# Photoshop CS5 vs LR4



## Xgesz7 (Jun 4, 2012)

I own photoshop CS5 and people tell me that I should get lightroom. I don't understand why if I already have capabilities of photoshop. What does Lightroom do that photoshop doesn't and do you really need both?


----------



## Espike (Jun 4, 2012)

I am by no means a definitive source of advice, but owning both PS CS5.5 and LR3.6, I can tell you that I use LR for almost everything. I use it simply because I prefer to. I know that I can do the same things ( and more ) in PS, but it is just faster for me to import a bunch of pics into LR, review them, flag the keepers, work on them, then export them in batches. If I ever need to really mess with an image, the I edit in PS.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 4, 2012)

Lightroom is an organizational tool with very powerful basic editing tools all laid out in a manner which is very user friendly. Most find that they can use LR for 80% or their workflow only popping into PS for heavy edit/layers etc which btw integrates very well from within LR. I use both. You should look at the free trial and decide for yourself.


----------



## fokker (Jun 4, 2012)

If you shoot in RAW you need lightroom. It lets you organise and preview all your raw files and make quick, easy non-destructive edits to them. You can pull out as many different jpg or tiff files you need from the raw, all edited differently and in different resolutions and still have the exact same RAW file you started out with.


----------



## KmH (Jun 4, 2012)

Lightroom's Develop module, and CS5's Camera Raw are both ACR. Lightroom 4 uses ACR 7 and CS5 uses ACR 6. CS 6 also uses ACR 7.

The editing tools are laid out pretty much the same in both.

Your CS 5 also came with Bridge, which can do a lot of the same tasks Lightroom's Library module can do. But, Lightroom is a database management tool, while Bridge is an image browser, so there are some differences.

However, there are some batch processes that Lightroom cannot do, that Bridge and Camera Raw can do.


----------



## JDFlood (Jun 5, 2012)

Omg, you will reduce the time you spend fooling around with your photos by three. I have both, only use LR.


----------



## Nikanon (Jun 20, 2012)

I just got both of these programs so I will see which one works best for me.


----------



## LizardKing (Jun 21, 2012)

KmH said:


> ...Lightroom is a database management tool, while Bridge is an image browser, so there are some differences.



Would you mind expanding a little bit on this, please?


----------



## amandamartin (Jun 21, 2012)

Espike said:


> I totally read this wrong.  I thought it said "export them biatches."   Had myself a little chuckle, then was disappointed when I realized I read it wrong.


----------



## amandamartin (Jun 21, 2012)

Wow, I totally butchered that quote situation there, too.  LOL.  Maybe I should just go to bed?


----------



## Espike (Jun 21, 2012)

amandamartin said:


> Espike said:
> 
> 
> > I totally read this wrong.  I thought it said "export them biatches."   Had myself a little chuckle, then was disappointed when I realized I read it wrong.
> ...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jun 21, 2012)

I was the biggest Cs5/Photomatix/Bridge/ACR junky ever, like a week ago. That was me in a nutshell.  I just got LR 4.1 a few days ago. I am absolutely floored by how awesome sauce it is. So much so, that I feel like an _*idiot*_ for not getting it earlier. 

I haven't been this enthusiastic about a piece of photography software, probably EVER. That includes my romance with CS5. 

I was using a clunky folder system and adobe bridge for my workflow. I missed so many shots because this was just not adequate or efficient workflow. 

*Lightroom is made by photographers, for photographers. Bridge is a file browser, nothing more. *

My experiences so far (in a matter of only a few days of use)

