With regard to raw image processing, they are the same exactly. In fact they use the very same raw conversion engine internally. On the user interface's surface a few of the sliders are designed a bit differently but all the functionality is the same for both.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I used to think that the differences were minimal as well, until i really tried it (now i completely switched over). Did you actually use LR, instead of just glancing at the user interface? Lightroom's UI has a number of extra's that make it easier/faster to work with than ACR. For instance, you can manipulate
- blacks
- fill light
- exposure
- recovery
by dragging the histogram (in the range at which those adjustments are targeted).
Additionally, you have the little circle thingy in the left corner of a few panels, that allows adjustment of the Parametric Tonecurve, the HSL controls and the Grayscale sliders,
by dragging (up/down) in the image. It automatically detects which tonal range or which colors (can be multiple ones) are present under the cursor. In ACR you only have the trick of holding Ctrl/Cmd to place a point on the tone curve.
Another big difference: the preview quality is way better in LR than in Bridge.
Things that i miss in LR:
- No normal tone curve, only the parametric one, which gives you less freedom.
- No option to merge to HDR like in Bridge.
So it's not just "slightly different design", but also added functionality (with some things missing as well) to the features also existing in ACR (i'm not talking about the web page/slideshow creation options etc.).