TR Forums

I downloaded the trial versions of Photoshop and Lightroom and started to use both a few days ago. After playing with a few images I can't figure out why Lightroom exists. It seems that all of its features are included as part of Photoshop. I read that Lightroom lets you organize files in some way, but it's not obvious how to use that feature, and I don't feel I have the need to. What good is Lightroom if it's just a subset of Photoshop?

If it's really just a subset, one or more of the following: price, smaller footprint, simplicity.

I'm currently working on ~2.5k old family photos, many of which need color/exposure correction. Lightroom doesn't technically do anything you couldn't do with Photoshop, but it makes the process easier and substantially faster, as the interface is geared toward that one specific area, and designed to move quickly through the photos. If you only work on a couple pictures at a time, you probably don't need it. If you need to work on a mass quantity, or are a photographer/enthusiast who regularly takes 50+ shots at a time, it can be useful.

Lightroom is geared for people that want to manage their photographs. Photoshop is geared for image editing and content creation, so of course it will have to be a superset of Lightroom's capabilities. it's why Photoshop (at least originally before it turned into a subscription based mess) was priced significantly more than Lightroom.

Lightroom was about indexing and creating an easily usable metadata library of one's photos as well as a way to manage and edit them. Of those I know that use Lightroom use it as a library indexing service as well as a photo format converter between camera-specific formats and industry standards, like Nikon's NEF, RAW, etc. I've used it myself and it's easier than using Photoshop for large scale batch processing/conversion.

Initially Lightroom was meant for colour correction and lighting adjustment and at the time did it better than Photoshop at a fraction of the cost.
Also it was one of the only tools of the time that could handle RAW well.
I think it is still known for working with many photos at a time.

Time has passed (10 years since I first learned of it) they have likely moved many of the features into Photoshop.

Software evolves.

Except that Photoshop is still a vastly superior editor, and not really geared for the same thing. For working with lots of images, I would not be without Lightroom, because bridge is not nearly as good of a Viewer or have a workflow geared for doing categorization as well as adjustments.

Although I'm still using Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 4 still. Haven't upgraded to LR5

The thing is, Lightroom is based on a workflow that lets you import, categorize, adjust and correct, both individual or batch(even as far as cloning brushes, etc.), prepare, and publish (upload/print) in a relatively easy to use format. It also have very nice features to compare sets of multiple images in order to select the best one.

Photoshop is a very advanced editor, but once you start getting into batch processing and workflows, Photoshop is part of a workflow, and not the workflow in it's entirety, it becomes more complicated and you need to expand and do a bit of manual things like droplets, scripting, etc., which Lightroom pretty much have built in per default, that said, Photoshop can do way more advanced processing, but not as easily.

Then you have the cost difference, Photoshop has always been geared for professional work, both in price and features. Lightroom is geared for photography and probably does 90% of what most people need. Although I don't know the actual price difference since they moved Photoshop onto the CC program and subscription model.

you can buy Lightroom 5 at best buy for $160 here in Canada.

I remember when it was an under $100 product...

So, Adobe CC has a subscription for $10 per month that includes both Photoshop and Lightroom, so price is not an issue.

Maybe I just need to learn how to use Lightroom better. Is there any particularly good resource for learning it? I'm processing a series of 400 images right now but I don't see how batch processing them will help -- I still need to adjust exposure, lighting, color, etc. differently for each picture, and the RAW adjustments are done the same way in Lightroom and in Photoshop, so at my level of understanding, both programs are the same.

Scott Kelby and some others have books/guides, there's a ton on Lynda.com , etc.

Agreed-- the learning curve for LR is a little rough, but assuming your needs are met by it, then once you get used to it, it's a ton faster. I open Photoshop maybe once a month now for advanced edits I can't do in LR and that's about it.

and the RAW adjustments are done the same way in Lightroom and in Photoshop, so at my level of understanding, both programs are the same.

Absolutely correct-- and one of the advantages of the LR/PS combo-- you get the same results in both in the end as far as image editing, but for the bulk edits, metadata edits, etc. LR is designed to operate as a full, reasonably quick and streamlined workflow.

