| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Adobe Lightroom vs Photoshop Debate
Mark Sutton, Photographer
 |
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 12:47 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> Please forgive me if this debate has already been established in a different thread, but I just want to get a feel for what program you are using for your normal everyday image editing. This is just for Photoshop and Lightroom users only and not a thread for I use program xxx because it’s cheaper and user friendly.
Basically I still see photographers using Photoshop in the pressrooms doing their editing, when Lightroom is so much faster and easier to deal with RAW images. I just want to know which program you are using and why you are using it. Please forgive me if this thread was already started a few months ago. Thanks in advance!!!
Coke or Pepsi…….. |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
 |
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 12:55 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> ok... I'll bite
but I don't see a debate... they are two different programs that specialize in different things.... or maybe I'm doin it wrong.
-- Mike |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:02 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> I really like LightRoom for RAW processing but prefer to work in PS for any additional image tweaking because its a bit more in depth and also because its just how I'm used to working. I think familiarity is probably a factor for a lot of people and once you've got a workflow and batch process down its hard to move onto something new.
Took me a while to learn my way around Lightroom and I'm still finding new stuff out. I really do find that with Lightroom I can get an image looking the way I want probably 90% of the time, its a powerful program. Still need PS though for making a lot of layers and mask etc. The LR tools aren't bad for quick touchups but are still a little crude compared to PS and what you can do, with the exception of RAW processing where I feel LR actually is better than ACR, or at least easier to use and faster.
You could get by with either of them but in a perfect world having both certainly doesn't hurt. For me its PS or Photo Mechanic for JPEG file and when Im shooting RAW its LR and depending on what needs to be done, such as landscape shooting, PS tweaks to the LR output |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
|
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 1:03 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> Mike,
You are absolutely correct. Photoshop is mainly a graphic design program which you can also use to edit images, but Lightroom is a photo editing program made solely for the photographer at heart. But there is a debate because I brought up this same question last week in the media room I was working in. Someone asked what program I was using which was Lightroom and why I was using it instead of Photoshop. I told them I use Photoshop but for different reasons and they said well they use it for editing their images and they don't want to fix what isn't broken (post editing in Photoshop). |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 1:07 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> My whole workflow has shifted to Lightroom, with Photoshop only occasionally, depending on what I need to to and what a client needs. I far more efficient than I used to be. It is worth the money to take the D65 Workshop and become a true Jedi!
Help you it will. |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
|
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 1:10 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> Jeff,
This is what I was trying to get from the public with this thread. I know a lot of photographers who use this website for help on what to buy or use or what not to do. That was the purpose of this thread. I guess it sounded good in my head when I was starting it?
I had a Jerry McGuire moment.... |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 1:10 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> I have to agree with Mike, I don't think they are interchangeable.
From a normal editorial or sports assignment I might put anywhere from 3-10 photos in the editorial system. I will use Bridge and Photoshop for this.
If I am shooting something where I need to convert several (20-1,000) RAW images to Jpg, I will use Lightroom. |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
|
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 1:15 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> So Bob,
Why do you use Photoshop for editorial or sports assignments and Lightroom for converting RAW to Jpeg. Why switch up? |
|
Michael Troutman, Photographer
|
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 1:16 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> They are both essential programs, along with Photo Mechanic. LR is ideal for fast, global adjustments and CS, of course, is the ultimate for precise pixel pushing. To be blunt, one's a shovel, the other a scalpel.
In terms of workflow, LR truly is "so much faster and easier" when dealing with any kind of volume work, like event photography for example. For a small selection of images needing fine detail adjustments or creative enhancements, CS is essential. Thankfully the two programs "talk" with each other, providing the best of all worlds.
There are significant differences in the the way the tools and brushes work (for example LR has *amazing* burn/dodge capability but CS is much better for extensive cloning, layers and so on).
If one was forced to select a single program that does *everything* well it would have to be LR, but that's kinda like limiting your lens kit to a single mid-range zoom. You don't necessarily need a dozen lenses, but if you have three really good ones you can cover almost anything.
The way I look at it, PM is the light table, LR is the production lab and CS is the high end custom lab. All are essential.
