Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Camera Raw Q&A => Topic started by: cocasana on March 07, 2012, 09:03:41 am
-
I find very interesting/useful all L4's new features. I was also thinking to buy it.
But then I thought that most probably next Bridge, ACR and PS release will have all the same features. Am I wrong?
-
Bridge+ACR never had the same functionality as LR. You can do a lot with both of them but no way do they equal LR.
-
Bridge + Photoshop ≠ Lightroom
Lightroom is different in a fundamental way: it creates a catalog specifically for images (and now videos), and provides a toolset to manipulate images. It creates a catalog for sorting and finding images in a (supposedly) more efficient way than Bridge. If you work on a project where you create and manage a couple thousand images, Lightroom is (supposedly) a better program for editing & sorting the body of work. The cache and previewing engine of Lightroom should be faster and more stable than Bridge because it's specifically designed to handle images.
[I say "supposedly" because I use Bridge daily as a project tool. I've use Lightroom v3 on a few projects where thousands of images were generated. I'm on the fence with regards to its file management protocol.]
Bridge is a tool that is best used when you are using many Adobe tools (Illustrator, InDesign, Photoshop, AfterEffects, Premiere, etc.) on a project. It's a great tool for sorting project files, finding & opening those files into their respective parent program. Its cache system is still a bit weak-kneed when thousands of images are managed. It generates "hidden" cache files and project files that are critical to its functionality. Lightroom creates a directory for the storage of cache, previews and settings with the idea that it will be faster and more robust (i.e., stable) in generating image previews and managing hundreds of images.
With Lightroom, Adobe also targets photographers who don't want to use Photoshop on every image. The basic toolset allows someone to make global and some local adjustments that, in many cases, provide adequate post-production results.
-
I mean Lr's development module tools vs next ACR!
-
I mean Lr's development module tools vs next ACR!
The raw processing is the same (if version parity is true).
-
I mean Lr's development module tools vs next ACR!
UI is different but, as others said above, the results are identical. I'm not 100% sure but one difference is that Lightroom provides an history of all your actions and I don't think that ACR has that feature - but I might be wrong here…
-
If you aren't sure then how can you say the results are identical? :)
-
If you aren't sure then how can you say the results are identical? :)
The thing I'm not sure is whether ACR offers an history or not... Andrew above already wrote about results, provided both ACR and Lightroom versions are on par.
-
I use PS 5 extended and it doesn't have history.
-
I use PS 5 extended and it doesn't have history.
Stamper,
Thanks for the confirmation.
-
The raw processing is identical. In fact, when you ask LR to ‘Edit in Photoshop’ it is ACR that renders the data! But the two have to be on parity version wise.
But there are lots of non processing functionality that LR provides ACR doesn’t. History has been mentioned. Virtual copies is another that comes to mind.
-
Another difference is the Before / After view, great for fine level adjustments. Presets too, if they interest you.
John
-
The raw processing is identical. In fact, when you ask LR to ‘Edit in Photoshop’ it is ACR that renders the data! But the two have to be on parity version wise.
But there are lots of non processing functionality that LR provides ACR doesn’t. History has been mentioned. Virtual copies is another that comes to mind.
When can we expect the ACR 7.0 plug-in for PS5. Right now we are pretty limited "Editing in Photoshop". It seems our only option to "Edit in PS" is "Render using Lightroom" to see our LR changes. NO"Smart Objects" and NO ability to "Open as Layers..." with our LR4 changes
(http://www.theuncarvedblock.com/images/LR4-PS-layers.jpg)
-
Hi!
The problem is that you have an old version of ACR in PS CS5. I think a new ACR has been released at the same time LR4 was or that the incompatibility has been fixed in LR4.
The bad news is that ACR 7 may indicate need for a new release of Photoshop.
Best regards
Erik
When can we expect the ACR 7.0 plug-in for PS5. Right now we are pretty limited "Editing in Photoshop". It seems our only option to "Edit in PS" is "Render using Lightroom" to see our LR changes. NO"Smart Objects" and NO ability to "Open as Layers..." with our LR4 changes
(http://www.theuncarvedblock.com/images/LR4-PS-layers.jpg)
-
It seems our only option to "Edit in PS" is "Render using Lightroom" to see our LR changes.
yes, and no...if you have downloaded and installed ACR 6.7 RC1 from Labs.Adobe.com then you can process PV 2012 in Photoshop CS5/5.5. Until you get ACR 6.7 (or ultimately ACR 7 in PS CS6), no, processing images through Photoshop will be a disconnect...get the RC and test it and then get back to us. It's at Labs.Adobe.com (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cameraraw6-7/). Also understand this is now a new problem...same thing happened with LR3 and CS5.
