Lightroom Vs. ACR/Bridge, etc.

[mnoble]

Since I upgraded to Photoshop CS3, I find that I use Lightroom less and less. I know that some tout both as part of the digital workflow, but I just don't see the need. ACR with Bridge does everything that Lightroom does with regard to image processing. (I shoot RAW images almost exclusively.)

I used Lightroom when it was in beta and I was impressed. But now I don't see the use of two pieces of software that both use (I believe) the same processing engine. I do use Lightroom when I print, but that is probably because I have just become used to it and haven't experimented with printing from Bridge.

I am interested to get your opinions.

Thanks,

Mike  

[tomrock]

LR is aimed at managing a library of photos whereas Bridge is aimed at looking at a folder of images.

They have similar processing because both use the Adobe Camera Raw "engine".

If Bridge suits the way you work, that's great.

[rdonson]

I shoot some sporting events and LR is a lot easier than Bridge if you're dealing with 700-2000 RAW images from an event.  While LR uses the ACR engine for RAW I find I like the LR Develop UI far, far better than ACR's UI.  ACR's UI seems like it was designed by a coder.  LR's UI feels like it was designed by a UI professional.  Actually, it was.

[The View]

I'm currently working on advertising material, where I have to put photos together, design, etc. in Photoshop.

The resized photos I give into a folder in Bridge. I don't want these guys hang around my library.

Also the exported images, for internet use, etc. I will in futur store within Bridge.

So I have the photos in my library, all derivatives like promotional material, resized photos, or plain foolin' around, in folders within Bridge.

[jjj]

LR has as said above, a much better UI for developing compared to ACR, though parts of LR are a bit clunky still. Plus it's way too picky regarding file types to be be a functional DAM app, so I use both. Also Bridge integrates much, much better with Photoshop.