Photoshop CS5 and/or Lightroom 3

<p>I know that this is a rather basic question for this advanced forum, but please give me some guidance--I need the help because I am seriously outdated when it comes to photo software and hardware. Thanks.</p>

<p>Now that Lightroom 3 has been officially released, could someone please give me a quick rundown of how Photoshop CS5 compares to Lightroom 3? What does each program do/do well that the other one does not? Can I get by with just buying Lightroom 3 or do I need to buy both?</p>

<p>I currently use Photoshop CS2. I have never used any version of Lightroom. I do not do heavy, complicated editing in CS2, but that's due to a combination of lack of time and proper training (those two are of course related). I am looking mostly to make RAW conversion (currently using Canon DPP since CS2 does not support my camera) and editing easier, not necessarily more powerful. (Does Lightroom 3 come with ACR?)</p>

<p>For reference, I am running a five year old computer with 2 GB of RAM, with I think about a 1.5 GHz single processor. I realize that this system will struggle with either Lightroom 3 or Photoshop CS5, but I'd rather not have to buy a completely new system at this time. Will my current computer be able to handle these programs at all, albeit slowly? It meets the minimum system requirements for both software packages.</p>

<p>Thanks, Larry</p>

<p>I presently run CS3 and Lightroom 2.x....forget the exact lightroom update I stopped at. I find Lightroom much easier to edit RAW in than ACR (which comes with CS whatever) and Lightroom organizing system is easier than Adobe Bridge. However, there are certain things that Adobe chooses to hold back from...or can't put in.....Lightroom. Sharpening is much better handled in photoshop, extensive local editing is easier in photoshop....altho LR2 and up does allow some local editting, but I find it a little cumbersome. Color to B&W conversion and control of it is much better in LR....for me, anyhow.</p>

<p>a combination of LR3 and CS2 would be a pretty good combo</p>

<p>I had no success with Lightroom and with the way I work, it could have wiped my files away--it doesn't like when a hard drive is taken off-line.</p>

<p>Personally, though, I think there is a big difference in processing a raw and working on an image. I would much prefer, couldn't live without, Photoshop. There are a lot of great new features in Lightroom and ACR, but the fine adjustments are done in PS and that, if it is used right, is where the magic will happen. So I am only suggesting that at least get PS. Personally, I use several different raw processors, 3 different ones, none are Lightroom. I don't know if Lightroom RAW is really all that different than what comes with PSCS5, just packaged differently and I actually find Bridge to be a great program (but I also have a data management system as well).</p>

<p>I also am running a a five year old computer with 2 GB Ram. Though I only have a 1.2 GHz single processor. I can tell you that both CS5 and Lightroom 3 will work, though like you realize slowly,<br>

Though its not bad in my opinion, seeing that I use a 5d Mark II for a camera (saving for a faster machine). Just slow on the processing part but I can live with it. <br />Some times CS5 tells me I do not have enough ram for a given actions but I just close out extra open files and usual it works. Bridge and CS5 work well for me and my computer just the 100% views take a few seconds but 21 MP is a ton of data to process.<br /><br />I personally prefer Photoshop/Bridge/ACR way of working (so far we will see in 29 days), manage and review in Bridge, tune the RAW and do general adjustments in ACR. Only use photoshop for the heavy projects Like HDR and layers.<br>

However I am currently examining Lightroom 3 (Just downloaded last night). I must say that lightroom 3 has improved, it seems to me at-least faster that LR 2. I am learning as I go. <br /> <br /> You can always download a trial version or lightroom or CS5 and try for a full 30 days with no restrictions, best way to see if it is for you. <br /> <br /> Best of luck</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I had no success with Lightroom and with the way I work, it could have wiped my files away--it doesn't like when a hard drive is taken off-line.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />There is no way this could happen. LR can't wipe out your files unless you explicitly tell it to remove files, and even then, it checks to make sure you are trying to delete files. LR is better than most software in this regard. Taking a drive offline with LR simply makes the files unavailable.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>fine adjustments are done in PS</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fine adjustments can be easily done in LR, you just have to know how to use it. Reading up on it helps, and lets you do fine adjustments and lets you know how difficult it is to wipe out files.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know if Lightroom RAW is really all that different than what comes with PSCS5</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is. This isn't a secret, the information is readily available.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I actually find Bridge to be a great program (but I also have a data management system as well).</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />With LR, you get everything that is in Bridge but you don't need a second data management system. It's a much cleaner solution.</p>