Adobe has given photographers power far, far beyond anything that was ever possible in the darkroom. Digital imaging combined with the power of CS/LR is the greatest change in photography since the invention of 35mm film. That we are afforded the luxury of such a debate over which of the two programs is better is an embarrassment of riches. |
|
Rick Osentoski, Photographer
|
Martin | OH | United States | Posted: 1:29 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> I have to agree with what is being said by others, LR is great for Raw processing and making selects, PS for the fine tuning of images if needed.
Now if Lightroom would have code replacement for captioning then you could eliminate Photo Mechanic from the work flow in must cases, as LR will allow some adjustments to JPG as well. Of the 3 I mentioned LR and PS are a must Photo Mechanic a luxury. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 1:36 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> I'm not an expert with either of the programs, but I think that designers might disagree with the statement that photoshop is a "graphic design program". I Design is more of a graphic design program to a designer.
Having said that, I use Photo Mechanic, Bridge and Photoshop but it all depends on the exact task that I need done. Not to mention, if Photo Mechanic + Bridge/PhotoShop does the job why add the expense of an additional piece of software (Lightroom)?
My question would be does your current software allow you to do what you want to do with the image on your hard drive in an effective manner?
Delane |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 1:39 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> For the record I shoot just about everything RAW.
When I'm only looking for a few keepers I don't have to wait for hundreds of photos to import into Lightroom, then wait for the few to export as jpgs.
I just view thumbnails in Bridge, double click and the individual photo opens in Photoshop. Slight level adjust, usually apply USM and then save as a jpg.
As a test I just imported 200 photos into Lightroom. That took about a minute (without rendering previews, which takes even longer). In that minute I was able to open tweak and save two RAW photos as jpgs using Bridge/Photoshop. |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
|
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 1:49 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> Delane,
I am very proficient in both Indesign and Illustrator for that matter and at times use them in conjunction with both Lightroom and Photoshop. That's not the point I was trying to make. I have been asked more than a dozen times in the past month what program am I using when I'm editing my images. When I tell them Lightroom, most have said they have heard of the program, but like you don't know much about it. The question was which do you prefer and why. Not I use Indesign or Illustrator or Photo Mechanic or Elements or Preview. Yes I saw a photographer editing in Preview....
Maybe I worded the thread wrong. Sorry, but like I said.
I had a Jerry McGuire moment.
Please forgive me...
Sorry....
Don't shoot me.... |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 1:53 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> The secret to workflow is to have yours so that it does no damage to your files, allows you to spend more time doing the creative stuff and less time on the mechanical functions. I always tell people that your workflow has to become second nature so that you don't spend half of your life trying to remember which keyboard shortcut does what. Lightroom and Photoshop are class leading applications. Both handle RAW conversions in batches very well and both have a huge range of controls to do your RAW work.
For the record I like Lightroom but don't use it. I use Photo Mechanic to ingest, sort, edit, caption and rename images and Photoshop to convert RAW files and do any final tweaks that are needed switching back to Photo Mechanic to use the FTP. For me it is seamless, fast, intuitive and gives me what I need from two excellent applications.
The comment above about working with one lens is a good one. You could do it but why would you choose to.
I couldn't do the whole operation using Photoshop (even with Bridge) half as effortlessly as I do now. I could pretty much do it all in Lightroom but choose not to. You pays your money and you takes your choice... |
|
Jonathan Castner, Photographer, Assistant
|
Longmont | CO | USA | Posted: 2:24 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> I shoot everything in RAW and have two work flow systems based on what I need. All I use though is Photo Mechanic and Photoshop/Bridge.
For work where I shoot a few hundred frames and need to edit and adjust maybe a dozen or so then I use PM to edit and select the images that I want to send to PS where I have a number of actions set up so that I have all my adjustments set up as layers for very quick control. I can usually have a RAW file opened up adjusted and closed ready for shipment to the client in less than one minute. The actions and adjustment layers make it so fast and easy.
For work where I have loads of images that need to be adjusted, dozens or maybe a few hundred I use PM to cull the technically bad ones out and then use Bridge to apply one of the preset "looks" that I have set up. I adjust exposure and color balance to groups of images and then have the ACR of Bridge batch process them all while I'm doing other things on the computer because ACR of Bridge is independent of ACR in PS.
