ACR v8.4 vs Lightroom 5

[robgo2]

I have just installed ACR v8.4 in Photoshop CS6, and I am wondering if this is the same raw converting engine that is in Lightroom 5.  Also, what version of ACR is in Photoshop CC?

Rob

[Dave Ellis]

I've downloaded ACR 8.4 for CS6 recently too and can see no difference in functionality over ACR 7. My understanding is that with ACR 8.4 and CS6, all you get are the camera raw file updates. You need CC with ACR 8.4 to get the editing functionality updates, which presumably are similar to LR5.

Dave

[Simon Garrett]

See http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/, where if you scroll down you can see a summary of changes to both ACR8.4 and LR5.4.

As you can see, additional cameras and lenses are supported in both.  The raw conversion is (or is supposed to be) identical in both, and they use the same raw conversion engine.  

There are bug fixes in both, and some minor UI enhancements to the CC version of ACR8.4 but not the CS6 version as in future "updates to Camera Raw 8 for Photoshop CS6 only include new camera support, lens profile support, and bug fixes".  

[robgo2]

See http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/, where if you scroll down you can see a summary of changes to both ACR8.4 and LR5.4.

As you can see, additional cameras and lenses are supported in both.  The raw conversion is (or is supposed to be) identical in both, and they use the same raw conversion engine.  

There are bug fixes in both, and some minor UI enhancements to the CC version of ACR8.4 but not the CS6 version as in future "updates to Camera Raw 8 for Photoshop CS6 only include new camera support, lens profile support, and bug fixes".  

This makes sense, as it would be very odd for Adobe to give the same designator (v8.4) to programs that are not essentially the same.  Also, I gather that the raw conversion engine has not been changed significantly from the prior version of ACR (7 or 7.5??)

Rob

[Simon Garrett]

This makes sense, as it would be very odd for Adobe to give the same designator (v8.4) to programs that are not essentially the same.  Also, I gather that the raw conversion engine has not been changed significantly from the prior version of ACR (7 or 7.5??)

Rob

If you mean the basic raw rendering, that's probably true.  Changes to the "Develop" module in LR 5.0 (and equivalent in ACR) included the addition of radial filters, enhanced clone/heal tool, perspective correction and enhanced chromatic aberration correction.  As I recall there were a number of enhancements under the hood, including performance enhancements.

[robgo2]

If you mean the basic raw rendering, that's probably true.  Changes to the "Develop" module in LR 5.0 (and equivalent in ACR) included the addition of radial filters, enhanced clone/heal tool, perspective correction and enhanced chromatic aberration correction.  As I racall there were a number of enhancements under the hood, including performance enhancements.

Simon,

Yes, I was referring to the basic quality of the raw conversions, which is an area that I think ACR/LR lags some of the competition.  I understand that there are new tools being added to ACR in CC that are not available in CS6.  Not sure about LR5.

Rob

[Simon Garrett]

Simon,

Yes, I was referring to the basic quality of the raw conversions, which is an area that I think ACR/LR lags some of the competition.  I understand that there are new tools being added to ACR in CC that are not available in CS6.  Not sure about LR5.

Rob

The new tools in ACR seem to do with the UI, especially for viewing images.  I've not looked at the functions in detail, but arguably the functionality is largely already in LR in other forms. 

When you say "I think ACR/LR lags some of the competition", I would be interested to know which competition you mean.  I'd say that ACR/LR is significantly ahead of Nikon's raw processing (which has pretty much stood still for the last 5 years), but I've not used other raw convertors recently, and would be interested in your views. 

[Vladimirovich]

When you say "I think ACR/LR lags some of the competition", I would be interested to know which competition you mean.

Rogbo2 is noiseninja fan... once every 1-2 years he discovers the next big thing and then spends time alleging its advantages 

[Vladimirovich]

This makes sense, as it would be very odd for Adobe to give the same designator (v8.4) to programs that are not essentially the same.

you don't really think that they develop 2 code bases ? they either block features with if () {} else {} or with #if, #elif, #else, #endif

[robgo2]

Rogbo2 is noiseninja fan... once every 1-2 years he discovers the next big thing and then spends time alleging its advantages  

Ha, Ha.  Great emoticon.  I should have known that you would soon appear with your snide, but ignorant, put-downs.  To set the record straight, I am a fan of Photo Ninja, of which Noise Ninja is but one module.  And I have done numerous head to head comparisons of PN against ACR and other raw convertors, which means that I speak from personal experience.  Can you say the same?  I doubt it.  You are just a forum sniper who cannot accept the fact that new products can outperform the popular industry standard.  Also for the record, I think that Capture One, DxO and RPP are better raw convertors than ACR/LR as well.  (I am referring only to the quality of raw conversions, not features and workflow.)  Finally, I believe that I am entitled to my opinions, and you are rude to deride them for no reason other than pure spite.  It was you who first mentioned "noise ninja," not I, and I believe you did so to suggest that my liking it somehow disqualifies me as one who should be taken seriously.  What it really suggests is how petty and narrow-minded you are.  Grow up.  

Rob

[tuthill]

Rob, are you aware of the developer having any plans to speed processing up in Photo Ninja?  I purchased it right at the outset and put up with the slow processing speeds until a few months ago at which time I uninstalled it.  I'm running a 2009 MacBook Pro with 8 gig of ram so it's not a speed demon however I don't incur waits for basic adjustments to be processed in LR or PS CC so I think PN could be optimized to run much more quickly.  Any info you have in this regard would be appreciated.

