# Photoshop elements or Lightroom?



## AMOMENT (Aug 10, 2012)

I'm sure this has been asked before but I was wondering what would be best for me.  I'm wondering if I am not using PSE right.  I almost never use the masks/layers.  I know this is EVERYTHING in PSE.  Sometimes I find using them to be a bit confusing and tedious. Given that, I was wondering if Lightroom would be a better choice for me.


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 10, 2012)

Um.

Photoshop and Lightroom are very different programs that dont do the same thing at all ... ?!?

Lightroom for example creates very small files - that simply describe how you want to manipulate the original file. Photoshop creates huge files - that contain whatever graphics you threw at the program.

Professionals AFAIK use both.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 10, 2012)

Lightroom 4.1 FTW!

As has been stated NUMEROUS times before (and just so we dont forget)...Lightroom does not "edit" pixels as photoshop does. It is a wonderful program, and very easy to use, but it does NOT completely take the place of a program like photoshop if you have to do any editing that requires  actual pixel manipulation. Adobe sells it as a stand alone program, but it is also very useful in tandom with photoshop, depending on how heavy your editing needs to be. for color correction, lighting, shadows, and things like that, Lightroom is awesome. plus, it is great for handling multiple files.

We use mostly Lightroom 4.1, and for anything Lightroom doesn't cover, Photoshop CS5


----------



## tirediron (Aug 10, 2012)

Just to expand on the above:  Lightroom is an image database/classification and RAW conversion application.  It's raison d'être is the cataloguing of images and the "editing" (see above) of RAW files.  Photoshop/PSE is an image editing application which actually does pixel-level editing and gives you the ability to work in layers, apply filters, etc.

IMO, any photographer should have both applications; you may not use the Photoshop side all that much, but there are times when it is essential (Clone tool for instance).  That said, if you can only afford one, I would start with Lightroom.


----------



## KmH (Aug 10, 2012)

*&#8203;* Thread Moved **

The masks and layers are Photoshop's most useful tools. To use them effectively you need to know how to use the selection tools PsE offers. Learning how to do image editing can be sped up with some reference materials The Photoshop Elements 10 Book for Digital Photographers (Voices That Matter)

Lightroom's editing portion, the Develope module, uses Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). PsE has a truncated version of ACR, so you already have about 1/2 of Lightroom's editing capability _*PLUS*_
 all of PsE's tools/features/and functions.

Adobe reduced the price of Lightroom from $299 to $149, but you can get it for a bit less here - Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers, The 






.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Aug 10, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> Um.
> 
> Photoshop and Lightroom are very different programs that dont do the same thing at all ... ?!?
> 
> ...



HUH?? Are you sure about that? Photoshop DOES have a lot of features that Lightroom does not, but MOST of those features are not used by most photography users, though some are.

Lightroom is frequently called Photoshop Light. I belive their engines are nearly the same.

OP, You may not currently use "masks and layers" but you likely will when you knowledge increases.

I recommend Lightroom.


----------



## KenC (Aug 10, 2012)

Just to be clear about "pixel manipulation" in PS, if you use adjustment layers in PS, none of the pixels in the image are affected, i.e., there is a background layer which is still the image that was originally opened in PS.  If you change your mind about the adjustments, the layers can be modified or deleted without affecting the pixels in the background layer.  Most people who use PS would consider it unwise to do any manipulations directly on the background layer.


----------



## Dao (Aug 10, 2012)

I do most of my post processing in LR because LR can do most of the stuff and in a very easy straight forward way.

If you need a program to

- Import photos

- Organize photos

- Post production works such as
* Curve and Level adjustment
* Exposure / Brightness / Contrast adjustment
* Highlight / shadow adjustment
* Color saturation / Hue adjustment
* Photo cropping and tilt adjustment
* Spots or Red eyes removal 
* Noise reduction
* Photo sharpening
* Camera lens adjustment such as distortion or vignetting (i.e. It as profile for most of the commonly used lenses)
* more

(Now it support photos uploading to popular sites as well)

Then I will recommend using LR instead Photoshop.



If you want to make the background smoother (apply blur) and sharpen the subject only (layer mask), Photoshop is best for that.  And that's LR has function to "Edit in Photoshop".  So without exiting LR, you can open Photoshop from within and import the photo to PS as Tiff format.


----------



## KmH (Aug 10, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> Photoshop DOES have a lot of features that Lightroom does not, but MOST of those features are not used by most photography users, though some are.
> 
> Lightroom is frequently called Photoshop Light. I belive their engines are nearly the same.


