Jump to content

Best editing software photography, Lightroom or Photoshop


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

I use Lightroom to create catalogs, then use programs like Photoshop, Aurora HDR, Luminar, and Magic Bullet Looks, among others, as plugins when I want to do more than what Lightroom alone offers.  Still, before having all these other programs, Lightroom did 100% of my photo editing and did it reasonably well.

This is one of my latest shots using Lightroom to apply lens profile and minor noise reduction, then taking it into Aurora HDR for color work.

stock-photo-close-up-of-a-brown-pelican-

And this is the original raw file in Lightroom...

2019-01-28_10-55-25.thumb.jpg.93b7962b619da2b733478709db52845f.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, janfreeh said:

Why everyone always chooses between these two tops on the market. There are a lot of free photo enhancer: GIMP, Luminar, Xara, etc. I have tried GIMP and it is not worse than Photoshop. They are developing a 2.0 Version actually 

Some of them are even free

and some of them aren't but i love Capture One. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lightroom makes the whole asset management and metadata seamless in one package and the raw editor is sufficiently powerful enough to not need photoshop 95% of the time.

I only need photoshop when i need to do specific noise reduction or layers etc.  That said, they both come together as a package so provided you're paying for them you get both so deciding isnt really an issue.

The downside with Adobe in general is its RAW engine is fairly dated these days.  You can pull a lot more detail and tones out of the same file with Capture 1 and other newer editors BUT most images dont require this extra detail for the average person.

ACR also fails dismally to match the camera profiles (on Canon at least).  Its Camera Landscape for example is hideous and looks nothing like the JPG or the result from Canons own software.  Its also very limited in the amount of tint you can add in white balance which for my ambient light underwater shots means i need to first export it via DPP then edit the TIF.

They DO need to update the raw engine now they seem to have addressed Lightrooms previous massive issues with performance.  In reality though, LR/PS combo is more than most people ever need and works well enough.

As for Gimp, you get what you pay for.  Its awful when you compare it to proper software.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

 

The downside with Adobe in general is its RAW engine is fairly dated these days.  You can pull a lot more detail and tones out of the same file with Capture 1 and other newer editors BUT most images dont require this extra detail for the average person.

 

and makes a mess on Fuji x-trans 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair they are 2 different programs with 2 different areas of emphasis - it's like asking do you use the Ferrari or the Landrover - both are cars with 4 wheels but their intentions are different.

When I am working through photos to develop fast - ie after a football match when I am looking to get around 150 shots uploaded in a few hours - it is Lightroom all the way.  Straighten, crop, auto colour settings, a quick check at 100% and on to the next one.  This is going to be the same when I am processing the odd bit of news footage I do.  For stock I may stick with Lightroom but add some bits to the workflow - spot heal, curve, chromatic if needed (I have lens profiles set to auto on import but sometimes a little extra is needed).

However, I am looking at doing more major alterations to an image for whatever reason then I am going to use photoshop - because I need the layers, masks, and literal pixel by pixel selection.  I use Lightroom more than photoshop, but the more I learn the more I am playing with photoshop as it will go places Lightroom cant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Photoshop 100% and yes I have tried all the others. Just faster and easier for me because thats wht I learned on when I switched from film to Digital. all the others are pretend Photoshop with a twist .I also really Like anything made By NIK and  Capture NX2 etc which are Just fun stuff.  Im actually shocked at all the useless toys I never Use.IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 4:49 PM, irfan budi mulyana said:

Photoshop or lightroom? or other? give me a reason :) Sometimes I feel confused, just about this....

 

If I could only choose one it would be Lightroom - But the Adobe photography subscription is only $10.00 per month for both, which is a very good price.

I like Lightroom better because:

 

  • How the images are organized in the Library module - you can find images very quickly, even if there are 1000's.
  • The color presets and instant previews.
  • The panorama preview and processing.
  • Auto import images into Lightroom.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grossinger said:


I've never figured out what Lightroom can do for me that Photoshop does not.
 

Lightroom is good at easily straightening/aligning/fixing the perspective - if there is lens warping for instance. It's essential for me because I shoot a lot of 10mm wide angle shots. Photoshop probably does that, but lightroom makes it very easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mandritoiu said:

There is absolutely no difference between LR and PS Camera RAW from an editing point of view. Both are using the same editing engine. If it's easy in LR, then it's easy in PS ACR.

