File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Photoshop

Or

Lightroom


Which do you use and why?
inb4 It's called Photoshop Lightroom
>> Anonymous
Photoshop.

Everything you can do in Lightroom, you can do in Photoshop. But it doesn't work the other way around.
>> Anonymous
Lightroom, because I can.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
Both. Lightroom for speed/collections/sorting. Photoshop for heavier edits.
>> Anonymous
I use Lightshop and Photoroom
far superior produts
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
CaptureNX
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
I use both.
>> Anonymous
>>300133

wtfx elaborate
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
Well if you are using photoshop only to use lightroom functionalities you are using lightroom.
>> Anonymous
>>300111
LR for tone/colour/contrast adjustments
PS is my bitch for healing. Nothing else really.

LR is just much faster for everything that's doesn't involve mouse strokes on the image.
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>300135
I use CaptureNX, which is a Nikon bit of kit... It does some nice NEF editing and has a bunch of simple-to-use tools to tweak shots. Photoshop for editing my photos, to me, feels like cutting my steak with a chainsaw. Certainly effective, but not the most elegant method.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
People who think Lighroom is faster probably have no idea how to use Photoshop.

Go read a book on it or something.
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>300143
...says the generation that was offered photoshop classes in high school?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>300143

hi, i've been using photoshop since 4.0, and i can tell you that lightroom is, in fact, much faster to work with. just the fact that you don't have to "save as..." after every single image makes it faster.

as for me, i start in lightroom, and anything that needs a lot of work (which is rare for my style of photography) goes to photoshop.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
Now that Lightroom 2 has the adjustment brush, I don't think i've touched photoshop at all. Hopefully they add a better healing/clone tool in the future.
>> Anonymous
I'd been using lightroom more and more and now it's a staple. Most of my work is now in lightroom.

Lightroom imports and catalogues my images, I can quickly go through pictures as they download and flag the ones I wanna keep, then export the flagged images with batch processing for quick updates of websites or whatever.

If I want to print something or basically have the time to edit a single image then I'll take it to photoshop.
>> Anonymous
>>300150
>>300149

Perfect example of people who have no idea how to use Photoshop in the first place.

They're given a dumbed down version and they freaking love it because it's simplified, like LEGO Star Wars or some stupid kid shit. Photoshop too complicated for ya?
>> Anonymous
inb4 Aperture2
>> Anonymous
>>300150
Well, If I could heal in LR, I wouldn't touch PS.

Also, if they could fucking put dodging and burning there. Having to use the brush and doing +.4EV and +.6EV and -.7EV in other places is fucking annoying. Photoshop is still better for this, especially in colour, because I can select midtones, or highlights, or whaever.
>> Anonymous
i can't believe anyone would go shoot RAW then batch process images, what a fucking shitload of fuck

why don't you just go shoot JPG instead and save yourself some CPU cycles
>> Anonymous
>>300154
there's no product that could ever be better than photoshop; i should have access to 100+ features, even if I don't use them all the time, and they are not relevant to photo editing and not design.

Jesus Christ, rip out the stick you have up your ass and grow up.
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>300154
Perfect example of nobody cares about your snobbery.

I have Photoshop CS2, Lightroom 2, GIMP 2 and CaptureNX 1.3. Having used them all, I know what I prefer and why.

I don't give a shit if that's good enough for you or not, it works for me.

/rage
>> Anonymous
>>300163i should have access to 100+ features, even if I don't use them all the time, and they are not relevant to photo editing and not design.

Because they're killing your workflow by being there? Oops, need some touching up done, better load up Photoshop now!

There is no reason, 0 reason to use Lightroom when you can use Photoshop.

>>300164I don't give a shit if that's good enough for you or not, it works for me.

That's your choice for choosing the inferior product. No hate or nothing, just telling ya what's better.
>> Anonymous
They're two different programs because they're for two different uses.

Lightroom is not a watered down version of photoshop. That would be photoshop elements.

Photoshop is the industry standard graphic editor. Its used in graphic design, for all endgame uses, photography for obvious reasons, and various other crap in which you'd need to have a pixel by pixel editor handy.

Lightroom is a tool which handles batch edits towards a collection of photos, and organizes and sorts those photos. It can then output one or all of them to a website or print destination, or just ftp them to a server if thats what you need to do. Its super versatile and does things photoshop can not do, at all. Its also a pretty heavy RAW editor and basically makes RAW editing invisible (which is good.)

