I'm still scratching the surface of Elements (V5). I wonder if anyone has migrated from Elements to Lightroom and could comment on their experiences and preferences.

By the way, I find it somewhat frustrating that Elements doesn't offer 8-bit JPEG as a file type choice when "Saving as" while editing a 16-bit TIF; does Lightroom let you do that? Hmmm... I perceive that I'm assuming Lightroom can open a 16-bit TIF - that would probably go without saying, wouldn't it?

From another Ernie, BTW, it really isn't an either/or choice. If you shoot raw, you need both, IMO. LR makes global changes (although V2 will have some local corrections) and Elements can use layers and make changes at a pixel level. Each program will do things the other won't. I use LR with Elements5 and it's a great combo.
And jpgs ARE 8 bit only.That's just another of their limitations to some people. I don't know about LR opening a 16 bit tiff. I guess it will. Even though I save my files from LR as tiffs, I don't feel I need 16 bit.
You can get a free 30 day trial of LR. You should try it out. It's a great program.

egd5 wrote:
and Elements can use layers and make changes at a pixel level.

I didn't think that Elements can use layers. I use CS3 so don't know from experience. But I thought that (layers) was a major diff between CS3 and Elements.

I could be wrong.

PSE6 does have a layer function. not nearly as complex as the CS layer function but it's there and I use it frequently.

LR & PSE are two different kinds of programs. LR is a RAW converter at heart (a souped-up version of ACR) with a lightweight DAM in front and a web page wizard & printer on the back end. PSE is a pixel editor, just a cut-down version of Photoshop. Two different tools for two different uses & they are complementary.

I would say get the LR trial & give it a spin. I personally hate it & don't think it's worth anywhere near the $300 pricetag, but I'm a minority opinion.

I can't remember back to Elements 2, but I know from 3 on up Elements has had layers. Elements is really a robust program with a lot of the same functions as full PS.Some of the functions may not have as many options, but you can do wonders with Elements.
If you don't shoot raw then I see no need for LR, especially at $300. There are a lot of raw converters out there though, so it really wouls be good to download as many trials as possible to see what you like best.

JPEG is inherently 8-bit only? I didn't know that. But when editing a 16-bit TIF in Elements 5, when I Save As, it offers a file type of JPEG 2000, but I've found that either Windows Picture and Fax Viewer doesn't display that, or it does but it doesn't let you set it as your desktop background... I can't remember which. I think it doesn't even display it. I am remembering that it will display 16-bit TIFs, but it won't offer to set them as desktop background.

So given that I'm very satisfied with how DPP does raw conversion, preferring it to ACR, would Lightroom do anything for me beyond what I can do with DPP and Elements? Other than lighten my wallet by $300?

You really should try the trial version of LR to see the differences. There's just too many to list here. Besides, even if two pieces of software are basically the same function wise, the user interface can make a big difference. The ACR in Elements doesn't have all the features that full photoshop ACR has therefore you are only getting a partial picture of ACR.
Elements also has a limited number of things that it can do with a 16 bit file.And since jpg is 8 bit that's why you don't have the option of jpg when you save-as. I don't know anything about jpg 2000, so I can't help in any way with that. Iwould guess that jpg 2000 is not one of the file types supported by the viewer and the desktop so that's why you can't use it for that.
DPP is a very good raw converter. If you're happy with it that's an important factor. But, since it's a free trial, I'd recommend trying LR just to see if there's something there you really like.
And one more thing-just my opinion-I don't think 16 bit is worth all the trouble. I know its advantages, but I just convert to 8 bit tiff and work from that. Again, just IMO.

Thanks for the help, guys.

Ernie Aubert wrote:
So given that I'm very satisfied with how DPP does raw conversion, preferring it to ACR, would Lightroom do anything for me beyond what I can do with DPP and Elements? Other than lighten my wallet by $300?


If you prefer DPP to ACR then there's really no reason to bother with LR.

If you need jpg's from your 16 bit Tiff's, DPP will make that conversion nicely.

I think DPP is handy for conversions and batch processing.