Lightroom vs. CS3

[Fidelio]

I've been lurking on this site for a while -- lots of great info on all sorts of stuff -- but I finally came up with something that doesn't seem to have been discussed.

I'm looking at getting into some of Adobe's photo-editing software, but I can't figure out what the deal is with Lightroom. Can it be used without also using CS3? That is, is Lightroom a stand-alone product? On the Adobe site, there's a lot of copy about doing batch editing in Lightroom and then fine-tuning individual shots in CS3... so does that mean that individual shots can't be fine-tuned in Lightroom? I'm a teacher, so I can get a phenomenal deal on both of these apps, but I'd rather not buy both if one (specifically the cheaper Lightroom) will do.

Any thoughts by any of you folks who use either or both of these would be very helpful indeed.

[Paradox]

Well I use lightroom and CS2 - And lightroom is my main software. It's easy to set up a very quick and efficient workflow, and the image enhancements are simple and effective. However, there are times when I couldn't do without CS2 - More advanced editing, such as cloning out detail, just can't be done effectively on lightroom. So for me - If I had to choose one, it would be Lightroom - But it's entirely personal preference. All lightroom's effects can be achieved in CS2 - It would just be a slower and more laborious process. Which on my timetable I can't really afford. Just my $0.02. :)

[D Thompson]

I have to take the opposite approach from Paradox. I don't have Lightroom as I feel it is not needed. I've been using PS since v5, upgrading to v7, CS2, and now CS3. There was simply no need for me to try Lightroom. When you buy the full version of CS3 it comes with Photoshop, Bridge, and Adobe Camera Raw. I can do everything needed including the fine tuning with all that Photoshop itself provides. I only shoot RAW just as a FYI. Here's some of the uses...........

Bridge CS3 - use this to import files, backup files automatically when imported, rename, apply metadata, sort, rate, use stacks. They really improved Bridge with CS3.

ACR - convert the RAW files. It allows total control and there's not much that cannot be tweaked in some form or fashion. Anymore, most of my corrections are done in ACR. It allows some cloning & healing, but this is best done in PS on a separate layer.

Photoshop - IMO the best image editing software available. There is a learning curve, but well worth it.

Not everyone needs Photoshop as Elements will probably do all the most people need. Try the demos out and judge for yourself what you need.

[K1W1]

Lightroom is software specifically designed for digital photography work flow from importing and original image from your camera all the way through to the finished result either in print, on the web, uploaded to your photo site or archived somewhere.
One program one great workflow that is improving with every release and has plenty of absolutely fabulous free add ons available.
Photoshop was never designed as a digital work flow program. Photoshop is a graphics arts program that happens to have a subset of features that make it very good for manipulating photographs. It became the virtual default simply because it was the best available program not because it was the best solution. I'm not saying Photoshop is no good simply that it does far more than every person who uses it simply as a photo editing program needs. The learning curve is huge and the results can be spectacular but they can also result in hair loss and tears for many and you are paying for literally hundreds of features that you will never use.
If you are starting in digital workflow start with Lightroom and if you find there are things you can't do then purchase Photoshop to use in conjunction with Lightrrom.

[Fidelio]

...you are paying for literally hundreds of features that you will never use.

This is exactly what my concern has been. I'm glad to hear that Lightroom can function as a complete application without the use of Photoshop. I think that answers my question. Lightroom it is.

[JTL]

If you need to work with layers and masking or need to affect a change selectively, you need PhotoShop. That being said, LR does about 90% of what I need done on a regular basis

[shatterspeed]

does anyone use Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo XI and also Adobe Photoshop CS3? which software is better in the long run? cause' Paint Shop Pro has more d/ls than Photoshop and yet I don't often hear many people recommending PSP over PS CS.

[toriaj]

I have Paint Shop Pro. It is a great program, enough for most photographers. Photoshop CS3 is a huge program. With more features than you will EVER use. Including all of the features of PSP. So, if you're interested in spending $$$, great, Photoshop's yours! OTOH, if you'd like to spend less and get everything you need, get PSP.

