# Lightroom VS Photoshop



## NOTNIKON! (Mar 16, 2012)

Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 16, 2012)

LR for light image editing and library management. Photoshop for serious image editing.


----------



## jbwise01 (Mar 16, 2012)

I have LR 3.5, Photoshop CS5, and Apple Aperture 3, and I can say that.. for light image editing (e.g. minor touch ups, Exposure Work, and Color Tweaking) LR is king, for serious editing (heavy retouching, local color adjustments, and image enhacement) , you can't beat PS.. 

Now Apple Aperture 3 is interetsing, i have found it comprable to LR, it loacks graduated filter adjustments whihc can be quite time savings adjsutments... the touch up brush is better, and it does give some interesting local adjustment capability that LR3 lacks, i would warn that Aperture is a huge memory Hog, it creates and saves multiple versions of your RAW files in random places, and has its own trash bin, you can quickly find a 16 GB photo card eating up 50 GB of space in no time!

All in all i would recommend getting LR with the NIK software suite, the plug ins are what really make most photo editors shine, and having image management, image uploading, and a quick UI, LR is my perosnal favorite.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 16, 2012)

Ditto what neuro said... Lightroom is for overall collections, can quickly make changes here and there and keep batches of files organized... Photoshop, you're working with each image individually, doesn't organize squat, other than your own storage system, and you can go into depth and make major changes, blend images together, do whatever your heart can dream of... but requires a larger learning curve than light room.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Mar 16, 2012)

Lightroom does 98% of what I want quickly in terms of non-destructive RAW editing and organising. Much easier interface. I use photoshop for any sort of serious photo manipulation. I also have various photoshop actions set up for resizing, sharpening and making diptychs for my blog.

If I could only have one it would be lightroom.


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 16, 2012)

NOTNIKON! said:


> Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.



Depends what you are doing. 

I use both. I use lightroom to work with general exposure and adjustments, especially when doing global changes like applying color management across all photos shot (see ColorChecker Passport) 

I will then use photoshop to do my editing, especially when working with fashion or beauty shots, tools like clone, patch, etc can do wonders with skin blemishes, etc. that are far easier in photoshop than lightroom, and I find lightroom much more capable at doing things like lens correction, dealing with shadows, blacks, highlights, etc.


----------



## Z (Mar 16, 2012)

Until now I have done 90% of my work in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), which I have as part of Photoshop CS5. However, for the remaining 10% of retouching it's unlikely that I'll upgrade to CS6, so I will probably get Lightroom 4 to have the latest ACR.


----------



## NOTNIKON! (Mar 16, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> NOTNIKON! said:
> 
> 
> > Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.
> ...



I'm just doing small adjustments, no major manipulation to photographs. Just trying to figure out if photoshop is the right tool for me. I dont have a mac so aperture is out, hence wanting to get others opinion on lightroom as I have never used it. I should mention all of my photos are shot in RAW, not jpg.


----------



## JR (Mar 16, 2012)

I use both as well. If only to make small adjustment, I think Lightroom is easier and you can use it for library management as well. I must say as well that the new LR4 seem to go further in terms of possible adjustment I had to do in Photoshop before. Shadows and highlight recoveries is much better then in version 3 for sure...

I keep Photoshop for HDR, Black and white pictures and other limitted editing.

J


----------



## unfocused (Mar 16, 2012)

Mine is definitely a minority opinion, but as a non-professional who only has to manage his personal photo files, I say stick to Photoshop.

I bought Lightroom, tried it a few times, just couldn't get excited about it. (Okay, maybe I need to give it another shot, but I didn't find it all that useful for me).

My point: I can do everything in Adobe Camera Raw that I can do in Lightroom. They are the exact same tools, just different interface. I'm used to the ACR interface after several years of using it, so I'm comfortable with it. I do a *lot* of work with smart objects. Going back and forth between Photoshop and Camera Raw. (As an aside, I believe smart objects are absolutely the best way to dodge, burn and adjust image areas.) 

