# Photoshop and Lightroom



## jbylake (Jan 6, 2016)

I recently purchased a Nikon D610 and Photoshop elements and Light Room ver. 6.0 came bundled with it.

I have a little experience with an old version of Photoshop Elements, mostly trying to improve photo's from digitized neg's. and to play with point and shoot camera shots. I've never used nor have I seen Light Room.  I was under the impression that Light Room is sort of a subset of Photoshop.  Also, I'm under the impression that Photoshop Elements will meet all of my needs, as long as I'm not doing wild and crazy artistic, or heavily modified photo's, or 3D dragons, etc..etc..

These are the things that I "think" I know.

Do I need both of these products installed on my laptop?  My photographic subject interests are people, places and things, but nothing wild, crazy and ultra artistic.

Please feel free to slap me around a bit and clear out my headgear, and educate me as to what to do.

Any clarification/recommendations that will  help me get started will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

J.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 6, 2016)

LR is a totally separate and distinct best from PS/PSE.  It has two main functions:  (1) Cataloguing and organization; and (2) Raw processing using the Adobe Camera Raw module.  It is outstanding in both of these areas, and in many cases, virtually negates the requirement for processing in Photoshop [Elements].  The main benefit of PS/PSE is the ability to work in layers for more advanced editing, compositing and so forth.  You may want to look into Adobe's $10/month subscription bundle for LR and PS.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2016)

I've had Photoshop since version 2.5 was the current incarnation, and when my copy shipped on a series of 1.44 megabyte floppy discs, and contemporary computers *could barely run it*. I've tried two version of Elements over the years, the last one in 2010, and found both very tedious and kludgy and stripped down, as in_ deliberately hobbled_ compared to even old versions of Photoshop.

Lightroom? I got into it in 2013. I wiush to heck I had bought Lightroom the month it hit the market. It is invaluable to me. Lightroom allows me easy tooth whitening, iris enhancement, easy sensor dust-spot cloning, and fast, logical, efficient creating of JPEG web and print files from my raw files. I do vignettes, color toning, black and white conversions, and, brushed-on or brushed off local area adjustments with Lightroom. To me, Lightroom is the single biggest advancement in image handling since,well...since the memory card reader replaced cable connecting the camera to the computer to download files.

I find Lightroom to be about ten times more valuable on a daily basis than Photoshop is on a daily basis. Seriously. Just. Get. It. You'll likely be very happy you did!


----------



## jbylake (Jan 6, 2016)

Thank you, Tirediron, however, what would be the advantage of a subscription, if I have the latest versions of the software to install?  Am I understanding you, that LR will handle most of my needs which will be basically correcting flaws in my photo's?  Editing stray hairs in head shots, just basic editing?

J.


----------



## jbylake (Jan 6, 2016)

Derrel said:


> It is invaluable to me. Lightroom allows me easy tooth whitening, iris enhancement, easy sensor dust-spot cloning, and fast, logical, efficient creating of JPEG web and print files from my raw files. I do vignettes, color toning, black and white conversions, and, brushed-on or brushed off local area adjustments with Lightroom. To me, Lightroom is the single biggest advancement in image handling since,well...since the memory card reader replaced cable connecting the camera to the computer to download files.
> 
> Just. Get. It. You'll likely be very happy you did!


I've got it, it came bundled with the camera body.  As an aside, I remember when programs like AutoCad came on enough 3.5's to stack to the ceiling, and drag even the most state of the art computer to it's knees.

If I'm reading everyone right, I probably don't need to install the copy of PhotoShop elements that came with the camera also?

Thanks,

Jim


----------



## tirediron (Jan 6, 2016)

The advantage to the subscription is that you ALWAYS have the latest, greatest version with all of the enhancements and updates, and you don't have to go out and buy a new $150 copy of lightroom because yours is a year old and you can't update the ACR module to read the raw files of the new camera you just bought.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2016)

Sorry Jim, I should have written, "Seriously. Just. Get. It.* Installed*. You'll likely be very happy you did!"

I dunno...if you want to have access to the new PS Elements, then by all means install that too. I saw your post yesterday about the new D610's instruction manual's size and imposing scope, and even replied to your post, suggesting you just dive right in to shooting the D610, ignoring much of the manual, and using it like any other camera, using it as if it's a car with an automatic transmission.

We're all at different places; here on TPF we have a small but very vocal minority that constantly crows that Photoshop is soooooo valuable, that Photoshop and Lightroom share the same ACR module, and they constantly repeat this bit of misinformation in an effort to discredit what Lightroom does, and how EASY it is to get actual work done with it. I would venture to say, these guys (they are all guys, BTW) do not really understand how to use Lightroom to do a lot of simple tasks that they think must be done using Layers and hand-created masks, and so on.

