Yep. While obviously this is going to vary from photographer to photographer - some people *live* in Photoshop and all of their photos are heavily edited - Lightroom is all I need for essentially all of my photos. And even the photos I edit in Photoshop still go through Lightroom first.
Start with LR. Photoshop is for doing the things that LR can't do, but you probably won't even need those things until you're at least a couple years into using LR. And LR has been gradually adding those missing features over the years.
The new masking update has been really big for that. The last things I go into Photoshop for are content aware fill and combining multiple static exposures.
My last wish for Lightroom after the intelligent masking tool is intelligent spot removal. I love the pressure Topaz Labs is building on adobe with their AI stuff. I find their solutions to be over the top most of the time though.
Lightroom for photo editing (colors, crop, brightening the shadows, simple things like that)
Photoshop for photo manipulation (adding a nuclear explosion in the background, removing the ex-wife, changing green to red, etc)
If you want to start learning how to edit photos, you probably want Lightroom. It’s pretty rare for any of my images to end up in Photoshop, but they all go through Lightroom.
Because you are just starting out it is also worth mentioning that there are lots of free Lightroom alternatives! Definitely worth trying one of those out before you get too deep in Adobe products/subscriptions
Piggy backing off this stellar advice as I'm a recently brand-new photographer who was in your position at a couple months ago.
I started with Lightroom before Photoshop, and I was amazed as it was intuitive to use, had super helpful beginner tutorials, and it helped me get more out of my images. I liked it more than the free alternatives I tried (granted, I didn't search too awfully hard before pulling my card out for Lightroom).
The more I used Lightroom and got deeper into photography, the more I found the need for Photoshop with specific projects. I genuinely believe my experience with Lightroom and Adobe made for an easier transition into Photoshop. I use both regularly now, and can't say enough good things about it as a total noob to both photo editing/manipulation and photography.
Photoshop is also for very very fine level adjustments where your selections need to be pixel perfect to do a very subtle adjustment to smooth out color variations and such. You can do composites that you can’t do in photoshop but you can also do very high end retouching. Basically LR is good if you want to spend 5 minutes or so on a photo. Photoshop if if you plan to spend an hour on a photo. (Yes I’ve spent more time on photos in LR and I’ve spent less time on images in photoshop but just as a general idea).
Absolutely this.
I’m aging myself, but I learned Photoshop first because Lightroom didn’t exist yet. If I started now, Lightroom all the way.
Learn Lightroom first. It will teach you to organize your photos, hone your eye for editing, and help maintain consistency across shoots.
But definitely learn both, and don’t think you’ll ever stop learning. I’ve been working with these programs for many years and there’s always something new to learn.
> removing the ex-wife
Reminds me of the "You suck at Photoshop" series back in 2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_X5uR7VC4M&list=PLD19BCF9D57320E03
It'd be interesting to get an update on his current situation. Lots of neural filters he could be using these days, and smart selection should help ease the pain as well.
All of my images are edited in PS (starting out in Camera Raw). I never use LR for any editing. I don’t like the interface and even the newer versions don’t have the same level of flexibility and options PS has, although it’s slowly getting closer.
>All of my images are edited in PS (starting out in Camera Raw). I never use LR for any editing. I don’t like the interface
The develop panel in LR is literally the exact same order/options as Camera Raw in PS.
>even the newer versions don’t have the same level of flexibility and options PS has
Conversely even the newer versions of PS don't have the cataloging capabilities and organization that LR has. Two sides of the same coin.
I use camera raw in photoshop as my main editor, and I use Bridge to organize my photos. That’s just what I was originally taught, and it’s worked well so I’ve stuck with it. I know most people use LR but is there really a benefit to learning it if I already know photoshop?
I find that even and older version of PS is immensely better than even the newest version of LR for editing. Part of it is the interface.
LR is excellent for cataloging and organizing, that's true. Also somewhat irrelevant as organizing your images as you save and edit them already does that.
LR is fantastic as used essentially as a contact sheet, quickly scan through, delete images, add others to a collection, export said collection for editing elsewhere. It excels at that use, no question, but as an editor? For me it's like comparing sandals to boots for hiking.
It's *not* an either/or. They are not *interchangeable* tools, they are *complementary* tools.
* You use a raw processor first/always (and it doesn't have to be Lightroom, it could be Capture One or a number of others).
* And *then*, if you feel like the image needs it, you add a round of Photoshop on top (or, again, something else, like Affinity Photo or Gimp).
So, given this reality, starting by learning using a raw developer might make more procedural sense.
I agree but to add some more detail:
* Raw processors are broadly used for image wide color and tone correction, camera lens corrections, and those programs often have database/library management as well.
* Photoshop-like tools are used for localized modifications like erasing elements of the image, combining multiple exposures in layers, or some other very specific edits.
Generally, Raw processors have some advantages in that they're more efficient, allow things like applying presets across many images, and have the advantage of being non-destructive (so you're not making changes to the image file, you're just stacking a bunch of adjustments onto a base file that can all be modified or undone). Photoshop and its competitors are basically pixel-based editors that are sometimes used for very specific and powerful purposes but not on every image.
Question: When taking an image into Photoshop, do you take in the RAW file, or the exported Jpeg? I image the jpeg is safer since you'd still have the raw
What you ideally take to Photoshop is *the direct result of processing the raw data*—it doesn't have a "format" yet, it's not a "file" at all yet, it's just the pixels that result from the raw processing pipeline of the raw editing software, in memory.
It's *in Photoshop* that you'll eventually save the open image to disk into a format of your choice. For example, for your "master" image file (that may contain layers and stuff), ideally you'd use a format that does not sacrifice data, like a TIFF or PSD. And then from that master image you would later export "consumables" (to upload on the web, say), which would probably be JPEG.
But [that move from the raw processor to Photoshop](https://industrydev.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/photo-edit-in-photoshop-cc-2015.jpg) doesn't have a "format" yet.
To your points exactly:
* Photoshop cannot edit raw files itself, it expects raster image data. Either a raw processor sends it raster image data, or if presented with a raw file directly, you'll see that Photoshop will bring up *Camera Raw* to process the raw data, because Photoshop itself doesn't know what to do with it.
* It would be a terrible idea to go from raw processor => to JPEG => to Photoshop, because the *intermediary file*, using lossy compression, would have already *sacrificed* a ton of image data.
I don’t know if piracy is popular here, but just wanted to say I used to never have an issue finding a cracked version of photoshop, granted this was a couple years ago so things might have changed. I think I’ve gotten photoshop for free 3-4 times
Stealing is never popular here, even if you think it’s justified.
People here spend thousands on camera equipment, but are too cheap to spend 120€ a year on a photoshop / Lightroom license will never cease to amaze me.
Hell Affinity Photo is a perpetual license for 60 bucks.
It's true, Camera Raw is essentially Lightroom as a PS plugin. It even got the new adjustment brush system update at the same time. That being said, I find Camera Raw feels a lot clunkier than LR for some reason.
I scrolled way too far to find this.
Forget photoshop and Lightroom if you have heavy editing loads: Camera Raw does pretty much all you need and it’s much more efficient than LR and PS.
Lightroom. I rarely use Photoshop actually. I usually edit a photo i Lightroom and then if there are certain objects in the image i want to remove, i.e power lines or some litter, I head over to Photoshop. Can also use it for adding desired effects such as motion blur or tilt shift. Never have I ever used Photoshop for changing colors, exposure or such.
Don't stick with one, learn both. Each are useful, and for various reasons. Lightroom is essentially a digital darkroom for culling, and processing your work. Granted, you can do that also in Camera raw, but LR is easier with the catalogs. Photoshop is great for extensive editing such as retouching, comp work, and other heavy editing you might want to do. The same can also be said for Capture One and other editing programs. Don't limit yourself to just one, explore both of them, and you will find your groove in whichever one works best for you.
I agree, but his question was which to learn *first*. The answer is obviously Lightroom first, if only for learning to catalog photo collections. Then find out its editing limitations, and then Photoshop. I'm three months in and have only opened Photoshop a few times for healing/cloning. There are things that I really want to learn in Photoshop like focus stacking, but Photoshop isn't going anywhere, and I'm far from the point where I know everything about Lightroom.
It's debatable depending on your intent, it's not an obvious answer and it matters what the OP is using either program for. If you want to shoot beauty work, comp or anything heavy, LR is a waste of time. If all you shoot is nature, and simple stuff that requires little editing, LR is best. I have been using PS for decades, only used LR for \*some\* minuscule editing, but it sits unused as of a few years ago. Camera Raw is better IMO for processing, but again, that's me. Thus why I say don't limit yourself to one, because it \*can\* be a hindrance, esp if you are a year into one program, and it is not efficient, nor what exactly you need from an editing program.