Only ACR (Camera Raw/Lightoom Develope module) use the same parametric edit rendering engine in both. The rest of Photoshop is a raster graphics editor that also has some limited vector graphics capability. Elements (and I guess Lightroom too now), is often called as Photoshop Light.

The cloning function, dodge/burn, and some other features in Lightroom are very crude compared to their counterparts in Photoshop.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 10, 2012)

I think it should also be taken into consideration that full version Photoshop CS6 is $700 (upgrade is $200 if you already have CS5), while Lightroom 4 is $150. if you COULDN'T do more with photoshop, I would be pretty pissed. For the money, its hard to go wrong starting with Lightroom if you had to choose one. It would have been rather silly of Adobe to put the same range of features in a program 1/4 the price of their flagship photo editor.


----------



## Rwsphotos (Aug 10, 2012)

I'm with Tirediron. If you can afford afford both go with it. I have both cs5 and light room 4 mind you light room gets the heavier work out. And as a wedding photographer I appreciate being able batch process my photos. Cuts my time in front of the computer down.  Any other minor changes are done in light room. Only heavy editing gets done in photoshop.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 10, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> The rest of Photoshop is a raster graphics editor that also has some limited vector graphics capability.



That may be true with PSE and versions of PS released CS5 or older. However, they have integrated an entire vector engine in photoshop CS6. So, it's basically like having Illustrator inside of photoshop now.

I mean, I really don't know what point this has to a photographer, but I thought you might like to know, lol.


----------



## Rwsphotos (Aug 10, 2012)

Considering the op has already been ripped apart numerous times on her photography skills as well as her processing I think she needs to improve both before trying any fancy editing wurh photoshop.


----------



## Desi (Aug 10, 2012)

Supposedly, you can download lightroom and use it for free for 30 days.


----------



## Rwsphotos (Aug 10, 2012)

Actually you can I did and then ended up getting light room and use it all the time.  I suggest to those on the fence to try the trial for 30 days then decide.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 10, 2012)

Rwsphotos said:


> Considering the op has already been ripped apart numerous times on her photography skills as well as her processing I think she needs to improve both before trying any fancy editing wurh photoshop.



And I'm assuming you beat Michael Phelps' record time your first time into the pool, didn't you?

You are always bad at something before you learn to be good at it...


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 10, 2012)

You already have issues with colors and clipping them. Lightroom would exacerbate that problem as it works in a color gamut that your monitor can't even see. When you develop in LR you have to be mindful of that conversion when you save or you will have even more problems with the clipped and electric colors.
In addition to the color problems you rely HEAVILY on the fix in post process theory. This will be yet another toy that will make that problem worse as well. 
I believe Keith mentioned that you are already working with a good portion of the editing part of LR. You are not using it at all, but allowing the defaults to remain on most of it and fixing only the exposure. The additional controls in LR would be a ton MORe problems for you to figure out. Or you won't use them at all and it'd be a waste. 
You need to master the raw component of what you have already. But not before you figure out the camera part. 

In reality, you should probably step back from the editing programs altogether and master the camera factor. THEN learn the full extent of what you have already. THEN possibly full ACR or LR. 
You have already said you cannot master all of these things at one time. Stop trying to bite of more and more and more. You will never get the basic if you keep thinking something else is going to be the magic bullet for you. It's not. It's all in your camera.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2012)

"The cloning function, dodge/burn, and some other features in Lightroom are very crude compared to their counterparts in Photoshop."

Uh...not really accurate. which LR are you speaking of in your broad,sweeping generalization? AMOMENT is referencing *ELEMENTS vs Lightroom*. Are you comparing Lightroom 2 of 2003, or Lightroom process 2012 aka LR 3.6, or are you comparing some version of "*Photoshop CS, full*" with Lightroom process 2012, aka LR 4.1?

For the beginner???? Photoshop ELEMENTS versus Lightroom??? Not even a doubt--*Lightroom is by FAR the better choice if one must pick one,single application and the other choice is PS ELEMENTS!* And I am tailoring my response specifically to AMOMENT's type of photography (family portraiture). According to Scott Kelby LR is the better tool. According to me LR is better. According to many people LR is the better overall tool if one has to choose ONE tool. Lightroom is a HUGE asset. Photoshop ELEMENTS?? c'mon...