So if anyone says "photoshop is better" or "lightroom is better", you're listening to an idiot. If you were to compare photoshop to gimp, or lightroom to aperture, that'd be a bit more apt.
>> Anonymous
mspaint
>> Anonymous
ITT you're not a photographer if you don't use photoshop exclusively and on a mac
>> Anonymous
>>300172Lightroom is a tool which handles batch edits towards a collection of photos, and organizes and sorts those photos. It can then output one or all of them to a website or print destination, or just ftp them to a server if thats what you need to do. Its super versatile and does things photoshop can not do, at all. Its also a pretty heavy RAW editor and basically makes RAW editing invisible (which is good.)

Okay, well, must be dummies night on /p/. ANOTHER example of someone who has no idea how to use Photoshop.

Bridge does EVERY. SINGLE. THING. you mentioned. Guess what? Bridge is a part of Photoshop.

Saying Lightroom does things Photoshop can not do at all is freaking hilarious. Maybe you just don't know how to use it?

Heavy RAW editor? Someone's never used Bridge.

Can you work well enough in Lighroom, sure, whatever floats your boat.

But the fact of the matter is Photoshop is a much more powerful tool than Lightroom. Anyone arguing against this simple fact is a goddamn moron.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>300178
inb4 50+ replies
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>300154
>Perfect example of people who have no idea how to use Photoshop in the first place.

Why do I "need" to use photoshop?
Bridge + Camera Raw is pretty much all I ever used before LR came out. Lightroom is just much faster than PS for what I do.

I'm not replacing skies or dodging+burning every photo I take. And i've still got PS on my computer when I do want to do any of that.

They're both "free" anyway, so why does it matter?
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
     File :-(, x)
>>300178
>> Anonymous
>But the fact of the matter is Photoshop is a much more powerful tool than Lightroom. Anyone arguing against this simple fact is a goddamn moron.

who's saying that? what the fuck are you rambling about man
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>300183
this made me lol... thanks for that anon... I shall now smoke a bong and the laughter will continue unabated
>> Anonymous
>>300181Why do I "need" to use photoshop?

See: >> That's your choice for choosing the inferior product. No hate or nothing, just telling ya what's better.
>> Anonymous
>>300154

what a faggot, sounds like someone doesn't know how to use their camera properly

real photographers shoot film, take good pictures in the first place and don't need to post process
>> Anonymous
Fact: there's a ton you can do with digital you could never do with film

Fact: photographers used different films for different colors/situations. Isn't that the same as having different post-processing methods?
>> Anonymous
>>300197
enjoy your preferred method of post processing
>> Anonymous
>>300230
No. What would be different would be saying: in darkroom work you have different chemicals for developing your film, and many different ways of agitating, and difference ways of printing, and many choices on the final print media.

Talking about different film is less significant than all that other stuff. They all do the same shit. Once you learn each films limitations, you have almost endless permutations for "processing" which is in fact equivalent to "developing and printing".

Choosing Photoshop vs LR is a stupid fight because I can get my work done in both of them. I like LR better because I can undo faster, and check my mistakes faster, and work with one file and one layer. I don't need to complexity needed for graphic design. Get that? That's an I statement. I like having all my pictures at the bottom to choose from, and not ctrl+tab. I like being able to generate a second window, I like, I like, I choose LR because I like it more. End of fucking story.
>> Anonymous
LR is Camera Raw plus organizer stuff, just speedlined for fast organization, etc. Same processing, which is what counts for the final images.

I don't use it because I'm never on a deadline and would smash a lens into my head if I ever was probably, and because I do all sorts of dodging and burning. 15 minutes is a super fast processing time for me, 40 minutes is an average time for if I'm in a hurry.

Bridge is shit to use; does anyone actually use bridge?
>> Anonymous
>>300219

>real photographers shoot film

Tell that to the thousands of professionals that shifted to digital and I hope they smack you with their 400mm prime on the head. Stupid douche.
>> Anonymous
>>300240

I'm using bridge till I can get lightroom 2 :P
comparing the raw editing..is stupid.
LR>Bridge for RAW(r)
>> Anonymous
>>300249
don't feed the trolls
>> NotKordox !X5MdOLLFAg
10/10
>> Delicious !3GqYIJ3Obs
Lightroom 2 has been my workflow ever since I got it. I've used Photoshop for the ever-so-rare compositing and design work because I'm too lazy to get good at Illustrator.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
real photographers don't post process.

