Photoshop-esque vs. Lightroom-esque applications

[Ambrosia7177]

Hello, I am forking my thread "Revisiting switching to Affinity Photo" to this one, because the former was just getting too deep and fragmented.

In that thread, @cSalmon pointed out...

Reading through the how/what you want to use an imaging software I would say you will not like Affinity (I do use it a lot) it's primary use is working on a single image at a time. Not reviewing a bunch of images, not basic edits and get them out the door workflow. Slow manipulated work with layers and brushes workflow, honestly stuff Reuters is not after nor should journalistic images incorporate.

Thank you for this observation, because it is an important component of helping me to decide whether Affinity Photo is right for me.

While I have used Photoshop over 20 years ago, I have never used Lightroom - although I hear people love it!

Can we please do a deeper dive on this point you brought up?

First off, categorically, what would you call applications like Photoshop and Affinity Photo?? (i.e. "Photoshop-esque")

Likewise, categorically, what would you call applications like Lightroom?? (i.e. Lightroom-esque"_


To me, Photoshop, Affinity Photo, etc. would be called "photo-editing software", but I'm not really sure what Lightroom type applications would be considered?? 🫤🫤❓


While trying to process everything in my other thread, your comment came back to me. (See, I do listen to what everyone has to say!)

So last night - before bedtime - I watched these two video...

YouTube: "Sick of paying monthly?! BEST Lightroom alternatives for 2025" -- Micro Four Nerds

YouTube: "Ranking 8 SUBSCRIPTION FREE Lightroom Alternatives" -- Tom Calton


To your earlier point, @cSalmon, it seems that Photoshop-esque applications are designed to do a deep dive into editing a SINGLE PHOT, right? And they are designed to do more complex photo-editing (e.g. layers, channels, curves, editing certain pixels, etc.).

By contrast, Lightroom-esque applications seem to be designed for PREVIEWING a GALLERY OF PHOTOS, and then doing SIMPLE TWEAKS to one (or a group) of related photos (e.g. Choosing the best shot out of 8 photos, or apply color-correction to all 8 photos)

Can all of you experts comment on all of this, and help me to better understand what type of application I would need as an independent photo-journalist??

Thanks!

 

[arkitect]

First off, categorically, what would you call applications like Photoshop and Affinity Photo?? (i.e. "Photoshop-esque")

That category is… Image editing and manipulating software. 🙂 You don't only work with photos. You can create paintings or artwork from scratch — think a blank canvas with paint and drawing brushes and pens and pencils.

Likewise, categorically, what would you call applications like Lightroom?? (i.e. Lightroom-esque"_

I'd call it a combo of Photo editing and management software.
With these you work with a an existing Photograph to enhance, crop manipulate exposure etc.
Others to consider are Capture One Pro, ON1 Photo RAW and, yes, Apple Photos.

To your earlier point, @cSalmon, it seems that Photoshop-esque applications are designed to do a deep dive into editing a SINGLE PHOT, right? And they are designed to do more complex photo-editing (e.g. layers, channels, curves, editing certain pixels, etc.).

That is basically correct. Just substitute Image for Photo in your sentence as they are able to do far more than photo manipulation/developing.

By contrast, Lightroom-esque applications seem to be designed for PREVIEWING a GALLERY OF PHOTOS, and then doing SIMPLE TWEAKS to one (or a group) of related photos (e.g. Choosing the best shot out of 8 photos, or apply color-correction to all 8 photos)

Correct. Though the tweaks as you call them are often not that simple… especially when editing RAW.

Edited to add:
@Ambrosia7177 I hope this discussion is helpful, but I do wonder if it wouldn't be better for you to grab a trial or two of some software packages and start trying them out…

The best way to get going is by doing.
🙂

 

[mollyc]

typically photoshop is considered a pixel editor, and and changes you make destroy the original image. in modern photoshop we have layer adjustments that can help preserve the base photo but at the same time, once you close out of the file you’ve lost all your history and cannot undo anything (other than adjustment layers).

lightroom is a raw editor, and anything you do can be undone or reset. there are no layers, although there are extensive masking options now. with lr you aren’t deleting or altering pixels, you are just manipulating the color or brightness but you can always get back to the base raw image.

 

[Ambrosia7177]

That category is… Image editing and manipulating software. 🙂 You don't only work with photos.

I thought "photo" and "image" were interchangeable? Do you mean "illustration" (e.g. drawing, painting, etc)?

You can create paintings or artwork from scratch — think a blank canvas with paint and drawing brushes and pens and pencils.

I thought that is what Adobe Design, Affinity Design, etc were for? Maybe you mean that Photoshop-esque software allows you to do BASIC painting and artwork - in addition to IMAGE-manipulation?

I'd call it a combo of Photo editing and management software.
With these you work with a an existing Photograph to enhance, crop manipulate exposure etc.

Okay, that makes sense.

So for most (non-commercial) photographers, this category of "Photo-editing and Photo-Management" software is probably the first choice after shooting photos, right? (Because most people just need to crop, adjust levels, fix a blemish, and then export and publish, right?)

Others to consider are Capture One Pro, ON1 Photo RAW and, yes, Apple Photos.