One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom. Instead, you end up back in ACR. So, since at least half the work is going to be done in Camera Raw anyway, what's the point of processing some in Lightroom and some in Camera Raw? None that I have found.

For file organization, I've used Bridge for so long that I'm pretty comfortable with it. Not as sophisticated as Lightroom, but it works fine for me.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> LR for light image editing and library management. Photoshop for serious image editing.


This, for me, too.
Except I suck at editing with photoshop, so in reality it never happens. I might still try though. :'(


----------



## Z (Mar 16, 2012)

unfocused said:


> One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom.


Ouch... is this a fact? It's not something I've considered, but at present I use smart objects quite often with Photoshop/ACR.


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 16, 2012)

Like many, I use LR3 for RAW processing and basic editing, such as highlight and shadow recovery, lens correction (profile or manual sliders) and some highlights/lights/darks/shadows adjustments, then I do a bit more fairly light editing in CS4, such as curves adjustment to give it a bit more punch and the clone stamp/spot removal to remove the dust spots that weren't obvious in LR without having to look around (mainly for the 5D MkII and not the 7D). When I do a bit more, such as B&W conversions and the occasional heavier editing, then it is always CS4.


----------



## pdirestajr (Mar 16, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Mine is definitely a minority opinion, but as a non-professional who only has to manage his personal photo files, I say stick to Photoshop.
> 
> I bought Lightroom, tried it a few times, just couldn't get excited about it. (Okay, maybe I need to give it another shot, but I didn't find it all that useful for me).
> 
> ...



My workflow is exactly the same. ACR + PS CS5. I see so many people talking about Lightroom that I wonder if I am missing out on something. Is there any editing benefits to using LR over ACR? I have used ACR for years and have my own file management system that I don't know what benefits LR offer.


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 16, 2012)

NOTNIKON! said:


> Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.




It depends on your preferred workflow and/or if you have a workflow already established. And LR is a bit like a Swiss Army knife - which is a problem if you need a jackhammer.

I use both and you'll find people that will tell you you only need the one or the other (or something entirely different). I would make the argument that there are good reasons to own both.

As far as my personal preference is concerned: I've been using PhotoShop in one way or another since the early 90s or so. I'm not saying I'm very good at it or even know everything it can do - but I know how to find what I need and learned how to use. LR can do a lot of those things as well. And the things it does it does pretty quickly and very well when it comes to editing. It has a few features that PS does NOT have but that are pretty nice. But then again there are some things that LR can't do - even pretty basic things like dodge and burn, which I like using. Yes, I know people will tell you that there are all sorts of workarounds and how it really is the only tool a "serious" photographer will ever need.

I think the main reason this is so popular with the pro folks is that it is great for batch processing and quickly going through a hundreds of photos from a shoot. It beats Bridge with that (once you've learned some rather quirky things in the user interface...).

But here is the bad part in my opinion: it is horrible when it comes to its original core function as a library management tool. It only knows one way of doing things. It's Lightroom's way or the highway. The whole concept of an image editing database doesn't fly with me. I want to have an original and an edited version. I don't care for "virtual" copies and non-destructive editing. And now with the switch from LR3 to LR4 I care even less about it because all of a sudden if you switch from one version to the next you run the risk of having all new settings applied to your entire inventory if you import everything under the new development process.

Even worse: it is extremely cumbersome to work on more than one PC with this. The new version still has no official network support and syncing and exporting databases always makes me nervous.

So, I do use it. Actually a lot more than I originally thought, since there have been more and more reasons for me to go through larger numbers of pictures at a time (event and concert shoots for example). Making selections and quick adjustments to those is pretty nice. But then I end up exporting the edits to a network folder and its backup locations - so exactly what LR really isn't meant for.

You could argue now that at that point it's pretty easy to go back later and change the editing - if you remember which PC you originally worked on...But honestly, that usually never happens. If there is a reason to than get into deeper editing on a few pictures you're much better off with PS.