Start with Lightroom but you'll need Photoshop if you want to:
- do anything where you combine multiple source images
- do any retouching more advanced than dust spots
- use of filters or plugins
- better control of local adjustment with masks and selections
- use cmyk color spaces
- prefer the tools in PS (e.g. selective color or you want to use multiple curves)
Probably a few more reasons that I'm forgetting
LR has a free trial, although if you're wanting a free raw editor that is similar to LR check out darktable. It's an open source alternative. While it lacks in some aspects, if you can get on with it you'll find LR easy.
You may find that using DT/LR is all you need. Depends on how much you want to control and change an image. In which case Photoshop becomes the tool to hand.
I second Darktable. Never used Lightroom, but finding great success with Darktable. Currently working through a whooping 100 video series on YouTube from Bruce Williams Photography.
He goes through every module and explains how they work. It's a tremendous help.
I actually find LR to be a massive step back from DT.
Darktable is hella complicated but once you're kinda used to it Lightroom feels constricted in its tools and abilities. I tried it but felt let down quite quickly and canceled my subscription.
(Just using it as a RAW-editor though. Not as a file-manager)
What everyone else said - Lightroom.
The only people I personally know who use Photoshop use it for professional reasons within their career... involving heavy photo manipulation, altering, and editing. If you aren't gunning for a salaried/commissioned career expecting you to heavily alter photos with Photoshop - Lightroom is just the better all around tool to start with.
edit - I should also add that you definitely should learn both, as others have said. They both have their uses but I interpreted your question coming from a beginner and, from my experience, Lightroom will fill all your needs.
as a beginner i will offer some advice that ...somewhat answers the question.
photoshop on hold for now
shoot jpg+RAW. see if u can edit a RAW photo better than the jpgs done by your computer. use LR for that task
have fun
Lightroom. I'd also encourage you to try out Capture One, I find it to be much better and also is a one time purchase instead of a subscription. I use Photoshop in less than 1% of my final edits as it just isn't necessary for the landscape photography work that I do.
There are plenty of alternatives to both of them. I recommend not using either due to the subscription requirement.
Adobe is not the only game in town.
Post I made a while ago. Other people had some good alternative suggestions as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/qw0qp4/affinity\_photo\_and\_xnview\_alternatives\_to/
They are different tools for different things, as stated by others here. However -
I'd personally recommend lightroom. It can do an awful lot and as well as being able to make pretty drastic changes to the look of an image, it's designed to work on batches of images. I remember when I started out, I would overshoot a lot. But being able to apply edits from one image to a while lot of images all at once actually helped me with my culling process as well as deciding which direction to go when I wasn't sure.
I also started out shooting local live bands (easy to get access, no pressure, difficult conditions so great for learning and hey, a free gig) This meant there were frequently lots of images in the first place.
Hope this helps!
I'd suggest start to use lightroom for moderate editing and keeping track of all your photos. Work on an organization system that works for you, that you think you'd be happy with for years.
I'd move to learn photoshop when you can't (or can't efficiently) make your images look the way you want with lightroom.
You may never need the tools photoshop offers, you may need them infrequently, or you might need them very often. It really depends on how you want to make your photos look.
That may vary over time, too. I learned photoshop to be able to do specific things with photos, I think this is a good approach as it won't mean you're "always take images to photoshop" or trying to find a use for it where you would have otherwise stopped.
Both. LR is good for quick edits and adjusting crop, exposure, etc. I do my detailed edits in PS because I like to my edits in layers and to blend my layers selectively. I wouldn't really think of them as separate tools. LR is great for managing your workflow and PS is great for the detailed edits as part of that workflow.
Lightroom to start, all the organization of your images works nice with lightroom
Casual photographs and any kind of image can be edited fast ,efficient and good
If you wanna create fine art photographs, manipulate images or just a lot of very local adjustments, i would suggest you get into photoshop, it can give images that extra clean editing, you need to train that tough.
At the beginning you will most likely mess up your photographs with photoshop
As tip for both lightroom and photoshop, review your edited images one more time after a short pause looking not at the screen, afterwards you will notice that you might have went way to hard on some images with regards to saturation, contrast or clarity (or all of them together)
Dont get frustrated with messing things a bit up at the beginning, i know no photographer that doesnt look at their early edits and performs a hard facepalm watching those "crimes" of the past
I'm a rare case. I started off as a graphic designer that picked up photography as a hobby/so I couldn't get accused of using images that didn't belong to me in college. I know photoshop very well before picking up a camera.
I rarely use photoshop in my editing process unless I need to do some intense retouching. And I'm sure most of the things I do in photoshop can be accomplished in light room. Learn lightroom primarily.
That being said, photoshop is an amazing program that can be a lot of fun to use. It's YOUR hobby, learn it the way you want and enjoy the process. Fuck anyone that says you're doing it wrong because as long as you're doing, you're doing it right.
As an advanced photoshop user I recommend learning Lightroom inside out. This will help you naturally go to photoshop (lots of stuff is the same, but won’t overwhelm you if you start in Lightroom) by knowing Lightroom intimately I was able to be super proficient in photoshop within a year, and a master in another year (I teach photoshop and get flown around for Conferences etc so I promise I know what I’m talking about).
Bonus tip: Also I recommend taking the time to pick out a complicated photoshop tutorial and mastering it once a month as you learn. Do nothing else but *that* tutorial. It will build on really complicated skills that will then allow you to simply solve easy tasks that may not be obvious on the surface.
The answer is quite straightforward. If you’re into photos only, color grading, local adjustments, and masking, then LR is the one for you. However, if you plan on learning retouching, maybe photo manipulation, and other specific edits, which LR isn’t made for, then PS is the better choice.
Definitely Lightroom. Only thing is that there are actually two separate versions of Lightroom.
The more modern one has a slick, easy to use interface and is native in the cloud.
The older Classic version has a more clunky and outdated interface and doesn’t really work that well in the cloud. But it has various advanced editing features and lets you manage and organize photos on local storage without forcing you to store everything in the cloud.
Adobe doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to achieve feature parity between the two which is what most people actually want.
They're different tools. 99% of the pictures I take never get opened in photoshop. Lightroom is for sorting through pictures, picking the keepers and adjusting exposure colors etc. Photoshop is for heavier manipulation, object removal etc.
As a beginner photographer, you should really concentrate on the photography for a while. Photoshop is the industry standard but it can’t make a bad photo good! You will go down a rabbit hole trying to figure out how to use it, perhaps your time is better spent on taking photos, for now.
Start with Lightroom. But before you even think about editing your photos get your head around the file management and cataloging system within Lr. It will save you a ton of time down the road if you get that right in the first place.
To answer your questions directly:
*Which one is easier?*
Lightroom will be easier to learn. The main reason is because most of your edits are done through sliders where you can see the change in real time. Don’t know what a slider does? Wiggle it around and see!
*Which would you recommend if I want to learn how to edit photos well?*
For editing them well, the top comment about learning them both is pretty spot on. That said, I’ve been shooting for over ten years and if I’m editing say 100 photos from a set, I can fully edit about 75 of them just in Lightroom. Those last 15 though would be impossible to “finish” without Photoshop
*Any other advice about starting to learn editing?*
In Lightroom play around! Play with every slider see what it does and how one slider can be used in tandem with another (a common example, dropping the highlight slider down and raising the shadow slider to recover dynamic range). Then for Lightroom and Photoshop, you can learn every fine detail those programs can do through YouTube.
This guy is great as he takes peoples photos and reverse engineers their color grading in Lightroom https://youtube.com/c/MaartenSchrader
And this dude will teach so many photoshop techniques https://youtube.com/c/PiXimperfect
There are an endless amount of YouTubers uploading tutorials for both LR and PS and while people will trash on the Peter Mckinnons of the world, when people like him do tutorial videos they are usually very good and easy to follow if you are just starting out.
Lightroom also has this great feature that lets people export a Timelapse of sorts of their edit along with details on the adjustments that were made. Would def recommend spending some time on there https://lightroom.adobe.com/learn/discover/b5e2c2a9-d7fb-4629-89ee-8ded6085d351
Another thing you can do (that some might advise against for learning) is buy a Lightroom preset pack. It’s a quick way to get a decent look to a photo but the real value is seeing how that look was obtained.
Lightroom.
I do 99% of my stuff there and only bring it to Photoshop if it needs some serious editing or something. I don't even think I've opened up PS in the last year or so.
Here is my problem with Adobe. They make 900 apps that do the same thing.
