Lightroom isn't supposed to be better in IQ than PS.
Its just much easier and quicker to use. You can apply adjustments to all photos very quickly, process the workflow as a group.
Its also easier to get good results in adjusting the sliders of contrast, exposure, curves and noise reduction.
Also if you are comparing the version of Camera Raw in Photoshop CS4 vs. Lightroom 3 or Lightroom 4 there are RAW converter improvements you are missing out on.
In LightRoom 3 we saw some significant improvements to RAW processing of high iso noise reduction. I doubt that the ACR in CS4 (common RAW processing module) includes these improvements.
Eyvind Ness wrote:
In LightRoom 3 we saw some significant improvements to RAW processing of high iso noise reduction. I doubt that the ACR in CS4 (common RAW processing module) includes these improvements.
As far I know, LR3 shares camera raw with CS5, not 4.
ACR (the technology behind both PS and LR) was significantly improved in CS5 and LR3.
Unfortunately, this is one big reason to use CS5. Comparing the two, if you do anything else besides some image manipulation, I can't recommend LR over PS. The number of things you can do in LR that you can't do in PS (better crop overlays, consistent history states) don't come close to making up the difference.
I have both, but rarely use LR; there's no reason to when you have PS. The number of advantages, including layers, when using PS are literally too large to enumerate here. LR is cheaper (and should sell for $99 retail IMO), so if that's the most important factor, buy it. Otherwise, use PS.
Personally I find making batch changes to lots of RAW images is extremely easy using Bridge/Photoshop CS5. Plus I have the comfort of knowing that if an individual image would benefit from more intensive work Photoshop has all the tools I need.
Depending on the job, you might certainly have a reason to use LR over PS.
In my line of work, only using PS would suck bigtime and suck up way too much time. I use LR maybe 90% of the time, and for finer adjustments or when I need specific tools, I revert to PS. I am happy to have both.
ps: I don't think this really belongs in the Canon section?
I agree with evertdoorn. Since I started using LR3 I rarely use PS anymore. If I want to do something creative and need the extra tools, PS is there, but the vast majority of time I use LR to process my photos. The tools in LR are more then enough for the batch file processing I do. The one weak spot for me is that culling photos in LR is still pretty slow. I still use BreezeBrowser Pro to do that and then import the keepers into LR.
I took a LR intro course. They basically told us that LR was designed for the photographer. Before LR photographers photoshop was used but it is more of a designer's program. LR to makes the photographers life easier with PP and file management. If more advanced PP is required then there is PS or elements. I'm probably only using 30% of what PS has to offer.
I myself use DPP or PS. I'm starting to warm up to PS. I don't do enough multiple image editing to spend the money on LR. Personally I do not like the interface but if I got into more mass editing I would more than likely get it as I can see the benefits. The sharpening turned me off. I like the resize/sharpening actions I set up in PS for multiple images and when it comes to working on a single image from my hobby side PS is much better than LR. Just seemed like PS gave me more control. I'm probably just being an old dog when it comes to the sharpening part. That was about a year ago so I have forgotten quite a bit about LR.
ggreene wrote:
I agree with evertdoorn. Since I started using LR3 I rarely use PS anymore. If I want to do something creative and need the extra tools, PS is there, but the vast majority of time I use LR to process my photos. The tools in LR are more then enough for the batch file processing I do. The one weak spot for me is that culling photos in LR is still pretty slow. I still use BreezeBrowser Pro to do that and then import the keepers into LR.
Same here, culling in LR is not so good. BreezeBrowser is significantly better. Regarding ACR, I use LR (90%) and PS-CS4 sometime. To get around the earlier version of ACR tied to CS4 which is no longer updated, I just select render in LR from the pop-up when selecting the CS4 external editor while in LR.
Okay, I think I am better oriented. Two more questions. Are there raw adjustment tools in Bridge that are not present in Lightroom? Are there any in Lightroom not present in Bridge?
Bridge lets you look at a folder of images, add keywords, ratings, etc. and these are stored in XMP sidecar files. When you work on a RAW file it's in ACR.
Lightroom lets you store XMP files, but it's also saving all of this keyword, rating, and metadata information in a database -- so it's easier to organize your photos and find what you want. And the RAW converter is integrated.
Lightroom also integrates many of the commonly used features in Photoshop into your database/RAW converter package -- such as printing. I find printing from Lightroom to be easier and more intuitive than from Photoshop. Download the free trial or the LR 4 Beta and give it a shot.
"it's also saving all of this ..... in a database -- so it's easier to organize your photos and find what you want."
Yes, I think this is one reason I prefer PS. I don't like software limiting or "arranging" where I store stuff. I like to deliberately create folder structures myself, name and arrange them. That way I always know where I put files because my brain only works one way, and its never the way software designers' brains work. Its the one area of imaging that I can't stand automating in any way, and I don't find metadata particularly helpful in this respect.
Bridge just lets me do what I want, in any way I want. Each to their own of course.
David - You can still do whatever you want with your folder structure as an additional organizational strategy.
Example -- what if you noticed one of your lenses had a problem, and you wanted to find every photo with that lens. Really easy to do for all of your images in the LR metadata search. In Bridge you could only search folder-by-folder.
Example 2 -- what if you're putting together a portfolio of all of your best night time images over the last 2 years. With Bridge and PS it would be endless browsing. In LR you could just limit what you're seeing to all images that are 3 or 4 stars and higher (or flagged as a keeper etc.) with a shutter speed over 10 seconds -- across all of your images, not just one folder.
With a Bridge and PS workflow your DAM strategies are very limited. I recommend Peter Krogh's book for learning more about the power of staying organized with DAM software: http://www.thedambook.com/
I really like the collections in LR. At first I didn't use them but now that I am posting images to FB and Zenfolio I like to add those photos to collections so I know what is posted where. They are just pointers to the files so no copies needed.