Since I have a database for my images I don't need the simple database of Lightroom. I have Bridge for batch processing and PS for fine control. Photomechanic is still the fastest and easiest image browser out there - much faster than Lightroom or Bridge. Lightroom is a great program but still isn't the "Photographers Photoshop" that we all want where it's all the stuff we need in P-shop but nothing else so that it's not bloated and overpriced. |
|
Alan Herzberg, Photographer
|
Elm Grove | WI | USA | Posted: 2:25 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> I photograph youth and high school events and sell images online as a big part of what I do. For that, I bring RAW files into Lightroom and do my basic adjustments there (white balance, exposure, cropping). I then export the files as tif images and run them through PS as a batch to do USM and noise reduction.
While the healing brush and cloning tool in LR are good, they aren't as good as PS, so I use PS for photos that need more extensive or delicate touchups.
Lightroom has been a godsend. I can't imagine going back to "developing" photos without it.
When I design posters, it's all done in PS, obviously. |
|
Gray Quetti, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | Fl | USA | Posted: 2:45 PM on 03.24.09 |
| ->> After ingesting and editing in PM I like to send jpegs and RAW files to ACR. The sliders are very much the same as LR and I find this easier for me. After that I can run an action from the Image Processor in CS3. I hardly have to go into PS with that workflow but it's right there if you need it. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 2:48 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> Mark...I think people are asking you which program you're using because Adobe really hasn't pushed LR on the professionals, i.e. Adobe still wants/needs you to pay for PS. Remember....a PS upgrade cost the same as a full LR license right?
There is so much crossover between PS+Bridge and LR that for a lot of people it boils down to economics. Why spend more $$$ on LR when you already have a viable option on your system?
Do RAW images processed (developed) in LR look any better than PS+Bridge? Is LR faster for 1-10 photos? 11-50? 51-500?, 500+??? I'm just asking...remember, I no longer use LR. I did try it for a while...when it was LR vs Aperture...I was a private beta tester for the program, but it just didn't fit for me.
dbr |
|
Mike O'Bryon, Photographer
|
Ft. Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 2:57 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> I use them for different things... ( I shoot only RAW )
I ingest in LR...do my batch selects... and any "global" adjustments are done in LR.... then the final jpgs are exported from LR as well.
IF I need to edit at the pixel level... I'll move into Photoshop... and save back into LR
Maybe I'm doing it wrong.... but I don't believe you can edit in LR at the pixel level....so I do that in PS.
I would agree PM is the fastest.... but I do need the catalog that LR builds... if I were looking for a few selects from a shoot... I'd use PM all the way... but I'm kinda hooked on the LR catalog deal.
-- Mike |
|
Michael Clark, Photographer
|
Santa Fe | NM | USA | Posted: 2:57 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> Just as many have said here - Lightroom is great for when you need to edit a large group of images. Otherwise Bridge and ACR in PS will suffice. For my own workflow, all of my RAW images are edited and processed in Lightroom and then I finish up the processing in Photoshop if needed.
As a service to anyone who is interested - I know this may be a bit weird to promote my own book - but I have written an extensive 125 page e-book that is approved and even promoted by Adobe on their website (on the Lightroom page) right next to Scott Kelby and Seth Resnick's books. My book is basically a workshop in book form. It is also the only one I know that starts in-camera and walks you all the way through to delivering final images to the client. If you'd like to check it out here is the link:
http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/workflow.html
For those of you still trying to dial in your workflow or learn more about Lightroom this is a great text directed at the pro photographer. |
|
Danny Munson, Photographer
|
San Dimas | Ca | United States | Posted: 3:59 PM on 03.24.09 |
| ->> Since LR2 I rarely use PS. I've been upgrading PS every time they update and CS4 was the first time I haven't. PS still has it's uses but not in my basic work flow anymore. |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 5:10 PM on 03.24.09 |
| ->> I ingest, caption and make my selects in Photo Mechanic, which is lightning fast with my RAW's from a MkIII and my 5d MkII. I then import all to Lightroom 2 for global corrections and cropping. I have not upgraded PS since CS2 as really, most of my work is done in LR, and if I really need to do some pixel damage, I`ll save as a TIFF or JPG and bring that into CS2. So far, it has worked beautifully. I still haven`t gooten the hang of dodging and burning in LR, but that`ll come... |
|
Matt Kartozian, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 5:47 PM on 03.24.09 |
| ->> I use LR 95% of the time. Import, minor edits, sorting, export/resize. I use PS if I need some specific fine tuning and PM for captioning. |
|
Rick Osentoski, Photographer
|
Martin | OH | United States | Posted: 5:59 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> Hey Mac guy's add code replacement to any app with a program called Typinator. I just found this on dealmac and tried it out today, it is even easier to use than PM. You can import tab txt to make your sets as well. It makes captioning in LR a snap.
