So I used to only use Photoshop until I got Lightroom 4. Now I just really use Lightroom. I'm still learning through Photoshop on everything you can do.
Which do you use more heavily? Lightroom or Photoshop?
I use both interchangeably, but I am finding myself using photoshop more and lightroom less. There are certain things that I have not found out how to do through photoshop that is when I will use lightroom.
I find them both to be very useful with each one having its own strengths. I love the catalogging through lightroom, now if I knew how to edit things right hahaha
I only use Photoshop CC. I did have a go with Lightroom a while back and it was pretty good but it seems to have fallen off my radar even though my Adobe subscription includes it.
For edited images, Lightroom for the RAW conversion and search functions, but no adjustments before passing on to PS to do the real editing.
Every so often my PS editing looks terrible about halfway through and I realize I have been editing on top of my Q&D Lightroom edits instead of a clean version.
For the vast majority of my work Lr is all I really need. There are times, however, where Ps is absolutely required. In those cases, I usually process my RAW image through Lr and save in a 16-bit format, then edit in Ps as required. The beauty of Lr, though, is really in the cataloging capability. Lr makes it very easy to review on import and cull, then keyword and catalog the keepers. The end result is a library of photos where everything can be easily found.
Another huge benefit of Lr is that all editing is non-destructive. Originals are never modified.
In some cases, even the Lr/Ps combination doesn't cut it - specifically panoramas. Although Ps (and now Lr 6) will handle creating panos, they are not class-leading tools. I therefore use a third-party application, namely PTGUI Pro.
I used to look at it this way: Lightroom was the old enlarger in the darkroom and it does pretty much everything it could do, and Photoshop was for more intense image editing and contained all the tools that darkroom geniuses used to manipulate their prints. They compliment each other, as was said.
Lightroom is more advanced now and they're slowing integrating some fancier tools, but it still holds for me.
Lightroom is my first and last stop in the image making process. I use it to import my RAW images, apply lens profile correction, set camera profile and do basic light adjustments and color correction. Then it's off to Photoshop where I invoke zero to many tools and filters to complete the image. The power of layers, blend modes and 3d party filters can greatly speed up the editing process over Lightroom alone. When I'm done I go back to Lightroom to add zero to many finishing touches. I also use it to export images at size instead of resizing in Photoshop or using Save For Web (which has changed in CC 2015 and apparently may no longer include all EXIF data).
I use Lightroom mostly to keep things organized and Photoshop for 95% of my editing. I might, on occasion, remove a dust spot or add a Graduated Filter using Lighroom. Sometimes I play with the different presets just to see if there's a look I might like, but then I'll clear the changes and duplicate those changes in Photoshop. In Lightroom's defense, I still have Lightroom 2.7, so the newer versions may have more to offer.
In Lightroom's defense, I still have Lightroom 2.7, so the newer versions may have more to offer.
May?! LOL ;)
I started with LR 3.6 and it's grown leaps and bounds since, both as an organizer and an editor. And the tools that were there in the beginning have had improvements applied. I truly believe that most photographers could use only Lightroom for 95% of their work, even if they use 3rd party filter software (it's more convenient in PS layers vs. creating file after file, but more times than not it's not required because they don't use blend modes or masks).
I do virtually all my editing in LR3, I do have CS2 but rarely use it. I have thought about upgrading, but not sure that I would get enough benefit from the monthly outlay.
I use PS CS6 if I want to use layers, usually because I'm using the Nik pkugins. I create a layer and turn it into a smart object. Then I can revisit my Nik edits multiple times as necessary.
Also, I can do a better job of output sharpening, both for Web or print, with PS. And I still print from PS, mostly because I have an action I run before I print.
I also use it to export images at size instead of resizing in Photoshop or using Save For Web (which has changed in CC 2015 and apparently may no longer include all EXIF data).
AFAIK the "Save For Web" feature ALWAYS stripped the EXIF data from the resultant JPEG -- we often recommended using it when our file size limit was only 300KB and the 6KB or so the EXIF took up was worth saving.
I also use it to export images at size instead of resizing in Photoshop or using Save For Web (which has changed in CC 2015 and apparently may no longer include all EXIF data).
AFAIK the "Save For Web" feature ALWAYS stripped the EXIF data from the resultant JPEG -- we often recommended using it when our file size limit was only 300KB and the 6KB or so the EXIF took up was worth saving.
I got some bad/half-bad information on another forum (someone was claiming the EXIF wasn't appearing when using Save For Web), which is why I said "apparently" since I hadn't had an opportunity to try this (I rarely use Save For Web). It seems it's not in the old Export function but in new Quick Export As function available when using artboards. As stated on the link below, "Note: Color profiles and metadata are not yet embedded in exported images. This functionality may be available in a future release."