<p>A huge advantage of LR is non-destructive editing. Everything you change in LR can be changed again except for external editing, although you can revert to a state prior to external editing. Similarly, you can create multiple versions of the same photo without creating multiple files. Much easier if you have to send out different stylizing, different sizing, etc.</p>

<p>Lightroom lets you process a lot of images quickly and non-destructively. For instance, you can get one image looking the way you want it to and then copy those same changes to dozens of similar photos with a few mouse-clicks. You can even copy changes selectively, e.g. copy changes to Contrast and Saturation, but don't copy changes to White Balance and Noise Reduction. Lightroom is streamlined and fast.</p>

<p>Photoshop lets you modify an image in great detail, but it's a more complicated interface and the changes are destructive. If you want to keep a copy of the original file untouched, you have to save your modified version as a different file name. Photoshop gives you almost unlimited photo editing options, but they come at the price of a steep learning curve.</p>

<p>You can download demos of both programs for free. Try them and see.</p>

<p>If you deal with large amounts of image files at any one time, Lightroom can save you a lot of time. I understand it uses the same software engine that ACR uses, but the interface is different. Like Dan said, Lightroom allows you to make the same change to multiple images in one move. On a slow computer it will take a long time to load up a few hundred large raw photos and render full size images, but from then on it's quite fast.</p>

<p>I do almost all my editing in Lightroom, but also use Photoshop for the few things I occasionally need that Lightroom will not do; like anything related to layers. Since you already have PSCS2 I would not update it unless it has new features you really want. It will work fine with LR3.</p>

<p>Another option instead of using DPP is to convert your raw files to DNG files with Adobe's free converter, and then opening/converting them in CS2 ACR. However, LR3 has a much better high ISO noise filter than the older versions. That for me was worth the price of the upgrade.</p>

<p>Use LR for your storage and RAW processing, web galleries and straight forward printing, LR3 is a huge upgrade, it uses the same RAW engine as ACR in CS5, but keep your PS2 for any extra image manipulation you can't do in LR. Best of both worlds.</p>

<p>To tell the truth I forget how we all managed our work before LR or Aperture. Certainly not as efficiently. LR is the best $300 a keen photographer can spend on his hobby and is practically a necessity for any pro or semi pro.</p>

<p>lightroom 3 + element / photoshop any version + wacom graphic tablet = perfect digital darkroom.</p>

<p>For most of the user out there, Lightroom is all they / you need IF you dont have to remove / add / composite element on a image. Its is in my oppinion the best digital tool in this modern time ; )</p>

<p>I always suggest to people to get Lightroom first, then in need update Photoshop to the latest version IF they need it.. but i never suggest to someone to get Photoshop and maybe Lightroom.. see my point?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If the OP already has CS2, it will be cheaper to upgrade to CS5 than to buy LR.<br>

With CS5 he has ALL the RAW rendering capabilities of LR in addition to all of the PS upgrades. There are considerable upgrades on the PS side between CS2 and CS5 that he won't get with just buying LR.<br>

If he DIDN'T have CS2, I'd recommend LR & Elements. But the price to upgrade to CS5 from CS2 would be cheaper and give more.</p>

<p>I just test drove PS CS5 with the trial. I absolutely love it. So far though, I havent been able to get myself over the price hurdle. But I know I want this program. Just seeing if there is someone who can help me with a strategy to get it cheaper.<br>

I also tested LR3. It's not working for me. I find the interface a bit cumbersome. Need to search much, scroll much, point too precise. But there are things about it that I love and I am annoyed by the fact that Adobe improves certain things in their LR and Elements offerings that need improvement in ACR/Bridge. I especially refer to tagging and publishing.<br />PS I have tried many programs: ACDSee Pro, Windows Live Photo Gallery, Digital Image Pro (which had content aware fill 4 years ago), Picassa, Corel ?, Bibble Pro. PS CS5 is the first program that does most if not all for me. So, if money is not an object, go with that one.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your help. I know now that I will be downloading the trial version of LR3 this week to test it out. Before a big trip this spring, though, I downloaded a trial copy of LR2 onto a netbook after I realized I could not load Canon Zoombrowser onto the netbook to view simple slide shows of the day's pictures. That was my only experience with LR (during an admittedly stressful time). I found myself not understanding the interface. I realized the learning curve with any Adobe product is steep, but I wound up using IrfanView on my netbook instead. But I'll load LR3 on my regular computer and see what I can do with it.</p>