Here is a link.
http://dealmac.com/Typinator-for-Mac-downloads-for-free/286503.html |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
|
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 6:42 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> I started to use Lightroom a few years ago when I was still a PC user and Aperture wasn’t available to us guys in the PC world. I was contracted to shoot a conference basketball tournament for 9 of the 11 member schools along with the conference office, so I had 12 customers to deal with. Being that I always shoot with 5 cameras I didn’t change for the tournament, so I was dealing with almost 1100 images for each game. Now this conference does their tournament the old way by having both their men and women playing in the same tournament, so I basically shot roughly 22 games in a week’s period.
My work flow then consisted of ingesting all my images into Photo Mechanic renaming them to suit the game I just shot, then picking 12 or so images to distribute to the league office and the two school’s Sports Information Directors for website and story purposes. Once the 12 or so images were selected, I opened them up in Photoshop and I ran an action I created to do just about anything I need (color correction, noise ninja, cropping). The problem was editing the kabillion images I had after the tournament was over. It took me almost 1 month to do that and I decided then that I needed a better way to do this. I had the initial beta version of Lightroom, but I was reluctant to use it because there were no books on it.
The next year with the same situation and I also picked up an additional school for the tournament and now using Lightroom 1.0 instead of Photoshop I had different results. I still did my ingesting and selecting in PM, but I now transferred that folder of just 12 images over to Lightroom and it made world of difference. The first thing I did before the opening tip-off of the tournament was take my Ed Pierce Calibration Target: http://www.photovisionvideo.com/store/CTGY/DCT/ out to the court and create my white balance. Then I transferred that image into Lightroom and made a preset of the RBC Center (Raleigh, NC) into Lightroom. The preset also consisted of any adjustments I felt needed to be adjusted like noise reduction.
Once I ingested the entire tournament using that preset I was able to skim through the soft or throw away images and save the keepers in the folders they were assigned to in jpeg form and of course Lightroom is non-destructive, so my original RAW image wasn’t touched. I had 22 games completed in a week compared to almost a month of editing in Photoshop. Lightroom made a world of difference in my work flow. The key was the preset I created. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 7:10 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> That's awesome and it sounds like it works for you and you probably just turned someone else on to LR.
(I think you can do all that in Bridge+PS though)
Why did the editing take so long? Picking keepers? Color balance should have been consistent at the RBC Center.
dbr |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
|
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 7:52 PM on 03.24.09 |
->> Delane,
It was. I think it just took so long because of the process I guess. I was using CS back then. I didn't upgrade to CS3 until last year when I brought the suite and now I've upgraded to CS4. The only problem I had with CS back then is when you looked at an image in bridge and you wanted to crop or do some additional editing. When you selected that particular image, Photoshop put you in RAW camera mode which was a separate window. You had to do this with every image in a separate window. Lightroom allows you in develop mode to see the image after your preset has already been loaded to make any additional adjustments like plays underneath the basket where it may be a little darker then center court. You can add a little fill light to the image and move on all in the same window. That is where the work flow or post production is that much faster.
Now CS4 may be a little quicker, but that is where Lightroom shines. Work flow/post production. The only problem I have with Lightroom is you can’t use your mouse scroll ball inside develop mode to advance images. But that is my opinion and someone may be doing it faster than me and I’ve been using Photoshop since it was Photoshop 4. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|