshop over Lightroom.

As background, if you don't already know this.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMlmpC3F9Yg
That was a super explination and answered a couple of things i had wondered about.

I have Capture One Pro (rather than Lightroom) and Affinity Photo (rather than Photoshop). I used to use the great, lamented Aperture, but C1Pro is a pretty good substitute now I've got used to it. I like having the Digital Asset Management stuff and some pretty powerful post processing in the one program. I end up using Affinity Photo way less than once a month (although I need to explore its printing capability, as C1Pro is a bit weak in that area compared with Aperture). C1Pro is a lot more powerful than I need: just the basic tweaks and the occasional heal layer to get rid of fluff or scratches on the scans (I'm a hybrid film photographer, FWIW).

I'm a member of a local U3A photography group, though it's a bit moribund since the pandemic. What surprised me is that only 2 others out of the dozen or so use LR/DAM or similar. The others (generally less strong photographically or technically) just manage their files in the filestore, and PP with Elements or a very old version of Photoshop. PS seems overkill to me, for what they want to do most of the time, but each to their own I suppose.
.
I use C1 and affinity also and similarly the majority of people at the camera club I used to belong to used a version of Elements, most would just adjust exposure do a small amount of dodge and burn, crop, resize and add black fill to any part of the canvas not occupied by the image.
I trialled it once coming from On1 and asked them about how they used this and that - they all looked at me blankly and then said they used the "Basic" rather then "full" (cant recall the actual names). Basic would have fixed value icons for exposure with half a dozen brighter options, they would just click these until happy.

For printing, it might be worth looking at Qimage One. https://www.binartem.com/
Will take a look at this as I find printing accurately from C1 and even more so from Affinity dificult - I dont have a printer that can set profiles on


As an alternative to setting up a new C1 session per project (e.g every portrait sitting, every sports event etc), you can set up a single "empty" session, that you can use as a browser across all files on your Drives.
This is what I do, I have a folder for 2022 on my computer (previous years are on an external SSD and 2 other HDD backups)

I then create a session in C1 with the file 20220901 Description of shoot for a shoot that was done on the 1st sept 22. The description might be a location or person. Sometimes I dispense with a day and even a month and just have a subject specific folder - this might be Macro, cars, Horses where all the photos regardless of where and when shot will go.

I trialed lightroom and got in such a mess as to where the images were physically saved and ended up deleting folders I shouldnt of
-Result: uninstall lightroom, delete every thing off the harddrive and reinstall the back up files.
 
I can’t remember who it was but it could have been Myotis who said they prefer using photoshop over Lr.


basically who uses PS over Lightroom and why,this is from scratch with the Raw file not Lr 1st then into

PS but all of the editing in PS.

thanks

Beats me why most people thinks Photoshop is better than Lightroom or LR is better than PS, as if they compare it like Red Bull vs Ferrari, or Liverpool vs Chelsea, or Coca-Cola vs Pepsi. As if LR and PS are similar production, doing a similar job.

The fact is: They are both totally different productions, like a F1 car and a motorbike, or like a football team vs a basketball team, or Coca-Cola vs Hot Chocolate.

Lightroom's main and major role is to act like a catalogue and a database, to help us search for and view the photographs. The editing tools is simply Lightroom's secondary role.

Photoshop's main and major role is photo-editing, but it can be used for art like digital painting.

I use both of them, I don't prefer one over the other, I really use both. Often first I use Lightroom to looks for a suitable photo, and maybe do a little lightweight editing which is mostly adjusting the light levels, before exporting the photo. Then I import the exported photo into Photostop for some editing work like photo manipulation, before importing it into a graphic design software like InDesign or Illustrator.

I don't prefer one over other, I use them side-by-side. That's just me.
 
The editing tools is simply Lightroom's secondary role.
I've got to say, I disagree with you on that. I'm only on v6.14, and it does almost all I need it to do. But AFAIK the tools introduced in the last few years have made it an even better photo processor.
 
Beats me why most people thinks Photoshop is better than Lightroom or LR is better than PS, as if they compare it like Red Bull vs Ferrari, or Liverpool vs Chelsea, or Coca-Cola vs Pepsi. As if LR and PS are similar production, doing a similar job.

The fact is: They are both totally different productions, like a F1 car and a motorbike, or like a football team vs a basketball team, or Coca-Cola vs Hot Chocolate.

Lightroom's main and major role is to act like a catalogue and a database, to help us search for and view the photographs. The editing tools is simply Lightroom's secondary role.

Photoshop's main and major role is photo-editing, but it can be used for art like digital painting.

I use both of them, I don't prefer one over the other, I really use both. Often first I use Lightroom to looks for a suitable photo, and maybe do a little lightweight editing which is mostly adjusting the light levels, before exporting the photo. Then I import the exported photo into Photostop for some editing work like photo manipulation, before importing it into a graphic design software like InDesign or Illustrator.

I don't prefer one over other, I use them side-by-side. That's just me.
Completly agree ......I'm totally baffled why people compare them . I use both daily and for totally different reasons .
 
They are 2 different programs for 2 different purposes. I use lightroom to bulk edit and colour correct images and ps to polish any that need it
I couldn’t agree more with this.

I use Lightroom as a substitute for what I used to do in a darkroom. Basically exposure edits, dodging, burning and gradients that sort of stuff.

I use photoshop for all the things I could never do in a dark room ;)
 
Back
Top