/thread.
>> Anonymous
Both. And more. Warez!
>> ac !iZn5BCIpug
GIMP, it has superior byte processing.
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>300339
I downloaded the GIMP recently. got any snappy photo-fixing tutorials to throw me into the pro zone?
>> Anonymous
>>300111
DigitalPhotoProfessional ._.

photoshop only for serious editing.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>300339

But does it have BLAST PROCESSING?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>300434
http://onlinephototutorials.com/
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>300434
Not really. I learned it myself pretty much through fucking around with it in my spare time. For the most part, the techniques and skills and whatnot are the same as with Photoshop, just they're in different menus...

Also, in case anyone didn't notice:
>>300339
> GIMP, it has superior byte processing.
This wasn't me. And he really doesn't have my voice down. I'm way more of a long-winded douchebag than that.
>> Anonymous
Aperture and Photoshop or GTFO.
>> Anonymous
>>300154
Successful troll

>>300174
Try a little harder little troll. You too will be great one day.
>> Anonymous
I use, photoshop lightroom and bridge...
>> Anonymous
>>300178
It's not about power, moron. You're talking about two separate products designed for two specific things.

Photoshop is an editor. Lightroom is not.

Lightroom is what id term photo management software, which handles storage, backup, imports, sorting, and exporting to media. Like I said earlier, it handles batch processes very well.

If I wanted to color correct 1000 photos in photoshop, id make an action and then create an .exe. I'd then drop all the photos on that .exe and photoshop would proceed to work on all of those photos, and probably take an hour to do it. 99% of the time would be just opening, closing, and saving the file in question. If you think im bullshitting try it for yourself. If I wanted to do the same via lightroom, id hit CTRL-A, and flick a slider. It'd be done in a minute.

Lightroom can do this because photoshop commits all changes to the file itself. Its also destructive editing. Lightroom writes the changes to a .xmp sidecar file, which only alters the photo's appearance and properties in the application itself, or when it exports the specific photos you want to use.

LR and Photoshop are not competing products. The fact that you think so means YOU probably shouldn't be questioning MY knowledge. Just look at adobe's current marketing plan - you get 30% off lightroom if you buy it with photoshop. Its meant to be used in conjunction with photoshop, not against it.
>> Anonymous
>>301182Lightroom is what id term photo management software, which handles storage, backup, imports, sorting, and exporting to media. Like I said earlier, it handles batch processes very well.

See:

>> Bridge does EVERY. SINGLE. THING. you mentioned. Guess what? Bridge is a part of Photoshop.

>> If I wanted to color correct 1000 photos in photoshop, id make an action and then create an .exe. I'd then drop all the photos on that .exe and photoshop would proceed to work on all of those photos, and probably take an hour to do it. 99% of the time would be just opening, closing, and saving the file in question. If you think im bullshitting try it for yourself. If I wanted to do the same via lightroom, id hit CTRL-A, and flick a slider. It'd be done in a minute.

Someone doesn't know how to use Bridge.

>> Lightroom can do this because photoshop commits all changes to the file itself. Its also destructive editing. Lightroom writes the changes to a .xmp sidecar file, which only alters the photo's appearance and properties in the application itself, or when it exports the specific photos you want to use.

Hmm, Bridge does the exact same thing.

Another "Perfect example of people who have no idea how to use Photoshop in the first place." and enjoys telling everyone how much they are elite using Lightroom.

Thanks for playing.
>> Anonymous
Bridge is a glorified file browser. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
>> Anonymous
>> Bridge has many functions such as batch rename and other utilities to help with organization, and supports editing of digital images in Camera Raw format. Organizational features include assigning colored labels or star ratings to images, the ability to edit the XMP and IPTC Information Interchange Model metadata embedded within an image file, and the ability to work with different versions and alternates of a file that is part of an Adobe Version Cue project.

>> Perfect example of people who have no idea how to use Photoshop in the first place.
>> Anonymous
>>301189
So then tell us, what does Bridge do that LR doesn't?
>> Anonymous
Why no lens barrel distortion in Lightroom? They have all the other needed processing tools for basic adjustments. May as well throw that in as well.
>> Anonymous
Photoshop is for editing, Lightroom for sorting / organizing. wtf, I use both.
>> Anonymous
>>300443
yeah, and the best thing is, it is free.

Only shit photog needs more than what lightroom or dpp can provide.
>> Anonymous
Darkroom.....for photographs that depend more on the shot than how you edit them later. also, it costs a shit-ton to get a digital camera that is as good as film
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>301818it costs a shit-ton to get a digital camera that is as good as film

Stop trolling.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>301827

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:26 04:35:51Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width284Image Height400