-
yes, and no...if you have downloaded and installed ACR 6.7 RC1 from Labs.Adobe.com then you can process PV 2012 in Photoshop CS5/5.5. Until you get ACR 6.7 (or ultimately ACR 7 in PS CS6), no, processing images through Photoshop will be a disconnect...get the RC and test it and then get back to us. It's at Labs.Adobe.com (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cameraraw6-7/). Also understand this is now a new problem...same thing happened with LR3 and CS5.
Yes, I have downloaded ACR 6.7 this is better than the non-functioning 6.6 - but there still are issues that go a little beyond "nuance". The 3 options for opening the file in Photoshop from Lightroom as I see it are:
1. "Open Anyway" (Default)
2. "Render Using Lightroom"
3. Open as "Smart Object "
Options1 & 3 are lighter than 2 which appear to look most like the Lightroom 4 rendition... a bit disconcerting. I am hoping this is because it is a "Release Candidate" and would expect that in the final version (or ACR 7.0), opening any three options from Lightroom to Photoshop would look the same. Correct?
-
Another difference is the Before / After view, great for fine level adjustments. Presets too, if they interest you.
John
LR, for reasons known only to Adobe, lacks a Color Sampler Tool, something I use all the time.
Secondly, the Spot Removal Tool behaves differently (& less intuitively, in my opinion) in LR compared to ACR. Why the target circle disappears when you click on it with the mouse cursor is beyond me.
Finally, 0-255 RGB is, in my view, a case of if it ain't broke.... I hate % readouts.
Viewed purely as RAW image processing tools, I think that ACR is better featured - at least for my workflow. I'm processing small numbers of images for clients. If you're a photojournalist or an amateur shooting shed loads of images that need organising, then LR makes sense.
But, LR should, first & foremost, have everything that ACR has. It doesn't.
D.
-
LR, for reasons known only to Adobe, lacks a Color Sampler Tool, something I use all the time.
Secondly, the Spot Removal Tool behaves differently (& less intuitively, in my opinion) in LR compared to ACR. Why the target circle disappears when you click on it with the mouse cursor is beyond me.
Finally, 0-255 RGB is, in my view, a case of if it ain't broke.... I hate % readouts.
+1
-
Finally, 0-255 RGB is, in my view, a case of if it ain't broke.... I hate % readouts.
Not for nothing, but exactly what color space would you expect LR to read out? When you are in the Develop module, you are working on a raw file. The pipeline processes images in Pro Photo RGB but in a linear gamma. So, 0-255 would be useless since the gamma is linear.
If you want to see 0-255, turn on soft proofing and select the color space you want; sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB. Then you'll get 0-255 readouts.
BTW, I don't disagree that the lack of multiple color samplers is a deficit to LR. Been asking for them since the beginning...just hasn't gotten enough traction to spend the dev time to add them.
-
If you want to see 0-255, turn on soft proofing and select the color space you want; sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB. Then you'll get 0-255 readouts.
I don't understand why the output profile is not on by default, as it is in ACR. Isn't every image file tagged when it leaves LR? Or does Adobe provide the % readout because LR will output to multiple color space? (If so, then I'm old school, touching a single image file in PS, then creating multiple files from it, tagged with different profiles as needed, before it leaves my studio).
-
I don't understand why the output profile is not on by default, as it is in ACR.
Because in LR you are using an asset management tool that may have different outputs for different purposes, in Camera Raw, it's used as a tool to adjust a raw image before opening in Photoshop. LR is for workflow and ACR is for getting the raw image open. From Photoshop, you would decide ultimately where the file will go at what size and output profile. In ACR you set the color space based on the assumption you know where the image is going (Photoshop). LR can't presume to know where the image will be going when you are in the Develop module. It could be going to Export (where you set the output profile), slideshow & web (assumed sRGB) or print (using an output profile).
So, again, without specifying where an image is going, what color space should LR use in the color readouts in Develop? Setting the softproof profile allows you to see the color readouts in that color space.
