What can lightroom do that photoshop can't?

<p>Subject says it all. Thanks.</p>

<p>It can help you manage, index and sort your photo library.</p>

<p>But in terms of editing? I keep reading posts where people talk about fixing color in Lightroom and things like that. </p>

 

<p>Download the trial version and try it out.</p>

<p>It should be compared to Bridge/ACR or Aperture more than Photoshop. We used Bridge/ACR at work but I prefer the interface of Lightroom more. Both programs can do editing, global color changes and some other effects that Photoshop can do, but aren't nearly as powerful when it comes to manipulations. Generally, Lightroom, Aperture and Bridge/ACR are used first, and then, if necessary, exported over to Photoshop for more intensive work.</p>

<p>I also recommend trying out the trial version. What you should do is shoot a bunch of shots on your camera and then go through the workflow from importing the images to printing. This will show the value of the program best.</p>

<p>The above description doesn't reference the local editing that LR can do. I actually find the way it works better than Photoshop in certain ways, and when coupled with some of the Nik tools, I find I can do 95% of what I want.</p>

<p>LR also is easier to use and better adapted to a photographer's workflow. You lose sophisticated masking and filtering (I go to PS for some of the filtration) and there's no real blur function although there are sharpening functions. You need to look at what kinds of things you want to do and see how it fits with both tools.</p>

<p>PS has about 99% more control your image but LR is faster and more efficient.</p>

<p>Even considering all the batch processing stuff photoshop will do?</p>

<p>Photoshop is a 100 ton dumptruck, Lightroom is a Bobcat. They can both achieve the same basic task, but one of them's faster and more nimble at it (and it ain't the ungainly dump truck the size of a small city).</p>

<p>At the same time, the Bobcat won't haul 100 tons of gravel.</p>

<p>They've both got their place: Lightroom handles hundreds of images with aplomb and is actually made for managing image libraries (unlike Bridge), while Photoshop is the option that's slower and heavier but lets you do more.</p>

<p>Photoshop will indeed do batch processing. You can set up an action which will perform the same adjustments on as many images as you like. If you want individualized adjustments on RAW files, you can make them non-destructively in Bridge/ACR then convert them to another format through Photoshop. The type of adjustments you can make in this manner are severely limited, and then only on RAW or DNG files.</p>

<p>Lightroom takes this a step further, and can make non-destructive adjustments on any file type (e.g., TIFF and JPEG), not just RAW and DNG. The types of adjustments you can make are far more extensive than in Bridge/ACR, including cropping and sharpening. The way files are displayed is highly effective - an array of thumbnails which can be enlarged to full screen with one click, and to a 100% (pixel=pixel) crop with one more click. Think of it as an electronic light table with a loupe - because that's what Adobe had in mind.</p>

<p>Lightroom is ideally suited to reviewing and adjusting a large number of images, and make them consistent from image to image. A typical even might have several general scenes with multiple exposures in each. You can not only synchronize adjustments among similar images, but make that group consistent with other groups. You can get your arms around a large project and adjust 100 to over 400 images in an hour.</p>

<p>Adjustments you make in Lightroom are saved in auxillary data files without touching the original file. They are applied at the instant of viewing or when converting to another file format. That conversion process is highly automated (similar to Image Processing in Bridge/Photoshop), and locks the changes into the results.</p>

<p>Lightroom thumbnails (previews) are very high quality, much better than in Bridge. Furthermore, they are saved in a database and viewable even if the original files are no longer available. Lightroom is almost worth the price for this feature alone.</p>

<p>I use Photoshop for masking and compositing, as well spotting for dust (Lightroom 2 adds that feature), precision resampling. Sharpening is more parametric in Photoshop, and works better for me when resizing files for printing. Photoshop is also much more sophisticated for printing. I like to print "contact sheets" using a laser printer (faster, at a fraction of the cost of an inkjet or dye-sub). However, Lightroom (1.2) will not manage a CMYK laser printer, but Photoshop will. You can use a laserjet as an RGB printer, but the results are much, much better in CMYK mode.</p>

<p>i use Lr to managed, developed, create web page, and print using preset layout.</p>

<p>i use photoshop to remove / add / alter / liquify and do all my retouching.</p>

<p>The editing component of Lightroom (called "develop" in LR) is identical in capabilities to the features of Adobe Camera Raw which is included with Photoshop CS4, although the interface in the two programs is somewhat different. Both allow you to make many "global" edits, such as adjusting white balance, saturation, contrast, tonality, etc. with limited tools for local edits like dodging and burning. Photoshop of course has vastly more capability if you need to edit content, such as removing unwanted objects, adjusting perspective, etc. LR has much more capability as a file organization, workflow enhancement tool--particularly if you have large numbers of files.</p>

<p>I wonder if people have really explored LR 2. You can easily dust spot in it. You can do a lot of local editing. You can't composite and you can't do things that require layer masks and blending modes, but for what most people does, it probably has more than they need. As I said above, the local adjustment tool is quite good, more sophisticated in a way than anything in PS. </p>

<p>In LR1, it was much more akin to an improved Bridge + Camera Raw, but it's changed a lot since then.</p>

<p>Brian, I would simply say if you use the Bridge, you should stop doing so and use LR. As others have said, LR can handle most of the workflow short of micro-fine-tuning color, correcting perspective, and retouching.<br>