[Vich]

PS is humongous (aka painful to load). Lightroom is very rapid.

For changing color, levels, etc, Lightroom suffices. It's GREAT for sorting through hundreds of shots and doing the initial tweaks. However; all changes affect the entire image (no paintbrushes, selection tools, or layers), except for cropping and tilting.

I only use PS when I really have to (read; "ugggg, I suppose I have to").

If I knew PS better, particularly the Bridge and Camera Raw aspects, I probably wouldn't mind it so much.

I've heard ACDC is a good alternative that does it all. I have PS Elements and pretty much hate it, although it will get the task done.

[JTL]

does anyone use Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo XI and also Adobe Photoshop CS3? which software is better in the long run? cause' Paint Shop Pro has more d/ls than Photoshop and yet I don't often hear many people recommending PSP over PS CS.
I use both PSP X2 and CS2 fairly extensively.

I actually use PSP X2 a lot more than Photoshop because is faster, easier and often times actually better. But in the end, it is still not as flexible as PhotoShop (for example, you can not edit just one channel selectively in PSP X2 without splitting that channel out into a separate layer). But, you pay for that flexiblity in dollars and a very steep learning curve and an interface that's less than intuitive.

In actually work time, I need/use PhotoShop for maybe 1 out of 50 photos. The rest of the time it's either C1, LR or PSP X2...with either C1 or LR being the main tool.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I think everyone references photoshop when they mean general post production. I don't know if the brand names make sense between countries but over here people might say they'll Hoover the carpet instaid of saying they'll vacuum it. It doesn't mean they own a Hoover branded vacuum.

Photoshop's the more expensive and more comprehensive program and no one wants to up front admit they use the "inferior" paint shop.

I think a lot is easier in Paintshop than Photoshop. I've done a bit of the learning curve with Paintshop and I like it. I got it because it's so much cheaper. I like the clone stamp in paint shop more than in Photoshop for example.

There are other things though where Photoshop plainly has no equal and where the price is clearly justified. I really like the Photoshop batch editing for example.

I've not tried Lightroom but certainly Elements has a lot to recommend it for simplicity and price. In summary IMO then all the programs are great. Each one has a different learning curve and each one has a different price. You just need to pick where you are on the continuum. K1W1 hit the nail on the head though buy Lightroom and if necessary get a more comprehensive program after you've found required features that it lacks.

[WestCoast]

I've never used Lightroom. I realize that PS and PS Elements don't have Lightroom's database features, but is there anything that Lightroom can do editing-wise that Elements can't?

[JTL]

I've never used Lightroom. I realize that PS and PS Elements don't have Lightroom's database features, but is there anything that Lightroom can do editing-wise that Elements can't?You're actually comparing ACR and Lightroom, since we're talking RAW editing with Lightroom. There was a good discussion a while back over at Photo.net on the subject:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KfaB

And remember, edits in LR and ACR are non-destructive. Once you convert and edit in Elements, you are performing destructive edits.

My 2 cents on the subject...I really dislike the tedium of working in PS, Elements and ACR. Lightroom's workflow approach is much better (although much more limited). For my money though, my RAW tool of choice is still C1 v4.01. If Lightroom had a better sharpening algorithm, I might be able to switch to it exclusively (but I do love that vignetting tool in Lightroom).

Did you download the LR trial and give it a try? My advice is don't do it! You might get hooked!!!! :D:D:D

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

[WestCoast]

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure what you mean by non-destructive editing... does that mean that you can go back and "undo" several edits without saving the original file under a different name? I suppose that might save some disk space, which is always helpful. Isn't ACR compatible with Elements? I thought so, but am not sure.

Anyway, the point of my earlier post was to decide if I wanted to pay $100 for LR or $70 for the new Mac version of Elements. LR's database features certainly are attractive from a practical standpoint. Taking ACR out of the equation, does LR do everything editing-wise that Elements does? I can't imagine that they're terribly different. Perhaps I'll try the free 30-day trial.