I still need to adjust exposure, lighting, color, etc. differently for each picture,

Also true, but you can create your own presets in LR, there's its own automatic settings, you can set per-camera defaults, and the most important part of any photo management system, at least to me-- you can cull/quick collection/flag/star/whatever your photos into the priority sets you want to work on and publish, edit those quick, and get those published, then break down the rest and edit as needed.

Also, I find that "differently for each picture" isn't quite as different as one would think all the time-- e.g. little batches of photos are very similar, I can set one white balance and apply to multiple photos very quickly, set one crop and apply to multiple very quickly, etc. It's lots of things that help get large batches of photos done faster, or even 80% done, I can then fine-tune only the ones I intend to publish.

If you're working with a small batch of images already on a computer and decent with Photoshop's photography tools, the advantages of using Lightroom aren't readily apparent.

But Lightroom's workflow starts before you've even taken a picture you intend to publish, technically- you can profile your camera, particularly color, and set presets for all kinds of things. You use it to import images from flash cards (or the camera itself over USB), where it catalogs them, you use it to cull images, do extensive photography-focused edits (nearly everything you need is included), and then use it to render and publish the final photographs.

Lightroom's catalog function can also be integrated with external editors like Photoshop, but also external RAW converters (important to Fuji shooters, for example), and note that it functions a bit differently than Photoshop in that it doesn't create a new file (.PSD, or .TIFF, etc.) when editing images, unlike Bridge, which must do the RAW conversion before Photoshop proper can be used.

And generally speaking as others have mentioned, it's much, much quicker.

Does Photoshop have lossless editing/adjustment of RAW files*? I'm not sure on this score, because I rarely use PS for my standard RAW workflow. I do know that you can adjust exposure WB and curves in ACR, but does it commit the changes to memory when you import it into Photoshop?

I've been using Lightroom for RAW workflow since version 3, and it's my go-to application for my needs. I mainly process my RAWS for exposure and color correction (I always try to ETTR), and like being able to experiment with values and undo them as needed. It's also great for batch editing (you can make a macro in Photoshop to process multiple files, but I find it quicker and easier to do in Lightroom). I don't do any major image editing such as cloning out details or applying photoshop filters, so Lightroom's more limited editing features aren't an impediment to me.

One area that Lightroom is definitely deficient compared to Photoshop is in HDR and multiple exposures, but you can export a group of files to PS for HDR/compositing with a few ctrl-clicks and menu options. And there are plugins such as Photomatix Pro that can work within Lightroom for HDR. Denoising is also slightly less advanced in LR, but Topaz's excellent Denoise works as a filter for PS and a plugin for Lightroom.

In short, I think that they are different tools with different strengths and abilities, and if you find one fits all your needs, you probably won't need the other. I'd say Photoshop is more full-featured, but I'm more efficient in my workflow with Lightroom, and it is a lot cheaper.

* EDIT: Sounds like it doesn't, but if you import your file as a 32-bit image, you probably have a lot of latitude to adjust curves/exposure without clipping anything permanently.

Thanks for the responses. I'm sitting here reading this 'workflow' stuff you're all talking about, so I'm gonna have to head over to B&N and find myself a book to teach me how to use it -- the idea of a 'workflow' is foreign to me, but if 'ya'll say Lightroom is useful, there must be somethin' to it.

It all depends on your needs. I would not be without either of them, but for most shootin, it's lightroom that gets the brunt of the work. Only when doing some serious editing and tons of burn/dodge/B&W processing or retouching I might load it into photoshop.

That said, my workflow is pretty simple.
* I copy all images into a folder for backup.
* Then Import them into the database.
* Go to the library module(ctrl+alt+1).
* Then I quickly go through all images and star everything I want to bother with with a 1-star rating (Digit 1), after that I limit viewed images to one star or above and go through and 2-star stuff, all the way up to 5 stars. Then I have some cathegories that 5 stars are for everyone, 4 for interested, and 3 for people on the trip when say traveling. That's basically the workload. Here you also have a bunch of features for comparing images to each other if you have several of them. You can flip, have them above or beside each other, etc.
* Go through all images and sometimes crop, straighten and white balance. Very easy especially when you still have the bottom library bar to traverse images with.
* Some I might do more work with and some few goes over to Photoshop CS5 for some extra processing and retouching.

There might be a few tutorials on youtube from good sources that you can learn from. But it's definitely worth a try. Then if you don't like it, no harm except a bit of time, if you do though, you will save time.