I would have to disagree with Jeff S. about local adjustments. LR is still very primitive compared to PS in the kinds of selections and masks you can make in PS (using quick mask/brush/eraser/gradient tool/fading. opacity/feathering/etc.), and the kinds of adjustments you can then make to those selected areas. PS is far more capable and sophisticated in this regard.<br>

<br /> LR's clone and heal tool is also horrendous and should be avoided like the plague unless you want blurry circles all over your photos. PS tools are much better for retouching and selective editing. I do like the LR graduated filter, very handy.</p>

<p>Agree with Jeff..since day one i was saying that Ligthroom could be the feroceous competitor to Ps..and 2 years later, 9 out of 10 photographer could do ALL they need with it, and what they cant, could be done in Element..that come free with a wacom tablet!</p>

<p>For most of my personal work, like family image for example where body retouching or removal element are not needed (well OK i migth need retouching but dont do it..my wife and kid are perfect) i dont go in Ps. But as a pro retoucher, Ps is a tool i still need for now, until they add liquify and a better brush selection / size / hardness because its not fast enough for me to have to go back to the slider to change it vs combo key or pen pressure.</p>

<p>I just gave a 3 x 45min workshop today about the develop module for a kind of PMA in Montreal, and they sell there Ligthroom box like it was a freeware! More and more people are getting the Lr concept, and more and more people will get it and realize that they dont need to learn 1 soft for development, 1 for organizing, 1 for web and slide presentation 1 for.....but only 1 that do all that, simply for almost all the camera on the market today.</p>

<p>Jeff's point on blending modes is a very good one. I would be lost without this in doing color correction. For me as a nature photographer it's absolutely critical. Auto-color, auto-contrast, auto-levels, faded to varying degrees with different blending (usually color or luminosity), along with the history brush, are all critical for what I do, and LR offers none of these (well, there is auto-tone in LR, but it's still pretty useless after several years)</p>

<p>"LR's clone and heal tool is also horrendous and should be avoided like the plague unless you want blurry circles all over your photos."</p>

<p>It works great if you know how to use it, I like it better for removing dust than CS4. I think you need LR and CS4.</p>

>>> It works great if you know how to use it, I like it better for removing dust than CS4.

 

Agreed...

<p>"I think you need LR and CS4."<br>

<br /> Not sure what you mean, as that's what I have.<br>

<br /> In my opinion and experience the LR clone/heal tool is terrible, and is inferior in every way to the PS tools. No need to be condescending in any case. I don't know about you, but I've been using Photoshop for 20 years and have used the PS clone and heal tools on many tens of thousands of images, and the LR tools since the day they came out. The LR tool is fine for family snapshots, but is a very poor alternative to the PS tools for serious photographs. Every photographer I've tutored in LR has rejected the tool out of hand after seeing the results at high magnification.</p>

<p>i tried LR2, and LR1. <br>

If the type of shooting you do, like ladscapes or portraits and other setup images that dont require much editing perhaps LR is the best sollution. I particularly like LR upload to web presenation feature. <br />A feature I like on Bridge is the ability to apply the same raw reciepe to multi images, and the CMYK and PDF handling. Other than that it cannot handle multiple drives well, and overall sluggish.<br>

If you are looking for a manager, and file adjustments i.e. maintenance (not image)....ACDSee2.5Pro. If it could handle colors in CMYK and leave PDF's alone, it would be the bridge for Bridge and LightRoom.<br>

Very flexible printing with contact sheets and texts. Watermarking, batch processing, exif editing, batch resizing with a lot of cutom options. Its fast, and it doesn't crash that often. It has a raw processor that I have found handy in a couple instances. but I dont use it for RAW processing. It is great for <br />EVERYthing except editing and processing...but it does a bit of that too...in some good ways.<br />Bridge does allow other functions while it is processing something else. ACDSee does things one at a time<br>

For Raw processing, CS4 and CaptureOne is plenty good. I didn't feel the need to keep LR2 in use.<br>

I think Adobe can merge Bridge with LR as they both have stuff the other needs. <br>

ACDSee almost has it...if they can fix CMYK and pdf</p>

 

<p>Personally, I find spotting faster in Photoshop, but I am amazed how far LR has come. With the local adjustment capability and the increasing ability to use plug-ins, LR2 is a far cry from version 1 and is getting better all the time, just as an image editor. The management capabilities are excellent and the ability to do non-destructive editing without file bloat is a great plus. If they added some better distortion controls and the ability to somehow blend layers or the effects that blending layers give, it would just about replace PS for all but the tightest photo retouching or compositing.</p>

<p>I would compare it to Bridge in Photoshop. It is essentially the digital version of a light table for film. It allows you to look at several photos at once and organize your photos. It does allow for some adjustments as well. It also allows you to make adjustments to several photos at once, but I think you can do that with Bridge as well.</p>

<p><em>...using PS for 20 years... [someone]</em><br>

?</p>

<p>PS 1.0 - Feb. 1990 (Mac only)<br>

PS 2.0 - Nov. 1992 (PC Windows finally)<br>

PS 3 - June '95<br /> First use of layers.<br>

...<br>

PS 11 - CS4 with ACR 5.x (NOV. 2008)</p>

<p>Sorry Ken, just start in 92, never seen PS 1.0 ; )</p>

<p>but the 2.5 upgrade with preview for <em>some</em> filter was really cool on my <strong>LC 475 with 16meg of ram </strong> <em>(100$/each meg)</em></p>

<p>since v.1 on the mac, so 19 years, guess I should have gone to wikipedia for exact dates</p>