Skip to main content
V
Vox013
Participant
June 3, 2020
Answered

Any advancement in Lightroom?

  • June 3, 2020
  • 3 replies
  • 1093 views

Hi there,

 

I started photography recently and meanwhile, I found out that every serious photograper is Lightroom user.

 

I have image editing experiences in Photoshop and I don't know what else could be Lightroom good for. I already know (from other topics here) it's not only an image processing tool, but a file organizer too. Now this is what I don't need at all. I manage my photos on my hard disk in windows well. I sort them by time, every day, month and year has separated folders. So I believe I'm ok on my own organizing my photos.

 

I'm rather interested if there's *ANY* advancement in image processing over PS. Is anything better to do in LR than in PS regarding the photo correction? Am I able to make better post-procession? Are there better lens-specified settings, pre-defined profiles, better presets to fix photos? Does LR have an improved image manipulation toolset designed for raw photos more specifically than in PS? Or the main reason to choose LR over PS (in image processing) is simply the speed? Can I do batch photo corrections faster than in PS?

 

So to summarize: Outside of organizing stuff, if I have PS, LR may still prove some improvements in image processing here or there?

 

Thanks in advance,

-Vox

This topic has been closed for replies.
Correct answer Conrad_C

If you focus only on the image processing tools, the way to compare them is this:

  • Photoshop comes with the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in, and Adobe Bridge.
  • Adobe Camera Raw is essentially the same as the Develop module in Lightroom Classic (Adobe updates both in parallel), and Adobe Bridge is roughly similar to the Library module in Lightroom Classic.

 

So instead of using Lightroom Classic, you could use Adobe Camera Raw for raw processing, and optionally, Adobe Bridge for organizing and batch processing. Adobe Bridge doesn’t build its own catalog, so it operates on the folders you already use. However, the lack of a catalog limits Bridge in some ways compared to Lightroom Classic.

 

For batch processing, Adobe Camera Raw can perform a lot of the same batch processing that you can do in the Develop module in Lightroom Classic, as long as you open multiple images into Adobe Camera Raw. Adobe Bridge has its own batch processing capabilities that are similar to what you can do in the Library module of Lightroom Classic, such as bulk metadata entry, and metadata presets. Both can do bulk exports, for example raw to JPEG.

 

Photoshop is sort of a separate, complementary category than Lightroom or Camera Raw, since Photoshop is a general pixel-based editor while the other two are nondestructive parametric editors optimized for raw images. Photoshop has its own Batch command that you can run from inside the program, or you can run it from the Tools menu in Adobe Bridge.

 

Personally, I get a lot more done a lot faster through the integrated, unified Lightroom Classic workflow than juggling Camera Raw, Bridge, and Photoshop…but opinions do differ on this, some strongly prefer ACR+Bridge over Lightroom. The great thing is that the choices do exist, so if you just want to organize with your own folders, ignore Lightroom and Bridge, and do all your work in Camera Raw and Photoshop, that’s perfectly OK, as long as you’re getting the results and the efficiency you want.

3 replies

gary_sc
Community Expert
gary_scCommunity Expert
Community Expert
June 3, 2020

Hi Vox

 

I would like to add one more issue in addition to these excellent comments: 

 

Lightroom is often called ACR with a database. Bridge is like using business cards while the internet is using a database. If you have a friend named Joe Smith and he's a plumber do you put his business card under J for Joe, S for Smith, P for plumber, H for home repair, or D for drinking buddy. You only have one card, where do you put it?

 

With a database using keywords, you can put those images anywhere. 

 

Similarly, when you got married, there probably were photos of your family and her/his family. Which folder do you store them in? With lightroom, it's not an issue.

 

Yes, Bridge has keywording as well, but it's had issues making it less than reliable, I gave up on using Keywords in Bridge a long time ago.

 

A few other features that LR has over Bridge is a Map feature that (if your camera provides GPS data) will show you exactly where you took your photo. 

 

If you have a website, you can crate web galleries that Bridge used to have but now does not. 

 

You can post collections of your images on line and give people links to these collections.

 

Mind you, I also use Bridge (and ACR) almost every day but LR is where I do the bulk of my photographic work now.

    V
    Vox013Author
    Participant
    June 4, 2020

    Thank you for the answers, they get me more close to understand why literally all photographer uses LR.

    However, I never heard of Bridge but mine's still not a catalogizer vs catalogizer issue because I can still do the sorting myself without any problem.

     

    What brought my attention is the difference that PS and LR handles the image processing. With PS I definitely do a lot pixel-based work. Aside of the so called "Camera Raw" I use "content-aware" filling a lot, also using the "Lens Correction" and "Adaptive Wide Angle" too, to fix my photos. So Camera raw is just a segment of PS I use. But I'm still curious if LR has better presets to be able to fix photos faster.

