Lightroom classic vs Lightroom cloud?

[smthopr]

Can anyone here quickly tell me the difference between these two Lightroom apps?

Is one set up for organizing one's photos only via the "cloud"

Or is it that one is set up for RAW conversion in the old school way while the other has the more modern RAW conversion?

I've just recently started using Lightroom and chose "classic", but I did just notice that the RAW conversion settings seemed to be from a few generations back.  Or is this just a preference setting that I might have missed?

Thanks.  I'm just using Lightroom mostly to organize photos as I do my real work in Photoshop, but was trying to figure this out

[Mark D Segal]

Both Martin Evening and Victoria Bampton have good material on the differences between the classic and cloud versions. Why leave your "real photo editing to Ps? Lr does an amazingly good job at "real" photo editing once you know how to use it. It's very convenient and much lighter on storage to stay in the same application from ingestion to print. Lr is a much more user-friendly printing application than Photoshop too.

[smthopr]

Both Martin Evening and Victoria Bampton have good material on the differences between the classic and cloud versions. Why leave your "real photo editing to Ps? Lr does an amazingly good job at "real" photo editing once you know how to use it. It's very convenient and much lighter on storage to stay in the same application from ingestion to print. Lr is a much more user-friendly printing application than Photoshop too.

A lot of my "ingestion" is of scanned film, so no RAW conversions.  And, I do a lot of work with masks and photoshop adjustment layers, so not "overall" adjustments, but very specific parts of the images.  So photoshop it is!  And, since I'm used to it, photoshop prints just fine  

Or, am I missing something here and Lightroom allows masks and adjustment layers?

[Mark D Segal]

Or, am I missing something here and Lightroom allows masks and adjustment layers?

Me too - I've done lots with scanned film - in fact wrote a whole book about it. Lightroom doesn't have adjustment layers, but it has masking tools with a number of very effective adjustment capabilities that can fulfill a high percentage of what one needs to do with a photo. Whether it's a film scan or a raw file, I milk everything I can out of Lr before reverting to Ps. Ps is a relatively cumbersome application once you're accustomed to working with all that Lr can do - if you've invested the time to really know how to use it. Lr works very well with scanned TIFF files.

[smthopr]

Me too - I've done lots with scanned film - in fact wrote a whole book about it. Lightroom doesn't have adjustment layers, but it has masking tools with a number of very effective adjustment capabilities that can fulfill a high percentage of what one needs to do with a photo. Whether it's a film scan or a raw file, I milk everything I can out of Lr before reverting to Ps. Ps is a relatively cumbersome application once you're accustomed to working with all that Lr can do - if you've invested the time to really know how to use it. Lr works very well with scanned TIFF files.

Thanks Mark.

I may try some of this, but all my photos have at least 10 adjustment layers and masks.  Often more.  It's a very flexible way to work being able to modify the masks, turn layers on/off, and even change effect of the layer or opacity.  I'm quite used to this process and find it very easy to control. Adjustment layers, like lightroom, are non-destructive as well and I can always return to the original file when desired.

Thanks for the suggestion of Victoria Bampton. I've now learned that I need to use "classic"

[Mark D Segal]

Yes, I thought you'd make that (correct) choice pretty quickly.

It's fine to do what you're most comfortable with. But sometimes we find we can become even more comfortable doing things in other ways. I hear you about Photoshop - definitely the "Swiss Army Knife" of photo editing, but I've found I can do without most of it and the photos come out just fine - keeping things as simple as we can while achieving our vision for the image; often not much heavy-hitting is really needed, and with good scanning technique that's often the case. Lr was developed with photographers' requirements in mind and to judge from its popularity it seems to have struck a chord with many.

[smthopr]

Yes, I thought you'd make that (correct) choice pretty quickly.

It's fine to do what you're most comfortable with. But sometimes we find we can become even more comfortable doing things in other ways. I hear you about Photoshop - definitely the "Swiss Army Knife" of photo editing, but I've found I can do without most of it and the photos come out just fine - keeping things as simple as we can while achieving our vision for the image; often not much heavy-hitting is really needed, and with good scanning technique that's often the case. Lr was developed with photographers' requirements in mind and to judge from its popularity it seems to have struck a chord with many.

I guess my "style" usually involves heavy lifting   Thanks for your assistance.

[Mark D Segal]

So be it. You are welcome! :-)