There is one other important difference: LR is relatively cheap (and just got cheaper). PS is very expensive unless you have access to a student/teacher version or so. I picked up a copy of LR3 for under $100 and I have yet to see a reason to upgrade to LR4. And one more: LR (as far as I know) easily transfers between Mac and PC. With PS it's either one or the other. If you want or need both you (usually) pay twice.

Hope this helps. Again, this is my personal observation and experience with these. Some people have very strong feelings one way or the other.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Mar 16, 2012)

Lightroom is really the best place to start, I just installed Lightroom 4.0 and it's a great update from the previous version, I only ever use Photoshop CS5 for real gritty editing - removing subjects from the scene etc. (and for my other design work) The Spot Removal tool in Lightroom is fantastic but you have a lot more options and control in Photoshop CS5 but for standard photo editing like adjusting white balance, tones, sharpness etc Lightroom is your best option. I've used other similar programs but Lightroom is the best and it gets rid of the need for all those silly dedicated RAW editors


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 16, 2012)

For me one of the biggest differences is the ability to do things in bulk. I can have a whole set of photos that need some basic editing such as changing the color balance and bumping up the blacks. I can do them all at once in LR. There may be a way to do it in bulk in PS, but not that I've found (granted I'm a PS novice). I also find the crop functionality of LR to be quicker and easier. I own them both and do about 95-98% of my work in Lightroom.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 16, 2012)

Z said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > One of the huge flaws of Lightroom, is that it is a one-way street. If you take a smart object into Photoshop to make adjustments, then duplicate it to return for additional processing in Raw, you can't easily get back to Lightroom.
> ...



That's been my experience and I just double-checked Scott Kelby's book on Lightroom 3. Page 267: "...go to the Layer's panel and double-click on the duplicate layer's thumbnail, _which brings up the Camera Raw window_ (Emphasis added.) If there is some secret, easy way to take a smart object from Photoshop and have it open in Lightroom, I certainly haven't found it.


----------



## epiem (Mar 16, 2012)

LR for image editing & library/categlog management. 
Photoshop for serious image editing and manipulation.

I use both all the time. But if I am just color correcting, I use Lightroom only.


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 16, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Mine is definitely a minority opinion, but as a non-professional who only has to manage his personal photo files, I say stick to Photoshop.
> ...


LR has quite a few extra options than ACR in CS4. CS4 narrowed the gap though compared to CS3, so CS5 may have narrowed it further. The one thing that swayed me towards LR2 (which I since upgraded to LR3) was the CA correction, it was the only system that worked most of the time to remove the worst of it out of everything I tested.


----------



## Dnd (Mar 16, 2012)

We use both.. Lightroom for minor stuff along with cataloging. Photoshop for real editing.. definately use both all the time... could probalby get by with just lightroom and elements 10... Had been using apeture and since lightroom have not looked back.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 17, 2012)

I have lightroom and Photoshop CS5. Lightroom fills 99 percent of my needs. Only if you get into heavy duty editing does photoshop becomew necessary.

Note, you do need some training, just like any other piece of complex software, just trying to learn lightroom by trial and error will giver you the wrong impression. Fortunately, there some on-line tutorials on the adobe site to help you out. A good Lightroom book is also worth many times its cost.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 17, 2012)

I still use DPP for my lightroom type pp and Elements 10 for the extras (plus a bunch of filters)


----------



## CowGummy (Mar 17, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> For me one of the biggest differences is the ability to do things in bulk. I can have a whole set of photos that need some basic editing such as changing the color balance and bumping up the blacks. I can do them all at once in LR. There may be a way to do it in bulk in PS, but not that I've found (granted I'm a PS novice). I also find the crop functionality of LR to be quicker and easier. I own them both and do about 95-98% of my work in Lightroom.



