What does Lightroom do that Photoshop doesn't?

[montejw360]

I'm looking at Lightroom, Photoshop and would like to know (but can't find) what it is that Lightroom does that Photoshop doesn't.  My main usage right now would be to scan many, many 35mm slides, then work on the ones that I want to keep.  Despeckle (or whatever it's called) would be required.  I've installed the LR trial, but don't want to start it yet, I don't have anything scanned.  I do have lots of other digital images already saved to hard disk.  The slides are older and will need more work for  sure.

Thanks,

Monte

[DdeGannes]

Lightroom is mainly a file management system using a data base, and software for prosessing large volumes of RAW files from digital cameras so it may not be the best choice for what you are going to do. If you already use Photoshop then that may be better suited to your needs. Just my opinion.

[Guest]

My 2 cents as I use both. LR is essentially a database through which you can import, export, organize/catalog, develop, export, print, etc your images and video. LR is non destructive on your images and video; all it does is write a set of instructions as to how to display an image or video, print, export, etc. It does not alter the original you imported. While PS is exceptionally powerfull, unless you know how to use it, every change you make to an image can be destructive (pixels get altered as PS is a pixel editor essentially). LR4 when it comes out will also add maps/GPS and books and improved video. I use the current version LR3 for every image to import, catalog, develop, print, export, and send to the web. In the develop module and others, you can download or make your own ppresets for effects you may desire. For me LR is indispensible.

However, LR does not do everything. It does not work in layers although there are some plugins that may circumvent this.I use PS a lot, for example for adding text layers, getting rid of noise or despeckle as you call it (via a plugin as LR is not exactly 'there yet'), fussing with colors, adding effects, and converting to B&W beyond what I may be able to accomplish in LR. PS is a very powerfull tool and essentially can go way beyond LR. While the LR sliders for getting rid of noise and sharpening are quite good, I have found that in some cases PS and plugins for PS are much better. As an example of what you can do in PS; maybe you wanted to extract part of an image and add a part of a different image; LR cannot do this so use PS. Maybe you want to distort parts of an image for whatever reason; that you can do in PS but not in LR. Another example is the use of actions in PS; these enable you to record a complex series of steps for whatever reason, and add these to droplets. For folks working under deadlines for such things as magazines, such tricks are necessary. LR is not designed for such work. I consider LR and PS complementary tools, both are necessary for my versions of 'fine art' photography. If your needs are as you summarized, I suggest you use LR for a while before adding PS to you computer, I think you may find that is all you need for a while. Both are brilliant programs although LR is way cheaper! I have used LR from the initial version and like it a lot. However, there are numerous occassions when I need PS. 

[montejw360]

Thanks @DdeGannes and @Kiwo-Al.

As an aside, I don't have either program.  I'm trying to figure out if I need one, the other, or both.  Of course there's Gimp.... 

[montejw360]

Also, I can't do RAW with scanned slides with the hardware/software I have.  TIF (48 bit color) or JPG (24 bit color) are my options.

Monte

[Guest]

Both Photoshop and LR render tiff and jpeg. I suggest for your purposes that LR may be your best option. Even if you use an Mac (I do) I would stick with LR as it is platform agnostic. Aperture can only be used on Apple machines. I know nothing of GIMP, Photomechanic and others, as I have in PS5 and LR3 what I need.

[dj_paige]

So far, montejw360 has not mentioned organization as one of his goals. He has mentioned "despeckling" as one of his goals. This argues in favor of photo editing software, such as PS or Gimp.

As a second point, the tools for "despeckling" in Photoshop are probably more powerful than those in Lightroom.

The issue of RAW vs TIFF vs JPG is irrelevant here.

[johnhawk666]

As an another aside - you've installed the trial? Then surely the clock is already ticking on the trial period, and you should start assessing Lr straight away, as you have nothing to gain by waiting.

[Hal P Anderson]

If I remember correctly, the clock doesn't start ticking until you run the program the first time. If Monte hasn't run it yet, I think he's OK.

Hal

[montejw360]

Thanks all.  Some details, organization would be helpful and I will be mostly cleaning up scans of old slides that have gotten a bit messed up from many years of storage.  It looks like tiff would be the file format if I scan at the scanner's highest resolution.

I've installed LR, but haven't run it yet so the trial hasn't started.  I need to get some slides scanned first and that takes some time at one at a time.

Thanks again

[montejw360]

If it makes a difference, or helps, the scans I'm trying are 7200 dpi, Aldus TIFF files, 48 bit color, 300mb +-, it takes a minute or so each.

[Lee_Jay]

montejw360 wrote:

I'm looking at Lightroom, Photoshop and would like to know (but can't find) what it is that Lightroom does that Photoshop doesn't.

Save me a thousand hours a year.

PS is super-slow for handling many images.