And besides--masking and layers for a beginner like her? STUPID to even bother worrying about it...there are BETTER, faster, and MUCH-easier tools available outside of Photoshop--from OTHER vendors with better intellectual property. With Lightroom, you can burn and dodge and rotate and crop and export images to a local drive, or to a web-based FTP or HTML server in seconds...not sure ELEMENTS has that. If you want to be able to "mask", get software that will accomplish the SAME thing better and faster, like Viveza 2. Beginners need different tools than old-timers are used to. I would NEVER sell a child my elk rifle, nor my camera. Nor would I suggest a beginner buy a stripped-down program simply because "I" happen to have a hard-on for it...

Don't listen to old guys whop have 15,= or even ' worth 20 years of Photoshop-ONLY experience and love to push the things THEY came up with and which they have vast experience with: YOU, as a beginner, need better,newer, smarter software that can LEVERAGE YOUR SKILL_SET...and that is NOT "Elements". Masking is outdated as a technique for beginners...COntrol Point technology accomplishes the same thing FASTER, and easier, and globally and locally, and a BEGINNER Can master it in 2 weeks time...

For a beginner? I say, buy software designed this CENTURY--the 21st Century....not conceptualized wayyyy back in 1989...

Seriously.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> "The cloning function, dodge/burn, and some other features in Lightroom are very crude compared to their counterparts in Photoshop."
> 
> Uh...not really accurate.
> 
> ...




I agree with the vast majority of this. There are some things that I don't agree with. Masking being one of them. masking is a great way to teach beginners *learning to use photoshop* how to control marquee and pixel buffer. I bolded those words in my last sentence for a reason.

For someone that is coming into this via the field of photography, and has never used editing software, I would not advise using Photoshop as your starting source. There are too many tools and features. You will simply get confused.

Get LightRoom. The tools and workflow are much more simplistic, and it's super easy to learn.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 10, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Rwsphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the op has already been ripped apart numerous times on her photography skills as well as her processing I think she needs to improve both before trying any fancy editing wurh photoshop.
> ...



if this was a first attempt? absolutely. your assuming progress is being made though. 
I will give credit where credit is due however,  as you were dead spot on about masking, and getting Lightroom.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2012)

MASKING as a *must-learn method* for beginning shooters like the OP is outdated now that Viveza 2's Control Point tecnology has been perfected (in both Nikon Capture and ALSO) by Nik Software. Times change. Some people don't.

Photoshop's Channel-mixer B&W conversion method, long a staple, is now outdated for beginners now that Nik SiverEfex Pro has hit version 2.0 and nearly a decade of refinement. America's BEST printers are now using SIlverEfex to do their B&W print prep because it kicks Adobe photoshop's ass...with better,smarter software design based on entirely NEW software design strategies and teams infused with "new" thinking. Not the same old chit, for 25 years...

Considering that AMOMENT's area of interest is FAMILY PORTRAITURE, and I know what she shoots, my answer was tailored specifically to her. And was an effort to point out that the TOOLS have changed, dramatically, since Nik Software out-thought Adobe in coming up with a way to do the same thing as masking, but with better tools and an entirely NEW, non-Adobe approach. Also...Nik Software doesn't try and gouge its customers on a regular basis, like Adobe does with Photoshop.

Her question was very specific, and very simple. Elements vs Lightroom. Basically, 1980's concepts versus 21st century concepts.

The *let's work on this at the pixel level* image editing versus "I have a CF card with 435 images" and need to *get a web gallery up before dinner*, and then *tomorrow I need to prep 24 prints for printing after supper*.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Her question was very specific, and very simple. Elements vs Lightroom. Basically, 1980's concepts versus 21st century concepts.
> 
> The *let's work on this at the pixel level* image editing versus "I have a CF card with 435 images" and need to *get a web gallery up before dinner*, and then *tomorrow I need to prep 24 prints for printing after supper*.




There is no debate there. Hands down, you are 100% right. 

However, we touched base on this in the last thread you and I posted in about conversion and work speed. I can edit a photo just as fast in photoshop as I can in lightroom. In fact, I think I'm pretty safe to say I could edit a photo in photoshop about as fast as _*anyone*_ could in lightroom. That being said, only because of my experience level in photoshop. I've been using photoshop ever since version 5.0... a REALLY long time. Not only have I used it for that long, the vast majority of those have been because I am a graphic design native. 

So, I'm very fluent with the tools in photoshop and how each and every one of them work. I also know all of the keyboard shortcuts, and I use a Wacom tablet. So, the B scenario you are giving in this reference, I am capable of, and have done using Photoshop only. 

