LR or PS with PM

[Luiz Muzzi]

Hi,
I would like to use ACR in my workflow. To do so, I must use either Photoshop or Lightroom? If so, which one would integrate better with PM? I intend to use the software just for edition (small corrections).
TiA

-Luiz Muzzi

[Kirk Baker]

Luiz,

I would like to use ACR in my workflow. To do so, I must use either Photoshop or Lightroom? If so, which one would integrate better with PM? I intend to use the software just for edition (small corrections).

I think you may also be able to use Adobe Bridge as well.  If you mostly plan to work in PM, then using ACR via Photoshop would integrate the best (little to no management of XMP file state, unlike in LR.)

-Kirk

[Luiz Muzzi]

Luiz,

I would like to use ACR in my workflow. To do so, I must use either Photoshop or Lightroom? If so, which one would integrate better with PM? I intend to use the software just for edition (small corrections).

I think you may also be able to use Adobe Bridge as well.  If you mostly plan to work in PM, then using ACR via Photoshop would integrate the best (little to no management of XMP file state, unlike in LR.)

-Kirk

Thanks for your quick reply, Kirk.
Best regards,

-Luiz Muzzi

[ericbowles]

Luiz

I don't think there is any comparison between LR and PS.  LR is the clear leader in terms of photo editing and organization.  PS is an older application that is very powerful, but quite different from LR.  It's more geared to the design industry, and specific photo editing needs that require the use of layers.

LR is a very powerful application.  LR 5 is far more advanced and capable than LR3.  While there are reasons for using ACR - it is not necessary for most LR users.

I'm seeing 80-90% of professionals using Lightroom these days.  The majority of those that use PS exclusively use are not fully aware of LR and its capabilities or have concerns about the learning curve of another software program.  PS is a good program and has its place - but not as a primary editor.

[Hayo Baan]

Eric,

I'm not sure why you seem to belittle Photoshop so much when comparing it to Lightroom. It is so much more powerful, also for the photographer.

The raw editing capabilities of Photoshop (Adobe Camera Raw, ACR) are exactly those of Lightroom, albeit with a different interface. Where Lightroom stops at raw editing, Photoshop continues, offering a host of tools and capabilities.

Sure, >90% of your editing needs can usually be met with the capabilities of ACR/Lightroom, but for the rest you will always need something like Photoshop (or Aperture for that matter). Not only for combining multiple images like for HDR and Panos, but also for the more advanced image editing/retouching.

Contrary to your statement, I would therefore actually say that >>90% of the professionals use Photoshop as (primary) tool. Perhaps in combination with Lightroom as catalogue/browser (and raw editor), but still, the primary need would be PS, not LR (PhotoMechanic or even Bridge can fulfil many needs in the browsing/cataloging area).

[Luiz Muzzi]

Eric,

I'm not sure why you seem to belittle Photoshop so much when comparing it to Lightroom. It is so much more powerful, also for the photographer.

The raw editing capabilities of Photoshop (Adobe Camera Raw, ACR) are exactly those of Lightroom, albeit with a different interface. Where Lightroom stops at raw editing, Photoshop continues, offering a host of tools and capabilities.

Sure, >90% of your editing needs can usually be met with the capabilities of ACR/Lightroom, but for the rest you will always need something like Photoshop (or Aperture for that matter). Not only for combining multiple images like for HDR and Panos, but also for the more advanced image editing/retouching.

Contrary to your statement, I would therefore actually say that >>90% of the professionals use Photoshop as (primary) tool. Perhaps in combination with Lightroom as catalogue/browser (and raw editor), but still, the primary need would be PS, not LR (PhotoMechanic or even Bridge can fulfil many needs in the browsing/cataloging area).

Thanks, Eric and Hayo
As Hayo said, for browsing/cataloguing I have PM.
I intend to use the program as a primary tool for editing. Do you think that Elements could be enough for minor adjustments (after ACR)? Nowadays I use DPP for that. I say so because PS is a cloud program right now and I would rather have the software in the hd.
TIA

-Luiz Muzzi

[ericbowles]

I've got Photoshop in both stand alone and cloud versions.  It certainly has it's place.  But LR has a lot of advantages - especially if you are not an advanced PS user.

