# Photoshop cs5 vs Lightroom 4



## JohnTrav (Aug 7, 2012)

Currently have photoshop cs 5 on my computer. I was wondering if there are any advantages to having Lightroom 4 also. I have heard a lot about Lightroom but was wondering what people had to say that used both programs personally. I just don't want to spend money I don't have to. 

I'm just looking for the easiest program to use. I still have no clue what I am doing in photoshop. I haven't had time to use it as much as I want to. 

Any advise would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## KmH (Aug 7, 2012)

CS 5's Camera Raw is ACR 6, which is also used by Lightroom 3's Develope module. So with CS 5 and Camera Raw you already have essentially the same editing capability Lightroom 3 has.
(ACR = Adobe Camera Raw)

Lightroom 4's Develope module uses ACR 7.

CS 5 can edit pixels, Lightroom can't edit pixels. Lightroom can only do a tiny fraction of the editing CS 5 can, but Lightroom was designed specifically for photographers *that make a butt load of $$$ producing images they need to manage.* In other words, Lightroom's primary function is image database management, not image editing.

You can't learn to use image editing software by osmosis. You have to do some learning.

Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5 

Adobe Photoshop CS5 for Photographers: A professional image editor's guide to the creative use of Photoshop for the Macintosh and PC


----------



## Derrel (Aug 7, 2012)

I have a LOT of respect for KmH's knowledge of many,many photography subjects. He is one of TPF's most-respected, most even-keeled members, in my opinion. He's a big-time Photoshop type guy. I OTOH, am a Photoshop minimalist. I am a slow,deliberate software upgrader, and realllllly hate to upgrade from one version of PS, or Nikon Capture, or computer Operating System. But honestly, I think KmH is barking up the WRONG TREE on this issue of Photoshop CS, any variant, versus Lightroom 4.1...

Lightroom 4.1 is a remarkable advancement in RAW processing capabilities. I myself JUST started using LR 3.6, which I got cheap, after 4.0 hit the streets. From a "photographer's point of view", the capabilities of Lightroom are, here comes that word again, *remarkable. *I have a shooting buddy, who is a member here on TPF, and another long-time friend who used to work for a major US daily newspaper as the HEAD pre-press photo prep and toning dude, for over 20 years...both of them have shown me, personally, at their screens, how LR absolutely kicks butt. My newspaper buddy is used to working with HUGE numbers of images coming in from multiple sources, and for also importing,keywording, and automatically uploading tagged, and keyworded, and captioned images to FTP and other servers, as well as uploading to web galleries to *almost instantaneously fulfill CLIENT REQUESTS* for images to review for purchase, based on search engine hits generated by clients...allowing him to sit down at Lightroom, and search for keyword matches, and then nearly instantly, have Lightroom locate images, and then help him format web galleries that are ready for automatic upload to various photo selling site, or toi his own server, for client perusal and purchase--within mere minutes. But LR is much more than a cataloging and web-published application.

In another vein...Lightroom 4 has a new type of INCREDIBLE highlight/shadow recovery that, as far as I know, is as-yet-unequalled by any other Adobe program. Here is an article entitled "tonal Adjustments in the Age of Lightroom 4" by Charles Cramer, published on the well-respected web site The Luminous Landscape.

Tonal Adjustments in the Age of Lightroom 4

I dunno..there are "some features" that PS does better...like cloning on portraits...CS is FAR better, IMHO, for REAL-WORLD PORTRAIT "spotting" and "dust removal". Still...using LR 3.6, I have personally been able to HUGELY INCREASE the speed and efficiency of "my" file handling and retouching and color-toning + effects applications. SO, with ONE MONTH of Lightroom experience and four real-world, 1-hour LR tutorials, I have been able to easily kick PS CS's a&& in file handling and prep time. Yeah...for pixel-level editing, CS is undoubtedly better,and for removing facial blemishes and moles, the "Way" the clone tool works in CS is vastly better for me...BUT, for enhancing real-world digital images by the 8-gigabyte-card-full??? *LIGHTROOM, baby, Lightroom. *In this new web-based imaging environment, LR has many advantages for the photographer who needs to "handle" images more so than "edit them at the pixel level".


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 7, 2012)

I can't live without LR4.  Only 5-10% of my raw files go on to photoshop CS5 for further editing.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 7, 2012)

we have CS5 master-suite and lightroom 4.1, both get used depending on what needs to be done to a photo. Lightroom is fast, good at dealing with multiple files, and uploads right to smugmug. Great if you don't need to do any pixel editing. sometimes not editing pixels is good if you only want to make some minor adjustments. 
Lightroom is NOT a replacement for Photoshop, its an accompaniment to it.

