Photoshop, Lightroom, Elements??

[MariaMaria]

It is an interesting debate…..For a pro, who wants a lot of editing flexibility sometimes. PS wins hands down. For an amateur who just wishes to process and catalogue raw images, LR5 is pretty good and rather cheap.

That does not seem quite fair. I am far from pro status but I am familiar with many pro-photographers that make use of LR5 and are very satisfied. It seems like choice of PP software has more to do with personal preference, the degree of manipulation desired with one's images, and the type of photography they want to produce, and less with whether or not someone is considered a pro or amateur photographer. Just my, opinion

[Mike Buckley]

Whether anyone would use the other tabs in ACR is the $6,000,000 question

If you come up with the money, I'll come up with the answer.

That's a bit misleading though, as learning ACR is trivial, and in my opinion, the catalog management side (and other parts) of LR is/are uber-confusing.

Learning ACR may be trivial for you but not necessarily for others. Similarly, learning LR may be difficult for you but not necessarily for others. What one person finds intuitive the next person finds unintuitive.

I've often observed that people tend to forget that you can use the image-editing capabilities of Lightroom without using its cataloging capabilities. I never use them. I don't even maintain a Lightroom catalog as there is absolutely no need to do so.

[Colin Southern]

That does not seem quite fair. I am far from pro status but I am familiar with many pro-photographers that make use of LR5 and are very satisfied. It seems like choice of PP software has more to do with personal preference, the degree of manipulation desired with one's images, and the type of photography they want to produce, and less with whether or not someone is considered a pro or amateur photographer. Just my, opinion

Hi Maria,

It's probably more a reflection on the types of work they're doing (pro or otherwise). eg Wedding photographers typically have hundreds and hundreds of frames to process from each wedding, but the adjustments that they make to those images are reasonably limited - so the likes of LR suits them well. At the other end of the scale can be the way I work when shooting a sunset landscape where I might capture 100 frames or more of the same composition as the lighting changes and then pick only 1 frame ("the chosen one") and process that in ways that LR isn't capable of. Obviously in that case I don't need a package whose major strength is in manipulating large quantities and who'd "weakness" is not having the more powerful tools available (although I might add that Adobe Bridge is part of the Photoshop CC suite which is very effective at bulk file handling, including in a multi-user environment which LR doesn't support).

In the middle you might have portrait / session photographers who take a lot of shots but only process a modest number; again, LR (or ACR) handles the global adjustments, but something more is needed for more specific adjustments (eg we perform some 20 separate adjustments around eyes alone - none of which LR could do very well.

Adobe's evangelist Julieanne Kost did a nice video on Bridge -v- LR that you really should watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2H-GJmeTzM

Hope this helps!

[Colin Southern]

Learning ACR may be trivial for you but not necessarily for others.

Not really - at the end of the day it's the same sliders with the same names as those in LR, so it's no harder to "learn the contrast slider in ACR" than it is to "learn the contrast slider in LR". Personally I don't have an issue with LR's capabilities - I just don't like the interface; in my opinion it's starting to unravel with all of the additional complexity that they're trying to build into it.

Similarly, learning LR may be difficult for you but not necessarily for others. What one person finds intuitive the next person finds unintuitive.

Who knows, but it sure doesn't feel that way to me -- and I've been around them both for many years.

I've often observed that people tend to forget that you can use the image-editing capabilities of Lightroom without using its cataloging capabilities. I never use them. I don't even maintain a Lightroom catalog as there is absolutely no need to do so.

Things must have changed recently because last time I looked one couldn't even get the photos into LR without importing them into the catalog.

[pnodrog]

I agree with Colin's comments above(post63). However I would add it is not just the type of photography undertaken but also how the photographs are going to be used, distributed and reproduced. For real estate where I take lots of photographs that need to be simply edited for perspective and minor lighting adjustments and need to be well cataloged and mapped Lightroom is by far the most efficient tool. These photographs need to be uploaded to the web at a reduced size and be available for printing at undemanding sizes and the export and print options of lightroom are an ideal way of handling the work flow.

For my own personal photography I do use lightroom for cataloging and the initial adjustments but nearly always end up doing the very subtle and fine adjustments using photoshop.

So for business I could manage without Photoshop but consider lightroom as being essential. For personal use I could manage without lightroom but must have access to a photo-editing program that has full layer support and 16bits/channel.

