Lightroom vs Photoshop C3. Who's best

[epand56]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello anybody, i'm new on this interesting forum and here is my 5 cents.

 

I'm used to shot my M8 and save files in DNG format. I then develop them on Photoshop CS3 with pretty good results.

Otherwise i saw many people here talking about Lightroom application.

 

Has anybody tried them both?

Which one is better?

I would love to know more before buying Lightroom.

 

Thanks for any advice.

 

Enrico

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stunsworth]

I've used Photoshop for quite some time and have tried Lightroom. To be honest I didn't like it and soon reverted to Photoshop. That could just be due to me not giving Lightroom enough time, but I didn't see anything that would make me want to switch.

 

I know people who love Lightroom, so all I can suggest is that you download the trial from Adobe and give it a go.

[epand56]

What i need is to download DNG pictures from my camera and work them to obtain the better quality possible. Photoshop helps me pretty good with this and is quite easy to work with but maybe in some case Lightroom can be better.

Just wondered which are the substantial differences between the two applications.

 

Maybe i will download Lightroom try-out and give a look, But if somebody here regularly uses them both and give me advice, well that would be great.

[Guest stnami]

I see no difference in results ............ just a different way of working, if you want to see a difference in results download other raw convertors ....................,stuff from Phase 1 etc

 

Phase One - Digital Backs - Digital RAW Software - Capture One

[cboudier]

What i need is to download DNG pictures from my camera and work them to obtain the better quality possible.

 

This is the word you need to explain more...

What do you mean by work ?

 

If you use layers "all the time" and not only retouch but also modify your images, then stick with PS:cool:

If you correct levels, crop, and things like this but do not use layers, and want to have a better organised photo library, then LR is your friend

[spylaw4]

LR is pretty easy to get to grips with. As Steve suggested - downlaod the trial from Adobe and give it a go!

[thompsonkirk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The advantage of Lightroom is in organizing large numbers of images. If you shoot a modest number, then you'll find that Adobe Camera RAW - part of PSCS3 - has the same processing controls as Lightroom.

[roguewave]

I've used Photoshop for quite some time and have tried Lightroom. To be honest I didn't like it and soon reverted to Photoshop. That could just be due to me not giving Lightroom enough time, but I didn't see anything that would make me want to switch.

 

I know people who love Lightroom, so all I can suggest is that you download the trial from Adobe and give it a go.

 

 

I believe that Steve's comment is the heart of the general misunderstanding about these tools. They are essentially 2 parts of what will become one software platform. The Adobe Camera Raw is the same engine behind the DNG conversion and initial raw processing. From there, Photoshop is the real playground. What Lightroom offers is the kindergarten equivalent of some of the initial tools to post process images. More importantly, it serves as a tool to organize, maintain & archive. Retrieving and cataloguing your images. It does what Bridge was supposed to do.

 

For the images we take with digital 35mm (scanned or raw), serious post processing is done in Photoshop, regardless of whether the RAW file was first processed in C1, Aperture or Lightroom.

[stunsworth]

Ben, for the organising I use Microsoft Expression Media - formally iView Media Pro. This gives me all I need from a cataloguing point of view.

[drg40]

I use them both. If you've got a number of images (several thousand) and you take batches of them at one sitting I find lightroom is v good. It also handles 64 bit working and is compatable with vista - which is (IMV) vital for handling lots of images.

 

Adobe CS 3 is beginnig to need a faclift already, but it's still the bees knees for image 'adjustment' and rescue.

 

Dave

[rivi1969]

I prefer Lightroom because I find very handy the possibility to work with several files at once, for example if you have an extensive shooting with similar lighting, you can correct one picture, save those settings and apply them to the rest of the files with just one click. I tried Aperture but my Mac had severe problems running it, it was just so slow for my computer to handle that I just quit it. besides that, the layout is great!

 

Cheers!

Ricardo

[ASpes]

...

Which one is better?

...

 

Lightroom and Photoshop are not mutually exclusive, but can integrate pretty well in a workflow like in a almost seamless environment.

 

If you look at them from the raw developing point of view, LR has more breathe, while the ACR interface, though based on the same engine, is somewhat less powerful, and rather slow in dealing with a large number of pix. Things like some general contrast, white balance and some global editing are done fairly well in LR but beyond that, LR is no match to CS3, it is just not planned for that. It depends of course if you really need this fine editing, and to what extent.

 

A big part of LR is also the built-in "asset management", but this feature is the only thing of LR I'd gladly avoid. Not because it does not do it well or reliably, actually it does it pretty well, but just because I'm accustomed to other tools/ways of keeping a catalogue of my pic files since much longer than LR has been on the market.

 

Besides, when I have to work with fewer pictures or want some special result I turn to Silkypix, a pure raw developer, whose colours I seem to love better, and then pp in PS as usual.

 

So there is no better, but just what suits you better, get the LR trial and see it first hand.

 

Just my 2 (euro)cent of course.

[dalippe]

Like Ben said, I don't think the question quite makes sense because LR is meant to be used in addition to PS, not instead of it. For me LR is "command central" for organizing images, ranking them, keeping track of different versions and of course doing the global adjustments that get most images 90% of the way there. It is also the platform from which I launch PS. PS is for final touch-ups, local editing, conversion to B&W if appropriate, creative and output sharpening, etc. But all of this PS work only gets done on a small fraction of my shots. Most never see any editing outside LR because it is quick and good enough for most of the non-hero shots.

 

For whatever it is worth, before LR I used iView and hated it. I found the software unstable and the interface clunky. I know many are fond, but it never worked well for me. Moving my catalog management into LR was a delight.

 

David

[spylaw4]

You should have a look at LR2 Beta - better cataloguing - especially Keywords - more and improved colour management tools etc etc. Allegedly due for release in a couple of months.