    I once downloaded a trial of LR but I couldn't get rid of the catalogizer part to even jump to test the Develop mode so I got angry and uninstalled the whole thing. It was years ago but the spark remained in me if LR can provide anything to edit my photos in a faster/better way.

    gary_sc
    Community Expert
    gary_scCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    June 4, 2020
    HI Vox, I will agree with you that working within the confines of LR does take a different mindset than what you've been doing. To work with LR, you HAVE TO work within the confines of LR. In LR you can move a folder to a different location and that will be mirrored in the Finder/Explorer environment. Because you did that IN LR, LR knows where you moved it too.. But, if you did the exact same movement of a folder in the Finder/Explorer, LR has no idea of that move and will not know where the images are (it is easy to point the new path though). When it comes to speed, there are a few things that LR is fantastic with. For example, you can ingest your images with a preset that sets your camera information and any other presets you have that you feel need to be added to your images. If you have 2 - 2000 images that all need a (sic) white balance treatment, you can select all of those images, make sure that "Auto Sync" is on, set the white balance on one and (depending on how many images require this), they will all be synced in a blink or two. (Be sure to turn off AutoSync and be sure to select one of the group of images. Don't ask me how I know.) One specific example: I had just under 10,000 slides in my collection that I wanted to digitize. Doing them with any quality on my flatbed scanner (at 12 at a time) was going to take more time than I have to live. So I set up a system to photograph them. I set my lens to capture just beyond the actual slide section capturing a bit of the surrounding cardboard. I had tethered my camera to my computer so everything was going directly into LR. I had a mounting fixture attached to my lightbox which registered each slide to maintain it's position. In LR I'd select a block of (say) 30 slides, set up AutoSync, crop one of the slides and all 30 would be done. If there were any consistent issues that needed to be done on those slides, I'd do that. Then after that break I'd do another 30 or so slides. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. Simply, there are mechanisms to be very efficient with LR and I rely upon both a tightly organized folder structure within my catalog as well as keywords to deal with common items that are strewn throughout all of my folders. Because you obviously have a very organized storage system, I strongly urge you to take one or more of the myriad LR classes available for free or some cost before you begin. To understand the LR system is to avoid those head-bashing times during the learning process. Good luck!!
    Conrad_C
    Community Expert
    Conrad_CCommunity ExpertCorrect answer
    Community Expert
    June 3, 2020

    If you focus only on the image processing tools, the way to compare them is this:

    • Photoshop comes with the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in, and Adobe Bridge.
    • Adobe Camera Raw is essentially the same as the Develop module in Lightroom Classic (Adobe updates both in parallel), and Adobe Bridge is roughly similar to the Library module in Lightroom Classic.

     

    So instead of using Lightroom Classic, you could use Adobe Camera Raw for raw processing, and optionally, Adobe Bridge for organizing and batch processing. Adobe Bridge doesn’t build its own catalog, so it operates on the folders you already use. However, the lack of a catalog limits Bridge in some ways compared to Lightroom Classic.

     

    For batch processing, Adobe Camera Raw can perform a lot of the same batch processing that you can do in the Develop module in Lightroom Classic, as long as you open multiple images into Adobe Camera Raw. Adobe Bridge has its own batch processing capabilities that are similar to what you can do in the Library module of Lightroom Classic, such as bulk metadata entry, and metadata presets. Both can do bulk exports, for example raw to JPEG.

     

    Photoshop is sort of a separate, complementary category than Lightroom or Camera Raw, since Photoshop is a general pixel-based editor while the other two are nondestructive parametric editors optimized for raw images. Photoshop has its own Batch command that you can run from inside the program, or you can run it from the Tools menu in Adobe Bridge.

     

    Personally, I get a lot more done a lot faster through the integrated, unified Lightroom Classic workflow than juggling Camera Raw, Bridge, and Photoshop…but opinions do differ on this, some strongly prefer ACR+Bridge over Lightroom. The great thing is that the choices do exist, so if you just want to organize with your own folders, ignore Lightroom and Bridge, and do all your work in Camera Raw and Photoshop, that’s perfectly OK, as long as you’re getting the results and the efficiency you want.

      Ian Lyons
      Community Expert
      Ian LyonsCommunity Expert
      Community Expert
      June 3, 2020

      For editing raw images both Photoshop and Lightroom Classic share the same core editor (i.e. Adobe Camera Raw). Therefore, if image editing is your sole reason for enquiring, then Lightroom Classic offers no improvments.

        Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
        Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices