Adobe Lightroom vs. Photoshop CS4?

[tdesanto]

I'm looking for advice from professionals and semi-pro's here. I currently use CS2 and am looking to upgrade to take advantage of the newer features of Photoshop, most specifically:

1. newer camera RAW support
2. I understand there's better panorama stitching than CS3 and much bettter than CS2 (I can't really seem to do stiching well in CS2)
3. 64bit windows support
4. Access to more RAM than the 2GB's allowed in CS2/Win XP

At the time of upgrade, I can also purchase Lightroom for 30% off if I buy it at the same time. This will also save me in the future as I can pay just the upgrade price. So, I'm keen to take advantage of this if it's worth it.

So, here are my questions:

1) Does Lightroom become, then, the primary interface, and I only use Photoshop when I need the additional editing power for a particular image?
2) Do I need CS4 or should I just buy Lightroom?
3) Asked in reverse, would CS4 be enough, or does Lightroom really offer some workflow advantages?

Priced separately, my CS4 upgrade is $200. LR will cost me $300 separately, or $200 if I get it at the same time; so the bundle is only $400.

Any input would be most appreciated.

Tony

 

[Streakerfreak]

I'm looking for advice from professionals and semi-pro's here. I currently use CS2 and am looking to upgrade to take advantage of the newer features of Photoshop, most specifically:

1. newer camera RAW support
2. I understand there's better panorama stitching than CS3 and much bettter than CS2 (I can't really seem to do stiching well in CS2)
3. 64bit windows support
4. Access to more RAM than the 2GB's allowed in CS2/Win XP

At the time of upgrade, I can also purchase Lightroom for 30% off if I buy it at the same time. This will also save me in the future as I can pay just the upgrade price. So, I'm keen to take advantage of this if it's worth it.

So, here are my questions:

1) Does Lightroom become, then, the primary interface, and I only use Photoshop when I need the additional editing power for a particular image?
2) Do I need CS4 or should I just buy Lightroom?
3) Asked in reverse, would CS4 be enough, or does Lightroom really offer some workflow advantages?

Priced separately, my CS4 upgrade is $200. LR will cost me $300 separately, or $200 if I get it at the same time; so the bundle is only $400.

Any input would be most appreciated.

Tony

Great questions! I'm interested in hearing what you guys have to say too.

 

[Lost Canadian]

So, here are my questions:

1) Does Lightroom become, then, the primary interface, and I only use Photoshop when I need the additional editing power for a particular image?
2) Do I need CS4 or should I just buy Lightroom?
3) Asked in reverse, would CS4 be enough, or does Lightroom really offer some workflow advantages?

Priced separately, my CS4 upgrade is $200. LR will cost me $300 separately, or $200 if I get it at the same time; so the bundle is only $400.

Any input would be most appreciated.

Tony

I'd get both for $400. I use Lightroom only, but would like to have the ability to do pano stitching and HDR. I can't personally justify the heavy additional cost of CS for just those two things, but if I could have gotten both for $400 that I'd have done.

LR is super powerful, super smooth, and you can do all sorts of necessary adjustment type things within it, with some minor manipulation features. LR is much easier to work with then CS in terms of the basic adjsutments to WB, color, curves and such, it's all sliders, no need for layers. So in that sense yes LR would be my primary interface if I had both. The question of do you need one or the other is really a personal one IMO. I don't personally "need" CS but you may feel you do if you like heavy creative editing.

 

[Michael Slade]

I'd get both for $400.

+1

EDIT: Personally I'm frustrated they don't bundle LR with CS4.

 

[tdesanto]

Thanks so far for the great info.

In CS2, the Camera Raw sliders already make it easy to adjust and then export to PS to finish the image, but it's slow in that you have to adjust each image at a time.

I'm hoping that all this talk about a streamlined workflow (could just be marketing jargon) that Lightroom is supposed to offer will make my life a bit easier. I am looking for, as their marketing material suggests, less time in front of the computer (I don't like time spent editing) and more time behind the lens (this is the fun part).

Looking for more great info from anyone who uses both products or has used both products in the past (such as if you have a previous version of Photoshop and only use Lightroom now, or vice versa).

 

[Streakerfreak]

Right now I am only using Photoshop 7 and have been for a while. It was always out of my price range when I was in college and even now so I have using the ...."free" .... version for years now eepwall:

That said, after trying both of them I have decided to just pick up Lightroom instead when I can finally pick up a D700 next month. If I decide I actually need a new Photoshop I will buy that too.

I was schooled in the world of film so I have always felt that it was most important to get the shot right while taking it. That same train of thought has transferred to any digital I do shoot. I really dislike making major changes and I think Lightroom will be perfectly adequate for my needs.

 

[articulate]

Tony,
For working with photographs the latest version of Lightroom is perfectly fine by itself. Photoshop will certainly give you the ability to do work with one-off creations (panoramics and other forms of merging separate frames ... and all the myriad of graphics editing you want).

