Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by forgotmyname, Apr 22, 2009.
Considering Photoshop comes with a RAW plug-in.
Lightroom has way more sliders for one to max out.
light room has a cataloging system and has better interface (user friendly) I personally like how you can adjust the photo by draging each section (shadows, highlights exposure ect) on the histogram
more in depth too
lightroom is a raw developer, not a photo editor.
Photoshop has about 35 BILLION more ways to edit images.
lightroom stores, develops and exports your raw data.
lightroom is ACR on steroids
PS is for real editing
I explained it to my mom this way...
Lightroom is a photo editor
Photoshop is a photo manipulator
what's the difference between Aperture and Lightroom?
one was designed by engineers and one by photographers
lightroom is more than just a raw proccessor.
in terms of just raw proccessing, its better for multiple photo editing and a cleaner design for manipulating
it also does jpeg non destructive edits, and allows you to edit jpegs with the same presets as raw images.
overall, its just designed better for photo editing. if you want to completely distort the image or want more graphic editing, PS is best. Its also still better for noise removal and sharpening.
they are competitors, they're designed to work together
CS3 and above you can do presets on jpegs.
I disagree with this.
Lightroom is not a cleaner design. it's simpler. You can do less, therefore it appears simpler. The layout of photoshop is 100x cleaner compared to how much you can do.
Photoshop has presets too, they're just called actions. Photoshop has ALWAYS been able to do non-destructive editing - It's called layers.
Oh, and actions = presets.
Layers and curves fucking OWN lightroom in every possible way. I could write a paper just on how these two features alone are goddam amazing.
There's also no factual basis at all for the noise removal/sharpening advantage you claim. Photoshop has about 40 billion different methods of sharpening and noise removal, lightroom has 1. Not only are those methods more versital, but they're completely tailorable for different situations and images. Same for noise removal.
Lightroom is simpler and faster. It's not a better photo editor.
Lightroom is a photo editor
Photoshop is a pixel editor
Although Lightroom now has the ability to do some localized adjustments, most of the controls affect the entire image. Photoshop will let you control everything down to the pixel level and let you create new documents from scratch.
The other big difference is Lightroom makes non-destructive edits that preserve the original file. You can roll back to any state in history at any point in time without degrading the image quality.
Lightroom's library module is a very powerful organizational tool for keeping your photos in check. The output options for creating simple websites and basic slide shows are also nice-to-have features. Printing is 10 times easier to manage in Lightroom than it is in Photoshop.
I would venture to say that each has their own place on your HD.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
PS > *
why do people think this is something cool and new in lightroom? Seriously.
layers are non destructive. you can create a new layer, adjust, delete, re-adjust, change opacity, change blending mode, and add/edit layer masks to your little hearts content, ALL WITHOUT AFFECTING THE ORIGINAL FILE!!
That's about as non-destructive as you can get, and it's been in photoshop forever.
Yes, layers are non-destructive, but they also drastically increase the file size and the amount of memory you need to work on a file. Lightroom just stores a "recipe" file to record the changes you make, but that file takes next to zero space to store.
Take a file and make 100 changes to it in lightroom, then make the same changes in 100 layers in photoshop and tell me which runs faster.
Also, non-destructive cropping is rather tricky in photoshop. It's not impossible, but it's certainly nowhere near as easy to do as it is in Lightroom. I often play around with crops in my photos at various stages in the development process. Lightroom also lets you create virtual copies of the file to let you take a different path of editing if you need to develop one for B&W and one for colour, or have one cropped as portrait and the other as a landscape, all without taking up any aditional space.
I've been a Photoshop owner since version 5 and a NAPP member for 8 years. I'm not saying that Lightroom replaces Photoshop by any means, but it brings a lot of great features to the table. I use it as a "super-bridge" for Photoshop CS4 where I can do a great deal of my editing in lightroom and make final adjustments in Photoshop where I have more control.
Hey, I'm not arguing the space, but a lot here would take your previous comments to mean that photoshop adjustments ARE destructive. Besides, at this point, space is cheap. I just bought 3TB under $300 on newegg....
I use lightroom and photoshop together in almost the exact same way you do, so I get what you're doing and why, and it makes sense to me... (must be the NAPP training, it's molded us...) But the people asking what the difference is obviously aren't.
I guess f2.8's post was really the /thread.
space is cheap, but doesn't mean it is as available to everyone as people make it out to be. If you're serious, space shouldn't stop you. But if you're not, it can be a factor.
Either way you look at it, they both have their pluses and minuses and those will depend on your level of expertise in each one.
Lightroom is a badass for organizing, and has a solid, but light PP capabilities. It is also quite user friendly. Photoshop is the ICBM of photo editing. It's power is unmatched, when you're talking editing alone. Disadvantage - you have to know what you're doing, and all the organizational shit is completely on you.
which one is designed by which?
I guess I was comparing it ot ACR, not PS
you can do curves in LR, just in a different way
between 3rd party plugins for noise removal and "magic sharp" PS pretty much kills LR's final touches
the whole idea that you don't have to save PSD's or multiple files and instead of a tiny data file is just easier to deal with, and cheaper.
really? have you tried both?