-
That's what I figured. Thanks for the clarification, Jeff.
-
Glad some heavy hitters have taken the time to reply to my post.
As someone who does a lot of work for museums & galleries, I just can't take LR seriously when it comes to colour. ACR is THE fully featured professional RAW processing application, in my opinion. But, to quote one of you, maybe I'm old school and I'm just used to ACR.
One last thing....grid lines engaging by default when you use a Lens Correction slider is a total no-brainer, and way overdue in ACR. Another example of the messing that Abobe engage in. (Though it isn't a deal breaker & doesn't refute my point that ACR is the more rounded application)
Easy to see why Capture One is drawing away so many pros. By & large they're only concerned with what they can do to a RAW file, & not with the management of large quantities of files.
D.
-
I have only used LR v3.x and do not appreciate its file management. I'm not fully immersed in it, however.
Moving files into and out of folders using the finder and/or Bridge is easy. Bridge tracks the files and as long as its cache is kept up to date, it functions well.
Moving files into and out of folders using the finder and/or LR is so different, that at first I didn't know what was wrong. Tthe files didn't show up in the import window, and the folder has to be "synchronized". This extra step, to me, is superfluous.
But, with regard to LR, I'm a noob.
I just can't take LR seriously when it comes to colour. ACR is THE fully featured professional RAW processing application . . .
The rendering engine of both programs is the same. However, it appears that LR v4 has the latest Adobe raw processing engine, with ACR to be updated later.
-
As someone who does a lot of work for museums & galleries, I just can't take LR seriously when it comes to colour. ACR is THE fully featured professional RAW processing application, in my opinion.
You need to look over your testing procedures, as the Develop module in LR and ACR are IDENTICAL!
-
The engine may be, the tools and methodology aren't though.
-
The tools and adjustments and the rendering are exactly the same. The UI and usability are different. I use each interchangeably all the time. I like some aspect of LR and some of ACR...I've gotten used to the differences and don't really mind the differences...
-
One last thing....grid lines engaging by default when you use a Lens Correction slider is a total no-brainer, and way overdue in ACR. Another example of the messing that Abobe engage in. (Though it isn't a deal breaker & doesn't refute my point that ACR is the more rounded application)
When you go into manual lens corrections, just click the V key to turn the grid on/off. Personally, I much prefer being able to control when the grid shows...
-
Ok, hands up, I never knew that and (on the rare occasions I need the grid) I managed without. And I agree with you, I'd much rather have the option of choosing when it appears. ;)
But, I stand over my other points.
Anyone aware of an online list of keyboard shortcuts for ACR/CS5?
Thanks.
D.
-
Google is your friend:
CR: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WS982EFD65-8549-4c58-AD7D-0C2C2C39DAF1a.html
And the big one: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WSD578BD7D-07BC-46f6-AAC2-6E491E8AD818a.html
Ciao, Walter
-
Somewhere I saw a demo of adobe demonstrating how CS6 will remove motion blur. Calculating the trajectory of light across the sensor results in a path which can be used to transform an image back to 'sharpness'. Although tantalizing, this is nowhere near as good as starting out with a sharp image. Still for the web and the digital age, it might be good enough - will this stuff be built into cameras? who knows when.
-
will this stuff be built into cameras? who knows when.
No point if you want to use raw?
-
Video: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/max-2011-sneak-peeks/max-2011-sneak-peek-image-deblurring/
Technical stuff was discussed here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45038.0 and elsewhere.
Search words "deconvolution" and "PSF" = Point spread function.
Adobe confirmed the file was "cooked" before. Doesn't matter much to me.
If this is the demo spoken of: It has never been said, suggested and/or confirmed that these function will be part of CS6. Not that I'm aware of, at least.
Ciao, Walter
-
BTW, I don't disagree that the lack of multiple color samplers is a deficit to LR. Been asking for them since the beginning..
While you're badgering them, can you also ask for the user selectable colour overlay from ACR too. Only having red isn't very helpful when trying to build subtle masks for some images.
-
While you're badgering them, can you also ask for the user selectable colour overlay from ACR too. Only having red isn't very helpful when trying to build subtle masks for some images.
Always useful to know that something isn't already there before asking for it...when you click on the Adjustment Brush, don't you see the Show Mask button? What do you suppose that Red color swatch is for? Click it and you will have what you want...