[Mike Buckley]

Things must have changed recently because last time I looked one couldn't even get the photos into LR without importing them into the catalog.

Nothing has changed. You do have to import the photos into the catalog. However, you don't have to do anything other than that. Once you're done editing the images, you can export them and quickly remove them from the catalog. Piece of cake.

[Colin Southern]

Nothing has changed. You do have to import the photos into the catalog. However, you don't have to do anything other than that. Once you're done editing the images, you can export them and quickly remove them from the catalog. Piece of cake.

But if you move or rename the hosting folder in the meantime then the catalog can't find them, and you have to deal with that - then there's the issue of do people keep the images in the catalog or just the thumbnails - and is the metadata written back to the file or saved in the catalog ...

I just find the whole process "begging to bite people in the bum". Nothing (IMO anyway) beats opening a folder of files - working on them - and having everything go back into the same folder. Simple, clean, efficient, and un-complicated.

Just my 10c worth anyway.

[Mike Buckley]

But if you move or rename the hosting folder in the meantime then the catalog can't find them, and you have to deal with that

The Lightroom catalog isn't being used. There is nothing for Lightroom to find. Images are handed off to Lightroom, not Lightroom finding images.

then there's the issue of do people keep the images in the catalog or just the thumbnail

The catalog isn't being used. Not for images. Not for thumbnails.

and is the metadata written back to the file or saved in the catalog

Ahem. Did I not mention that the catalog is not being used? Lightroom isn't being used to generate any metadata.

Nothing (IMO anyway) beats opening a folder of files - working on them - and having everything go back into the same folder. Simple, clean, efficient, and un-complicated.

Exactly how I use Lightroom. Works like a charm.

As I mentioned, there is no need to use the Lightroom catalog other than to import the images and then to remove them from the catalog after editing and exporting them.

[Colin Southern]

The Lightroom catalog isn't being used. There is nothing for Lightroom to find. Images are handed off to Lightroom, not Lightroom finding images.



The catalog isn't being used. Not for images. Not for thumbnails.



Ahem. Did I not mention that the catalog is not being used? Lightroom isn't being used to generate any metadata.



Exactly how I use Lightroom. Works like a charm.

As I mentioned, there is no need to use the Lightroom catalog other than to import the images and then to remove them from the catalog after editing and exporting them.

Sorry Mike, but I think you need a bit of a refresher on the catalog; http://digital-photography-school.co...gement-system/ (section 3 in particular).

- If the images aren't imported into the LR catalog then it maintains a link to where they're located. If the images are moved outside of LR (some folder in the path renamed, or cut/copied etc) then LR won't be able to find the images and they become unavailable, except for cached previews. Yes, I know they can be re-linked, but IMO it's still just a messy way to do it.

- Images CAN be stored in the catalog; if one does then the catalog gets huge - if they don't then the relationship between the catalog and the actual file locations gets more "invested".

- Meta data IS held in the catalog - it's only a case of does one store ALL of it there, or only some of it. Edit info can be written to .XMP or .DNG files, but things like key words and indexing info is always stored there

Frankly, the LR "all eggs in one basket" catalog approach scares me to death; yes, there are work-arounds to make things safer, but by default, it's my belief that it's risky. If someone has a catalog (database) corruption - doesn't realise it until the corruption has permeated all their backups - then they've just lost all their edits for the affected images.

Regardless, don't really want to argue the points; too tired, and too busy. I'll I'll say in closing is that when people lose hundreds or thousands of hours of edits because they weren't computer savvy and didn't understand the inherent weaknesses, don't say I didn't warn them this would happen.

[pnodrog]

Being computer savvy is a necessity to safeguard your work regardless of the file structure in use.....

Never trust a computer or storage device.

[Mike Buckley]

Colin,

You are doing such a great job of demonstrating the point that I made, that I have observed that people tend not to realize that one doesn't need to use Lightroom's catalog. I have no need to convince you or anyone otherwise. Instead, I offered up a tip that works just fine for people to consider.

Regardless, don't really want to argue the points

Actually, aside from condescendingly telling me that I need a refresher course, arguing is the only thing you're doing.

[Colin Southern]

Colin,

You are doing such a great job of demonstrating the point that I made, that I have observed that people tend not to realize that one doesn't need to use Lightroom's catalog.

Nothing has changed. You do have to import the photos into the catalog.

[dabhand]

Being computer savvy is a necessity to safeguard your work regardless of the file structure in use.....

