# Photoshop/camera raw VS Lightroom



## Jay Khaos (Nov 9, 2012)

I've had a few people mention that using lightroom has benefits over photoshop w/ camera raw--most of which seems irrelevant or completely false. So far the only benefits of using LR to PS seem to be:

1. Auto adjust vignetting for specific lenses based on lens profiles (I've never used this)

Anything else?

For someone who has done graphic design, digital painting in photoshop, etc (I know my way around PS and batch editing), is there any good reason to use lightroom? I've watched tutorials and read comparison reviews BUT.. based on the average reviewers' Photoshop knowledge, it's hard for me to have faith in their Lightroom knowledge. Does anyone know and like both, but have another reason why Lightroom is useful over photoshop?


----------



## spinworkxroy (Nov 9, 2012)

They're both meant for different purposes. There are many more things you can edit with in ps. Lr is more workflow and basic adjustments.
Ps is image editing.
I use both.
I use LR to preview all my photos..give ratings to the photos and sort them to the ones I want to edit. I will then export these images to dng and open them one by one in PS...I do all the adjustments and profile adjustment in ACR when I open the dng in ps..it's all image by image...
So basicaly I only use LR to rate and sort my images..I don't use it for any adjustments..I do that in acr and ps. I rarely do batch processing because every photo needs different adjustments.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Nov 9, 2012)

Oh okay, that makes sense.. I didn't consider the ratings. That could be useful. Thanks for the feedback


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 9, 2012)

LR is no competition to PS when it comes to local adjustments.

because LR lacks layers and has only basic masking functionality.

i use LR to get my RAW files into the ballpark.... then i use PS for local adjustments.


the main reason why i use LR are the DAM features.
if you need to find images in a 80000+ image collection you have to have a database and keyworded images.

no way you will find all images with a "ball on a beach and a seagul" with just the 0815 folder structure and sorting.

when i want to find all images that show a seagul on a beach and a ball .. it takes me 3 seconds.

i want all images that show a emotion like "laughing" .. takes me 3 seconds to filter my 80000+ image collection.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 9, 2012)

Lightroom is designed for photographers and has the tools most often used for photographs. Photoshop is more powerful with its advanced tools and layers, but also more difficult to learn and use.
I seldom use it unless a photo needs some really heavy duty enhancement or some more sophisticated editing.
I'd recommend Lightroom unless you are really going to be spending hours each day in Photoshop adjusting images for magazine publication, creating composites, HDR, etc.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 9, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd recommend Lightroom unless you are really going to be spending hours each day in Photoshop adjusting images for magazine publication, creating composites, HDR, etc.






> For someone who has done graphic design, digital painting in photoshop, etc (I know my way around PS and batch editing), is there any good reason to use lightroom?


----------



## PackLight (Nov 9, 2012)

Jay Khaos said:


> I've had a few people mention that using lightroom has benefits over photoshop w/ camera raw--most of which seems irrelevant or completely false. So far the only benefits of using LR to PS seem to be:
> 
> 1. Auto adjust vignetting for specific lenses based on lens profiles (I've never used this)
> 
> ...



You say this, are you saying it from experience or asking?

I have the Adobe master suite and have sorted in bridge for years, used camera raw occasional and tried to stay away from LR. I bought LR a while back, after I used it a bit I prefered the LR setup for working with the Raw images over using Camera Raw. I am still not to excited about the way it stores images. 

LR was cheap enough when I bought it I thought I would give it a try and see what it would do. If I am going to convert a Raw image I would open it before Camera Raw.


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 9, 2012)

I don't really use PS to its full potential, but I find the interface for LR better than that for Adobe Camera Raw. That said, I haven't upgraded from CS4, so I do know that the later versions of ACR have more functionality, but I think it is much easier to use in LR, plus there is the added benefit of keywording. I know you can also do that in Adobe Bridge, but I find it quite clunky and LR is particularly useful for batch keywording and captioning. I tend ot do all my keywording and basic processing, as wel las add any additional gradients that may be needed in LR, then switch to PS for the more precise and detailed editing. For example, the spot healing tool in LR is a real pain to use if you have to look over the whole image and while I still need to perfect my use of masks in PS, layers and masks are much better and I also do all my dodging and burning (wherei deem it necessary). In many ways, the most useful tool in LR is the batch metadata import preset.


----------

