Photoshop/Lightroom

[Rick Helmke]

Evening everyone,

 

I’m finally ready to get off my high horse and getting up to date photo software. Like a lot of people the first thing I think of is Photoshop and I’m leaning that way as I’ve used different versions of it for quite some time. I keep seeing the Northrops and Jared Polin going on about Lightroom. My work has shifted from deadline pressure work over to taking time to look around. I’d like to shoot less and make bigger prints. I am still shooting some film and doing darkroom work but that’s usually b&w because color makes so much more sense in digital. The question is, what does Lightroom offer that Photoshop doesn’t? Does it even matter? I’m wanting something that just works without overthinking the work. Of course it takes practice and there’s an inevitable learning curve but I did a lot of that already. I want to be able to post process the way I’ve been shooting for years, it needs to be second nature. Suggestions?

 

Rick H.

[digitaldog]

At its core, Lightroom Classic and Adobe Camera Raw are nothing like Photoshop. They are parametric editors, not pixel editors like Photoshop. They are primarily raw processors, although existing rendered images can be parametrically edited too; that isn't true and totally nondestructive editing. 

See: https://www.dpbestflow.org/image-editing/parametric-image-editing

Lightroom Classic has multiple modules; the Develop module is really akin (and if on version parity the same) as Adobe Camera Raw. It is also a full DAM with a catalog/database at its heart. If you print, LR's Print Module is worth the price of admission alone. 

With a PIE editor, the edits are applied in the best processing order, not user order which is also a big difference between these two products and Photoshop. 

No, LR doesn't offer what Photoshop does and vise versa. They are different tools with differing strengths and weaknesses but I can say as a raw shooter, a good 90% of my work can and is done in LR and in many cases, never needs to be opened in Photoshop. YMMV. 

[JDMvW]

Almost everything I want to do is available in Adobe Bridge, Adobe Camera RAW and Photoshop CS 5.1.

 

I'm easy.

[rconey]

Good read at dpbestflow.org. 

So ordering of instruction application does .......what? I'm guessing at the end there is more noise if a less optimal sequence is used? 

I'm Bridge-ACR-photoshop to print. Most of my editing is in ACR at this point. I never went with Bridge.

[digitaldog]

At least with Adobe PIE apps, the processing is done in 'best order', not user edit order. What the exact order is for everything, isn't told to those outside Adobe. But everything is done in a set order. That order is the same every time, no matter the order in which you touch the controls - e.g., if you apply Curves first, then White Balance, White Balance is processed before Curves because that's the order of the processing pipeline.
Some order is known such as the first is White Balance, Exposure, etc. Adobe recommends working (in Adobe Camera Raw) top down, left to right. In Lightroom Classic the order is presented in a similar fashion. You don't have to follow that order, but doing so will often make editing a lot easier (fix/edit the big global areas first). For example, you could alter saturation first, then Tint/Temp but that's a bit counterproductive. But you can. The final processing pipeline is then under Adobe's control when you render the image. 

 

[paddler4]

I rarely disagree with Dog, but  to some degree, I do in this case.

But first, I don't see this as an either /or. The Adobe photographers' package comes with both, on the assumption that many if not most will use both, for different reasons. If you shoot raw, you have no choice: you have to start with either LR or ACR, which have the same processing engine wrapped in different UIs.

It's of course true that the underlying mechanics of LR Classic and Photoshop are entirely different, as Dog says. However, Adobe has been steadily increasing the power of the editing functions in LR classic. One can easily do things in LR now that were impossible only a few years ago. 

I shoot raw and almost always start in LR rather than ACR because I use many features of LR other than rendering raws and have a number of LR plug-ins that are very important for my workflow. At some point, I generally move the image to Photoshop for more complex editing.

Each year, I'm able to do more editing in LR, and I now complete editing in LR on a larger share of my images than I did a few years ago and do more of my editing in LR before moving to Photoshop. To take only one example: I do a lot of candids of kids, and candids of kids often have lousy backgrounds. So, I often want to darken the backgrounds relative to the subject. That is now trivially easy and extremely fast to do in LR; it will quite reliably select the subject, and it lets me invert that mask to select the background. And as Dog says, this has the advantage that it's totally nondestructive.

