The introduction of Apple’s Aperture, shortly followed by Adobe’s Lightroom, offered some great new alternatives for photographers trying to manage their workflow.  I purchased both programs when they were introduced, but because Aperture did not support my PhaseOne back, Lightroom became my tool of choice. Both programs appear to be designed as a workflow tool.  I know some users of Aperture speak highly of it, but I can’t compare the two.  So no disrespect to Aperture, I just don’t use it or know it.

As good as the original Lightroom was, any images needing more than global adjustments required a trip to Photoshop.  Fixing spots, retouching, burning and dodging all required opening the image in Photoshop.  So Photoshop was still pretty much a necessity.

Lightroom 2.0 changes that, and in fact many images can be fine tuned with non-destructive local edits and printed directly from Lightroom very quickly and efficiently.  So this brings up the question ... is Lightroom all I need?  What if I have Photoshop CS3 ... should I buy Lightroom and not upgrade to CS4?

IT’S ALL ABOUT YOUR WORKFLOW

The answer to that question depends on what you do and your workflow.  It’s important to understand what each program is designed to do, what is common and what is different ... from a photographers perspective.

With the introduction of CS4 and Adobe Camera Raw  (ACR) 5.x, both programs share a RAW processing engine that is very capable and powerful, and despite the slight interface differences, have pretty much the same capabilities.  Some claim that other RAW processors, such as CaptureOne or Dx0 are better, or perhaps are better on some images.  Occasionally I get a Canon .cr2 file that shows some banding or other issues when processed with ACR, and have found that Canon’s DPP software sometimes provides better results in those cases.  Those are rare however, and personally I have found that for the vast majority of my images, ACR/Lightroom produces terrific RAW conversions - better than DPP.  More importantly to me is the tools and their ease of use are more likely to result in a better RAW conversion than I can accomplish with programs like CaptureOne. Adobe has designed an interface that is intuitive and easier to use, and I know of no other RAW processor that offers the power and flexibility of local editing tools Adobe provides.  Being able to apply these local adjustments when the RAW image is processed to me makes sense, and has advantages over trying to apply them with various techniques in Photoshop.

Beyond RAW processing, the two programs are very different.

To me, the principal difference is Lightroom is workflow centric, whereas Photoshop is image centric.  Lightrooms objective is to help you sort through large numbers of images, organize them, adjust them, and then output them quickly. It stores all of its information in a database so for most things it is very fast.  The database includes preview images, so some functions such as keywording can be done without having the actual image files on line.  It does all of this utilizing the operating systems own directory structure. In addition, it is important to realize it is a metadata editor ... it is not an image editor.  Everything you do in Lightroom is actually just a set of instructions that are applied to the RAW file when you choose to output it ... to the preview image you see on the monitor, a working file to edit in Photoshop or some other image editor, or before it is sent to an output device such as a printer or jpeg to go to a lab. The file itself is never modified ... even if it is a jpeg file.

With Lightroom 2, I find that I rarely open a portrait in Photoshop anymore. I can do everything I want, from retouching and enhancing to printing, in Lightroom, and do it much faster.  With Lightroom I can go through an entire sitting and prepare them for presentation almost to the same level that previously I reserved for images that were ordered from.  With local adjustments I can do basic retouching, dodging and burning, vignetting, even things like eye enhancement, all in Lightroom. 

If I have to do something in Photoshop because I just can’t do it in Lightroom (cloning, moving around heads between files, major retouching), with portraits I always go back to Lightroom for printing ... it is fabulous for that.  Printing from Lightroom rivals a RIP, with easy to create multi-size image packages, or multiple images on a single page.

Eventually however, you will need to do something to a file that you can’t do in Lightroom.  There aren’t many limits when  you are using Photoshop.  When I’m working with an individual file that I want perfect, such as many landscapes, a trip to Photoshop is standard. I’ve found by opening my RAW file into Photoshop as a Smart Object, I can do nearly everything I want non-destructively in Photoshop, but the difference is how much control I have, and how quickly I can make or edit changes.  Some things that can be done in Lightroom are still easier and faster to do in Photoshop.   When doing a large amount of adjustment brush work in Lightroom, it is often easier to layer versions in Photoshop and use a mask - you have far more control. In Photoshop you have many tools at your disposal in selecting areas as well as much greater flexibility and control of your brush when editing the mask. In addition, Lightroom can get very sluggish when doing a lot of refining with the the local adjustment tools, something you don’t see with Photoshop since you are simply pixel editing a black and white mask on a layer.

Photoshop offers far more tools and methods for fine tuning an image ... adjustment layers, blending modes, more effective masking techniques, the patch tool, as well as tons of filters.  I know Lightroom has improved output sharpening, and the Photokit Sharpener team was involved in designing it, but currently I still print most of my landscapes directly from Photoshop, since I really don’t need the nearly RIP like printing capabilities of Lightroom when printing one image to one piece of paper.  I control my own sharpening with a smart sharpen layer inside my Smart Filters layer being applied to my Smart Object (wow ... that sounds pretty confusing!  Below is a screen shot of the above image that show this a lot easier than I can say it).  One advantage of this is I can readjust the amount os sharpening based on the size of the print I am producing.

A typical example of my workflow in Photoshop.  The original RAW file has been opened

from Lightroom as a Smart Object.  Smart Sharpening has been applied as a Smart Filter, mainly for final output.  In this case I’ve masked out some of the sharpening ... no need to sharpen the water in this image.

In addition, if using Photoshop CS4, Bridge has been substantially improved, and allows easy access to your images, quick trips into Adobe Camera Raw to adjust files, and even apply the same adjustment across multiple files.  It’s not Lightroom, but it’s not bad.

There is no easy answer to this one, but if I had to pick just one, for what I do, it would be Photoshop.  I’m not a prolific shooter. I still shoot like there is film in the camera, perhaps spending an hour at a landscape location and only taking 10 or 20 exposures.  I average less than one “keeper” each time I go out, so I tend to focus on one image, trying to perfect it as much as possible.  Sometimes this is little more than quick dodge and burn ... sometimes it is far more elaborate. 

However, when I shoot a portrait sitting, Lightroom is a dream come true.  I imagine for anyone shooting large quantities of images ... portrait sittings, weddings, sports are a few examples ... Lightroom will save them countless hours.  It allows the advantage of a full ProPhotoRGB/16bit high end workflow at a productivity level that has to be experienced to be believed.

If you have CS3 and your choice is to upgrade to CS4 or buy Lightroom and continue using CS3, I would recommend you strongly consider buying Lightroom, especially if your work involves shooting and outputting lots of images.  Photoshop CS4 is a great upgrade, but CS3 is no slouch ... You can upgrade to Photoshop CS4 later.

As I mentioned, if I had to pick just one, personally I would choose Photoshop.  The reason is pretty simple ... as far as achieving the highest image quality, you still can’t do everything in Lightroom.  Sure you can organize and work through a lot of images, but invariably you will want to do something that Lightroom won’t be able to do, or you will be trying to make a lot of local adjustments and get frustrated with how slow and somewhat inaccurate that process is compared to Photoshop.  I suppose if all I did was shoot little league kids and weddings, I might feel differently.

I’m just glad I don’t have to pick .. I use both of them all of the time, and can’t imagine trying to survive with just one of them.