The eternal question: why I use Photoshop over Lightroom

Right after ‘what should I buy’ comes this series of questions: why don’t you use Lightroom? And what does Photoshop give me that Lightroom lacks? Moreover, is your workflow applicable to Lightroom? I received a slew of emails recently following the release of LR CC/6 and realised I’ve never really answered any of these questions. Today we’re going to fix that.

First off, we need to understand a bit of history: Photoshop (PS from now on) was a graphic designer’s tool, not a photographer’s. Lightroom (LR) was Adobe’s first attempt at making a digital-photography-centric software package to handle the entire image making workflow from capture to output. Originally starting off as a cataloguing package with some raw conversion and processing ability, it slowly grew to include tethered capture and print modules. Both PS and LR share the same raw conversion engine: Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). This includes both the conversion algorithm as well as the interface controls – you have the same set of sliders and adjustments in a version of ACR in both PS and LR. In PS it operates like a plugin and a filter (from CC onwards); in LR it basically is your postprocessing module. There is no difference in output between ACR and PS

For a practical photographer’s purposes, there are three core differences between PS and LR:

1. LR applies changes nondestructively. PS can be either but is mostly destructive – this allows for sequential changes
Nondestructive changes mean you can re-edit without any information loss penalty at a later time. ACR in both LR and PS add up the net changes you have made at any given pixel location with whatever tools you use there, and then spit out a result. If you apply a +1EV gradient, it will perfectly cancel out a -1EV global exposure compensation at that particular point. This makes sense, until you think about nonlinear tonal transitions: if you apply a curve, then do some local dodging or burning, then the results are not what you’d expect because the order of operations isn’t taken into account. A curve that darkens will move midtones to shadows, but if you also apply an adjustment brush that lightens midtones, it isn’t clear whether you’re acting on what was the midtones before or what is now the midtones after the curve. There is no transparency to this process in ACR/LR, often resulting in unexpected and too-linear tones. It is not an issue in PS because you generally start with a flat file out of ACR, then apply your curves, dodging and burning etc. afterwards in PS where you know the order of operations is sequential and it’s obvious what comes after what. The downside of course is that there is no way to both enjoy this tonality and have a nondestructive edit. But that’s what the history pane is for…

2. LR relies on catalogs and databases; PS does not (but can also catalog via Bridge, which is included with PS)
LR keeps original images and changes/ tags separate. This means it sorts through the tag database to find files; it applies changes live to preview and then only for output; the original files are always intact. This is a good thing if you are not so organised with your file structure or if you are indecisive about processing, because it means you can keep many versions without the storage penalty. PS can actually do the same thing – you can save snapshots of a file in ACR, which are stored in a central database, and then apply them non-destructively to the original raw file. Of course, since you are using PS, you won’t be applying the same changes as in LR – the objective of ACR now being production of a starting point rather than a final file. But all adjustments available in LR are also available in ACR/PS. Bridge can replicate the cataloging function of LR for tagging, sorting and viewing without having to keep all of your files in one catalog – it works with your existing directory structure. It also means that it’s much easier to extract a file if you’re using PS – the file exists in finished, readable format accessible outside the Adobe environment. It might not with LR – you almost always have to export a readable output format. This may be a problem if you’re travelling and need access to something fast, or have a system crash. Lastly, there are limits to how large a file library LR can handle and still run smoothly – so at some point you’re still going to have to do some manual filing in the OS anyway.

3. PS allows more control over every aspect of the process, and is generally faster.
Every image is different. Every set of adjustments to reach a visually and stylistically consistent output endpoint is therefore different for each image. Though both PS and LR allow you a good degree of control globally, PS is much better for local adjustments. The adjustment brush in LR and ACR/PS no way duplicates or replaces the functionality of a Wacom and feathered dodge or burn brush in PS; it is much easier to precisely follow the contours of an object or apply changes to odd-shaped areas. On top of that, there may be situations in which an image requires multiple curves – first to bring shadows and highlights closer together (i.e. reduce contrast) and then apply a global tonal map to both increase contrast similarly across both tonal regions and smoothen shadow/highlight rolloff – you cannot do that in LR. You can have as many curves as you want in PS – destructive or not. There is also no way to separate out luminance from color in LR: you have to edit in RGB mode, which means exposure and curve changes also shift hues – necessitating color compensation afterwards. However, you now have a challenge in LR: your only HSL adjustment panel must also be used for camera calibration. In PS, you can leave camera calibration in ACR, process in LAB mode, which splits out the two, and avoid the color compensation entirely. This forms the basis of PS Workflow II. Finally, there’s output sharpening: LR’s tools are just far coarser. There is no smart sharpening or ability to not sharpen the shadows; if you want to mask and sharpen, you only have one slider for strength. And needless to say, there’s no way to sharpen for both fine detail and global contrast.

