I know this has been hashed-over many times already, but now that you have chosen one or the other, how would you advise me? I'm just a hobbyist who shoots a very modest number of images (<1000 a year). Deal mainly with landscapes, and usual end-products are 16x20 prints for my walls and an occasional exhibit. Currently use a Canon 5dII, but caught the Sigma bug and have been trying a DP3M, which is pretty amazing.
Used to use C1, but have switched to ACR/PS5. I barely scratch the surface of what PS offers, but with simple layers and a few local adjustments, I get results that please me. I am not terribly tech-aware and don't have the patience to spend long hours learning new things -- which leads me to:
I bought LR4 several months ago, but am so ingrained in the ACR/Bridge/PS routine that I've barely opened the program -- and found it daunting the time or two I tried.
So, should I just stay put, OR is there some compelling benefit to LR that would pay big dividends with a bit of effort? Obviously, the CC issue will need dealing with at some point, but that's not my concern here and now. Does ACR do the basic processes as well as LR (or C1, for that matter)? Should I stay with the familiar, or hike up my retiree-jeans and learn how to make LR work for me? Thanks a bunch for your suggestions . . .