[photolady95]

I downloaded the trial version yesterday but could not figure out why I would need this over my Photoshop.

[mithrandir]

I think this page on Inside Lightroom will explain the major differences:

Photoshop vs. Lightroom - O'Reilly Digital Media Blog

[Wheatfield]

Lightroom is a cataloging program with limited functionality as an image editor. Photoshop is an image editor with no cataloging functionality.

[photolady95]

Thanks Mithandir, I get it. I'll stick with my older photoshop. I don't have the lastest CS and it works fine for what I do.

You, wheatfield, were posting while I was typing. I can catalog on my own. And as you see in my sentence above, I can't see myself needing Lightroom. Thanks for the simple answer.

[stevebrot]

I would expand a little on Wheatfield's comment. While Lightroom provides catalog functions, must of us that own it value Lightroom for its RAW file processing and general PP capabilities. The name of the program says it all. Lightroom is the digital equivalent of a film darkroom.

As for the catalog feature, I always viewed it as more of a work flow tool. Inport --> Organize/cull --> Modify --> Publish/print. The best part is that all edits are totally non-destructive.

No, it is not PhotoShop, but having Lightroom, I can honestly say that I seldom have a need to use a tool such as PS (I use PSP myself).

Steve

[mel]

I have Lightroom and PS CS4. I have to say, for general workflow, after getting used to the way Lightroom does things, I would be loath to go back to the PS way of open file, modify, save, way of doing things. When working with a large shoot, Lightroom is the processing equivalent of heaven. I don't have to make an immediate decision on anything, i can go through the entire shoot and quickly, easily delete the duds, "set aside" the ones I want to revisit, what have you. If I need to do more than what Lightroom does, a quick Ctrl-E puts me there.

I organize my stuff on my own. Where Lightroom rocks is the workflow. Imho.

[Alfisti]

LR key feature is that it allows you to make changes but does not force you to save a file with those changes and as many 'fake' copies with dofferent changes as youlike. it also allows you to sync changes in seconds which is great.

however it is INFURIATING to use with key settings buried in places you'd never think to look and exporting and importing is WAY harder than it outta be. it is by far the most difficult piece of kit i ever tried touse withotu formal training. It's also deceptively powerful, at first glance you're thinking "what the hell do i need this for" then 3 months later the penny drops.

[Marc Sabatella]

Anlother way of looking at the difference:

PS CS4 is a very powerful tool for dealing with a single image at a time. Although it has some facilities for dealing with larger numbers of images at once, it's not particularly well optimized for that.

LR is a very powerful tool for dealing with large numbers of images. It is *far* better optimized for this than PS CS4, but not as powerful when it comes to what you can do with any single image.

As for the idea of cataloging images yourself, I'm kind of guessing you haven't really looked into the possibilities provided by cataloging software like LR. I guarantee they go miles and miles and miles beyond index cards or whatever system you might be using, in roughly the same ways a good word processing program (or even a not-so-good one) goes way beyond a manual typewriter. but that's not to say index cards or a manual typewriter can't be used...

[photolady95]

Thanks for all the comments.

I guess I'm just a diehard PS user, since I started using this program when it was owned by Aldus. It's harder to migrate to anything new when you're not sure what it can do for you.

As for indexing, I use a computer and catalog my images by category, nature, people, etc. I save these to DVDs, or an external hdd, off the computer, stored in the dark, free of moisture, dust, etc. And of course, I still have my negatives, all three thousand of them.

When you work only with film, not digital cameras, is there still a need for this software?

I was kind of disappointed in how one had to import images, rather than just opening one from my sources. I really didn't see anything fabulous about what it could edit. If you know, show me the way.

[Alfisti]

Thanks for all the comments.
I was kind of disappointed in how one had to import images, rather than just opening one from my sources. I really didn't see anything fabulous about what it could edit. If you know, show me the way.

Yeah i still have NFI why we need to import but it takes a few seconds and it's done, i am used to it now. As for editing, the curves tool is outstanding and the selective colour adjustments really do work well. I barely use CS3 anywhere once I learnt to harness LR, my bet is you've not figured out LR yet and that's understandable because it's ... honestly .. it's a nightmare to 'get to know'.

[Falld5]

Yeah i still have NFI why we need to import but it takes a few seconds and it's done, i am used to it now. As for editing, the curves tool is outstanding and the selective colour adjustments really do work well. I barely use CS3 anywhere once I learnt to harness LR, my bet is you've not figured out LR yet and that's understandable because it's ... honestly .. it's a nightmare to 'get to know'.

I currently use photoshop elements 6 and do not shoot in RAW, but am going to start so that I have better control if I make a mistake when shooting. JPEG isn't as 'mistake fix friendly'. I'm understanding that lightroom will enable me to process RAW images whereas photoshop elements cannot, and will allow me to fix many photos at a time. Is this correct?

Is it really a nightmare to learn? I'm pretty savy at learning new products but I'm guessing so is everyone else on this site.

[Eaglerapids]

I'm not sure if I would describe it as a nightmare to learn, AutoCad was a nightmare. It's just that for me at least, nothing was very intuitive, although, again, nowhere near as bad as AutoCad. If you get a book and visit the Lightroom forums and just generally take some time to learn the program and get into it's flow you will find that it's truly an amazing program.

[photolady95]

As for reading a book, not going to happen. I learn by hands on, only if I run into something after using the program, would I turn to a book. But as mentioned by a few, this does RAW format and I'm not into RAW when all I shoot and scan and manipulate is film. It will be years before I turn to digital.

After saying that, in the year I go digital, perhaps I'll try it again. But for now, I'll stick with what works for me, PS.

[Alfisti]

I'm not sure if I would describe it as a nightmare to learn, AutoCad was a nightmare. It's just that for me at least, nothing was very intuitive, although, again, nowhere near as bad as AutoCad. If you get a book and visit the Lightroom forums and just generally take some time to learn the program and get into it's flow you will find that it's truly an amazing program.

The thing with LR is getting your head around the idea behind it and finding the key settings. If you do not absolutely NAIL th eimport setting and the exp[ort settings your entire workflow is butchered. Once you have it susse dit is wonderful but gewt it wrong and it's a world of hurt.

Frankly I think using CS3 hurt mr, I was used to settings being in one place then I could not find them in LR and it drove me bezerk.

[Marc Sabatella]

I'm understanding that lightroom will enable me to process RAW images whereas photoshop elements cannot, and will allow me to fix many photos at a time. Is this correct?

Elements *can* handle RAW, although your particular version of Elements may or may not support your particular camera. It comes with a "limited" version of Adobe Camera Raw, which is the same basic tool used by Photoshop. Not sure how good the batch processing facilities are in Elements, but I'm sure it has *some*. I'd say, explore what you have first.