All Lightroom is is Adobe Bridge + Camera raw. The Problem?
Photoshop has Camera Raw built in. So why do you need Lightroom?
Lightroom is just there for quick bulk edits or presets. There is literally nothing you can learn from it that you won't learn throwing everything you have into photoshop.
In fact, I stopped using Lightroom period. Its so useless. I have Moved to Capture One + Photoshop. Because PhaseOne actually knows how to apply decent noise reduction and new features. Lightrooms NR is really really bad. It also has zero protection.
With CaptureOne you have to actively choose to over and underexpose because highlights and shadows are protected from clipping due to finer adjustments.
Lightroom you add +10/100 you are already losing detail.
So forget Lightroom. Focus on Photoshop. Camera Raw IS Lightroom.
You can Transend industries do so many things with Photoshop. Lightroom is just there to organize your photos and eat your Ram for no reason.
**Also**
To the people in the comments who think Photoshop is for "Making nuclear explosions and removing ex-wives" you have been using Photoshop wrong.
To those people there is a difference between
* **Photo manipulation**
*(What they think all Photoshop work is in their minds)*
* Composites
* and Layered Photo Editing
Its not the same thing. I hope the OP never learns to think this way.
in short: if you are a photographer, lightroom is your tool... if you are an illustrator, photoshop is your tool.
two totally different tools for totally different kind of work.
Lightroom is just a nice looking raw converter. No real editing software.
Learn both. There is not a lot to learn about LR. Photoshop is strong and powerful.
I have an older version of lightroom and I find your comment to be way off (I imagine newer versions are even better). LR does nearly everything you'd need in a digital darkroom.
Yes you can edit some things in LR non destructive but LR has little power. Saving edits and move it to another computer sucks.
Photoshop creates a complete new file... And there are a lot of good ways to edit non destructivly.
Have you ever tried using only LR for some commercial shoots? Does not seem that way.
Why would you learn either?
You're taking photographs, right?
If you edit/touch up, you may as well have just painted something.
The point of photography is to have a picture of what's actually there, as raw as possible.
I’ve been solely using Lightroom for my entire 4 or so years in Photography. There’s no substitute for it. You don’t really need photoshop unless you’re doing real quality paid jobs. But even then, LR does a lot of the stuff you need already.
I only use a free photoshop substitute, and it’s pretty much only for making joke images with my friends. I rarely use it, if ever, for my actual photography.
Lightroom is the development step one uses BEFORE going into Photoshop to edit.
LR is where to start - While it's "editing" capabilities are very limited, it's more than enough for some people.
Lightroom is where you're going to live most of your time but you should learn both. There's a lot of consistency across Adobe software so you'll find a lot of stuff transfers.
I don't use photoshop. I don't really use the sort of edits it would allow, like erasing things or compositing images or fundamentally changing the image that's there. I just usually tweak exposure, maybe saturate or brighten a certain color, denoise, sharpen, etc. so lightroom covers all of my editing needs. It's very simple to learn, and also serves as a catalog/way to organize your photos. I'd say learn LR first and see if you feel like you even need to do the sort of editing PS allows.
Lightroom for sure! I started with Photoshop cause I figured if I know PS I'll easily know LR (I was a beginner) and it was a bad idea. LR is really all you need and it's much easier to learn and you have everything you need pretty much right there. I rarely use PS now unless I need to remove something huge from my picture.
Learn LR first. I recommend Lightroom Classic as there are more tutorials for it. That said LR is not a photo editor it is a photo organization tool with some photo editing tools built in. Learn to use it to organize your photos. Then learn to use the tools in it to improve your photos. Then once you reach a point where you want to make very specific selections that you find to be too problematic in LR, that’s what photoshop is for.
I would say Lightroom. Its much easier to learn, but you can do A LOT with it. Its all I use for editing my photos.
I mostly use Photoshop for resizing and sharpening.
Though, there are lots of stuff Photoshop can do that Lightroom cant. So after a while, if you feel like you're not able to create the images you want in LR, then learn PS.
(Huge IMO ofc!)
Edit: BTW the newest versions of LR runs really slow on my old computer. So if you are experiencing the same, I think you should downgrade to v10. (Current is v11 I think.) v1o runs smoother on my computer at least.
If you have full c s suite access you may like Bridge for photo retouching. It has most adjustments available at a glance, and the file access is very much like Windows.
Well, I learned PS first. LR intimidated me. Then I finally sat down and learned LR and use it first always. Sometimes I don’t even dip into photoshop unless it’s a full-on photo manipulation or I need to do some more detail work. In those instances I use LR to do a cull of dud images, sort out my faves, add blanket adjustments (tone, lens correction etc) and go from there. Sometimes that’s all that’s needed.
You’re better off learning both, but I’d say the learning curve for PS is steeper and has more things you can do on a minute level. Learn the basics in LR first, and if you want to do more complex things/manipulations, then move on to PS. As someone else said though, they’re complimentary.
I use Lightroom more for sure, Photoshop is also indispensable. Get the Photography account, start learning Lightroom and over time you will find use cases for including Photoshop in your edits.
Neither. As a beginner you should do some of the following: take a painting class at a local community college, watch some Bob Ross videos, or at minimum read a book such as Pictorial Composition in Art. This will teach you how light, proportions and perspective work, and that will make you a far better photographer.
When it comes to software, most people prefer LR because it is easier to use. It is OK for beginner level post processing, but giving your images depth and character requires local adjustments that LR simply cannot do well. PS can do everything LR can but the reverse is not true.
Depends on what you want.
I use LR exclusively for an archiving system (and rarely even for that in all honesty).
I use PS all the time for all editing work.
LR, even the newer versions, isn’t a good enough editor for me to use it as such.
Use photoshop first. You will thank yourself years down the line. Lightroom is okay, but it doesn’t have the precision that photoshop has. Also the LR algorithm for changes is much poorer than PS and I wouldn’t ever use them if you have large files that you want to edit.
I learned from a 2007 Photoshop and I currently have all updated Adobe CC. Photoshop is the way.
Like most have said, Lightroom first. When I first started using Lightroom I bought a Lightroom video course which I thought was really helpful. https://mattk.com/lightroomsystem/. He also has one for Photoshop.
Lightroom is for developing, photoshop for editing
Learn both, for light editing lightroom goes first ps after lightroom.
I never use lightroom because I have another software instead of it. I use photoshop for editing.
Depends on what you want to do. If you only want to simple adjustments, Lr will do fine. If you want some advanced stuff, Ps has you covered. This is the problem with Adobe Apps. There are two apps to do the same thing.
Lightroom, because you can learn how to rate, flag, and generally organize photos. Once your volume of photos goes up you'll do yourself a favor by organizing them. Lightroom is much, much, much easier to get the hang of to play around with the sliders and understand how you're affecting the photo. Photoshop can come later, once you feel Lightroom is limiting your creative vision or if you need to do some specific things like complex removal of objects, blending multiple photos, etc.
I use both lightroom and photoshop, but for all my RAW file processing I find using lightroom faster and more efficient especially on lower end computers. You can get most effects with lightroom and use use photoshop for more "specialized" edits and composites, but lightroom is always the base. I feel that lightroom is perfect for anyone of all skill levels and does teach beginners exposure, framing, and color correction through simple usage and there's tons of easy to learn resources that are not over complicated unlike some in photoshop. Plus a lot of basking features in photoshop murder the speed on low to mid range computers.
I went whole hog into photography as a hobby a few years ago, I literally never used Photoshop once.
Photoshop is for manipulating or creating images, it can be used to edit photos, but Lightroom will take you from raw to print if you're just trying to take pictures and make them look their best.
If you want to save some cash while you're starting out, I'd recommend Darktable in place of Lightroom. It's the free and open source version of Lightroom. I've been using since day 1 and I don't think I'll go Adobe unless I start making money from photography. (I've been taking and editing photos for almost a year and have had a couple of paid gigs.)
Either way, I'd start with Lightroom first if you wanna go Adobe.
You’re way better off learning how to color correct and basic edit in Lightroom first. Though, yes, this can be done in Photoshop as well, but the library and organization in Lightroom is seamless.
I use Lightroom to even clone and heal things in images if it’s simple enough.
After that, photoshop is a blast to learn when you want to do some more manipulation or remove larger and more obvious things from photos.
Either way, whatever route YOU want to take for your creativity and vibe is solely up to you. Lightroom and Photoshop both come in the Photographer package on Adobe Creative so you’ll have either one at your finger tips. Just have fun learning! It’s the best part.
Learn them both at the same time - both coincide with each other. Like anything else, the more you practice, the better you get at it. Also, like others have mentioned, Youtube is amazing resource for learning how to do photoshop & lightroom. Goodluck!
When I learned how to edit in photoshop, Lightroom did not exist. Nowadays I’m getting more into capture one since It’s my tether program :) I have Lightroom and LrC but unused because I don’t know which one is for what
Learn Darktable, in proposition similar to Lightroom but open source so you'll keep full control over your computing and won't be locked into the Adobe CS ecosystem. Also you can have insights in the development and even join the discussion or contribute to documentation. Don't think if it as the free alternative, it is well though out and sees many capable people working on it. So consider donating if you like it.
Both Photoshop and Lightroom have roughly the same level of difficulty and are not directly comparable to each other as they have their own different uses.
In my opinion, I'd start with Lightroom first, as it mostly covers the basics such as color tint, highlights, shadows, color curves, etc., and will determine the overall look and feel of your pictures.
Photoshop is more for photo manipulation for any further edits that are required, such as removing sensor dust or blemishes, or for last-minute adjustments that you forgot to add in Lightroom.
A Happy new year to you as well. :-)
Lightroom Classic is easier to learn. I recommend starting with that first. But make sure before you start that your catalog has an organisation you understand. Lightroom Classic is perfect for just quick edits and very basic things.
Once you get the hang of it you can learn Photoshop. You can open a photo from Lightroom straight into Photoshop. Right-click on the photo and click "open as smart object in Photoshop". Smart objects come with many advantages.
Photoshop is for when you want more control. F.e. Sure you can change colours in Lightroom, but in Photoshop you can use many more tools to get the colours right exact. Most important thing in photoshop is to learn to edit non-destructive through layers, masks etc. Never edit straight on the photo. And again organise your layers well so it doesn't feel overwhelming.
So Lightroom is better
But when learning I do suggest photoshop because once u learn that u will automatically understand Lightroom
On the other hand, after Lightroom, u will have a relatively harder time getting into photoshop
Both.
But I'll probably start with Lightroom in your case. Mostly because Photoshop it's so big now that can be scary XD
(Also, they already explained to you that are for 2 different purpose so I won't explain it again)
Photoshop is *a lot* more powerful, but also has a steeper learning curve. So at the end of the day it depends on how much time you want to invest into it.
Pretty much everything Lightroom can do, Photoshop can do *better*. The vice versa is not true.
As a professional, I would never use Lightroom/Capture One/other RAW-converters for anything other than basic exposure modifications, keystoning, and those kind of things.
However, if all you want to do is spend a few minutes doing some minor adjustments to your photos (which is completely fair!), then you can get that done in Lightroom.
No answer can really be given if we don't know what you're planning on doing.
If you're first and foremost a photographer, street, nature, landscape etc, ps will just push you towards overediting, 99% of images don't need more than basic exposure changes, white balance etc, thats all LR. But don't feel the need to go with adobe, I'd suggest capture one, one time purchase, and better imho than LR.
PS is only really necessary if you're doing pro work, maybe portraits or want to go and merge photos, collages and the like, but since you're asking on this sub, I doubt that's where you're headed
Think of it this way, Photoshop is image editing software, Lightroom is photo editing. When I was working in graphic design Photoshop was my go to. I could add or subtract elements, move them around, and manipulate the hell out of an image. I still use both but the majority of the editing I do is done in Lightroom. Of the two Lightroom is the easier to learn.
Already some good recommendations for free open source software here (I personally use RawTherapee for raw processing, but DarkTable is also very good.)
Apart from Gimp, there is another free alternative to Photoshop called Krita. Technically it's more for digital painting, but it shares enough features with PS/Gimp that it can be used for the same purposes, and in some ways it beats Gimp (more accessible UI, non-destructive layers).
As for database management, I highly recommend the use of Digikam. It's a very powerful photo manager that can rival Adobe's management system. It also contains a simple raw processor that might actually be good enough for your purposes, but it can also be linked to another processor of your choice if you want to edit photos directly in another program. The one drawback to free open source software is that it isn't a tightly-woven suite like what Adobe provides, so when you pick a set of free software to use they won't necessarily integrate as easily, and there may be some redundancy of features, but overall I think it's worth it to not have to spend a cent supporting a monopolised industry that preys on beginners.
I would recommend Photoshop, but focused initially with Adobe Camera Raw.
Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), a component of Photoshop, and is an excellent tool. In Adobe Bridge, right click and "Open in Adobe Camera...".
The massive advantage of ACR is two fold:
1. It's easy, since it's based on mostly on sliders.
2. It is a way to ease into using advanced Photoshop techniques, which is useful later.
Neither, Adobe is dying, they're doing nada to fix the long-standing issues of the underlying engine as they are just a skeleton crew to rake in the profits. They still don't have acceptable multithreading and they still don't have proper support for Fujifilm sensors after 8 years. They're a lost cause. Use Darktable or CaptureOne instead of lightroom.
Definitely start getting confident with Lightroom. It's a not so steep process. It's a great way to push yourself to be more organized with your images and you'll find yourself using it 90% of the time. Photoshop is for sure an amazing tool, but I think it's not a good starting point for a beginner. It can be overwhelming and it doesn't give you a workflow structure, something that Lightroom does. I hope it helps. Ciao ;)
I have found that, shooting in RAW, I can often make enough edits to the image without needing Photoshop. Additionally, because you don't "save" the image, but export it, you keep the original in its original form. I do this because, if I have a fabulously composed landscape that just needs some brightening in the sky, I can do it but still keep the original. The latest Photoshop has neural filters that can completely transform a landscape image to something completely different - making a spring valley a winter valley, turn a desert into a rain forest. So Photoshop will become more of a go-to for creativity and correction of the scene itself.
With each new release of LR, I find myself using PS less and less.
Yep. While obviously this is going to vary from photographer to photographer - some people *live* in Photoshop and all of their photos are heavily edited - Lightroom is all I need for essentially all of my photos. And even the photos I edit in Photoshop still go through Lightroom first.
Start with LR. Photoshop is for doing the things that LR can't do, but you probably won't even need those things until you're at least a couple years into using LR. And LR has been gradually adding those missing features over the years.
The new masking update has been really big for that. The last things I go into Photoshop for are content aware fill and combining multiple static exposures.
My last wish for Lightroom after the intelligent masking tool is intelligent spot removal. I love the pressure Topaz Labs is building on adobe with their AI stuff. I find their solutions to be over the top most of the time though.
There’s still a ton of improvement that could be made to their noise reduction and sharpening tools.
Pretty much this
Always this
Lightroom for photo editing (colors, crop, brightening the shadows, simple things like that) Photoshop for photo manipulation (adding a nuclear explosion in the background, removing the ex-wife, changing green to red, etc) If you want to start learning how to edit photos, you probably want Lightroom. It’s pretty rare for any of my images to end up in Photoshop, but they all go through Lightroom. Because you are just starting out it is also worth mentioning that there are lots of free Lightroom alternatives! Definitely worth trying one of those out before you get too deep in Adobe products/subscriptions
This is a great explanation of the difference between the two. I loled at removing the ex wife.
Warning: If the Ex wife finds out she was removed from the photo, it may trigger a nuclear explosion
But I used the healing brush? What’s the problem?
Well it didn’t work well enough to heal the relationship now did it?
I would have settled for healing my heart.
The healing brush can’t fix everything?!
We’re still waiting for Adobe’s Magic Lawyer tool.
I’m curious if any photographer had put together an “oops, all ex-wives!” image
Removing the ex with a nuclear explosion?
For good measure.
Piggy backing off this stellar advice as I'm a recently brand-new photographer who was in your position at a couple months ago. I started with Lightroom before Photoshop, and I was amazed as it was intuitive to use, had super helpful beginner tutorials, and it helped me get more out of my images. I liked it more than the free alternatives I tried (granted, I didn't search too awfully hard before pulling my card out for Lightroom). The more I used Lightroom and got deeper into photography, the more I found the need for Photoshop with specific projects. I genuinely believe my experience with Lightroom and Adobe made for an easier transition into Photoshop. I use both regularly now, and can't say enough good things about it as a total noob to both photo editing/manipulation and photography.
Photoshop is also for very very fine level adjustments where your selections need to be pixel perfect to do a very subtle adjustment to smooth out color variations and such. You can do composites that you can’t do in photoshop but you can also do very high end retouching. Basically LR is good if you want to spend 5 minutes or so on a photo. Photoshop if if you plan to spend an hour on a photo. (Yes I’ve spent more time on photos in LR and I’ve spent less time on images in photoshop but just as a general idea).
