When Photoshop Just Does It Better

[kitjv]

Lightroom Version Number

v9.4

Operating System

1. macOS 10.15 Catalina

I am a longtime LR user. If I am diligent about image capture, I find that only occasionally do I have to do any editing in PS or a 3rd-party plugin. So as you might expect, my experience with PS is very limited. Recently, I used the clone stamp tool & content aware fill in PS when I wasn't totally satisfied with the results I was getting in LR.

This got me thinking: "What other PS tools might consistently do a better job than their counterparts in LR"? Although this question calls for a subjective response, I would really appreciate the thoughts from some of you PS veterans. Thank you so much.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

To me, Photoshop begins where Lightroom ends. There may be a few situations where both applications can do the job but Photoshop does it better (retouching is indeed the one that comes to mind), but in principle anything I can do in Lightroom I will do in Lightroom, because that won't break the raw workflow. I will only go the Photoshop when I want to do things that are simply impossible in Lightroom.

 

[kitjv]

To me, Photoshop begins where Lightroom ends. There may be a few situations where both applications can do the job but Photoshop does it better (retouching is indeed the one that comes to mind), but in principle anything I can do in Lightroom I will do in Lightroom, because that won't break the raw workflow. I will only go the Photoshop when I want to do things that are simply impossible in Lightroom.

I agree, John. However, as an example, I have found that the healing brush in LR just does not work well in certain situations. The clone stamp tool in PS has worked better for me.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

I agree, John. However, as an example, I have found that the healing brush in LR just does not work well in certain situations. The clone stamp tool in PS has worked better for me.

And I confirmed that this is one area where Photoshop has the better tools.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

An important area impossible in LR is cross-photo work - composites of any sort, cloning a piece from one into another, etc.

Another are a LOT of filters and routines where the concepts do not even exist in LR, like liquify.

And another is automation of edits. LR does a great job of mass changes in metadata and develop sync, but Photoshop lets you script things.

And finally (at least off the cuff) there's formats that LR can't do, like building animated GIF's.

 

[kitjv]

An important area impossible in LR is cross-photo work - composites of any sort, cloning a piece from one into another, etc.

Another are a LOT of filters and routines where the concepts do not even exist in LR, like liquify.

And another is automation of edits. LR does a great job of mass changes in metadata and develop sync, but Photoshop lets you script things.

And finally (at least off the cuff) there's formats that LR can't do, like building animated GIF's.

For the most part, the things you mention are not part of my workflow. But I can appreciate the advantage of PS in those areas.

 

[Woodbutcher]

I've found a certain case of panorama creation that using PS align images works way better than LR or PS panorama merge. But otherwise, clone/healing if the basic doesn't work in LR, then PS. The rest of the stuff I do in PS is because LR doesn't do it.