-
when you click on the Adjustment Brush, don't you see the Show Mask button?
No
What do you suppose that Red color swatch is for? Click it and you will have what you want...
That adds a colour to the brush stroke here.
Would you like to go back and read what I wrote again ?
I'm asking for the ability to change the colour of the overlay showing where brush strokes are on the image in LIGHTROOM to match that option that is currently available in ACR.
-
I'm asking for the ability to change the colour of the overlay showing where brush strokes are on the image in LIGHTROOM to match that option that is currently available in ACR.
Oh, you mean in Lightroom...well, that's already there too. With a pin active, use Shift O to cycle through the mask colors. It's limited, but at least you are not forced to use only red...
-
Oh, you mean in Lightroom...well, that's already there too. With a pin active, use Shift O to cycle through the mask colors. It's limited, but at least you are not forced to use only red...
Thanks for that, never seen that trick mentioned before. Still not as good as the offering in ACR though.
-
Mimicking the ACR mask would be overkill.
-
Mimicking the ACR mask would be overkill.
Why ?
One check box and one swatch* is hardly going to make a mess of that dialogue box anyway.
*two user configurable options would be nice, but one is already in the code of ACR so it can't be a huge deal to add that to LR.
-
*two user configurable options would be nice, but one is already in the code of ACR so it can't be a huge deal to add that to LR.
People need to realize that "code" that may be in one application can't just be "ported" over to another...the code base for ACR is a plug-in, the code base for Lightroom is an application. Yes, the processing pipeline is the same and the toolset (making adjustments) are the same but the UI and how it's developed are completely different. There are some UI in LR that ACR can't do and some UI in ACR that LR can't do. You can't snap your fingers and move stuff back and forth between them, sorry, wish you could. I would love to have multiple color samplers in LR. I would love to have multiple panels open at once in ACR. But...it's really tough to try to have the same UI and usability in both.
-
it's really tough ...
Er, yes, so what ?
We're not talking some one person shareware outfit here. Adobe are a big fish in the software industry, why shouldn't we ask for, and expect, the best from them ?
-
Choosing the colour of the overlay just isn't necessary in LR - there's enough choice already with O and then Shift O. The development hours could be better spent elsewhere.
-
Choosing the colour of the overlay just isn't necessary in LR - there's enough choice already with O and then Shift O.
Oh right that's alright then.
Curious that if LR only needs two colours why ACR should need more though ?
The development hours could be better spent elsewhere.
Couldn't agree more, it would just be good to add it to the "it would be nice to add" list.
For now I'd be happy if they could get LR4 working productively fast.
-
It does on most machines. I think a lot of people are surprised at the slowdowns.
-
Quote
Couldn't agree more, it would just be good to add it to the "it would be nice to add" list.
For now I'd be happy if they could get LR4 working productively fast.
Unquote
I think that Adobe will be wondering what productively fast means? Personally I agree with John. I have read on some forums that some think it is unusable. Comments like that doesn't help in the least and it looks like Adobe are on the receiving end of some pot stirring? A little patience is needed and LR3 is still there to be used if needed.
-
Quote
Couldn't agree more, it would just be good to add it to the "it would be nice to add" list.
For now I'd be happy if they could get LR4 working productively fast.
Unquote
I think that Adobe will be wondering what productively fast means? Personally I agree with John. I have read on some forums that some think it is unusable. Comments like that doesn't help in the least and it looks like Adobe are on the receiving end of some pot stirring? A little patience is needed and LR3 is still there to be used if needed.
Not much comfort to those who paid out good money for the new version. Why should they have to use the old version because the new ones too slow on many computers? Maybe a longer beta test would have given chance to fix the issues before selling it to Joe public. Theres not just a few people having issues, theres a lot, and the tine curve problem should have been caught too IMHO.
-
It's a very small proportion, bigger than it should be but not material to a decision to upgrade.
-
It's a very small proportion,
There's no way you can know that.
There have been very few comments on any of the many internet forums I read suggesting performance is good, but hundreds complaining of sluggish response in the develop module.
-
It's the old thing about the unhappy few making a disproportionate noise. Clearly there's something which wasn't anticipated, and maybe you've been affected, but don't imagine it's representative of wider experience.
-
Do you seriously think there isn't a problem here ? that there's only a few unlucky people people effected ? that all the satisfied buyers are failing to say how good their purchase is ? that Adobe won't offer an update to increase performance ?