Batch actions in PS would handle all of that quite nicely.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 17, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > For me one of the biggest differences is the ability to do things in bulk. I can have a whole set of photos that need some basic editing such as changing the color balance and bumping up the blacks. I can do them all at once in LR. There may be a way to do it in bulk in PS, but not that I've found (granted I'm a PS novice). I also find the crop functionality of LR to be quicker and easier. I own them both and do about 95-98% of my work in Lightroom.
> ...



True, but you'd need several hundred batch actions to cover the possibilities that lightroom lets you do in seconds. With lightroom, You just check those attributes you want copied, and select just the images you want them applied to. You do not have to do a whole folder. The flexability is what sets it apart.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 17, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> For me one of the biggest differences is the ability to do things in bulk. I can have a whole set of photos that need some basic editing such as changing the color balance and bumping up the blacks. I can do them all at once in LR. There may be a way to do it in bulk in PS, but not that I've found (granted I'm a PS novice). I also find the crop functionality of LR to be quicker and easier. I own them both and do about 95-98% of my work in Lightroom.



DPP does that easily too


----------



## Bosman (Apr 27, 2012)

At the price of Lightroom and all the capability it has there is no real need for photoshop unless you shoot professionally in which case you spend the vast amounts of cash on the programs that get you the results. If i put a value on how much i use photoshop it would be 5% of my work.
Photoshop $699
Lightroom $149
Easy decision...


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 27, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> CowGummy said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...



You can do this with PS/ ACR too!
While in Bridge highlight one photo you have edited and press shortcut [option+command+C], then highlight any number of photos shot in the same lighting conditions and hit [option+command+V] and ALL of the settings will be applied to the photos. A dialogue box will even pop up with options to select which changes you want to apply.

Note: This is obviously only for ACR edits.


----------



## skitron (Apr 27, 2012)

Bosman said:


> At the price of Lightroom and all the capability it has there is no real need for photoshop unless you shoot professionally in which case you spend the vast amounts of cash on the programs that get you the results. If i put a value on how much i use photoshop it would be 5% of my work.
> Photoshop $699
> Lightroom $149
> Easy decision...



Just get Elements for the 5% pixel manufacturing. It's surprisingly capable if you don't need to do volumes of work. The things that allow you to do volumes of work efficiently are conspicuously missing, but that's a fair trade for the low price.

Similar situation with Capture One Elements if you want a RAW editor and don't need tools to do high volume workflow. They took the Pro version and disabled several key tools related to fast workflow, but otherwise the same product.


----------



## Tracy Pinto (Apr 28, 2012)

PS has a much greater capacity for post-processing than Lightroom does. Lightroom can do most anything a beginner requires and most of what a busy professional needs for shots in similar lighting environments. For the finer work and the more creative effects you need PS and maybe additional software from companies like NIK.

Most people have a harder time deciding whether to use Bridge (which is free with a PS purchase) or Lightroom to manage and access their photo libraries. If that is an issue for you I recommend this video and all the lessons from Julieanne Kost at AdobeTV to get better at their products: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-complete-picture-with-julieanne-kost/should-i-use-lightroom-or-bridge/


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 28, 2012)

Photoshop: $600.00
Lightroom 4 : $145.00
Photoshop Elements: $89.00

If you are a professional photographer, you know way more than I do about whether you need the full $600.00 Photoshop leviathan. I have never used it, but I see posts all the time from self-identified serious photographers/students claiming they only use 10% of what it can do, and that they don't really even know how to do most of the rest.

I find Lightroom does everything I need 99% of the time, plus it is non-destructive, plus it does organize your stuff, and it can apply basic corrections to multiple shots instantaneously, instead of one at a time.

If you do photography as a hobby, and you don't have unlimited money and learning time to invest, you can probably make do just fine with PS Elements instead of the full version, PLUS Lightroom.


----------



## Maui5150 (Apr 28, 2012)

These are two very different beasts with a small core component of similar functions/features.