Lightroom 4.1 is AWESOME btw.   :mrgreen:


----------



## JohnTrav (Aug 7, 2012)

Thanks for the input everyone.  Its very appreciated.  I am going to research more and look at the links everyone has posted once I get some time.  Any more input is greatly appreciated


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 7, 2012)

I told my wife if Lightroom was a girl, I'd marry her.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Aug 7, 2012)

You have probably figured it out already, but I say LR4 without a doubt. ARC 6 vs ARC 7, no comparison. I seldom have a need for PS anymore.


----------



## bhop (Aug 7, 2012)

I agree with KmH.. at least for me. 

I can do image edits wayyyyyy faster with Photoshop, but then, I have nearly 20 years of experience using photoshop, while i've only used lightroom for about a year, so, as it is, I use LR mostly for batch editing and organization a lot of images at once.


----------



## swanseamale47 (Aug 7, 2012)

Lightroom has more or less the same tools you have in the camera raw part of photoshop, it's also got options for printing and web etc, it's designed to be used for image editing/catalogue_.  _While it's very good at the basic editing, it lacks layers and proper selection tools, (there is an ajustment brush) Lr 4 does use the new process 2012 which is much better than the 2010 version you have in CS5.
Look at the two programs complimenting each other, LR for the bulk batch editing, and photoshop for the tricky stuff.


----------



## ghache (Aug 7, 2012)

i couldn't live without both. my workflow use both. lightroom 4 is AMAZING but there is still some stuff it cant do, or can be done in photoshop alot faster.


----------



## JohnTrav (Aug 7, 2012)

Thanks everyone. Seems like I am going to be investing in Lightroom sometime real soon. Then I can have both and just use what is best for what I am doing at the time. 

Thanks for all the input.


----------



## usayit (Aug 7, 2012)

I've slowly gone from a workflow that uses both photoshop (I have an old version) to almost exclusively using LR 2 and now LR 3.6.   IMO, the workflow management capabilities are irreplaceable.

.. but...

I recently purchased complete set of Nik software and working that into my process.  Only short time using it but I'm fairly impressed and intend on making use of all the plugins (with probably the exception of HDR).    I passed up on the upgrade to LR 4 and put the money towards licenses Nik software which is on sale btw.


----------



## charlie76 (Aug 7, 2012)

I have a YES/NO quick question about Lightroom.

When you install Lightroom, does it detect Photoshop?  Does it register with Adobe..and all that sort of data exchange?  Or do they operate completely separately?
  I am using CS2...and want Lightroom strictly for file management.


----------



## usayit (Aug 7, 2012)

charlie76 said:


> Does it register with Adobe..and all that sort of data exchange?  Or do they operate completely separately?
> I am using CS2...and want Lightroom strictly for file management.



Hmmmm.. ok... sorry but that sounds fishy.   What does registration have to do with operating completely separately?.. and the concern over registration too.

But to answer your question.

Yes... Photoshop and Lightroom operate independently.  You can set it up in lightroom to easily open a photo in photoshop as a convenience.  The same for almost any plugin or thirdparty software.


PS> Installation LR will scan your entire computer for illegal Adobe products and report you to the local authorities.... 



.. Joking..


..

Well.. maybe... kinda..  joking..


----------



## KmH (Aug 7, 2012)

Lightroom and Photoshop operate separately.

CS 5 Camera Raw (ACR) is fast, and can deal with multiple files just like Lighrtroom cam. CS 5 Bridge can host ACR and do batch processing, while CS 5 also hosts ACR and does other editing on multiple files. It's like having 2 of Lightroom running at the same time.

CS 5 Bridge also has direct to web and some of the other features Lightroom has.

But if anyone that already has CS 5/Bridge/ACR wants to go ahead and spend the money to duplicate a lot of those features by getting Lightroom, they can sure do so.


----------



## pic_chick (Aug 7, 2012)

I am fairly new to Photography but I have both photoshop and lightroom I like Lightroom's file management But I do still use photoshop  I like having them both lightromm will send my photos to where I need them Photoshop online desktop with out a lot of fuss but what I really like is the group edit say you have 10 photos that all need the same thing lightroom will edit them all in one click nice time saver.


----------



## Karloz (Aug 7, 2012)

Hi - Both very good programs - Designed for two distinct reasons - Lightroom is for workflow and Photoshop is for every thing you cant do in Lightroom .