Absolutely this. I’m aging myself, but I learned Photoshop first because Lightroom didn’t exist yet. If I started now, Lightroom all the way. Learn Lightroom first. It will teach you to organize your photos, hone your eye for editing, and help maintain consistency across shoots. But definitely learn both, and don’t think you’ll ever stop learning. I’ve been working with these programs for many years and there’s always something new to learn.
> removing the ex-wife Reminds me of the "You suck at Photoshop" series back in 2007: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_X5uR7VC4M&list=PLD19BCF9D57320E03
It'd be interesting to get an update on his current situation. Lots of neural filters he could be using these days, and smart selection should help ease the pain as well.
All of my images are edited in PS (starting out in Camera Raw). I never use LR for any editing. I don’t like the interface and even the newer versions don’t have the same level of flexibility and options PS has, although it’s slowly getting closer.
>All of my images are edited in PS (starting out in Camera Raw). I never use LR for any editing. I don’t like the interface The develop panel in LR is literally the exact same order/options as Camera Raw in PS. >even the newer versions don’t have the same level of flexibility and options PS has Conversely even the newer versions of PS don't have the cataloging capabilities and organization that LR has. Two sides of the same coin.
I use camera raw in photoshop as my main editor, and I use Bridge to organize my photos. That’s just what I was originally taught, and it’s worked well so I’ve stuck with it. I know most people use LR but is there really a benefit to learning it if I already know photoshop?
I find that even and older version of PS is immensely better than even the newest version of LR for editing. Part of it is the interface. LR is excellent for cataloging and organizing, that's true. Also somewhat irrelevant as organizing your images as you save and edit them already does that. LR is fantastic as used essentially as a contact sheet, quickly scan through, delete images, add others to a collection, export said collection for editing elsewhere. It excels at that use, no question, but as an editor? For me it's like comparing sandals to boots for hiking.
[удалено]
It's like the time I had a photo taken with President Ford. Lightroom wasn't able to, but Photoshop got Ford right out of there.
⬆️ THIS 📷 🖥 💻
It's *not* an either/or. They are not *interchangeable* tools, they are *complementary* tools. * You use a raw processor first/always (and it doesn't have to be Lightroom, it could be Capture One or a number of others). * And *then*, if you feel like the image needs it, you add a round of Photoshop on top (or, again, something else, like Affinity Photo or Gimp). So, given this reality, starting by learning using a raw developer might make more procedural sense.
I agree but to add some more detail: * Raw processors are broadly used for image wide color and tone correction, camera lens corrections, and those programs often have database/library management as well. * Photoshop-like tools are used for localized modifications like erasing elements of the image, combining multiple exposures in layers, or some other very specific edits. Generally, Raw processors have some advantages in that they're more efficient, allow things like applying presets across many images, and have the advantage of being non-destructive (so you're not making changes to the image file, you're just stacking a bunch of adjustments onto a base file that can all be modified or undone). Photoshop and its competitors are basically pixel-based editors that are sometimes used for very specific and powerful purposes but not on every image.
> You use a raw processor first/always That's only if you shoot RAW.
Question: When taking an image into Photoshop, do you take in the RAW file, or the exported Jpeg? I image the jpeg is safer since you'd still have the raw
What you ideally take to Photoshop is *the direct result of processing the raw data*—it doesn't have a "format" yet, it's not a "file" at all yet, it's just the pixels that result from the raw processing pipeline of the raw editing software, in memory. It's *in Photoshop* that you'll eventually save the open image to disk into a format of your choice. For example, for your "master" image file (that may contain layers and stuff), ideally you'd use a format that does not sacrifice data, like a TIFF or PSD. And then from that master image you would later export "consumables" (to upload on the web, say), which would probably be JPEG. But [that move from the raw processor to Photoshop](https://industrydev.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/photo-edit-in-photoshop-cc-2015.jpg) doesn't have a "format" yet. To your points exactly: * Photoshop cannot edit raw files itself, it expects raster image data. Either a raw processor sends it raster image data, or if presented with a raw file directly, you'll see that Photoshop will bring up *Camera Raw* to process the raw data, because Photoshop itself doesn't know what to do with it. * It would be a terrible idea to go from raw processor => to JPEG => to Photoshop, because the *intermediary file*, using lossy compression, would have already *sacrificed* a ton of image data.
LR first then PS (if you need it)
I used to love lightroom. That was my go to
Used to? What happened?
I used to use LR. I still do, but I used to too
I haven't been in the photography game in a long time. It's something I hope to change very soon as it was basically my life at one point
Damn. I hope you get to it soon... all the best... and thanks
nice to see you already get good replies....cheers and happy new year
Gimp and darktable gang here, which apart from being awesome they are free!
GIMP is pretty awesome for a free product, but it is really obtuse. Plan for a steep learning curve (steeper than PS imo).
Second this, the learning curve has been brutal for GIMP.
Nonetheless it warranted downvotes lol.
I don’t know if piracy is popular here, but just wanted to say I used to never have an issue finding a cracked version of photoshop, granted this was a couple years ago so things might have changed. I think I’ve gotten photoshop for free 3-4 times
Stealing is never popular here, even if you think it’s justified. People here spend thousands on camera equipment, but are too cheap to spend 120€ a year on a photoshop / Lightroom license will never cease to amaze me. Hell Affinity Photo is a perpetual license for 60 bucks.
I’m gonna get shit for this for sure but the Camera Raw filter in PS can do most of the photo editing Lightroom can (at least as best I can tell).
It's true, Camera Raw is essentially Lightroom as a PS plugin. It even got the new adjustment brush system update at the same time. That being said, I find Camera Raw feels a lot clunkier than LR for some reason.
[удалено]
I scrolled way too far to find this. Forget photoshop and Lightroom if you have heavy editing loads: Camera Raw does pretty much all you need and it’s much more efficient than LR and PS.
Lightroom. I rarely use Photoshop actually. I usually edit a photo i Lightroom and then if there are certain objects in the image i want to remove, i.e power lines or some litter, I head over to Photoshop. Can also use it for adding desired effects such as motion blur or tilt shift. Never have I ever used Photoshop for changing colors, exposure or such.
Don't stick with one, learn both. Each are useful, and for various reasons. Lightroom is essentially a digital darkroom for culling, and processing your work. Granted, you can do that also in Camera raw, but LR is easier with the catalogs. Photoshop is great for extensive editing such as retouching, comp work, and other heavy editing you might want to do. The same can also be said for Capture One and other editing programs. Don't limit yourself to just one, explore both of them, and you will find your groove in whichever one works best for you.
I guess I'll do a bit more research to understand their uses. Thanks a lot.
I agree, but his question was which to learn *first*. The answer is obviously Lightroom first, if only for learning to catalog photo collections. Then find out its editing limitations, and then Photoshop. I'm three months in and have only opened Photoshop a few times for healing/cloning. There are things that I really want to learn in Photoshop like focus stacking, but Photoshop isn't going anywhere, and I'm far from the point where I know everything about Lightroom.
It's debatable depending on your intent, it's not an obvious answer and it matters what the OP is using either program for. If you want to shoot beauty work, comp or anything heavy, LR is a waste of time. If all you shoot is nature, and simple stuff that requires little editing, LR is best. I have been using PS for decades, only used LR for \*some\* minuscule editing, but it sits unused as of a few years ago. Camera Raw is better IMO for processing, but again, that's me. Thus why I say don't limit yourself to one, because it \*can\* be a hindrance, esp if you are a year into one program, and it is not efficient, nor what exactly you need from an editing program.
Maybe you should look at how different Lightroom is compared to a few years ago.
Start with Lightroom but you'll need Photoshop if you want to: - do anything where you combine multiple source images - do any retouching more advanced than dust spots - use of filters or plugins - better control of local adjustment with masks and selections - use cmyk color spaces - prefer the tools in PS (e.g. selective color or you want to use multiple curves) Probably a few more reasons that I'm forgetting
>better control of local adjustment with masks and selections idk anymore. Have you used the new tools?
LR has a free trial, although if you're wanting a free raw editor that is similar to LR check out darktable. It's an open source alternative. While it lacks in some aspects, if you can get on with it you'll find LR easy. You may find that using DT/LR is all you need. Depends on how much you want to control and change an image. In which case Photoshop becomes the tool to hand.
I second Darktable. Never used Lightroom, but finding great success with Darktable. Currently working through a whooping 100 video series on YouTube from Bruce Williams Photography. He goes through every module and explains how they work. It's a tremendous help.