But then you're one of Adobe's NDA tied testers aren't you ?
-
Do you seriously think there isn't a problem here ? that there's only a few unlucky people people effected ? that all the satisfied buyers are failing to say how good their purchase is ?
No, I'm sure there are some people who have experienced individual slowdowns for a variety of reasons–and those reasons are being investigated. And yes, obviously, the vast majority of users who are NOT having problems don't got to forums to announce they are not having any problems.
The LR product manager has posted an article about the current issues titled Lightroom 4 Hot Issues (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/03/lightroom-4-hot-issues.html). At this point in time, why some people are having severe issues of extended delays when adjusting controls in Develop isn't known. Many/most of the complaints are not really well articulated and only lower the signal to noise ratio...there have been some useful suggestions about how to go about troubleshooting speed issues on the LR Forum. Some report updating the vid card drivers have helped, some report clearing the LR/ACR cache can help, some report importing into a new catalog instead of updating can help. However, the LR engineering team are trying to track down the various issues and address them. That's really all they can do.
But then you're one of Adobe's NDA tied testers aren't you ?
You're asking a question that can't be answered...he can not really either deny nor confirm. That's the nature of an NDA.
-
'Do you seriously think there isn't a problem here ? that there's only a few unlucky people people effected ? that all the satisfied buyers are failing to say how good their purchase is ? that Adobe won't offer an update to increase performance ?"
As I said, "clearly there's something" and "a lot of people are surprised". Sounds like your glass is always half empty though.....
-
You're asking a question that can't be answered...he can not really either deny nor confirm. That's the nature of an NDA.
Er, yes it can if you're not part of the Adobe team.
-
Anyway, your insinuation was irrelevant.
-
Er, yes it can if you're not part of the Adobe team.
So, what's your point? Do you have one? What do you want to know? You learned how to change the color overlay in LR and you've had your chance to vent over the differences between ACR and LR. You'v pretty much hogged the thread of late and we're not really getting anywhere. If you want to start a new thread regarding LR4 performance, go right ahead–in the correct sub-forum. But at this stage in the thread, all you are doing is hijacking the thread to complain about "something"...and I'm not really sure what it is.
-
I feel compelled to put my 2 cents in:
I am running LR4 on a Dell Studio 1558 machine with Windows 7, Intel Core 2.27 GHz, 8.0 GB RAM, 64 bit
and it is running very smoothly and quickly as did LR3.6. My Photo Library and Catalog are running
on a HP External Drive with 2.0 USB connection.
I have been very happy with the performance.
Robert
-
what's your point?
Clarification
John's contradicted me in asserting that there's very little problem with performance with LR4. He simply can't know that, nor can even Adobe.
Many more people read these forums than ever contribute and may not be aware of who is connected to Adobe and therefore unable to spot any 'spin' that Adobe are trying put out.
-
Are you serious?
-
Rhossydd you haven't answered the query about your assertion
productively fast
Vague assertions like this isn't helpful to Adobe hence some members are wondering about your motives and possibly about the specifications of your computer. At the risk of being personal, the way in which you and others - including myself - know how to use the product. I am still learning it so I am not qualified to throw out assertions will nilly.
-
Vague assertions like this isn't helpful to Adobe
Which why I've posted far more details in the appropriate places locally at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=63553.msg511632#msg511632
hence some members are wondering about your motives
?? 'some members' ? what are you on about ?
The only motivation I have is pushing to get LR4 as good as it should be. I'm a paying customer and have been for many years. I've spent thousands on Adobe products and many others have purchased Adobe software on my recommendation. Elsewhere I've been accused of being an Adobe 'fan boy' for my enthusiasm for LR, but I don't like the way some of the Adobe team try hard to down play problems other parts of Adobe admit is a problem.
At the risk of being personal, the way in which you and others - including myself - know how to use the product. I am still learning it so I am not qualified to throw out assertions will nilly.
I know LR & PS pretty well having used PS since version 3 and LR since the original first public beta. I'd fail an exam on every obscure bit of functionality only accessible via keyboard shorts cuts, but other than that I'm well past the beginner category in digital imaging.
Now stamper, if you have anything relevant or constructive to add here, please get on with.
-
Now stamper, if you have anything relevant or constructive to add here, please get on with.
Likewise. :)