I created 5 facebook albums in the course of about 2 hours. I sifted through 2,000 RAW files in the process. I published the files to the Facebook by connecting LR directly to it. I can create albums in no time, straight from LR. Better yet, I've made my export settings on the publish to downsize all the pictures in the album to 960px (max upload size before facebook's ****ty resizer kicks in) and add medium sharpening for screen viewing. This optimizes the look of my photos on FB. Imagine how long that would take if you manually resized an album of 50 pictures for web viewing. Sucky! I have better things to do with my time. But LR does it for me, so WIN!
I went back through over 5,000 raw files and found literally 50 shots that I had missed because my workflow _*sucked*_
Non-destructive editing-- everything I  do is kept in history in LR and doesn't touch the CR2 file. I can go back after making a crop to an image and re-crop it differently. I can undo any changes I've made to the photo, even days later. Simply amazing!
Huge previews. I can set lightroom to give me HUGE previews optimized for my screen. This really helps me tell RIGHT AWAY which shots are sharp and which shots SUCK! Before, it was just a waiting game and a guess with the crappy bridge loupe tool.
Live previews, as you make changes you can see the photo at a reasonable resolution.
SHADOWS and HIGHLIGHTS sliders are seriously giving me +3 and -3 DR out of a single RAW. Adobe has really perfected their algorithms and done away with Recovery (made highlights muddy), fill light (flattened and took away contrast) and replaced them with MUCH BETTER tools. It really helps you get the MAXIMUM dynamic range out of a single file which is extremely useful.
Instead of opening 3 programs to handle one file (Cs5, bridge, ACR) almost everything is handled in LR in a very user friendly and smooth interface.
I am only using cs5 for probably 1/20 images. That's how good LR is at creating the final product.
There's only 100 more reasons why Lightroom is better than bridge/any other tool out there for organizing:

-- 100 ways lightroom kicks Bridge's Ass!

(these videos were made for version 3.6 I believe, 4.1 is just all that and a bag of chips)

Also, make sure you optimize LR for your system. I significantly increased my maximum allowed cache and preview viewing size and it really improved my experience

-- 10 Tips to Improve Lightroom&#8217;s Speed and Performance Without Additional Hardware


----------



## sm4him (Jun 21, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> I was the biggest Cs5/Photomatix/Bridge/ACR junky ever, like a week ago. That was me in a nutshell.  I just got LR 4.1 a few days ago. I am absolutely floored by how awesome sauce it is. So much so, that I feel like an _*idiot*_ for not getting it earlier.
> 
> I haven't been this enthusiastic about a piece of photography software, probably EVER. That includes my romance with CS5.
> 
> ...



WOW, Rotanimod, I wish you'd tell us how you REALLY feel! 
I've been floating along, halfway ignoring the fact that Lightroom even exists because I have CS5 (which my company paid for) and *I* would have to pay for LR and I just figured there wasn't that much reason to have it.
Your post makes me want to drop everything, and BUY. Lightroom. 

Well, it at least makes me think that perhaps I'll reconsider whether I should purchase it or not.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jun 21, 2012)

sm4him said:


> WOW, Rotanimod, I wish you'd tell us how you REALLY feel!
> I've been floating along, halfway ignoring the fact that Lightroom even exists because I have CS5 (which my company paid for) and *I* would have to pay for LR and I just figured there wasn't that much reason to have it.
> Your post makes me want to drop everything, and BUY. Lightroom.
> 
> Well, it at least makes me think that perhaps I'll reconsider whether I should purchase it or not.



My passion exudes because it's _*that*_ good. You can try it out free for 30 days.  Looks like the trial is fully functional too, so don't take my word for it, you decide!


----------



## Rwsphotos (Jun 21, 2012)

Light Room has become my go to even for my family pics.  Faster, easier and doing it all in one program versus 2 or 3 makes me wish I had gotten it sooner to.


----------



## sm4him (Jun 21, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > WOW, Rotanimod, I wish you'd tell us how you REALLY feel!
> ...



Okay, I may just do that. Where would you suggest looking for tips on how to use it and the best workflow to use? I'd like to not spend the entire 30 days of a trial period just figuring out how to use it.
My workflow is definitely the weakest area of my PP right now. 
Seriously, if you detailed it for you, you would ALL flame me.   I'll just tell you that it does NOT involve Bridge, which I've never bothered to really learn (although I've used PS for years). It DOES involve a pencil and paper, on which I WRITE DOWN the shots I think I might want to keep...yeah, it gets worse from there. 

At any rate, I was just about to break down and start learning Bridge, because since starting to shoot RAW several months ago, the prehistoric abacus-style system I'm using for a workflow just ain't cutting it.


----------



## bhop (Jun 21, 2012)

IMO, you only _*NEED*_ LR if you are dealing with a ton of images.  (for example, when I shoot car shows/races I end up with 400+ images.. no way i'd want to edit them individually)  Otherwise, Photoshop will do everything that LR can..


