Lightroom vs ACR

[digitaldog]

Are you saying that printing with Epson ABW from Lightroom has no problems or conflicts?

I'm saying your statements about gamma, the working space's, LR's processing is not correct.

IF you have a rendered image in Adobe RGB (1998), that's the TRC encoding sent to the driver. If you have an image in ProPhoto, that's the encoding. If you edit the rendered data before you print, just like raw data, the LR processing color space is neither (it's a linear TRC). It's been this way from day 1.

[fdisilvestro]

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.

I too prefer LR, but it is Adobe that is adding functionality to ACR but not to LR, at least not at the same time, so It might or might not influence your decision. Also, I can understand LR vs ACR + Bridge choice, but Photoshop is another story, it is a tool for a different purpose which LR does not substitute yet.

[Denis de Gannes]

Quote
"but Photoshop is another story, it is a tool for a different purpose which LR does not substitute yet."

Totally agree Lightroom is an alternative to Bridge / Adobe Camera Raw Plugin, it is not a alternative or substitute to Photoshop.

I have always said that the name of the product "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom" is misleading and confusing to new users.

There are other Adobe Products that are appropriately named, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe In Design etc.

[AlterEgo]

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.

not all people want to have LR's DAM imposed on them... I for example want to be able 1) to use raw converter that does not interfere with what (whatever) I use for DAM - which can be invoked through a command line w/o "importing" anything and 2) to use it as a filter/plugin from inside PS (now we have that)... LR does not cut it here, I do not need its DAM, its printing or interfaces to various websites, etc.... so a lot of garbage and inflexibility there for me (your mileage is clearly different)... make LR able to be used in "ACR mode" then no problem - but Adobe wants a captive user, tied with time & effort invested in LR DAM features, so they won't allow that... good thing that they still keep ACR alive for those who need a lean converter

[Denis de Gannes]

not all people want to have LR's DAM imposed on them... I for example want to be able 1) to use raw converter that does not interfere with what (whatever) I use for DAM - which can be invoked through a command line w/o "importing" anything and 2) to use it as a filter/plugin from inside PS (now we have that)... LR does not cut it here, I do not need its DAM, its printing or interfaces to various websites, etc.... so a lot of garbage and inflexibility there for me (your mileage is clearly different)... make LR able to be used in "ACR mode" then no problem - but Adobe wants a captive user, tied with time & effort invested in LR DAM features, so they won't allow that... good thing that they still keep ACR alive for those who need a lean converter

I agree with you totally and this was debated extensively when Lightroom was in Beta mode. The answer was if PS / Bridge and ACR worked for you then it was not necessary to adopt Lightroom.

[Hans Kruse]

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.

I will not try to convert you to Lightroom. If you don't see the light then so be it. Btw. the first iPad was announced and available in 2010, not 2009

[Jimbo57]

Quote
.........it is not a alternative or substitute to Photoshop.

.

It has never been claimed that it was.

Lightroom is a superb complement to Photoshop. Choosing, as I do, to use LR as the hub for all my photo-processing suits me very well indeed. When I need to use Photoshop, I use it from within Lightroom in a totally integrated and intuitive way.

I suspect that LR is particularly attractive to those who, like me, spent 30+ years in the darkroom before converting to digital. Those who did not get into photography until the digital age had already started might find the Bridge/ACR route acceptable.

[Hans Kruse]

not all people want to have LR's DAM imposed on them... I for example want to be able 1) to use raw converter that does not interfere with what (whatever) I use for DAM - which can be invoked through a command line w/o "importing" anything and 2) to use it as a filter/plugin from inside PS (now we have that)... LR does not cut it here, I do not need its DAM, its printing or interfaces to various websites, etc.... so a lot of garbage and inflexibility there for me (your mileage is clearly different)... make LR able to be used in "ACR mode" then no problem - but Adobe wants a captive user, tied with time & effort invested in LR DAM features, so they won't allow that... good thing that they still keep ACR alive for those who need a lean converter

Why you would want what you describe I have no idea, but I'm sure there are a number of people out there that have a workflow they came up with many years ago and do not want to change even though it is very likely that redesigning their workflow would be an advantage for them. Using ACR from Bridge is clumsy at best compared to Lightroom, but at least Adobe should redesign the use of Lightroom and ACR and Photoshop interworkings. There really should be active links between Lightroom and Photoshop if you e.g. create a smart object from Lightroom and not as now have to edit a smart object using ACR with a completely different UI than LR. I'm also pretty sure this is something that is discussed internally in Adobe, but I guess that it gets pushed down the list compared to other things like e.g. supporting phones and tablets. The UI of Photoshop has been redesigned and facelifted, but ACR was left out in the cold. Using Lightroom and or Photoshop on tablets is not high on my list compared to improving the editing features in LR. What you describe as LR in "ACR mode" meaning that the UI of LR for RAW conversion would be a welcome change, but more than that is needed to have a flexible interworking between LR and Photoshop.

