PS versus LR

[natalie_l]

<p>What am I missing in LR? I use PS and have LR, but do not use it "yet". What do you love most about LR? What feature in LR is something you cant live without (I know thats dramatic).<br>

thanks,<br /> Natalie</p>

[jon rennie]

<p>It's all about speed. I do 99% of my editing in LR and it cuts my processing time down significantly. Would probably take me 5x as long to do everything in photoshop at least.</p>

[jodi_w]

<p>I agree with Jon, but I think I use PS a little more- it's about 90% in LR and 10% PS for me.<br>

LR is faster for working on the colors, and exposures, because I just have to fix one (in a similar setting) and then sync similar images to the settings. <em></em><br>

I know you can ‘batch process’ in PS by writing actions then applying them to a folder, but LR is SO much faster for that, and I actually found creating actions quite annoying - although I do batch resizing in PS, but not batch color correction/editing.<br>

However the rest is done in PS - like spot coloring, editing spots, album work, blending photos adding text etc.<br>

I've heard there are ways to do that that stuff LR too, but I actually took a digital imaging classes in college and they taught PS inside and out practically, and I don't feel the need to re-learn those techniques PS for LR when I know them so well already PS.<br>

If PS works for you then don't worry about it. I am a huge fan of PS, and it actually took some convincing to make to switch from LR to PS for me. But once I learned/realized how LR can really help make color corrections faster, I fell in love!</p>

 

[william-porter]

<p>There are of course some things that can be done in Photoshop and not in Lightroom. For example, in Lightroom, you can't copy a pair of open eyes from one photo and paste 'em into a different photo. You can't remove the bride's old boyfriend making a face in the background of an otherwise lovely photo.</p>

<p>But I never want to do those things. 98% of what I want to do with my photos can be done and done really well in Lightroom. And I think Jon Rennie's estimate is about right for me, too: Like Jon, I think I can process 1000 photos about five times faster in Lightroom than in Photoshop (or in another powerful program that I also use occasionally, Lightzone).</p>

<p>I would add a couple of points.</p>

<p>Anybody who knows Photoshop and loves it is welcome to keep using it. I am not an evangelist for Lightroom. In my experience, people who've shelled out the $$$$ for Photoshop, bought all the books, took the courses, spent the zillion hours necessary to become experts - these folks have a lot invested in Photoshop, get the job done in Photoshop, and I'm not surprised that they feel fairly loyal to it. More power to 'em.</p>

<p>But I personally hate Photoshop. I hated it in version 1 when I first used it, and I've never warmed up to it. Working in Photoshop, FOR ME PERSONALLY, feels like trying to play the piano using a couple of mechanical arms - very abstract, very unnatural. Lightroom feels TO ME much more intuitive, much more like I'm working directly with properties of photos that I can understand - color, contrast, etc - and much less like I'm futzing with numbers.</p>

 

[fotografz]

<p>IMO and experience LR-2 and PSCS-4 are "Brothers From a Different Mother" so to speak. In tandem, they are a powerful processing Duo.</p>

<p>No one that I know questions the speed of LR-2 for those who are faced with lots of images to process like wedding photographers do. This is especially true if you work on files with hundreds even thousands of images. </p>

<p>So the comparison isn't really between PS and LR-2 it's a comparison between PS Bridge and LR-2.</p>

<p>PS itself is the ultimate in refined processing. Once the zillion images have been initially processed in LR-2, individual selections can be placed in "collections" for further work. Of say 600 images I typically select between 100 and 200 for more refinement in PhotoShop. This can be done before or after initial client feed back depending on how you sell your work.</p>

<br />

<p>Photoshop has the distinct advantage of more refined tools and much more control over those tools. It also allows the use of layers which is part of that refined control over any retouching work.</p>

<br />

<p>What many people do not realize is that when working in LR-2, you can open any individual image directly in PS (not Bridge), and when completed can save those corrections which appear as a second version in the LR Library. This corrected version can then be "Stacked" and "Collapsed" on top of the original LR file so only the PS corrected image appears in the LR-2 Browser. But the original is always there under the PS corrected version. Just select that image and "Un-stack" it. You can do as many versions of any image you want ... and they are all in your Lightroom Library. </p>

<p>In essence, being able to work this way in LR-2, eliminates Bridge unless you use the Creative Suite concept to utilize In-Design and other CS programs. But just for processing lots of wedding images LR-2/PS kills Bridge/PS </p>

