Sometimes, I think there is a misunderstanding of what Lightroom (LR) is and what Photoshop is. I'm hoping that a brief discussion might help clear up this misunderstanding.
For those photographers that shoot in RAW format and use photoshop, you likely are familiar with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). This is the window that pops up where you can set various parameters like exposure, shadows, whites, clarity, curves, lens correction and it goes on. The analogy of this process would be shooting in film and then going to the dark room to process it. The RAW file being the film and the output being the developed image that you can take into photoshop for more editing.
An important component of Lightroom is that it is Adobe Camera Raw. All the same features you have in ACR, you have in LR. Everything you can do in ACR, you can do in LR. I wouldn't be surprise that 95% of the software code is exactly the same. So when you work in Photoshop to develop RAW files using ACR, you can argue that you are pretty much using LR too, just a subset of it.
Because Lightroom is a software application on its own, they decided to add extra features that a photographer may need. So they borrow features from both bridge and photoshop such key wording, flimstrip mode and non-destructive editing. Plus adding other features that you can't find in bridge or ACR.
I use both Lightroom and Photoshop in my workflow but most of my work doesn't require me to work in photoshop. If you are a photoshop user only and do most of your work in ACR, then your workflow is very similar to mine and should strongly consider using LR instead of ACR. If you don't use ACR (you just accept the default settings) and when you are using PS, you use the adjustment features, you should also consider using LR too. If you use plug-ins in photoshop and your plugins exist for LR too, you should consider using LR. If you don't do anything other than liquidfy, composite images together or/and add text, you should stay in PS.
That is my 2 cent rant on Lightroom and Photoshop.
Questions, comments, or rude remarks will now be taken :-)
Just to note... some photographers use their own camera's raw converter software that comes packaged with their camera or another 3rd party RAW converter (like Capture One). They all do essentially the same thing. I'm just commenting on photoshop users that use ACR.
After being a PS user for years, I have converted 95% of my workflow into LR over the past 5 years. I love it. Your analysis of the two programs is well done.
I use ACR for tone and color adjustments, tone recovery (Process 2012 rocks!), B/W conversions, for noise mitigation, for lens corrections, perspective corrections, lens distortion and chromatic aberration. It does a much better job than PS; the code is newer and certain algorithms of equivalent functions are just not in Photoshop. Also for cropping; I really find the big Photoshop basic crop tool back-to-front.
But I visit Photoshop for *every* image I process. Sharpening tools are much more powerful, especially when combined with layers, layer blending and edge adjustments, and when you have to manually adjust the edges, nothing beats a tiny Clone Stamp brush.. Resizing/resampling. Any cloning or spot removal. How do I say this nicely? ACR/Lightroom are simply crude and heavy-handed. Any local edits on layers with layer masks. The Adjustment Brush of ACR is interesting, but it is such a processor pig that ACR/Lightroom grind to a halt if you cover any significantly large area. The Content Aware set of tools in Photoshop are simply magic. Nothing like them in ACR.
For B&W I find the duo and tri toning options of PS and the simple technique of a mild Color Balance Adjustment Layer both more successful and subtle than the Split Toning in ACR/Lightroom. And putting them on a separate layer and adjusting opacity gives you all the levels of subtlety and flexibility you just don't get in LR/ACR.
The Photoshop filters are way powerful and nicely designed. ACR as a filter on a separate layer and then blending possibilities. Ever try to Blur something properly in Lightroom? Fake it out by taking Sharpness down and use the Adjustment brush or radial filters, but it isn't the same quality and nowhere near enough options. Besides, you can't sharpen separately from blur, a key technique I use all the time, courtesy of Scott Kelby. Portrait retouching tools in Photoshop are limited. Those in PS are stupendous.
I manage my work in Bridge. The Library module of Lightroom is just too persnickety for me, and heaven help you if the catalog is ever corrupted.
Just a few reasons I leave Lightroom alone. I have tried it on and off for two years now, part of the Adobe Photographers' package, but I always abandon it and come back to Photoshop/ACR.
All great points about photoshop. When I do more detail work for portraits like beauty/fashion images, I generally use frequency separation techniques for skin retouching. Something I can only do in PS.
The point of my post is to identify the advantages or disadvantages of using Lightroom and ACR. I would argue that all of your ACR workflow can be done in LR instead. IMO, the GUI interface is far superior to ACR GUI interface. The catalog corruption risk is valid but backup of your LR catalog will mitigate that risk and the fact that the catalog captures your RAW edits while to do something similar I believe would require smart objects in ACR/PS world which makes your storage of your file significantly larger.
PS is a great tool and is part of my workflow when required. My sharpening needs depend on the content and the end medium. When I use 3rd party plugins, I rather use them in PS in order to take advantage of layers and the various options provided by using layers (opacity, masks, blend modes). My workflow does focus on speed as I do various event photography work and minimizing my need to go into PS is important to process the substantial number of images I capture.
Thanks for sharing your workflow.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
But I visit Photoshop for *every* image I process. Sharpening tools are much more powerful, especially when combined with layers, layer blending and edge adjustments, and when you have to manually adjust the edges, nothing beats a tiny Clone Stamp brush.. Resizing/resampling. Any cloning or spot removal. How do I say this nicely? ACR/Lightroom are simply crude and heavy-handed. Any local edits on layers with layer masks. The Adjustment Brush of ACR is interesting, but it is such a processor pig that ACR/Lightroom grind to a halt if you cover any significantly large area. The Content Aware set of tools in Photoshop are simply magic. Nothing like them in ACR.
For B&W I find the duo and tri toning options of PS and the simple technique of a mild Color Balance Adjustment Layer both more successful and subtle than the Split Toning in ACR/Lightroom. And putting them on a separate layer and adjusting opacity gives you all the levels of subtlety and flexibility you just don't get in LR/ACR.
The Photoshop filters are way powerful and nicely designed. ACR as a filter on a separate layer and then blending possibilities. Ever try to Blur something properly in Lightroom? Fake it out by taking Sharpness down and use the Adjustment brush or radial filters, but it isn't the same quality and nowhere near enough options. Besides, you can't sharpen separately from blur, a key technique I use all the time, courtesy of Scott Kelby. Portrait retouching tools in Photoshop are limited. Those in PS are stupendous.
I manage my work in Bridge. The Library module of Lightroom is just too persnickety for me, and heaven help you if the catalog is ever corrupted.
Just a few reasons I leave Lightroom alone. I have tried it on and off for two years now, part of the Adobe Photographers' package, but I always abandon it and come back to Photoshop/ACR.
Each to his/her own though.
All great points about photoshop. When I do more detail work for portraits like beauty/fashion images, I generally use frequency separation techniques for skin retouching. Something I can only do in PS.
The point of my post is to identify the advantages or disadvantages of using Lightroom and ACR. I would argue that all of your ACR workflow can be done in LR instead. IMO, the GUI interface is far superior to ACR GUI interface. The catalog corruption risk is valid but backup of your LR catalog will mitigate that risk and the fact that the catalog captures your RAW edits while to do something similar I believe would require smart objects in ACR/PS world which makes your storage of your file significantly larger.
PS is a great tool and is part of my workflow when required. My sharpening needs depend on the content and the end medium. When I use 3rd party plugins, I rather use them in PS in order to take advantage of layers and the various options provided by using layers (opacity, masks, blend modes). My workflow does focus on speed as I do various event photography work and minimizing my need to go into PS is important to process the substantial number of images I capture.
Thanks for sharing your workflow.