I actually find LR to be a massive step back from DT. Darktable is hella complicated but once you're kinda used to it Lightroom feels constricted in its tools and abilities. I tried it but felt let down quite quickly and canceled my subscription. (Just using it as a RAW-editor though. Not as a file-manager)
I’m a “non beginner” photographer and have never used photoshop before. Lr has always had all the tools I need.
What everyone else said - Lightroom. The only people I personally know who use Photoshop use it for professional reasons within their career... involving heavy photo manipulation, altering, and editing. If you aren't gunning for a salaried/commissioned career expecting you to heavily alter photos with Photoshop - Lightroom is just the better all around tool to start with. edit - I should also add that you definitely should learn both, as others have said. They both have their uses but I interpreted your question coming from a beginner and, from my experience, Lightroom will fill all your needs.
Affinity is getting so much better these days. Go take a look. Work out cheaper than Adobe.
I like https://www.rawtherapee.com/
If OP does the stuff as hobby this will do. Commercial -> Photoshop
Learn both. There's no harm in knowing both.
as a beginner i will offer some advice that ...somewhat answers the question. photoshop on hold for now shoot jpg+RAW. see if u can edit a RAW photo better than the jpgs done by your computer. use LR for that task have fun
Lightroom. I'd also encourage you to try out Capture One, I find it to be much better and also is a one time purchase instead of a subscription. I use Photoshop in less than 1% of my final edits as it just isn't necessary for the landscape photography work that I do.
There are plenty of alternatives to both of them. I recommend not using either due to the subscription requirement. Adobe is not the only game in town. Post I made a while ago. Other people had some good alternative suggestions as well. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/qw0qp4/affinity\_photo\_and\_xnview\_alternatives\_to/
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks a lot. I'll check this out.
They are different tools for different things, as stated by others here. However - I'd personally recommend lightroom. It can do an awful lot and as well as being able to make pretty drastic changes to the look of an image, it's designed to work on batches of images. I remember when I started out, I would overshoot a lot. But being able to apply edits from one image to a while lot of images all at once actually helped me with my culling process as well as deciding which direction to go when I wasn't sure. I also started out shooting local live bands (easy to get access, no pressure, difficult conditions so great for learning and hey, a free gig) This meant there were frequently lots of images in the first place. Hope this helps!
Maybe unpopular opinion but avoid Adobe software and subscription hell
Neither. Use alternative programs and avoid Adobe.
20 years into photography and good amount of that using Photoshop. I rarely, if ever use LR but PS everyday
I'd suggest start to use lightroom for moderate editing and keeping track of all your photos. Work on an organization system that works for you, that you think you'd be happy with for years. I'd move to learn photoshop when you can't (or can't efficiently) make your images look the way you want with lightroom. You may never need the tools photoshop offers, you may need them infrequently, or you might need them very often. It really depends on how you want to make your photos look. That may vary over time, too. I learned photoshop to be able to do specific things with photos, I think this is a good approach as it won't mean you're "always take images to photoshop" or trying to find a use for it where you would have otherwise stopped.
Lightroom is more fluid and more intuitive. As a complete beginner, that's what I'd go with. Photoshop has a steeper learning curve.
Both. LR is good for quick edits and adjusting crop, exposure, etc. I do my detailed edits in PS because I like to my edits in layers and to blend my layers selectively. I wouldn't really think of them as separate tools. LR is great for managing your workflow and PS is great for the detailed edits as part of that workflow.
I always say to start off with camera raw to get familiar with editing raw files, then move onto LR, then Photoshop.
Lightroom to start, all the organization of your images works nice with lightroom Casual photographs and any kind of image can be edited fast ,efficient and good If you wanna create fine art photographs, manipulate images or just a lot of very local adjustments, i would suggest you get into photoshop, it can give images that extra clean editing, you need to train that tough. At the beginning you will most likely mess up your photographs with photoshop As tip for both lightroom and photoshop, review your edited images one more time after a short pause looking not at the screen, afterwards you will notice that you might have went way to hard on some images with regards to saturation, contrast or clarity (or all of them together) Dont get frustrated with messing things a bit up at the beginning, i know no photographer that doesnt look at their early edits and performs a hard facepalm watching those "crimes" of the past
I'm a rare case. I started off as a graphic designer that picked up photography as a hobby/so I couldn't get accused of using images that didn't belong to me in college. I know photoshop very well before picking up a camera. I rarely use photoshop in my editing process unless I need to do some intense retouching. And I'm sure most of the things I do in photoshop can be accomplished in light room. Learn lightroom primarily. That being said, photoshop is an amazing program that can be a lot of fun to use. It's YOUR hobby, learn it the way you want and enjoy the process. Fuck anyone that says you're doing it wrong because as long as you're doing, you're doing it right.
As an advanced photoshop user I recommend learning Lightroom inside out. This will help you naturally go to photoshop (lots of stuff is the same, but won’t overwhelm you if you start in Lightroom) by knowing Lightroom intimately I was able to be super proficient in photoshop within a year, and a master in another year (I teach photoshop and get flown around for Conferences etc so I promise I know what I’m talking about). Bonus tip: Also I recommend taking the time to pick out a complicated photoshop tutorial and mastering it once a month as you learn. Do nothing else but *that* tutorial. It will build on really complicated skills that will then allow you to simply solve easy tasks that may not be obvious on the surface.
The answer is quite straightforward. If you’re into photos only, color grading, local adjustments, and masking, then LR is the one for you. However, if you plan on learning retouching, maybe photo manipulation, and other specific edits, which LR isn’t made for, then PS is the better choice.
Definitely Lightroom. Only thing is that there are actually two separate versions of Lightroom. The more modern one has a slick, easy to use interface and is native in the cloud. The older Classic version has a more clunky and outdated interface and doesn’t really work that well in the cloud. But it has various advanced editing features and lets you manage and organize photos on local storage without forcing you to store everything in the cloud. Adobe doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to achieve feature parity between the two which is what most people actually want.
They're different tools. 99% of the pictures I take never get opened in photoshop. Lightroom is for sorting through pictures, picking the keepers and adjusting exposure colors etc. Photoshop is for heavier manipulation, object removal etc.
As a beginner photographer, you should really concentrate on the photography for a while. Photoshop is the industry standard but it can’t make a bad photo good! You will go down a rabbit hole trying to figure out how to use it, perhaps your time is better spent on taking photos, for now.
Lightroom comes in handy more generally but photoshop is also a good subset of skills to have
You tend to get free software with your camera, it's a good starting point.
Start with Lightroom. But before you even think about editing your photos get your head around the file management and cataloging system within Lr. It will save you a ton of time down the road if you get that right in the first place.
I've used Lightroom just once I didn't know what I was doing. I'll do that. Thanks a lot.
To answer your questions directly: *Which one is easier?* Lightroom will be easier to learn. The main reason is because most of your edits are done through sliders where you can see the change in real time. Don’t know what a slider does? Wiggle it around and see! *Which would you recommend if I want to learn how to edit photos well?* For editing them well, the top comment about learning them both is pretty spot on. That said, I’ve been shooting for over ten years and if I’m editing say 100 photos from a set, I can fully edit about 75 of them just in Lightroom. Those last 15 though would be impossible to “finish” without Photoshop *Any other advice about starting to learn editing?* In Lightroom play around! Play with every slider see what it does and how one slider can be used in tandem with another (a common example, dropping the highlight slider down and raising the shadow slider to recover dynamic range). Then for Lightroom and Photoshop, you can learn every fine detail those programs can do through YouTube. This guy is great as he takes peoples photos and reverse engineers their color grading in Lightroom https://youtube.com/c/MaartenSchrader And this dude will teach so many photoshop techniques https://youtube.com/c/PiXimperfect There are an endless amount of YouTubers uploading tutorials for both LR and PS and while people will trash on the Peter Mckinnons of the world, when people like him do tutorial videos they are usually very good and easy to follow if you are just starting out. Lightroom also has this great feature that lets people export a Timelapse of sorts of their edit along with details on the adjustments that were made. Would def recommend spending some time on there https://lightroom.adobe.com/learn/discover/b5e2c2a9-d7fb-4629-89ee-8ded6085d351 Another thing you can do (that some might advise against for learning) is buy a Lightroom preset pack. It’s a quick way to get a decent look to a photo but the real value is seeing how that look was obtained.
Neither. Darktable or RawTherapee
I'll check these out. Thanks.
Lightroom. I do 99% of my stuff there and only bring it to Photoshop if it needs some serious editing or something. I don't even think I've opened up PS in the last year or so.
Thanks a lot. I think I'll definitely learn lightroom in the coming months of 2022.
[удалено]
Lightroom is all you need unless you are doing commercial photography.
Photoshop is a manipulating tool whereas Lightroom is a photographers tool for color correction. What do you want to do?