LR excels at organization of collections and "developing" or "adjusting" of photos. Think of it more of the software version of a "dark room"

Photoshop is more of a photo manipulation and creation tool, giving you far more editing, compositing, and retouching tools. Try removing hairs, cleaning facial blemishing, or say reshaping an arm or leg in LR vs PS. There is a reason covers of magazines are referred to as being "photoshopped" and not "lightroomed" 

I use both. I use LR to do a lot more of global corrections like color (ColorChecker Passport), white balance and applying these changes across all images in a shoot, as well as making some image by image adjustments, but when it comes to heavy lifting, correcting, and polishing of images, then the rest of my work is in PhotoShop.


----------



## LostArk (Apr 28, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Try removing hairs, cleaning facial blemishing, or say reshaping an arm or leg in LR vs PS. There is a reason covers of magazines are referred to as being "photoshopped" and not "lightroomed"



Another reason could be Photoshop was around for 20 years before Lightroom


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 28, 2012)

I don't think the decision is Photoshop or Lightroom, It should be Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom. But you obviously need to own PS to have ACR.

To me the workflow is edit the Raw DNG in ACR, then open in PS for any retouching. They are completely different programs. I'm a professional designer, so Photoshop has been open on my computer for over 10 years straight (I never shut down my computers). Based on my comfort level of knowing every aspect of Photoshop, I use ACR- and it's not an added expense or another open program. I believe the processing engine is the same as Lightroom too.

I guess like others have said, if you don't need photoshop, then LR makes perfect sense. But if you have PS (and ACR), then LR isn't necessary.

Also Photoshop CS6 looks pretty insane- you can edit video inside of PS!


----------



## woollybear (Apr 28, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Photoshop has been open on my computer for over 10 years straight (I never shut down my computers).



Holy Cow!! You have a ten year old computer and it runs Photoshop!! ;D


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 28, 2012)

woollybear said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Photoshop has been open on my computer for over 10 years straight (I never shut down my computers).
> ...



I actually have a 6 year old 17" MacBook Pro I still use at home! It's amazing it still is running so well and has no problem handling CS5 and huge files. I keep the computer completely empty except for programs (work off of external HD). At work I have much newer desktops. My problem is every time I have extra money for a comp- it goes towards a new lens or other gear! You gotta trade off someplace.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 28, 2012)

DPP = free
PSE for individual image changes


----------



## TotoEC (Apr 28, 2012)

To the OP - DPP is free and very easy to use. if your photos only need a slight color/exposure correction, sharpening, croping and converting RAW images to JPEG by the bulk. It can do most of your basic needs. 

then, Photoshop for serious editing.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 28, 2012)

TotoEC said:


> To the OP - DPP is free and very easy to use. if your photos only need a slight color/exposure correction, sharpening, croping and converting RAW images to JPEG by the bulk. It can do most of your basic needs.
> 
> then, Photoshop for serious editing.



What is wrong with Elements? For photoprocessing Elements has the majority of functionality of Photoshop


----------



## TotoEC (Apr 28, 2012)

Why, what is wrong with Photoshop? If you are not afraid of the learning curve, I say go for the best!


briansquibb said:


> TotoEC said:
> 
> 
> > To the OP - DPP is free and very easy to use. if your photos only need a slight color/exposure correction, sharpening, croping and converting RAW images to JPEG by the bulk. It can do most of your basic needs.
> ...


----------



## MazV-L (Apr 28, 2012)

TotoEC said:


> Why, what is wrong with Photoshop? If you are not afraid of the learning curve, I say go for the best!
> 
> 
> briansquibb said:
> ...


I'm not familiar with either, made the, in hindsight, bad decision to buy Serif Photoplus, but now considering either Elements or Photoshop, can someone please be specific about the advantages of Photoshop?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 28, 2012)

TotoEC said:


> Why, what is wrong with Photoshop? If you are not afraid of the learning curve, I say go for the best![quote



- The price. Could buy a decent lens with the difference. 

Cant see any benefits of PS for me


----------



## TotoEC (Apr 28, 2012)

@briansquibb: "- The price. Could buy a decent lens with the difference."

Well, then its a matter of preference.



