In what way does it differ from Photoshop? Does it do anything that Photoshop doesn't?
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Yes and No.
Someone better informed than me will comment but in terms of editing Lightroom does a lot less than Photoshop (but more than enough for most people). Lightroom has a library feature to manage all your photos which photoshop hasn’t.
You can get both with a monthly subscription of around £9.
I’ve stopped using Lightroom as I don’t like the subscription model and am trying Skylum Luminar.
I find Lightroom easier for basic photo-editing - playing with colour, making HDR shots etc. You can still buy a copy without using creative cloud. I don't find it essential though
I use it, but not extensively.
Pretty much the only thing I use Lightroom over Photoshop is stitching multiple images into a panorama, for which it is very good.
You can do colour correction/image post processing in Lightroom, but I prefer Photoshop for that.
I use Lightroom extensively, its ideal for editing hundreds/thousands of images in quick succession (Weddings) whereas PS is more one image at a time unless you involve Bridge.
When I edit I generally adjust elements to make the image just look nice and balanced, if you want effects then there is downloadable presets, Lightroom is also faster to use once you get an idea of keyboard shortcuts and sync settings to other images..
In my experience (as a professional photographer) digital photography is a 2 step process. Raw process in either Lightroom but normally Capture for me and then final post production tweaks in Photoshop. If you just shoot jpegs on a compact then Photoshop is all you need.
As others have said - Lightroom is more a tool to manage and do basic tweaks to large numbers of photos - usually as part of a workflow.
Photoshop allows much more extensive editing (and even creation) of images but without the extensive library, categorisation and search facilities.
For what it’s worth I stopped using photoshop and started using lightroom. It meant I concentrated more on getting the shot right (composition, proportions, etc.) and I just fiddled with the whight balance, contrast, etc., rather than deleting items and full blown editing - I’m a photographer, not a painter.
Cheers,
Mark C
I use Lightroom a lot, it's great for processing multiple files relatively quickly whereas Photoshop is a much more of a heavy duty editing tool.
If you want to adjust colours, sharpness, add basic filters etc then Lightroom is what you are looking for. Photoshop is slow and typically is used where you want to drill down in to the details and apply heavy manipulation, overlay multiple pictures and so on.
What are you wanting to do Eddie as understanding that may help establish which is going to be most appropriate to your needs
Paul
I've used Lightrooom for over a decade now and nothing else has tempted me to change.
Simpler, easier to use and doesn't affect the original image but instead keeps any edits saved separately.
Little of the endless doctoring functions that Photoshop has, which for me is a positive.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
I regard Lightroom as a digital darkroom for processing RAW files, which is the only format I use other than when shooting sports or street events where a lot of images taken dictates jpeg due to file size and therefore processing speed. Also, as I like B&W, the Nik software suite is now free since Google bought it and includes Silver Efex Pro, which is an excellent Lightroom plug in for mono.
F.T.F.A.
I pay for it but never use it as I prefer the tethering and higher quality processing of capture one.
I mainly use photoshop as I do all my own retouching plus a bit for other photographers.
I have no need for a database so prefer the session based approach of capture one. Basically you shoot a mini catalogue for each job then when it’s finished with it just sits on back-ups never to be seen again.
I guess if you shoot events or weddings then lightroom would be of more use.
As others have commented, Lightroom is a filing system which has extensive capabilities for developing and enhancing photos. Photoshop is more standalone, but has even more development capabilities, plus editing, creation etc.
I've used Lightroom since release, with a small dabble with Aperture, and do really like it. The only thing I hate is Adobe's move to subscription style, combined with their pricing. I currently use the last stand-alone release (6), which is non-subscription, and works perfectly for now.
Another approach is try one of the open source ones, like Dark Table.
You can do most things with Lightroom regarding editing in terms of colour correction/enhancement/HDR/panoramas and it's especially good for when you have one edit you like and can sync this with other images in the series with just a click.
Photoshop offers far more options though and for example, I use it for skin correction which is not possible at the moment with LR.
As I mentioned before I do love Lightroom and have used it for hundreds of thousands of images every year since it was released, saying that I only use it for what I need it for and it’s a far bigger extensive software than what I need. I see there is comments about the subscription set up and at first I thought it was a rip off, now I’m paying for it it’s not all that at expensive when you consider you get the full Adobe photography suite with any updates dealt with..
Main reason I went this route was having a camera that wasn’t supported by any of the hard copy Lightroom’s, I always had the disk and purchased upgrades but much prefer the subscription option now, remember I’m doing this as a business so the subscription is tax deductible, if messing with images for fun then it’s not so price friendly and a earlier version in hard copy would be better, but as I said make sure your camera is supported..