Yeah, those are mentioned in the YouTube videos I linked to above.

That is basically correct. Just substitute Image for Photo in your sentence as they are able to do far more than photo manipulation/developing.

Again, wouldn't you create (and edit) illustrations in Adobe Designer or the like?

Correct. Though the tweaks as you call them are often not that simple… especially when editing RAW.

So you can do ADVANCED image-manipulation in Lightroom-esque software also? (But I guess Photoshop-esque software is the preferred way to do more advanced manipulations, right?)

Edited to add:
@Ambrosia7177 I hope this discussion is helpful,

Actually, I am really happy that I decided to create new thread.

I have always wondered what the difference was between Photoshop and Lightroom, and why so many people prefer Lightroom.

And it always bugs me when there are THINGS that do not have proper NAMES and CATEGORIES - which I feel is the case here!!

but I do wonder if it wouldn't be better for you to grab a trial or two of some software packages and start trying them out…

The best way to get going is by doing.
🙂

Yeah, I have gotten yelled at my entire life for getting all theoretical on things, HOWEVER, I feel that mastering the LANGUAGE and mastering the CONCEPTS is more important then diving into the doing.

As mentioned, just being able to have someone validate the differences between Photoshop-esque and Lightroom-esque is helping me to decide where to focus.

I think @cSalmon gave me some sage advice earlier!!! 👍


And why spend so much time planning (versus doing)?

Because I have limited resources, limited time, and often feel like I have one shot to get all of this right?!

 

[Ambrosia7177]

typically photoshop is considered a pixel editor, and and changes you make destroy the original image.

So it is by default a "destructive editor"?

in modern photoshop we have layer adjustments that can help preserve the base photo but at the same time, once you close out of the file you’ve lost all your history and cannot undo anything (other than adjustment layers).

You lose the history in a PSD file after saving it?

lightroom is a raw editor

How does that differ from a "pixel editor"?

and anything you do can be undone or reset.

You are losing me here...

First, I thought the purpose of layers in Photoshop was to allow you to go back-and-forth? (If you have the PSD file, is that not possible? (I mean once you export an image, that image is frozen, but doesn't your PSD file allow you to roll things back?)

Likewise, if you edit a photo/image in Lightroom (or any editor), is that work not immediately "destructive"?

(I use Audacity to record and edit radio shows, and any changes I make in Audacity are final - minus the temporary Undo button.)

there are no layers, although there are extensive masking options now. with lr you aren’t deleting or altering pixels, you are just manipulating the color or brightness but you can always get back to the base raw image.

So Lightroom is a "non-destructive editor" (NDE)?

I that true for other Lightroom-esque editors - or whatever we are calling them?

 

[mollyc]

So it is by default a "destructive editor"?




You lose the history in a PSD file after saving it?




How does that differ from a "pixel editor"?





You are losing me here...

First, I thought the purpose of layers in Photoshop was to allow you to go back-and-forth? (If you have the PSD file, is that not possible? (I mean once you export an image, that image is frozen, but doesn't your PSD file allow you to roll things back?)

Likewise, if you edit a photo/image in Lightroom (or any editor), is that work not immediately "destructive"?

(I use Audacity to record and edit radio shows, and any changes I make in Audacity are final - minus the temporary Undo button.)




So Lightroom is a "non-destructive editor" (NDE)?

I that true for other Lightroom-esque editors - or whatever we are calling them?

your responses are all correct. in ps, if you save your layers then you can change things. but if you clone out a street lamp on your original image, you can’t get it back (unless you’ve created a new layer then delete that layer). in lr you can remove the cloning. that makes lr non-destructive because you can always get back to your original image.

a lot of people flatten their ps files as they go because layers take up a lot of storage space and the file size can balloon quickly. if you are diligent about creating new layers for every editing tool you can probably have the experience of a non destructive file but at the expense of file size.

by contrast, i can open an image in lr that i edited years ago and still undo every single edit one by one. that’s what i mean about losing the history in ps. once you’ve closed the file, there is no history panel any longer.

 

[Ambrosia7177]

your responses are all correct. in ps, if you save your layers then you can change things. but if you clone out a street lamp on your original image, you can’t get it back (unless you’ve created a new layer then delete that layer). in lr you can remove the cloning. that makes lr non-destructive because you can always get back to your original image.

a lot of people flatten their ps files as they go because layers take up a lot of storage space and the file size can balloon quickly. if you are diligent about creating new layers for every editing tool you can probably have the experience of a non destructive file but at the expense of file size.

by contrast, i can open an image in lr that i edited years ago and still undo every single edit one by one. that’s what i mean about losing the history in ps. once you’ve closed the file, there is no history panel any longer.

Interesting.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Comparing LR to PS is a bit of a waste of time. They are bundled together in the photography plan from Adobe. So it’s not an either or situation. You get both.

LR does 90% of all my editing. Maybe more. It is not a basic program, and will manage most types of photo edits I need. PS is really only used (by me) if I want to focus stack or combine images. I don’t do too much of that.

Other software options exist and ultimately its user preference.

Adobe is the market leader (which is why all photo software gets compared to it).

As others have said. Download a trial and use them. You’ll soon learn if it’s the one for you or not. No one else can answer that for you.