[kers]

I needed a damm solution already in 1985...
it developed and now i am using a combination of several programs that still work for me.
So I can find my analogue stuff and my digital suff within seconds.
Lightroom came very late to the scene. I only use its raw engine; but in photoshop- ACR.
In the beginning i disliked its raw engine but with the latest version 2012 i started to like it a lot.
I am still on CS6 so probably i will have to get LR6 if the raw engine has become better again.
Since LR does all the converting with vectors i still prefer PS for adjusting my images. You simply cannot do all the things with vectors.

[Rory]

Since LR does all the converting with vectors i still prefer PS for adjusting my images. You simply cannot do all the things with vectors.

Vectors?

[AlterEgo]

Why you would want what you describe I have no idea

even though it is very likely that redesigning their workflow would be an advantage for them.

I know that some people are incapable to understand others, I do  

I do not see anything that LR will bring to my own needs, but I know what it might bring to other people...  

Using ACR from Bridge is clumsy at best compared to Lightroom

did I say anything about Bridge ? I am not using Bridge - there are other browsers and DAMs out there...

What you describe as LR in "ACR mode" meaning that the UI of LR for RAW conversion would be a welcome change

not exactly - I was referring to the situation when I 'd be willing to use LR... that is if I can invoke it w/o imposing import on me and (as of today, now that Adobe make it possible) if I can use LR as I can use ACR from within PS as a plugin/filter... I can live with LR UI (even I prefer ACR)... and of course LR has to be update to what is missing in it vs ACR

[AlterEgo]

Vectors?

he might be referring to the fact that LR is not exactly a pixel editor...

[Rory]

he might be referring to the fact that LR is not exactly a pixel editor...

Right.  So much confusion about LR / ACR / PS.

[texshooter]

I will not try to convert you to Lightroom. If you don't see the light then so be it.

I'm going to give Ingestamatic a try first. I hear good things about it.

[kers]

Vectors?

sorry about the confusion;
As i understand LR remembers all the actions you have made to your RAW image.
It does that in a way it remembers the calculations you made on the RAW- for instance gradual darker etc..
Not every kind alteration you would like to carry out can be caught in a formula. For that it is limited in what it can do.
The good side of this method is that your original RAW remains unaltered and your actions can be saved in a relative small document.

[Rory]

sorry about the confusion;
As i understand LR remembers all the actions you have made to your RAW image.
It does that in a way it remembers the calculations you made on the RAW- for instance gradual darker etc..
Not every kind alteration you would like to carry out can be caught in a formula. For that it is limited in what it can do.
The good side of this method is that your original RAW remains unaltered and your actions can be saved in a relative small document.

Yes.  The term that has been coined to describe this is "parametric" editing.  However, this is what ACR does as well.

[kers]

Yes.  The term that has been coined to describe this is "parametric" editing.  However, this is what ACR does as well.

yes of course,
I use ACR as a good starting point from were i leave it and then do my editing in Photoshop...
For the way i work on photographs Photoshop is very much needed.

[jjj]

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.

Very poor logic there. You can have the same number of features [say 100] in two products and yet one of them could be better in a 100 different ways as it is better designed. It does not mean that product has a 100 more features.

[jjj]

I agree with you totally and this was debated extensively when Lightroom was in Beta mode. The answer was if PS / Bridge and ACR worked for you then it was not necessary to adopt Lightroom.

I disagree. I was a big user of BS + Br/ACR and loved them, I was even an Adobe tester for Bridge [+PS]. But when LR matured in V2 I simply stopped using Br/ACR as much because it was much slower. Then completely gave up on Br as LR  improved continually whilst BR was sadly left to rot away and die. Adobe also gave up on the Br beta testing other than if someone on PS beta programme felt like saying something, but as nothing changed nobody bothered after a while.

[Tony Jay]

Very poor logic there. You can have the same number of features [say 100] in two products and yet one of them could be better in a 100 different ways as it is better designed. It does not mean that product has a 100 more features.

Agreed.
If Lightroom really is better in a hundred different ways (BTW Kelby is probably resorting to a bit of hyperbole here) it is because it may be simpler to use or demonstrates better integration of certain functionality not because it necessarily has more "bells and whistles".
Certainly anyone who prints appreciates the simplicity of the Print module...

Tony Jay