Lightroom Vs. Photoshop
#1
Posted 09 December 2009 - 12:48 PM
#2
Posted 16 April 2010 - 04:25 PM
Lightroom only allows limited editing, nothing like photoshop. Lighroom is for doing simple editing quickly...
#3
Posted 14 May 2010 - 02:36 PM
#4
Posted 14 May 2010 - 07:46 PM
Sometimes you can get a good deal on them bundled together if you shop around.
I would opt for Lightroom. An absolute must, to compliment that camera, unless he uses an Apple Mac and then I believe the software of choice is Apple Aperture I think.
Regards
Don
#5
Posted 20 May 2010 - 12:42 AM
For bulk professional photo retouch I use Photoshop CS5 with self made actions.
#7
Posted 21 December 2010 - 09:35 AM
Completely agree with you man,,, there's nothing better than photoshop
#8
Posted 24 December 2010 - 03:44 PM
Also, assuming you're going to use legal software (some of us still do!) then Photoshop is excrutiatingly expensive, although you could plump for Elements instead. However, if your son is in school you may well qualify for an academic license which brings Photoshop CS5 into the reach of mortals.
Having said that I prefer Paint Shop Pro, cheaper, quicker and in many ways easier to use. Sometimes I do need to dip into a photo editor to crop images, do some work in layers etc.
The only caveat is if your sone is thinking of pursuing a career in photography / graphic design then get him started on Photoshop straight away.
Cheers
Danny B
#9
Posted 26 December 2010 - 06:37 AM
LR is designed primarily for photographers, Photoshop for graphics. It is an obvious difference between the two products.
Stan
#10
Posted 26 December 2010 - 06:45 AM
Sometimes you can get a good deal on them bundled together if you shop around.
I would opt for Lightroom. An absolute must, to compliment that camera, unless he uses an Apple Mac and then I believe the software of choice is Apple Aperture I think.
Regards
Don
Absolutely agree with you, donmac. Both must offer products for professional use. Comparing the two products is nonsense
Regards
Stan
#11
Posted 07 February 2011 - 01:50 PM
The biggest difference is that Photoshop (the full version, not elements) is able to split the images up into parts and manipulate them seperately - you can mask off the sky for example and process it in a totally different way to the rest of the picture or do detailed work on the eyes in a portrait. It's far more flexible when it comes to image manipluation. And every professional print/design/publication studio everywhere uses Photoshop. It's raw conversion is very powerful and it's easy to synchronise adjustments across any number of RAW files. It can batch convert to Jpeg, and alomost anything it does and almost any combination of anything it does can be scripted and automated - it's very programmable. There are lots of sites where people share scripts they have written for other to use.
Yes Photoshop does graphics etc but not in the same way as Illustrator for example, it absolutely isn't a primarily graphics application.
Lightroom does a lot and is probably quite a bit more efficient if you don't do a lot of selective retouching (cloning, local adjustments on faces or subjects etc as opposed to overal brightness, sharpness, colour etc).
Most pro photographers will probably use Lightroom or similar and they may not use Photoshop but you can be sure that any photo published anywhere will have been through Photoshop.
personally, if you have a bit of patience I would always recommend Photoshop.
Hope this helps.
#12
Posted 26 February 2011 - 06:54 PM
When I shoot a wedding, for example, I chop my files down to a selection of around 200-300 from a shoot of 1000+. Lightroom is the only plausible option for this.
Then with the selected files I correct/improve. Not just raw corrections like WB but spot removal, lighting adjustments using gradients and the adjustment tools and also crops. I can get all 200-300 customer-ready in a couple of hours using only LR. Many will make it to the album with only these adjustments.
Photoshop is a beautiful thing and I use it all the time but if I had to choose only one it would be lightroom and certainly if the person in the original question is an amateur then I think they should buy lightroom: How much removal of wall-sockets, straightening of noses or superimposing are they going to be doing? If they just want to make their photos look as good as they can then LR is more than enough (assuming they learn how to use it to its full potential)
#13
Posted 31 May 2011 - 07:57 AM
I believe Lightroom does not work with layers therefore, when I apply a specific correction / enhancement, etc. can I change its “opacity or strength” (this is possible in photoshop ..) or do I have to apply it fully ?
Thanks for your help
#14
Posted 26 July 2011 - 04:47 PM
#15
Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:37 PM
Honestly if your son's just starting out, he SO won't need full Photoshop - even with Elements, which i think cost me under £100, I'm constantly amazed by what it can do; I'm a heavy user of the software, and I bet i'm using less than 50% of what it's capable of. Plus, it's not the easiest thing to learn if you're not used to professional graphics packages. I think i'd have had a nervous breakdown if i'd had any more options to deal with than Elements offered.
Need to improve your marketing?
Social Media Training
Social Media Consultancy
Training on Twitter
Training on Facebook
www.rosemcgrory.co.uk
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users