Isn't there some kind of panoramic-making software out there? I think you would be fine with Lightroom, and then purchase photoshop later if you can't live without it.

Lightroom, though, is far far better for managing/processing/batching/exporting your photographs from trips and shoots. Similar note, if you shoot RAW you can download (for free) a program called RAW Shooter and that lets you do an amazing amount of post processing, batching, and exporting to .jpg. On some level, you could get away with that free program instead of Lightroom and then hook it up with photoshop.

What I'm getting at is photoshop by itself is not the best method for a photographer to manage albums and post processing.

-Mark

 

[Streakerfreak]

What I'm getting at is photoshop by itself is not the best method for a photographer to manage albums and post processing.

No it is not. I've learned that the hard way.

 

[spressomon]

Do either of the two products contain the ability to stack photos?

 

[DiploStrat]

Aperture!

As a die hard Mac user, I prefer Aperture to Lightroom, but in any case, Aperture and Lightroom focus on organization and exposure adjustment, etc., the needs of the photographer as opposed to the graphic artist.

For pixel pounding, layers, etc., you probably need Photoshop (I use Elements) or one of its competitors. The two product lines compliment each other.

As many have noticed; Photoshop edits images, it does not organize them.

So, if you are a photographer as opposed to graphic artist, get Lightroom or Aperture first. If you need layers, captions, etc., then get Photoshop or Elements. (But don't be surprised if you NEVER need it.)

 

[GunnIt]

Tony,

I'm in total agreement with Articulate's comments above. One other thing that I would suggest in case you are shooting a Nikon...adding Capture NX, I find this program to be super smooth and fast for post processing. I have CS 4 and rarely find a need for it....everything is done in Lightroom and Capture NX.

 

[articulate]

As a die hard Mac user, I prefer Aperture to Lightroom

Related side question: is Aperture available for PC? I do, though, totally agree with you, as I used Lightroom on a PC for awhile before that computer's last breath. Which was recent. I've switched to a Mac with Aperture - I find it superior to Lightroom.

Or in Tony's case, Aperture isn't available for a PC is it?

 

[tdesanto]

Tony,
For working with photographs the latest version of Lightroom is perfectly fine by itself. Photoshop will certainly give you the ability to do work with one-off creations (panoramics and other forms of merging separate frames ... and all the myriad of graphics editing you want).

Isn't there some kind of panoramic-making software out there? I think you would be fine with Lightroom, and then purchase photoshop later if you can't live without it.

Lightroom, though, is far far better for managing/processing/batching/exporting your photographs from trips and shoots. Similar note, if you shoot RAW you can download (for free) a program called RAW Shooter and that lets you do an amazing amount of post processing, batching, and exporting to .jpg. On some level, you could get away with that free program instead of Lightroom and then hook it up with photoshop.

What I'm getting at is photoshop by itself is not the best method for a photographer to manage albums and post processing.

-Mark

Mark, thank you for the input. In fact, thanks to all for the input on Lightroom. It sounds like it's what's missing in my post shoot editing. I can't stand the tedious nature of working with RAW images, and I shoot a lot of them.

So, getting it with the Photoshop upgrade, will either save me $100 on LR or get me the PS upgrade for only $100, however you want to look at it.

So, it sounds like that's the way to go, and I'm sure the marketing folks at Adobe knew that would be the way to attract current users of PS to look at getting LR too.

Sounds like, in addition to the pricing aspect, these features are important to me and require PS:

1) HDR images (I've done this already in version CS2, and it's absolutely incredible what you can achieve)
2) Panoramic stitching (this is one of the reasons for my wanting to ugrade as it's supposed to handle this way better than my current version)
3) Layer editing (I already do this a lot; although, I'm thinking that a lot of the new editing features may reduce the need)

 

[tdesanto]

Tony,

I'm in total agreement with Articulate's comments above. One other thing that I would suggest in case you are shooting a Nikon...adding Capture NX, I find this program to be super smooth and fast for post processing. I have CS 4 and rarely find a need for it....everything is done in Lightroom and Capture NX.

Terry,

This is a great point. I've always dismissed Capture NX due to the fact that it's always been regarding by many as too slow and not very feature rich. I just checked out the latest and downloaded a trial version from Nikon. I'm curious to see what Nikon specific benefits I can realize with it. The website states that it can make certain distortion-related corrections for many of their lenses. I also like the Dlighting feature they point out; although, I think that's well covered in Camera Raw now and probably to a greater extent in Lightroom.

Would you mind elaborating on how it helps you save time in post-processing as you mention. Each person is different and what may only take one person 10 minutes might take someone else 30 minutes depending on what they want to accomplish, so I'm curious to understand how you use the program and how it saves you time.

I'd be grateful for any help you can offer.

 

[tdesanto]

Do either of the two products contain the ability to stack photos?

I'm sure many of us here can help answer your question(s). Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by stacking photos? Do you mean creating an HDR or HDR type image from several of the same shot at different exposures?

Or, do you mean creating an image similar to a double exposure on film?

Or do you mean something entirely different?