I will say, though, that is completely avoiding ACR. ACR's engine is a bit slow and even in my machine (pretty beefed i7 rig) still takes a little time to load. I try to avoid shooting in RAW and shoot in JPEG fine, unless it's a paid shoot for that reason.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 10, 2012)

Derrel, I agree with you down the line, maybe. I am a Bridge ACR user, but that's part of the old, set in my ways ME. 
However, what about the editing problems and issues that she is already having when she only has a portion of the control of LR? And we know that she's trying to master EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE, but it's not the way she seems to learn best. She needs a layered education. 
Where does that put your opinion for right this moment?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 10, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Her question was very specific, and very simple. Elements vs Lightroom. Basically, 1980's concepts versus 21st century concepts.
> ...



I know I am going off topic here. Sorry! I am wondering why that is? I am using a bit outdated (HA!) AMD 64 Dual core 3.0 with 8G of RAM. I am usually running a billion things at once and I don't have a problem with ACR at all. It's lightning fast, however I do have a problem with LR being slow. Any insight?  Anyone?


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 10, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I know I am going off topic here. Sorry! I am wondering why that is? I am using a bit outdated (HA!) AMD 64 Dual core 3.0 with 8G of RAM. I am usually running a billion things at once and I don't have a problem with ACR at all. It's lightning fast, however I do have a problem with LR being slow. Any insight?  Anyone?



Your guess is as good as mine... I'll sit for a good answer on this one as well.


----------



## Rick58 (Aug 10, 2012)

I know what the problem is. Someone forgot the tar, and the others forgot the feathers. Geez, this person just asked for advice and she gets treated like a fox in the hen house. I think I might think twice before *I* ask for help one day.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 10, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> I know what the problem is. Someone forgot the tar, and the others forgot the feathers. Geez, this person just asked for advice and she gets treated like a fox in the hen house. I think I might think twice before *I* ask for help one day.



Who's tarring and feathering? I guess I missed those posts. 
As far as I am concerned I am making a suggestion that is tailored to the way she learns. I spent much time on helping her and we've discussed how she learns as have several of the others.


----------



## Rwsphotos (Aug 10, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Rwsphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the op has already been ripped apart numerous times on her photography skills as well as her processing I think she needs to improve both before trying any fancy editing wurh photoshop.
> ...




Apparently you missed my entire point but Mleek got it.  I agree about being bad at something  before you lean it but that's the whole point A moment does not need to add another learning curve before she masters the basics.  Like learning to walk before you run...The thread turned into a heavy debate about programs and I thought it might be pertinent to point out who the op was and that programs with a learning curve might not be in her best interest.  That said Michael Phelps' has nothing to do with helping her photography skills.   I'm not MISS Perfection I am someone will to try to help the op in the right direction.


----------



## Rick58 (Aug 10, 2012)

Sorry, I just read your signature line. I guess you don't have time to be Extraordinaire and civil.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 10, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Sorry, I just read your signature line. I guess you don't have time to be Extraordinaire and civil.



noone here has spent more time helping AMOMENT than MLeeK.. it is most definitely NOT a lack of civility on her part.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 10, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Sorry, I just read your signature line. I guess you don't have time to be Extraordinaire and civil.


I haven't been less than civil here in any way. I explained why and why in relation to her in particular. The reasoning of why SHE should wait on this upgrade is very different than most people. This is tailored to how she has TOLD US things work for her. It's how she learns. She knows it. She tells us that. She has potential, but not if she keeps overloading herself and preventing her from mastering the steps she needs to take. 
People each learn differently. This is how she learns and what it would do for her if she added in LR before she's got the other steps behind her.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2012)

I have gone OUT OF MY WAY to offer lengthy help to AMOMENT, over months of her time here on TPF. I have offered her suggestions and advice on multiple occasions. I recognize who she is, and how she shoots, and what she is trying to accomplish. I've spent many years studying portraiture and family photography topics...Lighroom 4.1 is what I would suggest to ANY beginner who needs to shoot family portraiture sessions and needs something that will not only edit images, but handle the images for web uploading, Facebook, Flickr, Smugmug, on-line proofing, printing, and slideshows.

