Lightroom Vs Photoshop

[offtheroad]

 Now that Aperture is on it's way out I need a good cataloguing app only. I always thought Photoshop was the best for post processing but a lot use Lightroom.

[Simon Garrett]

Now that Aperture is on it's way out I need a good cataloguing app only. I always thought Photoshop was the best for post processing but a lot use Lightroom.

Photoshop is not a cataloguing app.  It contains Bridge, which some people use for cataloguing, but I reckon it's about as much use for that as a chocolate teapot.

Lightroom is a very good image management app, and (AFAIK) similar or some say better than Aperture in that respect.  (I'm not a Mac user and have never used Aperture.)

[Petrus]

I have Lightroom and Photoshop, but I find that at least 85-90% of my RAW conversions never enter PS, I can do all necessary adjustments in LR (press photography, documentary). Only if layers are needed etc PS enters the picture. LR has good cataloguing functions, and more.

If I had to choose between the two I would ditch PS.

[offtheroad]

So what you are saying is stop using Camera Raw and open in Lightroom? Also are you saying Lightroom has better color correcting and print setup. I'll be printing out of Epson R3000. I didn't mean to suggest that PS is a cataloguing sw. Some suggest just use Canon's Digital Photo Pro?

[Petrus]

I adjust colors in LR during the RAW conversion, good enough for me. For critical printing I do use PS to apply NIK Output Sharpener plug-in. Epson R3000 here also.

[jjj]

The huge benefit of using Lightroom is finding your images and working on them is seamless. Is the LR cataloguing perfect, nope. But it is damn good. 
LR is also my entry point to PS and although not quite as seamless as using the Develop module in LR, it's not far off. Particularly if you open into PS as smart objects.

Something that allows you to organise and work on your photos in go is such an incredible time saver.

[offtheroad]

Thanks for the speedy reply. I have found that Amazon is the chesapest place to buy my paper?

[jjj]

So what you are saying is stop using Camera Raw and open in Lightroom? Also are you saying Lightroom has better color correcting and print setup. I'll be printing out of Epson R3000. I didn't mean to suggest that PS is a cataloguing sw. Some suggest just use Canon's Digital Photo Pro?

ACR/Camera Raw are the same set of processing tools, though LR's interface is much, much, much better laid out.
Canon's DPP isn't exactly held in high esteem, probably only about 4 people use it. 

[rebadurchee]

I have Lightroom and Photoshop, but I find that at least 85-90% of my RAW conversions never enter PS, I can do all necessary adjustments in LR (press photography, documentary). Only if layers are needed etc PS enters the picture. LR has good cataloguing functions, and more.

If I had to choose between the two I would ditch PS.

- from Petrus

I agree.   I had looked at PS when I first began to shoot RAW, before LR came into existence, and found the learning curve of PS too intimidating so I went with Nikon's Capture NX1.  After Capture NX2 became a crash generating application instead of a photo editor I again looked at PS.  By this time LR was in LR3.  LR had a lot of what was attractive to me in CaptureNX2, most especially the non-destructive edits, along with the database function, which I really wanted and needed.  The LR learning curve is much less intimidating than PS and, like others have said here, most of the time I don't need PS.  Best of luck!

[Chris Kern]

I find that at least 85-90% of my RAW conversions never enter PS, I can do all necessary adjustments in LR (press photography, documentary). Only if layers are needed etc PS enters the picture.

My experience regarding the proportion of images where I feel the need to invoke Photoshop is similar to yours.  But I think there are some types of adjustments, implemented in different ways by the two products, where Photoshop still does a demonstrably better job.  Photoshop's content-aware fill comes immediately to mind: it's a much more powerful tool than Lightroom's spot-removal.  (At least up through LR 5.  I don't know what new magic the Lightroom wizards may have up their sleeves for the next release.)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Lightroom manages your images from the cradle to the grave. By and large, Lightroom is a parametric editor, while Photoshop is a pixel editor. Many users do 85-95% of their work in Lightroom.

The best way is probably to do as much works in Lightroom as possible and resort to Photoshop when needed.

If you shoot raw, Lightroom always works with the raw image, once you go into Photoshop the file size will increase significantly, and information will be lost as Photoshop doesn't normally work on raw files. This may be a bit better with smart objects in PS.

Best regards
Erik

Now that Aperture is on it's way out I need a good cataloguing app only. I always thought Photoshop was the best for post processing but a lot use Lightroom.

[Ken Bennett]

So what you are saying is stop using Camera Raw and open in Lightroom? Also are you saying Lightroom has better color correcting and print setup. I'll be printing out of Epson R3000. I didn't mean to suggest that PS is a cataloguing sw. Some suggest just use Canon's Digital Photo Pro?

Yes. Lightroom uses the same processing tools as Camera Raw, and adds two major features: good cataloguing tools and an excellent print module. Like any other app, getting it set up right can be a little complicated, but it's well worth your time to give it a shot.

[Leszek Piotrowski]

I have used Aperture and Digital Photo professional when I first started post processing my images and have found LR5's cataloging features to  meet all my needs. When I first "jumped on board" the  post processing "train" I read a few books on Lightroom just to confirm it would meet my needs before purchase. And it has. May I also mention that I followed Jeff Schewe's suggestions (in his book "The Digital Negative") on how one might setup and use Lightroom for cataloging and file organization.

cheers,

[John Hue]

I print on an R3000 as well. It's fine with LR, however, you must be aware that LR is not able to soft-proof in CMYK as photoshop do. I had a profile made in RGB which helps a lot, for no-so-difficult prints I usually get it the first time (calibrated IPS non-professional screen)... and it's not a big problem as long a you print locally. But for example, if you order a book with Blurb (which is an adobe partner and from which you can order directly through LR), they only proviude a CMYK profile... which LR can not read.

Otherwise, as said by others, is you were satisfied with Aperture the obvious choice is LR, Photoshop is clearly for more advanced retouching and IMO as far as RAW developping go Lr is enough. Also, it's not a cataloguing software at all and most people I know or read use a third-party software for cataloguing, or LR.

[jjj]

If you shoot raw, Lightroom always works with the raw image, once you go into Photoshop the file size will increase significantly, and information will be lost as Photoshop doesn't normally work on raw files. This may be a bit better with smart objects in PS.

If you open as a smart object into LR, it is still a raw file. You have to use ACR instead to retweak, but raw it remains.

[jferrari]

Going solely by the title of this thread I offer the following analogy: Think of your automobile. There are filling stations and service stations. Your car makes use of both of them and one does not replace the other. The filling station (LightRoom) is very good at providing basic automobile needs quickly, easily and efficiently whereas if more serious action should arise it's off to the service station (PhotoShop) to effect more complicated repairs. Bottom line: one application does not replace the other even though there is some overlap in features.