----------



## KmH (Aug 7, 2012)

Actually, Lightroom and Photoshop have a lot of overlap.

It seems a lot of people that have Photoshops Bridge don't know how much Bridge can actually do.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 7, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> Actually, Lightroom and Photoshop have a lot of overlap.
> 
> It seems a lot of people that have Photoshops Bridge don't know how much Bridge can actually do.



^^^^ this. A previous poster said they can edit 10 photos with 1 click in LR - you can do the same thing in Bridge.....

I like LR but I probably wouldn't ever buy it. I can do pretty much everything in photoshop (bridge, ACR) that LR can do.


----------



## swanseamale47 (Aug 8, 2012)

For lightroom to intergrate properly with photoshop you ideally need the same process version (that means CS6) although LR4 will work with Cs3.
Lightroom is a stand alone program that "links" to photoshop (and some other programs) so you have the option of sending a pic to that for more in depth editing if you need to do so.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 8, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> Actually, Lightroom and Photoshop have a lot of overlap.
> 
> It seems a lot of people that have Photoshops Bridge don't know how much Bridge can actually do.



But bridge is a file browser, not a catalog/workflow program made specifically for photographs and photographers. I used to think Adobe bridge was adequate, until I used lightroom and realized there are 1,000 things in lightroom specifically made to make my life easier when organizing and developing photos.


----------



## KmH (Aug 8, 2012)

Good on you cobber.

For me as a full time working pro, Lightroom's database management capabilities were serious overkill, and Bridge handily did everything I needed to do.

Adobe has been utterly astonished at the popularity of Lightroom. Cha-Ching!


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 8, 2012)

KmH said:


> Good on you cobber.
> 
> For me as a full time working pro, Lightroom's database management capabilities were serious overkill, and Bridge handily did everything I needed to do.
> 
> Adobe has been utterly astonished at the popularity of Lightroom. Cha-Ching!



Agreed. There are times I like editing in LR4 because I need to the minimal or am crunched for time and need a quick fix. However, I will take Photoshop and Bridge over LR any day of the week.


----------



## ghache (Aug 8, 2012)

DONT DOWNLOAD IT. it will........................save you 1000s of dollards.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2012)

ghache said:


> DONT DOWNLOAD IT. it will........................save you 1000s of dollards.



And TONS of time, and aggravation too!

Here is an article written by famous Photoshop trainer, lecturer, and photographer Scott Kelby. His article is entitled, "*100 Ways Lightroom Kicks The Bridge (and Camera Raw's) A$@"*

100 Ways Lightroom Kicks the Bridge (and Camera Raw&#8217;s) A$@! | Scott Kelby's Photoshop Insider


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 8, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> And TONS of time, and aggravation too!
> 
> Here is an article written by famous Photoshop trainer, lecturer, and photographer Scott Kelby. His article is entitled, "100 Ways Lightroom Kicks The Bridge (and Camera Raw's) A$@"
> 
> 100 Ways Lightroom Kicks the Bridge (and Camera Raw&rsquo;s) A$@! | Scott Kelby's Photoshop Insider



Hmmm, funny you say that, considering the version of photoshop I use (CS6) has the same exact RAW editing engine as LR4, ACR 7.

Not to mention the editing capabilities of photoshop goes eons above and beyond what Lightroom could ever fathom.

Really it comes down to familiarity and personal preference. I prefer PS and Bridge over LightRoom because I have experience with bridge since its debut. I've been using the adobe platform ever since photoshop 5.0. So, if I would have learned in LR, I would probably use it more, but I can navigate in Bridge much faster than I can in LR.


----------



## JohnTrav (Aug 8, 2012)

I dont have much experience in either.  I am learning now.  I have photoshop sc5 on my computer already and just play around in camera raw.  I have not done any serious editing yet.  

I also have PS express on my ipad for editing but I am not to thrilled with editing on a tablet unless I really have to.  Only reason I have it was because it was a free app I could play around with.

I am still obviously starting out as you can tell if you looked at my pictures in other threads I have started.  Photoshop camera raw tough seems pretty straight forward to me though when it comes to editing.  I can edit pictures fairly quickly and I dont really find it hard to navigate using Bridge either.  I can keep my files pretty organized and view and edit albums in a timely manner.  