@MazV-L: "I'm not familiar with either, made the, in hindsight, bad decision to buy Serif Photoplus, but now considering either Elements or Photoshop, can someone please be specific about the advantages of Photoshop?"

Have a look at these:

http://tv.adobe.com/show/photoshop-cs5-feature-tour/#/show/photoshop-cs5-feature-tour
http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/photoshop/f/elementscompare.htm
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements/features.html


----------



## paulc (Apr 28, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> I don't think the decision is Photoshop or Lightroom, It should be Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom. But you obviously need to own PS to have ACR.



I've got PSE 10. Open up a CR2 file in PSE and ACR 6.6 comes right up.

That being said, I strongly prefer LR to ACR. It is folly to argue that LR can do everything that ACR + PS(E) can do, but LR makes up for it in other ways. With ACR + PS you're doing a definite step 1 -> step 2. LR lets you go and tweak whatever you want anywhere in the pipeline without regard to order, plus the ability to dance between photos in a large catalog is truly invaluable.

LR as provides a thin subset of what PS can do as a tradeoff for making it quick and easy to blow through a lot of work. LR making things quick and easy for me is pretty important to me when time is my most dear resource. Doing the equivalent task in ACR + PSE takes me much much longer. I picked LR over Aperture and Bibble because LR took me the least time and effort to reach results I liked.


----------



## TotoEC (Apr 28, 2012)

paulc said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the decision is Photoshop or Lightroom, It should be Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom. But you obviously need to own PS to have ACR.
> ...




Well said.

As for me, I grow fond of DPP (over LR ). Anybody who hasn't tried it yet, it's worth the effort. It's a quick job especially if you want something produced/posted right away. The 'recipe' function is very nice though you need to tweak the setting for some stubborn image. From there, I 'call-up' Photoshop if and when I need to do finishing touches. That's my personal workflow anyway.


----------



## MazV-L (Apr 28, 2012)

TotoEC said:


> @briansquibb: "- The price. Could buy a decent lens with the difference."
> 
> Well, then its a matter of preference.
> 
> ...


Thanks, for the links  It'll be Photoshop cs5 for me!


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 28, 2012)

Im still using photoshop CS3  I don't know if it's worth upgrading to cs5 or cs6. 

Lightroom is a photographers best friend and is the initial part of organizing my RAWs and basic Processing.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 28, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Im still using photoshop CS3  I don't know if it's worth upgrading to cs5 or cs6.
> 
> Lightroom is a photographers best friend and is the initial part of organizing my RAWs and basic Processing.



For moderate to heavy retouching and modification CS5 or the new CS6. The new photo tools in CS6 are amazing. I'm upgrading as soon as it is fully released. The wide angle correction tools, for me, makes it worth while


----------



## bycostello (Apr 28, 2012)

it is a bit of an apples an oranges question as both very different.... but start with LR and if you need get photoshop


----------



## GregW (Apr 28, 2012)

I am with BrianSquibb on this one...DPP and PSE work great for me (and is a very economical, and still feature rich, option)


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 29, 2012)

I can't read this whole thread. Answer is simple. Lightroom is a photo-collection management + RAW image processing software. Photoshop is a full featured image editing application, designed to spend hours/days editing any one single image for the cover of a magazine, etc.. Combined with Adobe Bridge or just reasonably decent file organization, PS can do the job of Lightroom easily, and the new PS6 is coming with adjustment brushes for RAW edits like LR has already. Two completely different beasts, but I wouldn't want to be without PS or some equivalent, but I could easily roll without LR and often do.


----------



## ruuneos (May 1, 2012)

I use LR4 making corrections to images and then Photoshop to make final edits and run scripts for landscape panoramas and after that I go back to LR4 to make final adjust to pictures to great best possible feel to it.

So.. I use both pretty much, but LR4 all the time.


----------



## RuneL (May 1, 2012)

Pretty much comparing apples and oranges. 

Photoshop is a powerful image manipulator. Lightroom is superficial adjustments.


----------