4. PS has additional functionality that is actually useful.
This might somewhat overlap with #3: however, if you want to do stitching now in LR 6/CC, focus or HDR stacking, retouching of surfaces or nonlinear spatial corrections like warping, then LR simply can’t handle it. On top of this, there’s the ability to make actions (e.g. adding a black border) and batch apply them to a large number of images; basically, anything you can do in PS you can record as an action and apply to another image – just beware of spatial-specific operations such as dodging and burning which are specific to a single image. Granted, there are also non-photogrpahic functions like adding text and drawing paths, but that is outside the remit of this discussion.

The final two bullet points are the main reason I don’t use LR: I simply cannot get the results I want directly, and even with many workarounds the output isn’t ideal. When you’ve got hundreds or thousands of images to process, you want to have as direct and fast a workflow as possible. Half a minute an image over a thousand images is a lot of time wasted that could be spent shooting or with your family.

I started postprocessing before the existence of LR. Though that may be partially responsible for my favouritism towards PS, it doesn’t explain the number of students I’ve had who were originally LR users and switched over, subsequently finding the workflow much easier. There is definitely an intimidation factor to using PS: one one hand, there are a lot of cryptic buttons and menu options, but on the other hand, it appears very bare: there are no obvious ‘photographic’ controls anywhere. Since PS is now $10-20/month (which is really not a lot for something you will use on every single image) depending on where you live, I suspect it is this confusion more than anything that stops a lot of photographers from adopting it; establishing a workflow is both critical and not easy.

I’ve been asked how I get the results I do so many times that what started out as one workflow video has now become six. They ease you into the process, then take you further: and remember, PS stays pretty consistent from version to version, so 90% of what I demonstrate in CC will also apply to CS3 or CS5.5. Here’s a summary of what we’ve got:

A: Intro to PS Workflow
The original non-LAB core workflow that explains what all the buttons in ACR and PS do, establish a logical sequence of operations, and also forms the basis for E5: Processing for Style. Covers basic B&W conversion.

A2: Photoshop Workflow II
New LAB-based workflow that separates color from luminance and tone. Includes section on the theory of curation and sorting workflow in Bridge and color management of both monitor and camera, including creating camera profiles. Also includes the raw files used in the video, and a section on B&W conversion with the channel mixer as well as applying ACR as a filter after the PS operations.

B: Photoshop for the Leica M Monochrom
Specific workflow for achromatic cameras to optimise B&W output – there is no color to begin with, so techniques in A, A2, M and E5 do not apply. Increased focus on dodging and burning.

C: Intermediate Photoshop
For the hardcore Photoshopper: those who need perspective correction, stitching, retouching and brush tools, compositing, integration of layers, warping, creation of actions, batch processing, etc.

M: The Monochrome Masterclass
Everything you need to know on how to create strong B&W images in several different styles, from capture to dodging and burning to channel mixer to make the most of the color information in a file. With a special focus on tonal linearity at shadow and highlight ends, how to create natural looking images and avoid harsh ‘digital’ transitions.

E5: Outstanding Images Ep.5: Processing for style
Best viewed together with Ep.4: Exploring Style, which covers things that must be done on the capture side (and available together as a bundle). Ep.5 is a sort of synthesis of all of the workflow tools to get you to a distinctive and visually consistent output. We cover four different styles from ‘traditional’ B&W Photojournalist to fine art color.

They are all available here at the teaching store and in various discounted bundle combinations.

__________________

Turn the mood and style up to 11: the Hanoi Cinematic Masterclass in association with Zeiss (21-26 July and 28 July-2 August inclusive) is now open for registration – click here to book and for more information.

__________________

Visit the Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including workshop and Photoshop Workflow videos and the customized Email School of Photography; or go mobile with the Photography Compendium for iPad. You can also get your gear from B&H and Amazon. Prices are the same as normal, however a small portion of your purchase value is referred back to me. Thanks!

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Images and content copyright Ming Thein | mingthein.com 2012 onwards. All rights reserved