Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Computers and Software
Why Does Lightroom Get More Acclaim Than Photoshop Elements?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 278493" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The publication and print tools in LR are extremely good (and getting better), and far easier to use than those in Elements. </li> </ol><p></p><p>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 <em>needs</em> 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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 278493, member: 9240"] 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? [LIST=1] [*]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. [/LIST] 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 [I]needs[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Computers and Software
Why Does Lightroom Get More Acclaim Than Photoshop Elements?
Top