[JTL]

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure what you mean by non-destructive editing... does that mean that you can go back and "undo" several edits without saving the original file under a different name? I suppose that might save some disk space, which is always helpful. Isn't ACR compatible with Elements? I thought so, but am not sure.

Anyway, the point of my earlier post was to decide if I wanted to pay $100 for LR or $70 for the new Mac version of Elements. LR's database features certainly are attractive from a practical standpoint. Taking ACR out of the equation, does LR do everything editing-wise that Elements does? I can't imagine that they're terribly different. Perhaps I'll try the free 30-day trial.The simple answer is no...because LR does not have "layers". And, yes, the ACR plug-in is available for Elements. For Elements 4.0 you need v3.7 and for Elements 5 & 6 you want to use v.4.3.1 (which is much improved). So, you have some more/different fuctionality with Elements/ACR than with LR. Editing-wise, ACR will do vitually everything LR does (though differently). But...another interesting twist is that LR allows third-party modules to be used...so, for the first time we will have unique, modular tools availalble that work on the RAW image data rather than the traditional PS plug-ins used with jpegs. But the important thing here is to remember is editing RAW vs. jpeg and at what point in the workflow are you applying edits. If you convert a RAW file and then edit it in Elements, you are always, at a minimum, at 2nd generation. So, once again, editing in LR is analogous to editing in ACR...not editing in Elements. Bottom line: you don't need Lightroom for editing RAW if you have the ACR plug-in for Elements. But LR has other benefits, which you are aware of.

About non-destructive editing...non-destructive editing means that you are working on the raw file and the changes you make are never applied until you convert the file. During the editing process, you never actually change the original image data, only meta-data about your edits...a set of pointers. In Elements, your preforming edits to the image data of the jpeg itself...a file that has already been compromised. If you want to add more edits after you've saved the file, you're degrading the image each time. Algorithms such as USM and NR produce different effects and artifacts at each generational stage of your image so their application is non-linear and non-deterministic. You can't undo your edits after you've closed the file. You could go back to your RAW file and start all over from scatch, but you would be doing that over and over again each time you wanted to tweak something if you wanted to have a mimimum generational image. In a non-destructive editor, when you're done for a session, when you close the file, you are just saving information about your edits....not the edits themselves. This is the essential and critical difference. You can come back at any point and pick up right where you left off and undo all your edits, some of your edits, make new edits...all without ever affecting your original image data. You can't do that in Elements (well...not exactly true...see my additional comments below) and the power of non-destructive editing cannot be appreciated until you experience it in a practical processing workflow.

I hope this helps! :)

Some additional thoughts after your response. Working in Elements, you could apply each edit to a different layer and then save the image as a PSD file, then go back later and delete the layers you wanted to redo. But that is the kind of tedium that drives me nuts. But it is a way to undo after the fact in Elements (and PS) that I neglected to mention specifically earlier.

[WestCoast]

Actually, it helps quite a bit. Thanks. Think I'll give the 30-day trial a spin and see how I like it.

[WestCoast]

I downloaded the 30-day trial of Lightroom and played around with it this weekend. Pretty impressive. Not sure if it's worth the $300 that it retails for but I can get it for $100, so I will probably go that route. If I need to do some local editing (e.g., airbrushing) sometime down the line, I'll look into Elements.

[Visual Reality]

CS3 has a customizable interface that can help your workflow, if that is a consideration.

For me, what I do 99% of the time involves crop, resize, healing, levels, shadow/highlight, saturation, sometimes a filter (rarely), and unsharp mask. I do USM by converting to Lab Color, selecting only the lightness layer, and applying the USM only to that layer usually at 200-400% at .2 pixels and 0 threshold. Then convert back to RGB color and you have a sharpness that didn't mess up other aspects of your picture, or over-sharpen it.

Can I have this flexibility in Lightroom? There are a few other tools that can come into play, but very rarely. I'd say I use other tools in CS3 in less than 1% of my photos. Oh and Bridge is great.

[JTL]

Can I have this flexibility in Lightroom?No...because currently there are no "layers" in Lightroom. Maybe sometime in the future...

[WestCoast]

Been using Lightroom for a few weeks now and really like it.