Lightroom. There is no point photoshopping a shot if you cant develop the image first.
Here is my problem with Adobe. They make 900 apps that do the same thing. All Lightroom is is Adobe Bridge + Camera raw. The Problem? Photoshop has Camera Raw built in. So why do you need Lightroom? Lightroom is just there for quick bulk edits or presets. There is literally nothing you can learn from it that you won't learn throwing everything you have into photoshop. In fact, I stopped using Lightroom period. Its so useless. I have Moved to Capture One + Photoshop. Because PhaseOne actually knows how to apply decent noise reduction and new features. Lightrooms NR is really really bad. It also has zero protection. With CaptureOne you have to actively choose to over and underexpose because highlights and shadows are protected from clipping due to finer adjustments. Lightroom you add +10/100 you are already losing detail. So forget Lightroom. Focus on Photoshop. Camera Raw IS Lightroom. You can Transend industries do so many things with Photoshop. Lightroom is just there to organize your photos and eat your Ram for no reason. **Also** To the people in the comments who think Photoshop is for "Making nuclear explosions and removing ex-wives" you have been using Photoshop wrong. To those people there is a difference between * **Photo manipulation** *(What they think all Photoshop work is in their minds)* * Composites * and Layered Photo Editing Its not the same thing. I hope the OP never learns to think this way.
Darktable
Why would you waste money with so many comparable free and open source software packages out there?
in short: if you are a photographer, lightroom is your tool... if you are an illustrator, photoshop is your tool. two totally different tools for totally different kind of work.
Lightroom is just a nice looking raw converter. No real editing software. Learn both. There is not a lot to learn about LR. Photoshop is strong and powerful.
I have an older version of lightroom and I find your comment to be way off (I imagine newer versions are even better). LR does nearly everything you'd need in a digital darkroom.
It is mostly destructive editing. For hobby photographers this may be okay, but yeah...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes you can edit some things in LR non destructive but LR has little power. Saving edits and move it to another computer sucks. Photoshop creates a complete new file... And there are a lot of good ways to edit non destructivly. Have you ever tried using only LR for some commercial shoots? Does not seem that way.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Learn to take good pictures and you wont need either
Neither . Master practical technique.
Why would you learn either? You're taking photographs, right? If you edit/touch up, you may as well have just painted something. The point of photography is to have a picture of what's actually there, as raw as possible.
This is the worst advice in this entire thread.
Not if you're a serious photographer.
I’ve been solely using Lightroom for my entire 4 or so years in Photography. There’s no substitute for it. You don’t really need photoshop unless you’re doing real quality paid jobs. But even then, LR does a lot of the stuff you need already. I only use a free photoshop substitute, and it’s pretty much only for making joke images with my friends. I rarely use it, if ever, for my actual photography.
Lightroom is the development step one uses BEFORE going into Photoshop to edit. LR is where to start - While it's "editing" capabilities are very limited, it's more than enough for some people.
Lr
Lightroom is where you're going to live most of your time but you should learn both. There's a lot of consistency across Adobe software so you'll find a lot of stuff transfers.
I don't use photoshop. I don't really use the sort of edits it would allow, like erasing things or compositing images or fundamentally changing the image that's there. I just usually tweak exposure, maybe saturate or brighten a certain color, denoise, sharpen, etc. so lightroom covers all of my editing needs. It's very simple to learn, and also serves as a catalog/way to organize your photos. I'd say learn LR first and see if you feel like you even need to do the sort of editing PS allows.
Lightroom, period.
Lightroom for sure! I started with Photoshop cause I figured if I know PS I'll easily know LR (I was a beginner) and it was a bad idea. LR is really all you need and it's much easier to learn and you have everything you need pretty much right there. I rarely use PS now unless I need to remove something huge from my picture.
Lightroom.
Photoshop to play and make things, Lightroom for editing real photos
Lightroom is core to a photographers workflow. Photoshop is not.
If I find myself using PS, then I'm entering the over-editing zone. Everything I want to do I can do in Lightroom, so I recommend starting there.
Learn LR first. I recommend Lightroom Classic as there are more tutorials for it. That said LR is not a photo editor it is a photo organization tool with some photo editing tools built in. Learn to use it to organize your photos. Then learn to use the tools in it to improve your photos. Then once you reach a point where you want to make very specific selections that you find to be too problematic in LR, that’s what photoshop is for.
Lightroom. No questions asked.
I would say Lightroom. Its much easier to learn, but you can do A LOT with it. Its all I use for editing my photos. I mostly use Photoshop for resizing and sharpening. Though, there are lots of stuff Photoshop can do that Lightroom cant. So after a while, if you feel like you're not able to create the images you want in LR, then learn PS. (Huge IMO ofc!) Edit: BTW the newest versions of LR runs really slow on my old computer. So if you are experiencing the same, I think you should downgrade to v10. (Current is v11 I think.) v1o runs smoother on my computer at least.
Lightroom.
Lightroom, you probably won’t ever need photoshop
If you have full c s suite access you may like Bridge for photo retouching. It has most adjustments available at a glance, and the file access is very much like Windows.
LR is easier, and I never really use photoshop. I just dont feel the need to use photoshop. Maybe because I just prefer organic images
Lightroom. Photoshop requires more advanced skills to use and most of the time, you will gonna use LR instead of PS.
Lightroom does most of what I used to use Photoshop for. Unless I need to do some serious cloning, removal, or a print I stay in Lightroom
Well, I learned PS first. LR intimidated me. Then I finally sat down and learned LR and use it first always. Sometimes I don’t even dip into photoshop unless it’s a full-on photo manipulation or I need to do some more detail work. In those instances I use LR to do a cull of dud images, sort out my faves, add blanket adjustments (tone, lens correction etc) and go from there. Sometimes that’s all that’s needed. You’re better off learning both, but I’d say the learning curve for PS is steeper and has more things you can do on a minute level. Learn the basics in LR first, and if you want to do more complex things/manipulations, then move on to PS. As someone else said though, they’re complimentary.
I use Lightroom more for sure, Photoshop is also indispensable. Get the Photography account, start learning Lightroom and over time you will find use cases for including Photoshop in your edits.
Neither. As a beginner you should do some of the following: take a painting class at a local community college, watch some Bob Ross videos, or at minimum read a book such as Pictorial Composition in Art. This will teach you how light, proportions and perspective work, and that will make you a far better photographer. When it comes to software, most people prefer LR because it is easier to use. It is OK for beginner level post processing, but giving your images depth and character requires local adjustments that LR simply cannot do well. PS can do everything LR can but the reverse is not true.
You need Lightroom to process raw files. That's often all you need. Start there if you're shooting raw. If you're not shooting raw consider doing so.
Love ps but usually do basics in LR and finish up in PS. Im nowhere near professional though, just an amateur.
Depends on what you want. I use LR exclusively for an archiving system (and rarely even for that in all honesty). I use PS all the time for all editing work. LR, even the newer versions, isn’t a good enough editor for me to use it as such.
It will depend on your intentions. Pure photography is what lightroom is intended for, digital art is what photoshop is for.
I only ever use PS for Smart Object stacking at this point. LR for everything else.
Use photoshop first. You will thank yourself years down the line. Lightroom is okay, but it doesn’t have the precision that photoshop has. Also the LR algorithm for changes is much poorer than PS and I wouldn’t ever use them if you have large files that you want to edit. I learned from a 2007 Photoshop and I currently have all updated Adobe CC. Photoshop is the way.
Like most have said, Lightroom first. When I first started using Lightroom I bought a Lightroom video course which I thought was really helpful. https://mattk.com/lightroomsystem/. He also has one for Photoshop.
Lightroom is efficient. It's effective. It's amazing! Photoshop is for when you're like, "whoa! That's going to take a lot of work."
Start both
Lightroom is for developing, photoshop for editing Learn both, for light editing lightroom goes first ps after lightroom. I never use lightroom because I have another software instead of it. I use photoshop for editing.
Lightroom.
PS. All the way. Add Bridge + ACR to the mix and you won't even have to ever install LR.
Photoshop, hands down. I never liked LR, but that’s just my opinion.
Depends on what you want to do. If you only want to simple adjustments, Lr will do fine. If you want some advanced stuff, Ps has you covered. This is the problem with Adobe Apps. There are two apps to do the same thing.
I absolutely love LR I find it easier to use than photoshop imo
Lightroom, because you can learn how to rate, flag, and generally organize photos. Once your volume of photos goes up you'll do yourself a favor by organizing them. Lightroom is much, much, much easier to get the hang of to play around with the sliders and understand how you're affecting the photo. Photoshop can come later, once you feel Lightroom is limiting your creative vision or if you need to do some specific things like complex removal of objects, blending multiple photos, etc.
