sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
I've been using Elements but didn't upgrade to their newest version since most people here use Lightroom. Why is it that Elements isn't even mentioned? It is a Photoshop program. What gives?
Why Does Lightroom Get More Acclaim Than Photoshop Elements?
- Thread starter sonicbuffalo_RIP
- Start date
Scott Murray
Senior Member
I think it comes down to user preference.
I would suggest that you look though the Lightroom training videos on the adobe site Products | Lightroom | Adobe TV and see what you think. Then download the trial version and play with it. Are you shooting RAW?
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
WIll be shooting RAW, but Elements processes RAW too. I have shot a lot of Jpegs so far, but am now shooting Jpegs and RAW, RAW in one slot and Jpeg in the other. Thanks for the links. Not sure if you answered my question though.
I don't feel qualified to make a side by side comparison. I have both Lightroom and Elements. I use Lightroom and like it a lot. I prefer it's organizer. I really don't use Elements enough to say why I don't care for it. I do use it for special stuff. That's why I suggest the videos, not so much to get trained, but just to see Lightroom in use and decide for yourself.
I have Photoshop Elements and invested in a copy of Lightroom and am now using that for most of my RAW processing needs. Lightroom software handles RAW and JPEG files identically, with no additional steps needed compared to Elements, therefore shooting RAW is much simpler than it used to be.
In simple terms, RAW files provide the Photographer with every scrap of data their Camera’s Sensor can record, as opposed to JPEG, which compresses the JPEG image by throwing away a percentage of the data the sensor records.
In a rudimentary way, you can think of shooting RAW as being the same as shooting with negatives, which always allow one to go back and re-edit the original image without loss of data. TIFF and RAW files produce the highest quality images because there’s no JPEG-like loss due to image compression.
When you post process your RAW image in Lightroom, you can save it as either a JPEG or TIFF; and this also includes the dimensions of the file. 99.9% of the time, the JPEG image one produces in Lightroom using a RAW image, will be of higher quality than the JPEG a Camera produces. This is not to say, modern Cameras cannot produce an acceptable JPEG.
With most modern Nikon Cameras, the Photographer always can shoot RAW or RAW + JPG and have the convenience of both prints and negatives.
In simple terms, RAW files provide the Photographer with every scrap of data their Camera’s Sensor can record, as opposed to JPEG, which compresses the JPEG image by throwing away a percentage of the data the sensor records.
In a rudimentary way, you can think of shooting RAW as being the same as shooting with negatives, which always allow one to go back and re-edit the original image without loss of data. TIFF and RAW files produce the highest quality images because there’s no JPEG-like loss due to image compression.
When you post process your RAW image in Lightroom, you can save it as either a JPEG or TIFF; and this also includes the dimensions of the file. 99.9% of the time, the JPEG image one produces in Lightroom using a RAW image, will be of higher quality than the JPEG a Camera produces. This is not to say, modern Cameras cannot produce an acceptable JPEG.
With most modern Nikon Cameras, the Photographer always can shoot RAW or RAW + JPG and have the convenience of both prints and negatives.
Last edited:
I think this article gives a very good comparison of Lightroom and Elements and why you might choose one or the other.
Lightroom vs Photoshop Elements
Lightroom vs Photoshop Elements
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
Thanks for all the comments. After I read the sticky pertaining to this discussion above, I went and watched about 5 of the lessons on Adobe TV. I see why Lightroom is more popular and easy to use. I guess I will be shooting more RAW now that I've seen what it can do. I even went and ordered a copy of Lightroom 5 for $89.00. I should have it next week. Thanks for all the replies. I guess I'm a slow learner.....but Lightroom should help my skills or lack thereof. Thanks again!
For me, I let go of jpg when I found I could apply camera settings on import so my pictures looked like camera jpgs right from the start. Usually we go to an event or whatever and my wife is itchy for pictures to email and facebook so I can quickly export her a set of jpg and then dink around at my leisure to see if I can make improvements.
If you get anxious, you can download the trial and just type in your serial number when it arrives, no need to re-install. In fact, what comes in the box might be a revision behind anyway.