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I use it similar to Markc, aim to get all of the work done by the camera and then just the odd tweak or maybe bit of cropping. I don't use it to manage my library, just for very quick post processing. I work on computers all day long so like to minimise the amount of free time I spend on them and lightroom is great for that.
There are free alternatives like rawtherapee but last time I tried it the output just didn't look quite as good.
The reason I asked is that I've watched quite a few Lightoom tutorials on Facebook and the guy posting them shows editing tricks which appear to be very simple and effective, tricks which I can't easily reproduce in Photoshop. Mind you, my version of Photoshop is CS2 so it's probably improved a bit since then ;-)
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Generally my experience is that Lightroom makes it really quick and easy to 'digitally develop' photos. When I see what other people (i.e. not me!) can do with Photoshop it is clearly still far more advanced, but with Lightroom I can get 90% of the way there is 10% of the time. Blacks, whites, levels, crop - done. Also being able to stack similar images, sync edits across similar images etc makes it really good.
I would dearly love if there was a way to sync Lightroom and Apple or Google Photos, but other than that I've found Lightroom to be invaluable for developing, managing, finding etc my photos. I honestly doubt I could manage now without something like it.
They are two different programs, designed for different purposes.Originally Posted by swanbourne
Lightroom is a post processing tool for photographs and is non-destructive - that is, the changes you make are not "recorded" on the original file, they are held seperately and pnly finally applied when you export the image. In lightroom you can change a great deal of the look of the image, including (but not limited too), colour temp, exposure, highlights and shadows, curves adjustments, split toning, sharpness and so much more.
Photoshop is a pixel level editor, meaning you can alter down to individual pixels - delete them, clone them, move them, change their colour. It also allows you to create layers and have different elemements of an image on sperate layers, which makes making wholesale changes to an image possible and controllable - swapping out a sky for example. PS is much more powerful in the scope of what can be achieved and as such has a much steeper learning curve.
Speaking for myself as a photographer, I do 85% of my post work in lightroom and only switch to photoshop for significant edits - cloning/masking out specific items/areas for example, or adding a frame for print export.
This is also my experience. Have Creative Suite both at work and home. For the raw capture at work use Lightroom and then photoshop, at home Nikon Capture and then Photoshop.
I use Lightroom for two reasons. Firstly a licence (for version 4) came with the Leica Digilux 6 I bought for my wife a few years ago (thanks Dunk - we might not have spotted this otherwise). Secondly it's a processing tool that I can actually use; I've made a couple of attempts to teach myself Photoshop and Gimp and haven'y really made much progress. Interestingly I bought my wife a Lightroom one-day course a couple of years ago and a good chunk of what they taught was about workflow rather than the actual techniques of post-processing.
While we're on the subject - does anybody have a copy of Lightroom 6 for sale?
In the Sotadic Zone, apparently.
Don't use it anymore now they only support the monthly charge. Now use Affinity photo. Just as good and a single payment.
Can anyone tell me whether there is any difference using Lightroom on a Mac or on a PC?
I have it on both PC and Mac, no difference really.
Cheers, thanks. The iPhone app is remarkably good.
Does Lightroom CC have as good a library function as Lightroom Classic?
I'm thinking of getting it, but CC doesn't seem to have as much functionality as Classic.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
I’ve pretty much switch to only using it on an iPad Pro, it’s amazingly freeing. Love that I can edit / grade my photos without being tied to a desk. There’s a few small workflow issues due to the rigidness of iOS (Apple really need to release a “pro” iOS version for the IPad Pros), but other than that it’s the best version of Lightroom I’ve used :)
Light room is a great tool for photographers.
I have used it for many years to quickly sort and do minor edits on batches of photos I do believe it’s one of the best platforms available.
I pay for it on a monthly basis and I believe it’s very good value.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I use Lightroom everyday at the minute, mostly on a laptop but the app is pretty good too on a phone or tablet.
Adobe are also offering two months free at the moment, just sign in to your account and go through the cancellation procedure and you'll get offered two months.
I'm not really sure why anyone would baulk at the subscription service from Adobe, to be honest. I pay £8 per month and have a suite of apps (Adobe CC) on both my laptop and my mobile devices. They're continuously updated, and the full Adobe suite is still untouchable in terms of range and options.
I've dabbled with trial versions of Capture One and Affinity and they're very good (Capture One in particular). However, the learning curve involved is off-putting given my familiarity with Photoshop, and I particularly prefer the RAW editing tools in Photoshop both for ease of use and effectiveness.
I think Adobe products are a bit like Apple; they just work.
Luminar 4 looks like an extremely capable photoshop alternative that's capable of batch processing. Seems simpler to use and has AI recognition so speeds up a lot of processes. No monthly subscription and £30 off until tomorrow too, so just £59 with a sky package.
Here's a good overview.
Cheers,
Gary
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
