Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is Lightroom faster than Camera Raw?  (Read 1894 times)

Philmar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 369
    • http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
Is Lightroom faster than Camera Raw?
« on: April 04, 2011, 01:49:08 PM »

I've read many a time that ACR and LR share the same RAW rendering engine/process. But is one faster than the other?
Just curious if LR uses up less memory resources than ACR.  In order to use ACR one has to fire up either Bridge or Photoshop. I assume (yes that's dangerous) that LR uses less memory than PS or Bridge. After all PS has many other capabilities and those abilities are loaded to RAM every time it is fired up, no?
Whether or not that is correct, would it affect the speed with which RAWs are rendered? Or is it typically the CPU that slows the process up rather than RAM limitations?
Or is LR in fact slower because the pipeline does things different from ACR like spending time/resources looking for and acting upon presets?

Or is my question much much too complex to even bother pondering on such a rainy gloomy spring day?
Logged
An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6069
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Is Lightroom faster than Camera Raw?
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2011, 03:26:44 PM »

Or is my question much much too complex to even bother pondering on such a rainy gloomy spring day?

Yeah, pretty much. No that it's too complex but to what end? Wanna save a few processor clicks? A few microseconds?

I think the question you should ask is which Camera Raw pipeline implementation allows you the most efficiency in getting in and out ASAP? The precessing is the same but the UI and usability is a bit different. So, rather than worry about which implementation will process faster (hint, they're both about the same), which implementation allows YOU to get done sooner?
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10762
    • Echophoto
Re: Is Lightroom faster than Camera Raw?
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2011, 04:04:14 PM »

Hi,

They are different animals, ACR is no camel and LR is no cheetah.

Best regards
Erik


Yeah, pretty much. No that it's too complex but to what end? Wanna save a few processor clicks? A few microseconds?

I think the question you should ask is which Camera Raw pipeline implementation allows you the most efficiency in getting in and out ASAP? The precessing is the same but the UI and usability is a bit different. So, rather than worry about which implementation will process faster (hint, they're both about the same), which implementation allows YOU to get done sooner?

Philmar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 369
    • http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
Re: Is Lightroom faster than Camera Raw?
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2011, 05:34:53 PM »

Yeah, pretty much. No that it's too complex but to what end? Wanna save a few processor clicks? A few microseconds?

I've already cast my lot with LR after years of using ACR. My decision to switch was made due to the higher upgrade cost of PS over LR. So I am not asking because I am debating which of the two to purchase.

It was just something I was pondering about on a gloomy spring morning. I was just wondering whether LR would render a RAW faster than ACR.
Now I'll rhuminate over who'd win a fight between a tiger and a lion.  :o
Yes, the weather's become increasingly gloomer since this morning. :D

But thanks for the reply Jeff
Logged
An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10762
    • Echophoto
Re: Is Lightroom faster than Camera Raw?
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2011, 11:41:13 PM »

Hi,

LR is doing it's work in the background, so I don't really see how long it takes to convert images. With PS it's quite obvious. In my view LR is not very fast, it takes like 5 seconds to export a 24 MP image, therefore no cheetah. For me using LR is a natural and ACR/PS is not. I still use PS, it integrates pretty well in LR.

Best regards
Erik


I've already cast my lot with LR after years of using ACR. My decision to switch was made due to the higher upgrade cost of PS over LR. So I am not asking because I am debating which of the two to purchase.

It was just something I was pondering about on a gloomy spring morning. I was just wondering whether LR would render a RAW faster than ACR.
Now I'll rhuminate over who'd win a fight between a tiger and a lion.  :o
Yes, the weather's become increasingly gloomer since this morning. :D

But thanks for the reply Jeff

sniper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Is Lightroom faster than Camera Raw?
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2011, 02:34:02 AM »

I suspect it'll depend on your workflow and number of images to process, if it's one or two images then ACR is probably quicker as theres no import export time, if it's lots of images then it can import and export in the background while your doing other things, although I doubt in the real world by the time you boot up photoshop theres a lot of difference.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4196
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Is Lightroom faster than Camera Raw?
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2011, 02:45:38 AM »

For me using LR is a natural and ACR[my edit] is not.

Working in a program versus working in a dialog box?
Logged
www.beardsworth.co.uk   www.lightroomsolutions.com

New Fuji-to-Lightroom plugin X-LR

Ignoring : AlterEgo, digitaldog, scyth, deejaaa

Philmar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 369
    • http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
Re: Is Lightroom faster than Camera Raw?
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2011, 11:44:26 AM »

I am not a pro processing huge batches of wedding photos or product shots with deadlines. I am just a hobbyist who processes his shots in between stints at the office.
My workflow is I process one RAW file at a time - giving each shot it's maximum attention - it's a therapeutic process ;D I'm in no rush. I had used ACR for several years only switching to LR in the last year. I find myself reworking many old files as I find the improvements to the various noise reduction/demosaic/sharpening ect. algorithms in LR3 make a big difference.
I find that LR processes each of my ancient 30D files slower than ACR (CS4 version). The speed difference is noticeable. The difference is large enough to cause me to ponder why. I would have thought/assumed LR would process each one faster as I figured LR's footprint was smaller than CS4/Bridge's.
This isnít a complaint. I am not leaving LR Ė I love it. I find it so much easier to implement presets than with ACR. Its develop presets it saves me plenty of time. The history states allow me to back up easily if Iíve overdone something. Thereís plenty of reasons I canít articulate now why I donít miss ACR.
Just wondering why it takes longer than ACR to render a single RAW, cuz to ME it is counter-intuitive, that's all. I figure the bigger brained people here might know.
Logged
An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6069
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Is Lightroom faster than Camera Raw?
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2011, 12:38:41 PM »

I find that LR processes each of my ancient 30D files slower than ACR (CS4 version). The speed difference is noticeable. The difference is large enough to cause me to ponder why. I would have thought/assumed LR would process each one faster as I figured LR's footprint was smaller than CS4/Bridge's.

The very same "improvements" you mention such as Process Version 2010, the new Noise Reduction and Lens Corrections is actually slower in LR 3 and ACR 6 than in the previous versions of ACR. So, comparing ACR 5 (in CS4) to LR 3 is not really a head to head comparison. You would need ACR 6 to have a valid comparison to LR 3.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up