But Lightroom has come a long way and has a much easier interface.  In Luiz's case, presented with the options of LR, PS, or Elements - Lightroom is a clear first choice.  It provides the organizational benefits of a catalog and the editing tools are excellent.  It's much better than several versions ago.  And the selection tools are quite good so the need for complex masks is eliminated.  LR also accommodates most plugins although I can see benefits to use PS for some of them instead.

Photoshop is a good tool.  But today, most people are moving to LR because it is so much faster and still delivers as good or better edits.  If you are expert in PS, the learning curve is short.  If you are not expert in PS, LR is the clear choice because the learnign curve is so much shorter.  And LR is the choice professionals are making today even though they own and are proficient in PS.  I agree that many own PS - it's just being used less and less.

[Hayo Baan]

I say so because PS is a cloud program right now and I would rather have the software in the hd.

Luiz, while PS CC is called cloud software, the program itself really sits on your computer and can be used even without Internet access. And if you don't like the new subscription policy (which I can imagine…), you still have PS CS6 available as an option which Adobe will continue to update for newer cameras (ACR is at the same level as PS CC, just without the new features).

I've got Photoshop in both stand alone and cloud versions.  It certainly has it's place.  But LR has a lot of advantages - especially if you are not an advanced PS user.

But Lightroom has come a long way and has a much easier interface.  In Luiz's case, presented with the options of LR, PS, or Elements - Lightroom is a clear first choice.  It provides the organizational benefits of a catalog and the editing tools are excellent.  It's much better than several versions ago.  And the selection tools are quite good so the need for complex masks is eliminated.  LR also accommodates most plugins although I can see benefits to use PS for some of them instead.

Photoshop is a good tool.  But today, most people are moving to LR because it is so much faster and still delivers as good or better edits.  If you are expert in PS, the learning curve is short.  If you are not expert in PS, LR is the clear choice because the learnign curve is so much shorter.  And LR is the choice professionals are making today even though they own and are proficient in PS.  I agree that many own PS - it's just being used less and less.

Agreed, in fact for most users Lightroom is probably all they ever need. Personally though, I much prefer PS's version of the raw editor; though it is less nice looking, I actually find it works faster and in combination with PM, it really is an unbeatable combination in terms of speed. (heck, a workshop client of mine was using Lightroom for everything, until he saw the speed of PM. He now uses PM for his culling and selecting)

[Luiz Muzzi]

Hi, Hayo and Eric
Thanks a lot for the helpful insights.
Best regards,

-Luiz Muzzi

[Luiz Muzzi]

Hi,
I have made up my mind for LR because of its astonishing better price compared to PS (about 25% of PS).
Now let's RTFM and go for the learning curve.
Regards and thanks again.

-Luiz Muzzi

[vabiro]

Sorry if I'm late to the game, but I thought I would make a quick observation:

PS and LR are strong in two very different ways: PS is about editing, and LR is focused on catalogue management. Which you will pick will depend on what is a priority at any given moment.

I am a photojournalist, so my workflow is quick, and I can do very few things to my pictures. Additionally, I need to be able to search and locate my images quickly. For this I use LR mostly.

However, if I am not shooting for journalistic purposes, or on a deadline, I will use PS or LR depending on how complex the editing is. Regardless, managing my inventory in LR is much easier.

Regarding the Creative Cloud subscription, I think Adobe has done a great disservice to themselves. The CC version of LR or PS is almost exactly the same: It is an application that is running on your local machine, not something like a web application that needs to be connected to the Internet. Not much different from the pre-CC versions of the applications.

Cheers
Victor

[Luiz Muzzi]

Sorry if I'm late to the game, but I thought I would make a quick observation:

PS and LR are strong in two very different ways: PS is about editing, and LR is focused on catalogue management. Which you will pick will depend on what is a priority at any given moment.

I am a photojournalist, so my workflow is quick, and I can do very few things to my pictures. Additionally, I need to be able to search and locate my images quickly. For this I use LR mostly.

However, if I am not shooting for journalistic purposes, or on a deadline, I will use PS or LR depending on how complex the editing is. Regardless, managing my inventory in LR is much easier.

Regarding the Creative Cloud subscription, I think Adobe has done a great disservice to themselves. The CC version of LR or PS is almost exactly the same: It is an application that is running on your local machine, not something like a web application that needs to be connected to the Internet. Not much different from the pre-CC versions of the applications.

Cheers
Victor

Hi, Victor
I agree with you. I myself don't have the time for heavy edition and I think that under these premisses, I will be better off with LR.
Regards,

-Luiz Muzzi