Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: davidedric on February 17, 2014, 12:28:01 pm
-
Not sure which forum to post this in, so going for Lightroom.
I know that ACR and Lightroom have the same underlying engine. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether ACR has all the tools in the Lightroom Develop module? If not which ones are missing (presumably because pixel level editing at a later stage makes more sense). If this is already covered in a thread somewhere, I would be grateful for a link.
I use LR 5.3, but only have access to PSE11, which has a drastically cut down set of features, compared with LR.
Thanks,
Dave
-
Lightroom has a few features which ACR lacks:
- Before / After split screen for fine tuning
- History Steps
Other adjustment features are just easier to use - eg snapshots and presets. That's purely thinking of the adjustments area, and there are lots of other things Lightroom will do - it manages your pictures as well as adjusts them.
John
-
Thanks, John, yes I do know about Lightroom' other modules, I also make extensive use of the catalogues, and when I do print I use Lightroom. I used to use Qimage but now Lightroom seems to offer the control I need.
The question really came from a friendly spat in another forum where the PS fanboys were calling Lightroom while knowing little about it, and vice versa. I am frequently surprised when folks continue to judge Lightroom from its early days.
Dave
-
I used to use Qimage but now Lightroom seems to offer the control I need.
Me too. Lightroom printing is now more powerful, and although I've got Qimage (not the latest) I haven't even reloaded it since I rebuilt my PC's system a year ago. I used to use Qimage for all printing.
-
The question really came from a friendly spat in another forum where the PS fanboys were calling Lightroom while knowing little about it, and vice versa.
were they ACR fanboys or PS fanboys ? that is a big difference = "raw conversion" vs "postprocessing" ...
-
were they ACR fanboys or PS fanboys ? that is a big difference = "raw conversion" vs "postprocessing" ...
Fair question - a bit of both. The essential argument was that, forgetting licencing costs, there is no advantage in doing parametric, non-destructive editing in Lightroom before passing the image to Photoshop, because the bundled ACR in PS can do anything that LR can do, and I just wondered whether that is indeed the case.
-
There is an advantage because you do the raw conversion better in Lightroom since the tools and environment are better , and because you manage your work more efficiently.
-
There is an advantage because you do the raw conversion better in Lightroom since the tools and environment are better , and because you manage your work more efficiently.
And that isn't just a piddling little advantage. Even if, like me, you have had many more years working in Photoshop than in Lightroom, you will likely be able to bring an image closer to "perfection" (i.e., your own goal) in a much shorter time doing most of the work first in LR. So you can get your choice of:
1. More images processed to the same level in the same time in LR, or
2. The same number of images processed to a higher level in the same time in LR.
-
I think if you are going to make a fair comparison of Photoshop and Lightroom then you have to think as follows.
a. Lightroom is in no way an alternative to Photoshop CS or CC. Photoshop is a "must have" for most professionals.
b. Lightroom is an alternative to Adobe Camera Raw and Bridge in Photoshop (with Lightroom having far superior file management capabilities than Bridge). Then there the other benefits in Lightroom, Publish service, Web module, a more efficient Print process to name a few.
Since I have adopted Lightroom as my raw processing software of choice I have been able to abandon the use and dependence of .xmp files, for me a major benefit of LR over ACR.
I also have Photoshop CS6 which I use for things that Lightroom cannot do. I have not used ACR since version 2.4.
-
I have to agree with Dennis here.
Lightroom and Photoshop are not able to be directly compared, they are, however, complementary in nature.
This argument is a bit like trying to seriously compare an Audi A4 with a Mack truck - they are both vehicles that drive on a road and in broad terms can be used for transportation but no editor of a motoring magazine would try to compare them directly - the result would be ludicrous.
Fanboys may rubbish one or the other application, but, in reality, most of use both applications, but in very different ways.
Ps fanboys probably don't realise that Lr is actually a Digital Asset Management Application that has several other features including RAW conversion, printing, and other useful features while Ps is actually an exceptionally powerful pixel editor with no robust DAM features and a peculiarly quixotic printing ability that Lr leaves for dust.