I had been halfway there but didn't care for the interface as much as lightroom so I wasn't using the perspective correction on photoshop raw filter. I just tried again and it was clearer to me, so thank you. That will save me some time in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/30/2019 at 3:36 AM, Leonard Whistler said:

 

95% of your work can be done much more efficiently in Lightroom.

 

 

Id go for that, LR provides the same camera raw engine as PS (even if that engine itself is a bit dated these days).  What it also provides is a full metadata, images management and cataloguing workflow that makes location and editing multiple images very very efficient.  Far more efficient than say Bridge.

If you're dealing with a few images at a time and low volume then yes the benefits of LR are going to be minimal.

If you;re dealing with large numbers of images and need to quickly compare, select the best and export the final product in a small time frame LR wins easily.

For example with me, in my day job i have to get out of the water, clean and dry my camera housing, remove the camera, get the photos from the camera onto a laptop, sort through the rejects and keepers, perform basic editing on the keepers, export them and have them all ready on a slideshow before the customers have finished their showers so typically 15-20 minutes for 100 or so images at times.  There is simply no way i could do this using a PS/Bridge combo.

I do use PS for images that require specific noise removal, anything with layers and so on but for 95% of the images, the LR raw engine and workflow is all i ever need.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 3:36 AM, Leonard Whistler said:

 

95% of your work can be done much more efficiently in Lightroom.

 

 

Id go for that, LR provides the same camera raw engine as PS (even if that engine itself is a bit dated these days).  What it also provides is a full metadata, images management and cataloguing workflow that makes location and editing multiple images very very efficient.  Far more efficient than say Bridge.

If you're dealing with a few images at a time and low volume then yes the benefits of LR are going to be minimal.

If you;re dealing with large numbers of images and need to quickly compare, select the best and export the final product in a small time frame LR wins easily.

For example with me, in my day job i have to get out of the water, clean and dry my camera housing, remove the camera, get the photos from the camera onto a laptop, sort through the rejects and keepers, perform basic editing on the keepers, export them and have them all ready on a slideshow before the customers have finished their showers so typically 15-20 minutes for 100 or so images at times.  There is simply no way i could do this using a PS/Bridge combo.

I do use PS for images that require specific noise removal, anything with layers and so on but for 95% of the images, the LR raw engine and workflow is all i ever need.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

LR is needed for catogolization and simple editing.  If in LR there would be no automatic sorting of keywords, then 90% of my photos do not need to be further edited in Photoshop

I usuall use LR (open RAW format, catalogolization, white balance, cropping, exposure, brightness, sharpness, lens correction  etc.). Then export in  Photoshop ( format psd or tiff ). Add desciption, keywords, remove noise using plugin(sometimes),  sharpness and export in jpg. Then I delete psd, tiff  from the computer as there is not enough space

I don't like Bridge for  for catogolization. It's uncomfortable

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

Id go for that, LR provides the same camera raw engine as PS (even if that engine itself is a bit dated these days).  What it also provides is a full metadata, images management and cataloguing workflow that makes location and editing multiple images very very efficient.  Far more efficient than say Bridge.

If you're dealing with a few images at a time and low volume then yes the benefits of LR are going to be minimal.

If you;re dealing with large numbers of images and need to quickly compare, select the best and export the final product in a small time frame LR wins easily.

For example with me, in my day job i have to get out of the water, clean and dry my camera housing, remove the camera, get the photos from the camera onto a laptop, sort through the rejects and keepers, perform basic editing on the keepers, export them and have them all ready on a slideshow before the customers have finished their showers so typically 15-20 minutes for 100 or so images at times.  There is simply no way i could do this using a PS/Bridge combo.

I do use PS for images that require specific noise removal, anything with layers and so on but for 95% of the images, the LR raw engine and workflow is all i ever need.

 

I actually use photo mechanic in conjunction with Lightroom for this - when doing a football (soccer) match I can take over 700 photos in 90 minutes plus half time  (mostly bursts) of which I will expect between 100 and 170 to be useable.  Importing the lot into LR and going through to decide which to polish, as it were, would take far longer than using Photo Mechanic to ingest, zoom through simply flagging the ones I want to work on - then I take just the flagged ones and import to LR - the others just stay in the folder until I dump them en masse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...