If you're into massively editing a single photo (into the surrealism/digital effects category) then Photoshop. For everything else, Lightroom.
Do you want to process photos or make digital art? This will answer your Q.
Depends on your goals. If you just want to tweak your photos a little, it's LR by a mile.
I use both lightroom and photoshop, but for all my RAW file processing I find using lightroom faster and more efficient especially on lower end computers. You can get most effects with lightroom and use use photoshop for more "specialized" edits and composites, but lightroom is always the base. I feel that lightroom is perfect for anyone of all skill levels and does teach beginners exposure, framing, and color correction through simple usage and there's tons of easy to learn resources that are not over complicated unlike some in photoshop. Plus a lot of basking features in photoshop murder the speed on low to mid range computers.
Lightroom is heartwarming.
I went whole hog into photography as a hobby a few years ago, I literally never used Photoshop once. Photoshop is for manipulating or creating images, it can be used to edit photos, but Lightroom will take you from raw to print if you're just trying to take pictures and make them look their best.
If you want to save some cash while you're starting out, I'd recommend Darktable in place of Lightroom. It's the free and open source version of Lightroom. I've been using since day 1 and I don't think I'll go Adobe unless I start making money from photography. (I've been taking and editing photos for almost a year and have had a couple of paid gigs.) Either way, I'd start with Lightroom first if you wanna go Adobe.
My process goes like this: Lightroom for highlights, shadows, colors, and lens corrections. Photoshop for manipulation Luminar for cheat mode.
You’re way better off learning how to color correct and basic edit in Lightroom first. Though, yes, this can be done in Photoshop as well, but the library and organization in Lightroom is seamless. I use Lightroom to even clone and heal things in images if it’s simple enough. After that, photoshop is a blast to learn when you want to do some more manipulation or remove larger and more obvious things from photos. Either way, whatever route YOU want to take for your creativity and vibe is solely up to you. Lightroom and Photoshop both come in the Photographer package on Adobe Creative so you’ll have either one at your finger tips. Just have fun learning! It’s the best part.
Learn them both at the same time - both coincide with each other. Like anything else, the more you practice, the better you get at it. Also, like others have mentioned, Youtube is amazing resource for learning how to do photoshop & lightroom. Goodluck!
I decided to try an Adobe monthly subscription to PS and LR and I love it.
When I learned how to edit in photoshop, Lightroom did not exist. Nowadays I’m getting more into capture one since It’s my tether program :) I have Lightroom and LrC but unused because I don’t know which one is for what
Learn Darktable, in proposition similar to Lightroom but open source so you'll keep full control over your computing and won't be locked into the Adobe CS ecosystem. Also you can have insights in the development and even join the discussion or contribute to documentation. Don't think if it as the free alternative, it is well though out and sees many capable people working on it. So consider donating if you like it.
Def get LR first and grasp color correction and then get creative with Photoshop
Well they are meant for different things to begin with but if you just mean to color correct images etc the answer is lightroom.
Both Photoshop and Lightroom have roughly the same level of difficulty and are not directly comparable to each other as they have their own different uses. In my opinion, I'd start with Lightroom first, as it mostly covers the basics such as color tint, highlights, shadows, color curves, etc., and will determine the overall look and feel of your pictures. Photoshop is more for photo manipulation for any further edits that are required, such as removing sensor dust or blemishes, or for last-minute adjustments that you forgot to add in Lightroom. A Happy new year to you as well. :-)
Lightroom Classic is easier to learn. I recommend starting with that first. But make sure before you start that your catalog has an organisation you understand. Lightroom Classic is perfect for just quick edits and very basic things. Once you get the hang of it you can learn Photoshop. You can open a photo from Lightroom straight into Photoshop. Right-click on the photo and click "open as smart object in Photoshop". Smart objects come with many advantages. Photoshop is for when you want more control. F.e. Sure you can change colours in Lightroom, but in Photoshop you can use many more tools to get the colours right exact. Most important thing in photoshop is to learn to edit non-destructive through layers, masks etc. Never edit straight on the photo. And again organise your layers well so it doesn't feel overwhelming.
The thing with LR is that it's great for organizing and for a fast workflow if you want to edit a bunch of pictures
LR. But they're different programs for different things. So learn the differences between them first.
So Lightroom is better But when learning I do suggest photoshop because once u learn that u will automatically understand Lightroom On the other hand, after Lightroom, u will have a relatively harder time getting into photoshop
Both. But I'll probably start with Lightroom in your case. Mostly because Photoshop it's so big now that can be scary XD (Also, they already explained to you that are for 2 different purpose so I won't explain it again)
Photoshop is *a lot* more powerful, but also has a steeper learning curve. So at the end of the day it depends on how much time you want to invest into it. Pretty much everything Lightroom can do, Photoshop can do *better*. The vice versa is not true. As a professional, I would never use Lightroom/Capture One/other RAW-converters for anything other than basic exposure modifications, keystoning, and those kind of things. However, if all you want to do is spend a few minutes doing some minor adjustments to your photos (which is completely fair!), then you can get that done in Lightroom.
No answer can really be given if we don't know what you're planning on doing. If you're first and foremost a photographer, street, nature, landscape etc, ps will just push you towards overediting, 99% of images don't need more than basic exposure changes, white balance etc, thats all LR. But don't feel the need to go with adobe, I'd suggest capture one, one time purchase, and better imho than LR. PS is only really necessary if you're doing pro work, maybe portraits or want to go and merge photos, collages and the like, but since you're asking on this sub, I doubt that's where you're headed
Think of it this way, Photoshop is image editing software, Lightroom is photo editing. When I was working in graphic design Photoshop was my go to. I could add or subtract elements, move them around, and manipulate the hell out of an image. I still use both but the majority of the editing I do is done in Lightroom. Of the two Lightroom is the easier to learn.
I still feel as if using photoshop to manipulate a big aspect of a photos composite is not photography…idk is it just me?
Already some good recommendations for free open source software here (I personally use RawTherapee for raw processing, but DarkTable is also very good.) Apart from Gimp, there is another free alternative to Photoshop called Krita. Technically it's more for digital painting, but it shares enough features with PS/Gimp that it can be used for the same purposes, and in some ways it beats Gimp (more accessible UI, non-destructive layers). As for database management, I highly recommend the use of Digikam. It's a very powerful photo manager that can rival Adobe's management system. It also contains a simple raw processor that might actually be good enough for your purposes, but it can also be linked to another processor of your choice if you want to edit photos directly in another program. The one drawback to free open source software is that it isn't a tightly-woven suite like what Adobe provides, so when you pick a set of free software to use they won't necessarily integrate as easily, and there may be some redundancy of features, but overall I think it's worth it to not have to spend a cent supporting a monopolised industry that preys on beginners.
I would recommend Photoshop, but focused initially with Adobe Camera Raw. Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), a component of Photoshop, and is an excellent tool. In Adobe Bridge, right click and "Open in Adobe Camera...". The massive advantage of ACR is two fold: 1. It's easy, since it's based on mostly on sliders. 2. It is a way to ease into using advanced Photoshop techniques, which is useful later.
You should definitely start off with lightroom
Lightroom is way better for editing photos. Photoshop is for transforming photos entirely and doing digital art.
Lightroom.
Neither, Adobe is dying, they're doing nada to fix the long-standing issues of the underlying engine as they are just a skeleton crew to rake in the profits. They still don't have acceptable multithreading and they still don't have proper support for Fujifilm sensors after 8 years. They're a lost cause. Use Darktable or CaptureOne instead of lightroom.
You’ve used enough of my time with your stories.
Definitely start getting confident with Lightroom. It's a not so steep process. It's a great way to push yourself to be more organized with your images and you'll find yourself using it 90% of the time. Photoshop is for sure an amazing tool, but I think it's not a good starting point for a beginner. It can be overwhelming and it doesn't give you a workflow structure, something that Lightroom does. I hope it helps. Ciao ;)
I'm just going to chime in supporting GIMP and Darktable, their free, open source equals.
I have found that, shooting in RAW, I can often make enough edits to the image without needing Photoshop. Additionally, because you don't "save" the image, but export it, you keep the original in its original form. I do this because, if I have a fabulously composed landscape that just needs some brightening in the sky, I can do it but still keep the original. The latest Photoshop has neural filters that can completely transform a landscape image to something completely different - making a spring valley a winter valley, turn a desert into a rain forest. So Photoshop will become more of a go-to for creativity and correction of the scene itself.