A person here mentioned yesterday that he has been using PS since version 5..as if I am impressed...I shot a wedding in the early 1990's and as half of my compensation, I took a brand new unopened copy of Adobe Photoshop 2.5 and $550 as my pay...I have been using PS since computers ran it so slowly you could command an image to load, and go make a sandwich and come back and the image would STILL be loading...and I know keyboard shortcuts out the @@@. *So what*. We are *not comparing CS 6 versus LR 4.1.*..we are comparing a new version of *ELEMENTS*, itself a stripped down newbie app, *with LR 4.1, the current state-of-the art offering* (from Adobe) designed for PHOTOGRAPHERS as a workflow aid and image processing tool. My Photoshop experience goes back to 1991. MY LIGHTROOM experience started this spring. And let me say--I wish to God I would have gotten into LR back in 2003. Or 2005. Or 2008. Or 2010...

For a beginning family portrait shooter, LR has the upper hand against Elements. This topic has more pure B.S. and software-specific loyalty and nonsense than almost any topic we've ever seen here. Photoshop HAD, and still HAS, some serious liabilities.Photoshop ELEMENTS had and has even mor eliabilities and omissions than the full versions, at each iteration! steep learning curve and the antiquated thinking that Photoshop was and is built upon is in part, why its parent company, Adobe, created LIGHTROOM. And why Apple created Aperture.


----------



## Rwsphotos (Aug 10, 2012)

Gee after all that Mentoring you tried to give the op MLeek and your not helping?? Your not giving her much needed advice? I don't see anyone else here helping her like you. To them its a debate between programs, programs that as you mentioned will only complicate things for her.  They are all putting the cart before her horse.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I have gone OUT OF MY WAY to offer lengthy help to AMOMENT, over months of her time here on TPF. I have offered her suggestions and advice on multiple occasions. I recognize who she is, and how she shoots, and what she is trying to accomplish. I've spent many years studying portraiture and family photography topics...Lighroom 4.1 is what I would suggest to ANY beginner who needs to shoot family portraiture sessions and needs something that will not only edit images, but handle the images for web uploading, Facebook, Flickr, Smugmug, on-line proofing, printing, and slideshows.
> 
> A person here mentioned yesterday that he has been using PS since version 5..as if I am impressed...I shot a wedding in the early 1990's and as half of my compensation, I took a brand new unopened copy of Adobe Photoshop 2.5 and $550 as my pay...I have been using PS since computers ran it so slowly you could command an image to load, and go make a sandwich and come back and the image would STILL be loading...and I know keyboard shortcuts out the @@@. *So what*. We are *not comparing CS 6 versus LR 4.1.*..we are comparing a new version of *ELEMENTS*, itself a stripped down newbie app, *with LR 4.1, the current state-of-the art offering* (from Adobe) designed for PHOTOGRAPHERS as a workflow aid and image processing tool. My Photoshop experience goes back to 1991. MY LIGHTROOM experience started this spring. And let me say--I wish to God I would have gotten into LR back in 2003. Or 2005. Or 2008. Or 2010...
> 
> For a beginning family portrait shooter, LR has the upper hand against Elements. This topic has more pure B.S. and software-specific loyalty and nonsense than almost any topic we've ever seen here. Photoshop HAD, and still HAS, some serious liabilities.Photoshop ELEMENTS had and has even mor eliabilities and omissions than the full versions, at each iteration! steep learning curve and the antiquated thinking that Photoshop was and is built upon is in part, why its parent company, Adobe, created LIGHTROOM. And why Apple created Aperture.




No one was creating a pissing match with what I said, except for you. You said in your post that LightRoom has a faster workflow for you. I was simply telling you that for me, it doesn't.

There is a far fetched difference between you using photoshop since 2.5 for photography, and me using it since 5.0 for graphic design. How many times have you designed a layout, cut and sliced, then optimized for web in photoshop? 5, 10 times for your own website? Well, mine is probably in the same number of photography clients you have ever had. How many times have you set type face for business cards, marketing packages, branding packages, etc? How many times have you rendered 3D text in photoshop for an advertisement. How many times have you taken other 3D files and painted on them live in photoshop? 

The reason I'm bringing this up is the fact that not only is your tool use limited in photoshop, so is your experience and your ability. There isn't a photo on this planet that you can't edit in photoshop, Darrel. However, There isn't a single thing that can be done in photoshop, that I can't do. See the difference here. You don't need the entire program. Where as people like me do. 

LightRoom is a dream for a photographer only. However, LightRoom isn't going to let you edit a photo, optimize it for web, and migrate it to DreamWeaver to put on your website. However, Photoshop, ACR, & Bridge will let you do exactly that. Photoshop wasn't built solely for photographers, and I understand that. However, I am not solely a photographer...