 

[jbsox]

<p>I only use PS to sharpen I do not feel that LR has a very good sharpner or noise reduction tool. But other then that I would say 90-10% is accurate</p>

[john_ashby2]

<p>I am not comfortable using lightroom because I don't like the way it integrates your pictures into its catalog. I like my pictures to remain self-contained files where if I want I can put 10 edited raw files on a CD and 2 years from now load them into CS5 and have my edits in tact. I realize LR has a sync mode to keep the sidecar files updated, but it just doesn't give me a good feeling. I want my software to work on my images not incorporate them.</p>

<p>I do use bridge extensively for my prescreening and then loading the files into ACR to work on them. I really don't see what LR gives me over that. But then I read people like Jon post how much LR speeds up their workflow. I don't see how, but I really want to know because it feels like I'm missing something. </p>

<p>One feature I'd really like is to be able to tie several raw files into a single huge DNG type file. For example if I'm taking 5 pictures of each group shot, I'd rather end up with 1 file that incorporates all 5 raw files. Almost like a psd file with 5 layers but even if that would work for raws, it's too cumbersome.</p>

[nuzumphoto]

<p>Ashley does all of our editing so I can't take any credit, but generally 95% of the work is done in Lightroom. PS is only used to create our book layouts. She builds each book layout from scratch in PS. The sync feature in LR is a HUGE time saver. That way once you have a baseline for the photos you can go back through and look for those that are B/W, burn, or other effects candidates. Sync by far would be the one must have in LR for us.</p>

[silverdae]

<p>In this thread I describe my workflow for proofing images. </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00SqD5</p>

<p>I use LR to edit and convert to jpg, which I use to build proof books. But when the client orders, I take each image through PS (if the print is a 5x7 or larger) to do the retouching and basic edits (color correction, curves, etc). I like PS color management better- you can view your image in proof mode in PS where as you can't in LR. LR doesn't recognize say a certain lab's proofing profile, which I think is very important in large wall portraits. That would be my main complaint with LR.</p>

<p>I use PS for retouching and LR for editing and proofing. Each one has their place and if you use the strengths of each, it can really help your workflow.</p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_federer]

<p>In lightroom you are missing a true editor. Sure it can do some things, but it can't do anything that involves multiple edits on top of one another.</p>

<p>PS is still a must. At least until LR allows for layers and multiple edits.</p>

[natalie_l]

<p>Thanks everyone for your insight and detailed responses above. I have LR 2 at home, but dont use it at all. I will definitely spend the next few weeks exploring the possibilities. I want to learn more about the LR sync feature as well.<br>

Jen - thanks for attaching the link, it was really helpful to see your image processing method laid out step by step.<br>

Natalie</p>

[fotografz]

<p>There is a fair amount of misunderstanding about Light Room in this thread.</p>

<p>LR is a non destructive method of post processing. </p>

<p>Photoshop can be directly integrated into LR process.</p>

<p>Sharpening can be done as usual in PS, or through the use of a sharpening LR plug-in, yet is maintained in the LR catalog.</p>

<p>LR allows loading user presets for repetious tasks.</p>

<p>RAW Profiles are the same in ACR and LR. </p>

<p>Both ACR and LR provide for sync'ed corrections. The type of corrections are identical.</p>

<p> </p>

[mercedes1]

<p>LR and PS don't really compete with each other to me. Their relationship is linear. Everything I shoot passes through LR for initial post work. From there it integrates straight to PS for the next step in editing. If it is photo journalism work then LR will pretty much handles all of the post with PS handling all the export versions, noise and sharpening. If it is portrait and fine art then 50% of the post work is done within PS itself.</p>

<p>I don't favour one over the other, they address completely different aspects of the workflow to me. I don't obsess over PS either, if something better came out I would drop it in a heartbeat. But as it is I find it very intuitive to use, not a popular thing to say about the UI I know, but it suits the way I think at least.</p>

[cathy_and_david_bock]

<p>Lightroom is what you should be using to edit your images. It's about time, efficiency and using the right tool for the job. Photoshop is for hardcore manipulation, i.e. removing someone's face. Lightroom is for editing photos.</p>

[natalie_l]

<p>Thanks for your input... I have a great LR book which i'm going to dive into this week and next.</p>