<p>(Actually, can I load one trial copy of LR2 to my netbook and another trial copy to my regular computer? I know my netbook does not have the power or screen to process my images, but it will be easier for me if all I am doing is trying to learn the interface and seeing if I like the program.)</p>

<p>To Phil, if I am not mistaken, Adobe will not let me upgrade from CS2 to CS5--it's too big of a jump. To Winni, if you have a child in school, or you are a teacher or professor, you can get Adobe products for substantial discounts through their education store.</p>

<p>Finally, what is content-aware fill, or whatever it's called? It seems to be the only new feature to PS CS5 that people are really excited about.</p>

<p>Thanks again for everyone's help. Keep it coming. -- Larry</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With LR, you get everything that is in Bridge but you don't need a second data management system. It's a much cleaner solution.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is the primary data management system in either? What's a second data management system in Bridge?</p>

<p>I disagree and don't find LR "cleaner" than Bridge at all. You have more to worry about with LR in terms of backing up as you have both the library to nurture as well as your files. In Bridge you don't have catalogs to worry about, to update, and sync and "test integrity". Because of how Bridge writes xmp files next to your raw file, for backing-up, you just burn or duplicate the one folder that has your images and the job is done with no fuss or maintenance. I like that. And not so with LR as you have to worry about a separate catalog in a distant folder containing your raw adjustments. Also with LR and the catalog, a pain for me, is that it's tougher to share jobs, physically or over a network. As much as I love LR and Bridge, I find LR and the extra steps I have to take so raw file changes show up in Bridge or for client, makes LR far from cleaner than Bridge, imo.</p>

<p>Other things with LR that make it "messy" is the constant importing/sync/updating of folders for my files. None of this happens in Bridge as it's a real-time browser. In Bridge, you see more than just image files. This is a deal breaker for me (in terms of Bridge vs LR) as being a photographer these days means seeing more than just image files. I need to see .indd, .ai, .pdf, etc. etc. and appreciate Bridge seeing all files on my computer.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>A huge advantage of LR is non-destructive editing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bridge ACR is non-destructive as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Everything you change in LR can be changed again...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same in Bridge ACR.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This isn't a secret, the information is readily available.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Adobe will not let me upgrade from CS2 to CS5--it's too big of a jump.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Larry,<br>

Not so, I went from CS2 to CS5 with no issues whatsoever.</p>

<p>I shoot Raw and also jpg and use Bridge and Photoshop CS4. Tried Lightroom and it seems a convoluted mess. Can't get on with it. Can't seem to have easy access to commonly used folders or to do anything in a simple and elegant way (with some exceptions such as batch cropping). Probably I need to spend more time with it but I find all the importing and faffing around time-wasting and confusing.<br /> Bridge is simple and powerful (although you need to limit the number of images in any folder you are browsing to around 1Gb total or else Bridge runs out of memory (it's only real flaw). It is great for rating and selecting certain images.<br /> It is easy to configure your layout with swappable windows. Needs the preferences set to use software rendering and Keep 100% previews in cache and you are rocking and rolling.<br /> All the hard work is done in Photoshop using sets of actions. Typically - reduce image size (speeds procesing) + a bit of auto levels + set layer to 40% softlight + highlight/shadow tweaks + sharpen and finish with a snapshot. Final adjustments and de-spotting is done manually. But you can open and batch process using an action set (made up of other actions) on many images at once. This gives me a fairly well processed set of files that I save and view in bridge and I can then choose if I want to do individual Photoshop work on selected files.<br /> I open in Raw through Bridge/Photoshop using auto setting but always set brightness to 0 due to desire to keep highlight info (generally shoot at -1/3 to -2/3 under anyway due to digital sensors tendency to blow out highlights. Not so with Sigma Foveon though.)<br>

Attached photo from Canon 5D.</p><div></div>