Lightroom vs ACR

[AlterEgo]

That's kind of breaking the CC model for Lightroom, isn't it?

why ?

[jjj]

I just watched a video by Scott Kelby showcasing "100 reasons  why Lightroom kicks ACR's @$$". But not one reason had to do with actual image editing. The advantages were all about organizing and handling files, which I don't care about.   My style is picking the best shot from a session and throwing the rest away, so Adobe Camera Raw and Bridge fit my needs. But I want to know if Lightroom has any editing advantages over ACR, other than printing, filing, viewing, and organizing. I hear both applications use the same "engine", so I assume neither Lightroom nor ACR have a leg up.

To go back to the original question. The UI for ACR sucks big time compared to the far more modern LR interface, one designed after ACR had been around for quite a while and done to improve on ACR's flaws and clunkiness.  I used ACR for years in tandem with Bridge but going back to it now is simply painful. I spent a long time when a PS beta tester trying to get ACR updated, but due to how it was first implemented, we're stuck with it. The then Product manager admitted it could have been designed much better, but at the time it came out ACR was completely new territory and the people they asked for feedback didn't really understand it either.

Some of the lens panel features in LR are bafflingly not present in ACR. Or if they are there, I can't find them and they are not minor things either. Lens profiles + Constrain Crop for example. Just checked in PS CC and PS CC 2014. 

[jjj]

why ?

A major selling point of CC was that upgrades would come continuously. But as LR is also sold as a standalone product fancy new features tend to arrive with full releases even if you use it via CC.

[AlterEgo]

A major selling point of CC was that upgrades would come continuously. But as LR is also sold as a standalone product fancy new features tend to arrive with full releases even if you use it via CC.

OK, but if something is missed in LR at all (both perpetual and subscription) - how does it matter ?

[AlterEgo]

The UI for ACR sucks big time compared to the far more modern LR interface

on the contrary... ACR is perfect (for those who need a standalone raw converter or PS plug-in within PS)... so it is a matter of taster and let us not generalize

[jjj]

on the contrary... ACR is perfect (for those who need a standalone raw converter or PS plug-in within PS)... so it is a matter of taster and let us not generalize

A matter of taste would be debating it's aesthetic values. ACR is still clunky and poorly designed. It's slower to use and with more unnecessary mousing compared to LR.

[texshooter]

I felt like this Youtuber about Lightroom the first, last, and only time I used it years ago...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-70hrKqs5M


If you don't need the cataloguing features of Lightroom, ACR/Bridge is worth it, clunky or not.

[Schewe]

I felt like this Youtuber about Lightroom the first, last, and only time I used it years ago...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-70hrKqs5M

Yeah, his biggest gripe was he couldn't figure out how to minimize the screen...this, of course without any knowledge of Lightroom. Yeah for somebody like that, Lightroom is beyond them.

[Hans Kruse]

on the contrary... ACR is perfect (for those who need a standalone raw converter or PS plug-in within PS)... so it is a matter of taster and let us not generalize

You can't be serious 

[Tony Jay]

You can't be serious 

Agreed!

Tony Jay

[fdisilvestro]

That's kind of breaking the CC model for Lightroom, isn't it?

The issue here is that there is not a CC version of Lightroom. When you subscribe to CC, you get included the license for LR.
Part of the confusion is that Adobe then created LR mobile, which is available only for CC subscribers.

[fdisilvestro]

Yeah, his biggest gripe was he couldn't figure out how to minimize the screen...this, of course without any knowledge of Lightroom. Yeah for somebody like that, Lightroom is beyond them.

Agreed, that video is pathetic!

[Ken Seals]

I remember seeing a Kelby video on 100 Reasons Lightroom is Better than Bridge. Is that what you saw?  That question is much different than LR vs ACR.

[texshooter]

I remember seeing a Kelby video on 100 Reasons Lightroom is Better than Bridge. Is that what you saw?  That question is much different than LR vs ACR.

http://kelbyone.com/100ways/

Bridge. ACR. Two sides of the same coin.

[Hans Kruse]

To say it bluntly: I do not understand that any photographer would not use Lightroom instead of Bridge, ACR and Photoshop. The only good explanation to me would be that Lightroom had not been checked out yet.

[texshooter]

To say it bluntly: I do not understand that any photographer would not use Lightroom instead of Bridge, ACR and Photoshop. The only good explanation to me would be that Lightroom had not been checked out yet.

If Lightroom is better than Bridge/ACR in 100 different ways, as argued by Kelby (I'm not disputing him), that means the Lightroom user has 100 more things to learn how to do (and more importantly, not forget how to do). I don't need all those bells and whistles so I'm not ready to make the switch. I simply don't need it.  But then again, that's what I said about the Ipad in 2009, which I can't now live without.

[digitaldog]

If Lightroom is better than Bridge/ACR in 100 different ways, as argued by Kelby (I'm not disputing him), that means the Lightroom user has 100 more things to learn how to do (and more importantly, not forget how to do).

I'm not sure about that one! There's functionality in LR that ACR+Bridge doesn't have, an example is unlimited History. You don't have to use it or even know what that means although any one who doesn't understand multiple UnDo's probably shouldn’t be using any such product.

[texshooter]

Oh, by the way, I eschewed Lightroom years back because I prefer Adobe RGB over Prophoto (another hot topic I'm sure).  I do a lot of Epson ABW printing, which works best with gamma 2.2. But Lightroom only works in gamma 1.8, so printing ABW from Lightroom = bad. Perhaps things have changed in the last few years, though. If the print module in Lightroom can do Epson ABW, someone enlighten me.

[digitaldog]

Oh, by the way, I eschewed Lightroom years back because I prefer Adobe RGB over Prophoto (another hot topic I'm sure).  I do a lot of Epson ABW printing, which works best with gamma 2.2. But Lightroom only works in gamma 1.8, so printing ABW from Lightroom = bad. Perhaps things have changed in the last few years, though.

Sorry, none of that is accurate.

[texshooter]

Sorry, none of that is accurate.

Are you saying that printing with Epson ABW from Lightroom has no problems or conflicts? I must have misread Eric Chan's articles on the subject. Back to the drawing board I go.