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 21, 2012)

sm4him said:


> It DOES involve a pencil and paper, on which I WRITE DOWN the shots I think I might want to keep...yeah, it gets worse from there.
> 
> At any rate, I was just about to break down and start learning Bridge, because since starting to shoot RAW several months ago, the prehistoric abacus-style system I'm using for a workflow just ain't cutting it.



Hey, the 20th century called, they want their quill and ink well back. :lmao:


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 21, 2012)

bhop said:


> IMO, you only _*NEED*_ LR if you are dealing with a ton of images.  Otherwise, Photoshop will do everything that LR can..



...Just slower, and less conveniently.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jun 21, 2012)

bhop said:


> IMO, you only _*NEED*_ LR if you are dealing with a ton of images.  (for example, when I shoot car shows/races I end up with 400+ images.. no way i'd want to edit them individually)  Otherwise, *Photoshop will do everything that LR can..*



I don't really agree with that statement. Technically, you could achieve the same things in Cs5, but it would take you five times longer. 

Cs5 is made for pixel level editing, layering, masking. 

LR is made for organizing and workflow, and making life easier on those who shoot RAW specifically. 

Two completely different programs that do completely different things that have some commonalities.


----------



## sm4him (Jun 21, 2012)

bhop said:


> IMO, you only _*NEED*_ LR if  you are dealing with a ton of images.  (for example, when I shoot car  shows/races I end up with 400+ images.. no way i'd want to edit them  individually)  Otherwise, Photoshop will do everything that LR  can..



*NEED?? *
I don't NEED Lightroom. I don't NEED Photoshop.  Or even a camera.
I WANT them.

I *NEED* food, clothing and shelter. Everything else is just gravy.  ;-)

Sorry.  That whole "need/want" distinction is just a little pet peeve of mine. I  do get your point.  And while I may not be organizing dozens of client  photos every week (or EVER, what with not being a professional), I'd say  I definitely take more photos in a typical week than I am currently  able to keep up with in my current workflow.  




o hey tyler said:


> Hey, the 20th century called, they want their quill and ink well back. :lmao:



HEY!! I resemble that remark...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jun 21, 2012)

sm4him said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I may just do that. Where would you suggest looking for tips on how to use it and the best workflow to use? I'd like to not spend the entire 30 days of a trial period just figuring out how to use it.
> ...


----------



## bhop (Jun 23, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> ...Just slower, and less conveniently.





Rotanimod said:


> I don't really agree with that statement. Technically, you could achieve the same things in Cs5, but it would take you five times longer.
> 
> Cs5 is made for pixel level editing, layering, masking.
> 
> ...



Do you know guys how to use Adobe Camera Raw? (part of PS5)   There's nothing slower about it.. it's literally the same functions as LR.

I do agree with Rotanimod about LR being for organizing and workflow, which is why I said get if you're organizing/editing a lot of images because that's where the way faster part comes into play... or maybe you guys missed that part?  *shrug


----------



## bhop (Jun 23, 2012)

sm4him said:


> *NEED?? *
> I don't NEED Lightroom. I don't NEED Photoshop.  Or even a camera.
> I WANT them.
> 
> ...



If your *intention* is to create photographs, then yes, you do '_need_' certain things to do it.  Sorry you have issues with the word "need" but it is a word that is relevant to more than just the basics of life, based on whatever expectations/intentions you might have, which in this case, is making photos.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 23, 2012)

bhop said:
			
		

> Do you know guys how to use Adobe Camera Raw? (part of PS5)   There's nothing slower about it.. it's literally the same functions as LR.
> 
> I do agree with Rotanimod about LR being for organizing and workflow, which is why I said get if you're organizing/editing a lot of images... or maybe you guys missed that part?  *shrug



Yes, I've used it in Photoshop, and it is much slower. It is not nearly as streamlined or as accessible as LR IMO.


----------



## bhop (Jun 23, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> bhop said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's cool then.  To me it's not slower at all, maybe you've used an old version?  Dunno.. no hard feelings, everyone has their own workflow and such.


----------

