Savageduck
On 2014-03-13 21:07:57 +0000, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>said:

Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:49:02 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:

Savageduck
On 2014-03-13 17:29:14 +0000, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>said:

Tony Cooper
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:54:07 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

nospam
photoshop is an extremely capable image editing app but it lacks some of the stuff lightroom has.

Savageduck
Other than the cataloging/library features they are very similar animals even down to using the same RAW processing engine. Once you consider PS comes with Bridge, you just have a slightly different workflow to learn to gain similar benefits from either LR or PS.

Tony Cooper
And vice-versa. LR lacks some things PS has. The better system is having both LR and either CS or Elements.

Savageduck
For most photography oriented folks LR is all that is needed.

Tony Cooper
Depends. If "most" is all photographers, then LR is probably sufficient. But, when we talk about "photography oriented" people, the thought is of people who take the photograph from capture to best representation. Then, at least Elements should be part of the post-processing package.

Not to downgrade LR's "Develop" module, but I think the photographer who wants to finish the process is handcuffed without PS in some form.

Savageduck
Certainly LR5 + PS/CC is part of my full workflow, but I find myself using LR5 from start to finish more and more these days, only going to PS if some serious cloning, masking, content aware patching, content aware move, or serious compositing needs to be done.

LR can handle all else and more, including access to the NIK Collection, and OnOne (Which gives you Perfect Layers to use with LR).

This is just a suggestion, but you really should delve a little deeper into the editing and adjustment capabilities of LR.