I guess what I really need to know is how does Lightroom make it easier to manage your database?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The original post is comparing Photoshop CS 5 versus Lightroom 4... We are comparing a low-cost, affordable program, Like Lightroom 4, versus a Photoshop version that MANY beginning digital shooters will not be able to afford...you're bringing in CS SIX....*we've been talking about CS FIVE versus Lightroom 4.*

Lightroom 4 is very affordable for the first-time buyer, AND it has an INCREDIBLE, simply INCREDIBLE ABILITY TO DO EXTREME tonal adjustments, with "novice users" running the application without the need to resorting to advanced layering and masking techniques. LR 4 is the subject of a gushing article on The Luminous Landscape website...catering to HARD-CORE landscapers who want to be able to pull off *extreme tonal corrections with superb results....
*
I am a Lightroom "newbie" myself...here is my second portraiture session that I have EVER DONE using Lightroom, using the "old" 2010 3.6 Lightroom. For "me", recommending software to a beginner or first-time digital photographer, I have to say, after using Photoshop for 15 years, and now having been using Lightroom for about two weeks now...for a "photographer", LR is the schizz-nit. *I listened to the "Photoshop-ONLY" crowd for about two and half years too long.* I can see that for myself now.

tanya_at_the_river Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

Keep in mind, these are just pounded out in LR...this entire set is my PROOFS...none of these are even REMOTELY what I would call "finals". This set has 11 pages of files, right off of my CF cards,so you can see that for me, who tries to get things right in-camera, LR works really well.  I bought this copy of LR 3.6 for $59 I bought this summer on an internet blow-out sale after 4.1 was announced and actually out. *LR 3.6, rookie user* (me)....hmm...upgrading to 4.1 in three...two...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 8, 2012)

/begin Novel 
(lots of this was copied from another post on a similar topic a couple months ago, some is new stuff too):

I was the biggest Cs5/Photomatix/Bridge/ACR junky ever, just 2 months ago. That was me in a nutshell. I just got LR 4.1 maybe a couple months ago. I am absolutely floored by how awesome 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. This includes my beginnings with CS5. This includes Nik Software's awesome CS5 plugin's. This includes OnOne's plugin Suite. This includes the Topaz filter plugins I've used. Nothing gets used nearly 10% of the time that Lightroom does.   

I was using a clunky folder system and adobe bridge for my workflow. I would overlook _*so many shots*_ because this was just not adequate or efficient workflow. Every time you go into Bridge, you are loading a FILE DIRECTORY, not a CATALOG. There's a huge difference. For one, Bridge is much slower. I constantly have the need to browse hundreds of RAW files, and bridge is just not fast or smart enough. 

With a CS5/bridge workflow I was opening 3-5 SEPERATE PROGRAMS TO PROCESS ONE IMAGE. Workflow *KILLER! *


Adobe Bridge
ACR module
CS5
CS5 plugins
CS5 plugins

Each of these programs have different modules, different keyboard shortcuts, different interfaces, to accomplish the processing of a single photo.  

Now in Lightroom, you're able to navigate around smoothly in the SAME interface, bouncing between your "catalog" where all your files are easily accessible, and "develop" where you process one or multiple photos. It's simplified the process substantially. 

*Lightroom is made by photographers, for photographers*. Bridge is a file browser. Bridge is NOT specifically made for photos, it's a MEDIA directory.  

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


I created 5 facebook albums in the course of about 2 hours. I easily 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, and it's all INTEGRATED directly into LR. 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! Lightroom integrates with tons of other websites too for FAST, HASSLE-FREE publishing.
I went back through over 5,000 raw files and found literally 100 shots that I had completely missed because my workflow sucked
Non-destructive editing-- everything I do in lightroom is kept in history in LR and never touches the original CR2 file. I can make 50 adjustments to an image, come back to it a year later, and revert back to any point and time through my editing. I can go back after making a crop to an image and re-crop it differently. It's non-destructive, so ANY change I make to a file, 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 guessing game if the photo was in focus/sharp with the surprisingly inadequate *bridge loupe tool. *Not only that, I have full size previews rendering on one of my monitors so I can see the image BIG without clicking on it (Lightroom advantage).
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. (CS6 has the same ACR apparently, but CS5 has the old one).
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.

I mean, honestly, is it really necessary to do pixel-level editing on every photo? Especially when most of mine will just be viewed at small-medium sizes on the web. LR really takes care of the bulk of editing needs. It's sole purpose of existence is to make organizing and working on photos easier for the photographer who shoots RAW. 

For layering, masking, and advanced editing I'll still use CS5. 


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


/end Novel


----------