[digitaldog]

It isn't an either-or. They are differing tools. One is a raw processor with true nondestructive editing; the other is a pixel editor. I simply prefer to do as much work parametrically as I can, and I can often do 100% or most in Lightroom Classic/ACR. 

The new AI features in PS (which will eventually migrate to the Adobe Camera Raw engine) is amazing. If you need to extend the canvas, if you need to do precise pixel editing, you're tool will be Photoshop. 

[rconey]

So in Photoshop, making adjustments on layers rather than on the actual image, makes it parametric? The original is preserved untouched that way.

[digitaldog]

11 minutes ago, rconey said:

So in Photoshop, making adjustments on layers rather than on the actual image, makes it parametric? 

It does not. Parametric edits are instructions; text on how to render (apply edits to primarily raw data). 

Layers are only partially non-destructive. As long as they exist, and they only exist in Photoshop. If you print, you apply the layers (edits) to the underlying data. If you flatten to save off the image, the same. On high-bit data*, it's kind of moot but nonetheless, it is destructive. 

Parametric edits on raw data produce new, virgin pixels. 

* http://digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf

[paddler4]

Re the order of edits in LR:

I did a test years ago that showed that for simple global edits, the order in which I did the edits had no impact; Lightroom re-establishes the order it wants after each step. However, this is apparently not the case with some edits, such as spot healing. I have been searching without any luck for the source that explained this. Now that LR classic has powerful selections, I wonder whether there are things other than spot healing and cloning for which order matters and that should be performed early in the sequence. anyone know a good source with details about this?

[rconey]

No Dog in the fight (pun intended), but I can delete all my layers and get back to my original image. However, by the time I move into photoshop, I have to save it as some non-raw format (usually TIF), so have moved past parametric editing. Hmm, glad I have my RAW image still. Two issues. Can I see the degradation from processing? At 13x19 with 47 mp, no. Second, can I future proof by using high bit, and staying in ACR (or I guess printing from Lightroom)? Yes, but at age 65, I am worrying about that less and less.......

[rconey]

But yes, I'm shooting 14 bit RAW. Just can't help myself......

[digitaldog]

1 hour ago, rconey said:

No Dog in the fight (pun intended), but I can delete all my layers and get back to my original image

Yes, and when there are no edits, those non-edits are not destructive. And that exercise is pointless. 

Getting back to an original image is easy. You can also edit to your heart's content and do a 'Save As', and the original is untouched. And the saved data underwent a destructive edit. 

[rconey]

So taking an ACR file and opening it in photoshop alters the data? Even before layers, etc?

Thx

[digitaldog]

ACR renders the raw data.

 

[hjoseph7]

"The question is, what does Lightroom offer that Photoshop doesn’t? Does it even matter? "

It depends on what type of photography you are doing.  LR is more like an organizer than a full blown editor like Photoshop.  If your photography requires you to edit a  large number of photographs at a time (wedding album) then LR would be you best bet. Although Photoshop has it's own organizer called Bridge, it is not as user friendly as Lightroom and does not have as many editing features. Usually you have to transfer an image from Bridge to Photoshop so you can edit it. Not so with Lightroom since its has a good number of editing features built in that you can use without having to transfer anything.

However for heavy editing Photoshop is still the champ ! If your type of photography requires you to use Layers, content awareness, clone, dodge, burn, erase, selection, photo filters, painting, drawing tools etc then you need Photoshop.  Actually 'Photoshop Elements' the little brother of Photoshop, might have all the tools you need to make selection edits, they are just not as good or as powerful as they are in Photoshop. 

These days you can even order LR/PS packages . I'm paying $9.99 per month for a subscription of Photoshop and Lightrom which is great because I don't have to worry about upgrades I missed, since all the upgrades happen automatically. The bad is that sometimes those upgrades, or other technical issues can have you scratching your head why your copyy of PS/LR is not working like it did yesterday ?

Is it worthwhile upgrading why not use an older version of Photoshop ? The main reason is that while new cameras are steadily comming out, Photoshop has to keep up with those changes. The older versions of Photoshop cannot handle the newer files so then you are stuck. Also you miss out on all the new features such as AI. Last year I wanted to take take an online course in Photoshop to upgrade my skills. I already had a Diploma in Digital Photography from NYI school of photography that I obtained in 2010. I was using an old copy of Photoshop CS5 so I thought I was good. That's until the teacher of this course told me that with CS5 I could only cover about 30% of the course. That's how far behind I had gotten.      