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I have gone OUT OF MY WAY to offer lengthy help to AMOMENT, over months of her time here on TPF. I have offered her suggestions and advice on multiple occasions. I recognize who she is, and how she shoots, and what she is trying to accomplish. I've spent many years studying portraiture and family photography topics...Lighroom 4.1 is what I would suggest to ANY beginner who needs to shoot family portraiture sessions and needs something that will not only edit images, but handle the images for web uploading, Facebook, Flickr, Smugmug, on-line proofing, printing, and slideshows.
> 
> A person here mentioned yesterday that he has been using PS since version 5..as if I am impressed...I shot a wedding in the early 1990's and as half of my compensation, I took a brand new unopened copy of Adobe Photoshop 2.5 and $550 as my pay...I have been using PS since computers ran it so slowly you could command an image to load, and go make a sandwich and come back and the image would STILL be loading...and I know keyboard shortcuts out the @@@. *So what*. We are *not comparing CS 6 versus LR 4.1.*..we are comparing a new version of *ELEMENTS*, itself a stripped down newbie app, *with LR 4.1, the current state-of-the art offering* (from Adobe) designed for PHOTOGRAPHERS as a workflow aid and image processing tool. My Photoshop experience goes back to 1991. MY LIGHTROOM experience started this spring. And let me say--I wish to God I would have gotten into LR back in 2003. Or 2005. Or 2008. Or 2010...
> 
> For a beginning family portrait shooter, LR has the upper hand against Elements. This topic has more pure B.S. and software-specific loyalty and nonsense than almost any topic we've ever seen here. Photoshop HAD, and still HAS, some serious liabilities.Photoshop ELEMENTS had and has even mor eliabilities and omissions than the full versions, at each iteration! steep learning curve and the antiquated thinking that Photoshop was and is built upon is in part, why its parent company, Adobe, created LIGHTROOM. And why Apple created Aperture.




Derrel, forgive me here, I am confused at where LR is MORE. Not suprerior for an editor's workflow, but where it is actually MORE for photographers. Let me explain where I am getting lost here. 
I think for a cataloging program and for raw editing LR is great. However, as far as I know there is nothing in LR that is not there in Photoshop combined with Bridge/ACR. ACR and LR are the same engine under a different hood. Bridge does everything that LR does as far as cataloging, tagging, keywording, etc. 
The difference comes in where the cataloging in LR is easier and more intuitive. In addition to that PS would be the option that offers more ability past raw processing. 
I am missing something here. 

I am software loyal only because that is my comfort and the editing engine doesn't work so well for me in LR because of ProPhoto and frankly, it's more of a PITA for ME to learn how to do it when I can go to ACR and do it the easy way. However... That does not mean that I am dead against LR either. It's design and interface is definitely a much better solution to Bridge for intuitiveness. 
I don't disagree that a portrait shooter would have the upper hand with LR over elements. Elements raw engine is a stripped down version. LR is definitely a HUGE improvement. I fail to see how PS's shortcomings outside of ACR effect LR. They are two different birds entirely. They do completely different things. 
Please help me to see what I am not understanding here. 

As for our OP's question: I don't disagree that the raw processor in LR will be much better for her in terms of ability AFTER she gets the basics down. She's already said she gets overwhelmed with balancing everything and learning it all at once. She is having a hard time balancing the camera functions with the editing options she already has. Why would it make sense to upgrade NOW and overwhelm her more? Why not first teach her how to use the limited abilities of raw processing in Elements without overwhelming her with all of that other lovely stuff that will make her wonder what she did down the line. Once she has a full grasp of how those basics are working then add in the additional elements.


----------



## skieur (Aug 10, 2012)

Lightroom is basically a database/cataloguing programs with some simple editing features. Photoshop Elements is "editing-light".....as in not as complete or as sophisticated as Photoshop CS5. PhotoshopCS5 has a steep learning curve and not everyone has the need for that level of editing.

The less expensive approach is Paintshop Pro X4 Ultimate($39,95 CAD) which has more editing features than Photoshop Elements but less than Photoshop CS5 with an easy to use Lightroom type database/cataloguing program built in to it. Since Photoshop CS5 plug-ins run in the program, you end up with a lot of Photoshop funcionality at a lower price.

By the way, I have all of the mentioned programs.

skieur


----------