[robgo2]

Rob, are you aware of the developer having any plans to speed processing up in Photo Ninja?  I purchased it right at the outset and put up with the slow processing speeds until a few months ago at which time I uninstalled it.  I'm running a 2009 MacBook Pro with 8 gig of ram so it's not a speed demon however I don't incur waits for basic adjustments to be processed in LR or PS CC so I think PN could be optimized to run much more quickly.  Any info you have in this regard would be appreciated.

Tuthill,

When you refer to processing speed, do you mean the time required to convert a raw file to a TIFF or the time required for adjustments to show on the monitor?  I am going to assume the former, as I find the the latter to be very quick using Photo Ninja for most basic adjustments.  Correcting chromatic aberration takes a bit of time, but you can still make other adjustments while it is happening.

I am working on a 2007 MacPro with 24Gb of ram, so it is a pretty slow animal by today's standards.  I just ran some time trials converting raw files from a 24MP Sony RX1 using three different programs that I have at my disposal:  Photo Ninja v1.2.3c, ACR 8.4 in CS6 and DxO v9.1.4.  Files were converted to 16bit TIFFS.  Below are ranges for how long each program took to accomplish the task:

ACR--5-6 seconds
Photo Ninja--15-20 seconds
DxO--35-45 seconds

Clearly, ACR is the fastest, but I personally do not consider PN's processing time to be excessively long for files of this size.  If you are experiencing much slower speeds, then the problem probably lies with your computer.  You might consider writing to Picture Code to see if they have any suggestions.  One way to deal with slow processing times is to do batch processing.  Just set the machine in motion and go do something else for a while.  

I hope this helps.  

Rob

[tuthill]

Tuthill,

When you refer to processing speed, do you mean the time required to convert a raw file to a TIFF or the time required for adjustments to show on the monitor?  I am going to assume the former, as I find the the latter to be very quick using Photo Ninja for most basic adjustments.  Correcting chromatic aberration takes a bit of time, but you can still make other adjustments while it is happening.

I am working on a 2007 MacPro with 24Gb of ram, so it is a pretty slow animal by today's standards.  I just ran some time trials converting raw files from a 24MP Sony RX1 using three different programs that I have at my disposal:  Photo Ninja v1.2.3c, ACR 8.4 in CS6 and DxO v9.1.4.  Files were converted to 16bit TIFFS.  Below are ranges for how long each program took to accomplish the task:

ACR--5-6 seconds
Photo Ninja--15-20 seconds
DxO--35-45 seconds

Clearly, ACR is the fastest, but I personally do not consider PN's processing time to be excessively long for files of this size.  If you are experiencing much slower speeds, then the problem probably lies with your computer.  You might consider writing to Picture Code to see if they have any suggestions.  One way to deal with slow processing times is to do batch processing.  Just set the machine in motion and go do something else for a while.  

I hope this helps.  

Rob

I'm referring to both raw conversion and adjustment processing time.  The spinning wheel seems to go on for too long IMO.  I also have a 2011 Mac Mini and a similarly aged Windows based laptop (all with 8 gig ram and SSDs) and the speed is similar.  Perhaps I'm just not patient enough but I don't find I saved any time using Photo Ninja and only experienced better results on certain shots (such as those with blown highlights).

I guess I'll just have to keep an eye on future developments.

[robgo2]

I'm referring to both raw conversion and adjustment processing time.  The spinning wheel seems to go on for too long IMO.  I also have a 2011 Mac Mini and a similarly aged Windows based laptop (all with 8 gig ram and SSDs) and the speed is similar.  Perhaps I'm just not patient enough but I don't find I saved any time using Photo Ninja and only experienced better results on certain shots (such as those with blown highlights).

I guess I'll just have to keep an eye on future developments.

I almost never get a spinning wheel for basic adjustments.  Also, you can make other adjustments even while it is spinning, so it does not actually slow down the workflow.  Photo Ninja uses floating point math, which recalculates the file after each adjustment.  This takes more time than the method used in most other raw convertors, but, IMO, it is worth it, as I get superior results consistently and not just in the highlights.  Again, I would suggest that you write to Picture Code with your concerns.  They may have an explanation and possibly even a solution.

Rob

[kirkt]

This is for ACR 8.4 - Besides the various tools and enhancements that go with LR5/ACR CC, LR5 (like ACR CC) permits you to export/save your conversion to any color space profile, whereas (at least on the Mac) the CS6 version of ACR 8.4 only permits saving/exporting to sRGB, aRGB, ProPhoto RGB and ColorMatch RGB.  This is similar to the previous crippling of ACR in previous versions of 8.x for CS6.

What has always been sort of interesting about this limitation is, if you have both CS6 and CC on the same machine and set ACR in CC to export to a custom profile (say, for example, Lab) then that same profile will be the set profile when you invoke ACR from CS6, even if it is not one of the four available profiles in the normally limited CS6.  You also get Lab color readout and histogram.

This behavior is "interesting" because, under the same conditions of having both CS6 and CC installed on one's machine, if you invoke ACR from CS6 you DO NOT get the radial local adjustment tool, comparison views, etc. - that is, the expanded CC toolset present in ACR CC and LR5.  I figure Adobe means to completely cripple new ACR features for users of CS6 (even if CC is also on the same machine), so I figure they must have missed the conditional version check for the export color profile.


Ssssshhhhh.  I've said too much.

kirk