[digitaldog]

1 hour ago, hjoseph7 said:

The main reason is that while new cameras are steadily comming out, Photoshop has to keep up with those changes. The older versions of Photoshop cannot handle the newer files so then you are stuck. 

One certainly can if they convert using the free DNG converter. Adobe never forces anyone with a new camera to upgrade Photoshop (actually Adobe Camera Raw). That's all the fault of the camera manufacturers that refuse to produce an openly documented raw. 
Yes, you still miss out on new features, but you can render your new raws with older Adobe raw converter(s). 

[paddler4]

1 hour ago, hjoseph7 said:

If your type of photography requires you to use Layers, content awareness, clone, dodge, burn, erase, selection, photo filters, painting, drawing tools etc then you need Photoshop.  Actually 'Photoshop Elements' the little brother of Photoshop, might have all the tools you need to make selection edits, they are just not as good or as powerful as they are in Photoshop. 

These days you can even order LR/PS packages . I'm paying $9.99 per month

If I'm not mistaken, that combination has been the only way to buy either LR Classic or Photoshop for a number of years.

To say that you need photoshop to do those particular edits isn't correct. You can clone, do content-aware healing, dodge, burn, and make selections in the current version of LR Classic. That's not to say that these tools are as powerful as they are in Photoshop. They aren't. But they are often good enough. And you can do a lot of other editing as well, e.g., reduction of both color and luminance noise, sharpening, selecting color ranges and changing hue or luminance, adding local contrast, etc.

It's certainly true that LR Classic is a powerful databased manager, but IMHO, that's not the only reason to use it. It has a superb printing module that is far quicker and easier to use than printing from Photoshop. There is also a wide array of very useful plugins available for LR. For example, I use one that automatically converts a focus stack to 16-bit TIFs and loads it into Zerene for stacking. I use another that creates a JPEG to my specs, uploads it to Smugmug, and deletes it. I use another for exposure fusion. 

[Robin Smith]

Quote

For example, I use one that automatically converts a focus stack to 16-bit TIFs and loads it into Zerene for stacking.

That's available in Photoshop (linked through in LR) using Raw data so no need for TIFFs and it's very good too.

[hjoseph7]

"One certainly can if they convert using the free DNG converter. Adobe never forces anyone with a new camera to upgrade Photoshop (actually Adobe Camera Raw). 

Nope, the DNG converter that i tried would not go back to files created in 2014 and below. 

[digitaldog]

2 minutes ago, hjoseph7 said:

"One certainly can if they convert using the free DNG converter. Adobe never forces anyone with a new camera to upgrade Photoshop (actually Adobe Camera Raw). 

Nope, the DNG converter that i tried would not go back to files created in 2014 and below. 

All these cameras are supported:
https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

You tried what version with what camera?

[paddler4]

On 7/5/2023 at 2:30 PM, Robin Smith said:

That's available in Photoshop (linked through in LR) using Raw data so no need for TIFFs and it's very good too.

This is a story for another day, but I find Photoshop‘s focus stacking too limited, allowing too little control, and it’s also slow. But the pint I was making is only that the many available plugins increase the value of LR

[hjoseph7]

"If I'm not mistaken, that combination has been the only way to buy either LR Classic or Photoshop for a number of years."

Nope, I purchased photoshop CS5 in 2010, then I purchased Lightroom 3 in 2012..

 

[digitaldog]

12 minutes ago, hjoseph7 said:

"If I'm not mistaken, that combination has been the only way to buy either LR Classic or Photoshop for a number of years."

Nope, I purchased photoshop CS5 in 2010, then I purchased Lightroom 3 in 2012..

Which is way before Creative Cloud & the subscription model: many, many number of years ago.

And you purchased a license to use the product just as I purchased a license for Photoshop 1.0.7 in 1990.  😉 

Edited July 8, 2023 by digitaldog

[hjoseph7]

On 3/26/2023 at 8:55 PM, AlanKlein said:

Do you have examples?

 

On 7/5/2023 at 7:51 PM, digitaldog said:

All these cameras are supported:
https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

You tried what version with what camera?

Could be because  I'm still using Windows 7,  but the application stopped me short form using CR2 files from my Canon 6D  with PS CS5.