Creative Cloud is Adobe's current distribution channel. You can probably find retail-box versions of Photoshop if you look around but the simple fact is, Photoshop's future is Creative Cloud. Lightroom is still available in retail boxes and probably always will be.Is the cloud the only way to use PS anymore?
I'd suggest you learn the key differences between the two applications (see the link below) then start learning the application you think you'll to wind up using long-term for the bulk of your processing. They're very different applications but they can and do work together. Many people will tell you Lightroom is easier to learn but in my experience with using both, neither application is easier than the other; Photoshop is a much more comprehensive application but that doesn't make it harder to learn; it just means there's more to it. Having learned to use Photoshop, though, I could never see myself using Lightroom as my primary editing tool. There's nothing you can do in Lightroom you can't do in Photoshop, but there are things you can do in Photoshop you can't do in Lightroom (like layers and masks).What would one start with, LR or PS?
This article Photoshop vs. Lightroom gives a good explanation. The key difference, for me anyway, is that Lightroom is database-driven image file manager; meaning it works with your photos via image catalogs it creates. I don't really like that particular aspect, preferring to handle file management myself but that's me. Many people consider this organizing aspect of Lightroom one of its strongest assets.What is the difference between the programs?
LR has some basic correction built in, but for something that spans that far, PS is going to be MUCH better at it...
LR is basically PS fleshed out for photography. It's purely designed for that and even while you can do pretty impressive adjustments, it's no match for photoshop. But that is designed for all sorts of graphic manipulation.
You can buy LR if you don't desire monthly payments. For photography it does a good job. With some additional plugins, it might be all you need.
PS is cloud only.
This couldn't be more wrong. Lightroom is Adobe Camera RAW laid out in a more user friendly interface. Photoshop is the entire backend to Camera RAW and has lots of facilities LR doesn't (though I hear it may have layers in version 6).
Adjusting easily is not the same as calling it "PS fleshed out for photography". You are confusing Photoshop and its front end, Adobe Camera RAW, which is a totally separate product that just happens to be bundled with it. The only way to find the LR/ACR functions in their entirety is to invoke ACR as a filter, and that is not Photoshop.
I don't care if you agree with me, or even admit that you're wrong - but you are.
This couldn't be more wrong. Lightroom is Adobe Camera RAW laid out in a more user friendly interface. Photoshop is the entire backend to Camera RAW and has lots of facilities LR doesn't (though I hear it may have layers in version 6).
You can find box copies of Photoshop CS6, but it's no longer being updated (all improvements since the CC announcement are only available by subscription). Lightroom is supposedly going to be maintained as a standalone product moving forward, but now I'm hearing speculation on that. New versions of LR come out about every 18 months. Considering what you pay for the CC subscription, by the time you break even on LR alone they may be upgrading, so it's almost like getting Photoshop for free. I hated the idea at first, but after seeing what's been added since it launched I'm more than satisfied with coughing out $10/month. I couldn't do what I do without it, but I can certainly live without one six pack of craft beer a month (that I'd literally piss away) to pay for it.
There are parts of LR that even remind me of Imageready. I'm not sure if that still exists. It's developed by people all having worked in the PS arena so it would be quite an achievement to not be "influenced" at the least.
I'm still considering it Photoshop lite. Wrong or not.
Good anologies, Jake.....thanks for clarifying these products.
I don't bother about being overstood, if anyone gets the essence of what I'm saying, I'm fine with that. Admittedly it might not be as obvious for another to read what I was thinking while writing.
If anyone buys anything taking my words as their gospel, and it turns out to be crap, they really do not deserve any less. My opinion does not necessarily need to be accurate or true, else it was fact.
Regardless us reading or asking other's opinions, we all got a brain pretty capable of making up our own mind before we do anything.
Which is why your answers are so troublesome half the time. You speak to be heard but not understood. Opine all you want, but when someone asks for advice you're the blind leading the blind. You present your opinion with an arrogance that demands to be heard, but then you say that it doesn't need to be accurate. You're what's wrong with looking for advice on the internet. You're the guy who, when asked for directions to a place he's never heard of will give directions anyway just so you can appear to be helpful.
Someone with no information is ill equipped to parse what you're saying, gospel or not, and because of that you should be muzzled. You'll drive away more people than you'll ever assist.