John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
I am looking to update my digital photo tools. What I am wondering is: can Lightroom take the place of Photoshop? I use my computer and printer to try and make my images look like something I could achieve in a wet darkroom. I am not at all interested in putting someone's head on another body or any of he usual Photoshop "tricks." I know they were made to be used together, but I think Photoshop is just way too bloated. I shoot probably 99% in black and white, scan with a Nikon Coolscan V and print with a Canon 9500 printer. Can I just use Lightroom? What will I be missing if I don't get Photoshop? Thanks for your help.
martin s
Well-known
I luckily have access to both, for film photography Lightroom suffices I'd say. Especially if you consider pp evil. You can remove dust and correct most issues, the only thing I use Ps for are excessive scratches where a tablet comes in handy.
martin
martin
W
wlewisiii
Guest
How about Photoshop Elements? Sufficent to my needs without anywhere near the bloat. I use it with iphoto to manage my film photography.
William
William
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I'm with Martin, the only thing I use PS for is major scratches that I have to clone stamp out. For dust, LR2 is great.
This picture was a MESS before PS, though (I have no clue where the scratches came from, because no other frames had them), and there is no way Lightroom could have saved it:
This picture was a MESS before PS, though (I have no clue where the scratches came from, because no other frames had them), and there is no way Lightroom could have saved it:
alien8
Established
Not to criticize, but your image looks underexposed. I find that my underexposed frames show way more dust and scratches when scanned than others. Maybe the other frames on the roll had more density?
Tuolumne
Veteran
Duh, if this is all you are using your PP tools for, just use Picasa. Much easier and quite good. Also handles many raw formats.
/T
/T
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Yeah, it was definitely underexposed. That was part of the problem.
Tuolumne, don't worry, you wouldn't believe the deal I get on Adobe stuff from my college. LR, for instance, is $34. I expect I will use PS more over time, too.
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
It's not the price of the alternatives, it's the pain in the a** to use them.
/T
/T
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
So the healing and cloning is as good on Picasa as on Photoshop? Picasa has always annoyed me because of its googliness...it feels like it's taking over my computer. Can you just use it as an editor, and prevent it from cataloging your photos?
user237428934
User deletion pending
Of course not. Look where it comes from.
peripatetic
Well-known
Lightroom is good for everything you would do in the darkroom and way more besides.
From v2 onwards you can do localised corrections and that means that it's all many photographers will ever need.
Its organisational capabilities are unbelievably powerful too.
PS is necessary if you want to do heavy manipulation and take your photos beyond "straight" manipulation and turn it into digital art.
From v2 onwards you can do localised corrections and that means that it's all many photographers will ever need.
Its organisational capabilities are unbelievably powerful too.
PS is necessary if you want to do heavy manipulation and take your photos beyond "straight" manipulation and turn it into digital art.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Well, the one thing you cannot fix in LR is scratches, unless you use a brush of a diameter equal to the length of the scratch, which always blots out half your picture. Nothing on LR can beat painting out scratches with the healing tool set to proximity match!
If I didn't scan film, I would probably never use PS.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I use both - if your negs are clean LR is often enough, but the local corrections are slow slow slow. sometimes I just use PS instaad and I could easily live with Bridge PS for film. If you like them, then you can probably get more plugins for PS, e.g. Neat image or Silver efex etc
But, LR is enough formost things (you can do scratches with a series of dust spot corrections on heal - slow, but you can make it work. PS is much easier for this. So much that even if I just want to use LR I will set up the image adjustments then edit the original in PS to remove the dust an scratches.
Mike
But, LR is enough formost things (you can do scratches with a series of dust spot corrections on heal - slow, but you can make it work. PS is much easier for this. So much that even if I just want to use LR I will set up the image adjustments then edit the original in PS to remove the dust an scratches.
Mike
Tuolumne
Veteran
Why would you want to? You can just ignore the cataloging if you want. It doesn't do anything outside of Picasa. But if you have over 200,000 photos, how do you cataloge them?
/T
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Lightroom! i really like the LR system, it feels pretty much perfect to me.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Lightroom? I always found its cataloging to be opaque. Oh well, chacun a son gout!
/T
wgerrard
Veteran
Pretty sure you can point Picasso at folders of your choice.
willie_901
Veteran
If you use layers (especially masks) extensively, then sticking with PS is best. If you know PS like the back of your hand, then PS is probably best.
Otherwise, LR is the way to go. There are plug-ins for LR to do barrel/pin cushion lens corrections (PTLens). You can even do HDR using Photomatix and Enfuse.
Otherwise, LR is the way to go. There are plug-ins for LR to do barrel/pin cushion lens corrections (PTLens). You can even do HDR using Photomatix and Enfuse.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Bob Michaels
nobody special
If anyone actually has 200,000 photos worth cataloging, I would have to believe they were the greatest photographer of all times. Or, maybe they just hit the "0" key a few times too many.