Beginning in LR 5, Adobe's 20-some-odd years of developing fast, intelligent auto-masking solutions revolutionized Lightroom's ability to correct exposure differences between dark areas and bright areas without the need to mask things the old-fashioned way.

You don't strike me as the guy who will buy a new d-slr any time soon, so your software that came with the D610 will remain adequate for 5,6,7 years I'd wager.  When one gets a new camera and Adobe has decided to cut off the upgrade path for its raw files, one can use Adobe's DNG converter software, then import the DNG files as a work-around.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 6, 2016)

Derrel said:


> ... a small but very vocal minority that constantly crows that Photoshop is soooooo valuable, that Photoshop and Lightroom share the same ACR module, and they constantly repeat this bit of misinformation in an effort to discredit what Lightroom does....


 Is that not the case Derrel?  I thought that ACR engine powered the 'Develop' module in LR.  I certainly didn't mean to imply to imply any discredit to LR; it's certainly my most-used piece of software, and I probably spend about ten minutes (or less) in PS for every hour in LR.


----------



## jbylake (Jan 6, 2016)

Thank you.  I'm starting to understand the distinction, now.  Just for the heck of it (I have close to a TB of empty drive space), I'll install PSE, but will delve into the workings of Light Room, as my main tool for editing.  I'll just probe PSE in my spare time, just to see, well, what's there. If I'm understanding you both, it'll (LR) handle 99% of my editing needs. Thanks to both of you for your comments and time.

J.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2016)

tirediron said:
			
		

> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > ... a small but very vocal minority that constantly crows that Photoshop is soooooo valuable, that Photoshop and Lightroom share the same ACR module, and they constantly repeat this bit of misinformation in an effort to discredit what Lightroom does....
> ...



*You are not a member of the group *I was talking about. The "engine is the same" argument is one that's been repeated here for years, always in an effort to build up Photoshop, and to diminish Lightroom.

A 350 cubic inch displacement V-8 engine can be found in many different automobiles, but that does not mean a tiny two-door sports car, a four-door sedan, and a 250-series crew cab pickup truck are "the same thing" if they simply happen to _*share the same engine*_, and it does not automatically make one class of product "good", and the other products "bad" by default--and that is what I was referring to.

The "engine" has almost NOTHING to do with which gets more work done faster, with less effort.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 6, 2016)

jbylake said:


> Thank you.  I'm starting to understand the distinction, now.  Just for the heck of it (I have close to a TB of empty drive space), I'll install PSE, but will delve into the workings of Light Room, as my main tool for editing.  I'll just probe PSE in my spare time, just to see, well, what's there. If I'm understanding you both, it'll (LR) handle 99% of my editing needs. Thanks to both of you for your comments and time.
> 
> J.



Lightroom is exclusively a parametric editor as opposed to PS and/or Elements which are hybrid editors that contain ACR as a plugin (parametric like LR) and also a pixel level editor.

Lightroom (and all other parametric editors) do not alter your original file but rather save a recipe of instructions used to generate an exported new version of your photo. This methodology makes most sense processing raw files (NEF) from your camera. It otherwise makes sense as it protects your original. Parametric editors can do most of what we want to do with a photo; adjust tone and color and distortion, crop and rotate, dodge and burn, and to a limited degree remove blemishes. More complex editing requires a pixel level editor.

Going beyond a parametric editor Photoshop and/or Elements can do things like copy and paste an open eye from one photo onto another photo (closed eye) and then scale and blend in the composite. A pixel level editor could for example change the color of an article of clothing. These types of edits are beyond the scope of LR.

Elements is as Derrel noted "crippled" Photoshop. I explain Elements to my students like this: Adobe asked 10,000 pro photographers to list the 5 most critical capabilites they had to have in photo editing software. They corelated all the answers and found the average 5 most important functions and stripped those out of Elements. I frequently have to use it to work with a student and it never takes less than 5 minutes to infuriate me.

Lightroom is what you want to concentrate on using. I would suggest you'll get the best possible results using LR with your camera's NEF files but it will also work to edit JPEGs from the camera. When you encounter a stray hair that LR can't successfully remove you can export a file to Elements and do that job there.

Joe


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 6, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> jbylake said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you.  I'm starting to understand the distinction, now.  Just for the heck of it (I have close to a TB of empty drive space), I'll install PSE, but will delve into the workings of Light Room, as my main tool for editing.  I'll just probe PSE in my spare time, just to see, well, what's there. If I'm understanding you both, it'll (LR) handle 99% of my editing needs. Thanks to both of you for your comments and time.
> ...



Addition....LR does a GREAT job if you choose to use it for file management, workflow, key wording, cataloging, collections, use of presets etc.
Photoshop Versus Lightroom Which is Right for You?


----------



## jbylake (Jan 6, 2016)

Thank you all, I feel like I've received hours of explanations in a single thread.  Great folks, all of you.

J.


----------