As a disclaimer nothing above attempts to be a full explanation or description of either application but rather just a summary statement.
Tony Jay
-
Hi,
I was not suggesting a direct comparison - I do understand the differences between PS and Lightroom. The original question was much more limited and was prompted by an observation that there was no advantage in using Lightroom as a raw processor over ACR (I imagine you'd have the option if you have CS), before moving on to process in PS. I rephrased it as a question about relative functionality, specifically between ACR and the Develop module of Lightroom, because that seemed to be at the root of the question.
Cheers,
Dave
-
LR has a few other advantages such as Virtual Copies to work on and Proof Copies for soft proof output specific edits. Works really well with the Print Module (template will honor rendering intent selected for Proof Copy).
-
Hi,
I think ACR and LR are similar in raw conversion capabilties, as they use the same engine, but LR is much more convenient.
The major difference is that LR is intended for a parametric workflow (you work with raw images) while Photoshop always is TIFF/JPEG based. Many users do > 90% of their work in Lightroom.
Best regards
Erik
Fair question - a bit of both. The essential argument was that, forgetting licencing costs, there is no advantage in doing parametric, non-destructive editing in Lightroom before passing the image to Photoshop, because the bundled ACR in PS can do anything that LR can do, and I just wondered whether that is indeed the case.
-
Hi,
I think ACR and LR are similar in raw conversion capabilties, as they use the same engine, but LR is much more convenient.
The major difference is that LR is intended for a parametric workflow (you work with raw images) while Photoshop always is TIFF/JPEG based. Many users do > 90% of their work in Lightroom.
and why 'd you jump from "ACR and LR" to "LR... while Photoshop"... PS can do parametric editing after ACR too, if you want so... And many users do > 90% of work in ACR... those who do not like LR do that just because they do not want an imposed DAM functionality - either because they use better (for them) DAMs or because they do not want DAM for their own subjective reasons... and unfortunately Adobe blocks calling LR as a standalone converter because they want you to get captive.
-
I used Camera RAW in Photoshop for many years and avoided Lightroom because of the DAM requirements - I don't need or want a DAM. When Adobe went to Photoshop CC I decided to purchase Lightroom 5. I am using Lightroom 5 without using the DAM. I set Lightroom to use XMP files and import the images I want to adjust and after I export the results I just remove them from Lightroom's library. This makes it work like I was using Camera RAW in Photoshop, my RAW edits are saved in the XMP files and if I need to make additional adjustments I just import them again and they open with the edits I saved. Works for me.
-
May work for you, but that doesn't make it a workflow that should be recommended.
-
I am using Lightroom 5 without using the DAM.
you are not purist... importing in LR it is like selling your sould to Devil !
-
The bets version of ACR 8.4now includes Before / After. See http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/2014/02/acr-8-4-release-candidate-now-available.html
John
-
I used Camera RAW in Photoshop for many years and avoided Lightroom because of the DAM requirements - I don't need or want a DAM. When Adobe went to Photoshop CC I decided to purchase Lightroom 5. I am using Lightroom 5 without using the DAM. I set Lightroom to use XMP files and import the images I want to adjust and after I export the results I just remove them from Lightroom's library. This makes it work like I was using Camera RAW in Photoshop, my RAW edits are saved in the XMP files and if I need to make additional adjustments I just import them again and they open with the edits I saved. Works for me.
To each his own, I import my raw files into Lightroom and do my post processing there. Export files to tiff or jpeg when I need them. Do not use xmp or dng. Use the publish feature regularly to post images to Flickr for sharing.
I find the fact that all my info for my files is stored in one location the Catalog which is backed up regularly is a major benefit of Lightroom.
I then have no management of side cars and lots of additional files, tiff or jpeg. When I need one I just export from Lightroom. Save my lots of storage space.
-
Hi,
When are you committing sin? When copying your file to your hard disk or when entering the name of that file in a an SQL database?
Best regards
Erik
you are not purist... importing in LR it is like selling your sould to Devil !