If you get anxious, you can download the trial and just type in your serial number when it arrives, no need to re-install. In fact, what comes in the box might be a revision behind anyway.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I'm arriving a little late to the discussion, but just to tag something on for others who may come across this, I spent my first year using nothing buy Elements and was fine. With the Organizer it's a nice, self-contained package that's more than "good enough" for most hobbyists who want to apply basic adjustments to their photos - RAW or JPEG. I read Scott Kelby's Elements book (highly recommended) and I made out fine. About a year in my brother recommended Lightroom to me, a program he hadn't use (he's a Photoshop/Bridge guy), but thought I could benefit from it. Why?
A year after moving to Lightroom (I started at 3.6) I went with full blown Photoshop, because what I wanted to do with my photography required it. Not everyone needs it, but you eventually realize that if you aspire to take (make) photos that are reminiscent of work that you admire, you find that you may need to move beyond the tools you have.
You can build a house with a small box of the right hand tools (i.e. Elements), but it's going to take a lot longer and be a lot more work than when you have a van full of power tools at your disposal. But not everyone wants, or was meant to build their own house.
- Lightroom utilizes the full Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) package, where Elements uses some, but not all components. If you're shooting RAW, which I was, having the entire set of tools at your disposal is extremely important, if not critical at times.
- Lightroom provides better tools for catalog and metadata management. As you begin to deal with thousands of images, LR's catalog proves far superior to the organizer tool in PSE.
- Lightroom integrates more easily with 3rd party s/w tools like Nik, onOne and others. PSE and PS tend to hide hooks in various menus (and sometimes multiples) where LR tends to put things in a single place. It also integrates seamlessly with Elements and Photoshop, allowing the continued use of Elements for adjustments (like layers) that are impossible in Lightroom, while managing it all from on piece of software.
- The publication and print tools in LR are extremely good (and getting better), and far easier to use than those in Elements.
A year after moving to Lightroom (I started at 3.6) I went with full blown Photoshop, because what I wanted to do with my photography required it. Not everyone needs it, but you eventually realize that if you aspire to take (make) photos that are reminiscent of work that you admire, you find that you may need to move beyond the tools you have.
You can build a house with a small box of the right hand tools (i.e. Elements), but it's going to take a lot longer and be a lot more work than when you have a van full of power tools at your disposal. But not everyone wants, or was meant to build their own house.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
Thanks Backdoor Hippie for the explanation....your comments make a lot of sense and I downloaded a trial version of Lightroom until my disks arrive with the code. I will be exploring LR a little more this week. I doubt if I'll ever have the extra $500+ for Photoshop. They are renting it out nowadays it looks like via a subscription. Is that right? It's a powerful but expensive tool. I'll keep my Elements but probably transition to LR like most here do. Thanks again for your comments, and help.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Expensive is all relative. Adobe is currently charging $9.99 per month (plus tax) for their Photographer's Creative Cloud subscription, which includes Lightroom 5, Photoshop Creative Cloud (i.e. full CS6 and some new stuff), and a Behance Membership. Given that you're spending 3/4 of that on Lightroom alone, it may be something you want to think about - either to refuse delivery on the current package and get a refund, or in the future if you outgrow Elements. Probably better to do that latter since you're new enough that having 9 months to play with LR alone will probably be good for you and help you decide if you need the rest. I hate the idea of the perpetual subscription, but it's easier on the wallet than laying it all out at once.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
I could just open a bank account and put $10 a month into it and when it hits $600, spring for photoshop....if that's the price when that happens....I hate the perpetual subscription too....but Microsoft started doing it earlier with their Office products. I think they're just sponges soaking us.
Fred Kingston_RIP
Senior Member
and you think Photoshop hasn't been upgraded in the last 5 years, and therefore, the $600 is good value for a 5 year old program? 
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
I used to have Hobe Sound up to Port St. Lucie as my sales territory. Love that area of Florida...but no I think $600 is way overpriced, but it's the flagship product of Adobe for professionals. I'm not a professional so I'll just settle for Lightroom.and you think Photoshop hasn't been upgraded in the last 5 years, and therefore, the $600 is good value for a 5 year old program?
Fred Kingston_RIP
Senior Member
I paid for both LR, Elements and Photoshop, years ago... and upgrades in between... I think the $10/month subscription fee for the Photographer's bundle is an excellent value...
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
The thing is, this is reportedly the last box release of Photoshop - from now on everything is cloud-based. So, I'm glad I snagged a Student/Teacher edition of CS6 when I did (same program, but it doesn't qualify for discounted upgrades ... which now no longer exist).