I have actually both LR 3 and Photoshop CS5. I agree with Jeff, mostly.
The few comments I have:
- "Lens Corrections" is included in the first release of LR3 (added since Beta)
- Content Aware Fill actually works, sometimes. When it works it's a life saver, but often it misbehaves badly
- If you work with large images and are on Apple CS 5 may be much better than CS4 as it's the first implementation of Photoshop using 64 bits (It's 64 bit on Windows since CS4).
Regarding LR versus PS, my point may be that there are quite a few advantages with LR once we start using pixel level edits, so it makes good sense to use LR as much as possible. Say that the aim may be that perhaps 90% of the workflow would be parametric. Your mileage may of course vary, of course. Landscape shooters, like me, are probably in lesser need of pixel level edits than commercial photographers shooting beauty.
- If ones workflow is essentially parametric it's probably good enough to use a less expensive tool for pixel level editing than Photoshop.
- On the other hand, Photoshop is the reference tool, so if you want to sell images you may feel that you need Photoshop.
- For me, "lens corrections" in Lightroom 3 is a major improvement, especially as it can also fix keystoning. Another major improvement is the new processing pipeline with better noise reduction.
Finally, there is an issue regarding Photoshop integration in Lightroom. Optimally, Lightroom just passes it's parameters to PS and PS is opening the "raw" image using ACR, for that to work ACR and Lightroom need to be in sync. Older versions of PS may not support the latest version of ACR.
I really appreciate your concern for photographers having lesser resources, it's something I share.
Thanks, Erik, for your fine exposition on the differences between PS and LR which, I’d guess, are very well understood by the vast majority here. Even so, the reminder is timely and welcome.
Let me explain that affordability isn’t an issue personally (I’ll probably end up with both in the long run, being unable to resist temptation but I’ll only get one at a time with a decent interval in between!).
While sampling the trial versions of both apps, however, it occurred to me that many photographers may have to make the choice on economic grounds. No better place to get an answer than here. I was thinking particularly about photographers who don’t produce huge quantities of pictures as would, say, a wedding photographer or somebody on a fashion shoot or the like and indeed who may not be a pro in that sense. I think the phrase is ‘advanced amateurs’ or some such claptrap.
I was about to ask would CS5 be a better deal for somebody like that when Jeff’s post arrived which puts forward one side of the argument in no uncertain fashion.
So, are we agreed: stick with CS4 and spend your money on Lightroom 3?
Regards to all,