Never trust a computer or storage device.

+1

You don't have to use L/Rooms catalog facility.
You don't have to use any form of cataloging.
You don't have to do any form of backup.
You can print everything

But if you are serious about keeping your images you do have to understand the limiations and issues asscociated with whatever method you do use, that is your responsibility - disks fail, FAT tables corrupt, database management systems corrupt, image files corrupt - there's all sorts of things can happen.

Use whatever method suits you to use, but ensure you understand it's limitations and work according, but as an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM - BACKUP TO ANOTHER DEVICE.

steve

[Colin Southern]

You don't have to use L/Rooms catalog facility.

Will someone please enlighten me as to how one can work on images in Lightroom without first importing them into the catalog?

[Brev00]

Everyone's experience will vary. I never considered Elements as being a complex combination of two apps. Rather, I found it the most intuitively simple software system I have attempted. Lightroom may have everything right in front of you, but I found it very complex. Nice to have the fully laid out editing system but, for me, the very complexity and precision of it entailed a steep learning curve and lots of time I did not want to spend. Perhaps it is no wonder that with each post about Lightroom, a number of videos and books are usually suggested. I don't think that adjusting the settings on the three pages of the ACR plug-in takes that much training (experience is always good) and then popping the file into the Elements editing side is a one click affair. The ease and comfort, power and speed of the program keep me at it even after many other software trials. The fact that I have Nik, Topaz, and Perfect Effects 8 installed as plug-ins (heaven forbid, three more apps!), makes it an incredibly simple but potent workplace. I am sure Lightroom is better in many ways but, as David Byrne once sang, I don't have the time.

Plus, I love the ACR interface. I do most of my significant work there. Don't get me wrong, I like the versatility of the editing wing but, so far, I haven't traded the ACR plug-in for Photo Ninja, Aperture, Lightroom, Capture NX2, Capture NX-D, DXO Optics, and on and on. I was forced by my Mac os upgrade to move from Elements 9 to 12 otherwise I would still be happy using the older ACR.

[dabhand]

Colin - of course I should have been more pedantic by making the first bullet "You don't have to use L/Rooms catalog facility BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE LIGHTROOM' rather than just implying it, however

steve

[Mike Buckley]

Will someone please enlighten me as to how one can work on images in Lightroom without first importing them into the catalog?

My wife walks through the kitchen to get from the carport to the living room and vice versa. This happens generally at least twice every day of the workweek. She never cooks in the kitchen. You could and apparently would argue that she is "using" the kitchen when she is walking through it. I wouldn't. The issue that is bothersome is that you and I know you're smart enough to appreciate why I wouldn't.

Similarly, when I import image files into Lightroom, edit them, export them, remove them from the catalog and use no other cataloging capability, I don't feel that I'm using the catalog.

Using that workflow puts me at zero risk of losing any changes made to my images. You can and probably will figure out on your own why that's true. I won't provide those details for the reason explained below.

You have intentionally taken my and others' comments out of context so often including Steve's comment noted above that you seem to have gone far beyond the attempt to be helpful and seem instead to have gotten to the point of wanting to let everyone know that you are "right." This isn't the first time this has happened. Far from it. Sadly, I no longer have any interest in discussing this stuff about Lightroom or anything with you because it's simply not fun being taken out of context when all I'm trying to do is share an idea that others might find helpful.

[davidedric]

I do hope this is the end of the thread. It's no fun watching some of our most respected members biting lumps off each other

[Mike Buckley]

I do hope this is the end of the thread.

Good idea, Dave. I would be thrilled with a moderator making that happen.

EDIT: Apologies that everyone in the thread had to experience the posts Dave referenced.

[Adrian]

Getting back on track, I think I posted a while ago that whilst we use LR5 domestically, we don't use the catalogue feature. I just find it too risky to store stuff in tied software, so I use a file structure in my backup solutions that separates original raw, processed raw, jpeg and TIFF for each shoot.

If using LR we import into the catalogue, do the processing, and then export back to storage and copy to archive solutions.

I'm surprised you find LR clunky to use Colin. I use PS when I am in the office and quite often LR5 at home and find them both pretty easy. I used to use Aperture (but got sick of data integrity issues and lost data) and now find both Adobe solutions more elegant, though lacking in some features that I liked in Aperture.

Never used Elements so can't add anything to the debate there.

No one mentions Bridge, which I find pretty good for sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Adrian