Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: texshooter on March 01, 2015, 11:57:18 am
-
I just watched a video by Scott Kelby showcasing "100 reasons why Lightroom kicks ACR's @$$". But not one reason had to do with actual image editing. The advantages were all about organizing and handling files, which I don't care about. My style is picking the best shot from a session and throwing the rest away, so Adobe Camera Raw and Bridge fit my needs. But I want to know if Lightroom has any editing advantages over ACR, other than printing, filing, viewing, and organizing. I hear both applications use the same "engine", so I assume neither Lightroom nor ACR have a leg up.
-
I think Lightroom integrates better with a Wacom pen/tablet, potentially making the use of adjustment brushes more satisfying (pressure sensitivity). That's why I bought LR a year ago, but I could never get my head round it (the catalog concept), so I went back to using Photo Mechanic + ACR.
-
I just watched a video by Scott Kelby showcasing "100 reasons why Lightroom kicks ACR's @$$". 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.
Not to my knowledge as I never use ACR. Softproofing is build into the edit module in Lightroom which is a difference as ACR does not have this. You need to go to Photoshop to do softproofing if you don't use Lightroom. The user interface is so much better in Lightroom than ACR which is really old school and not changed for more than 10 years.
There is another aspect of editing which you may overlook and that is virtual copies which you don't have with ACR. With virtual copies you can make as many versions of editing from a single file as you like. There is also the editing history for each edit in Lightroom which you don't have in ACR.
-
My advise is if you must watch Kelby, be sure to strain whatever he writes through the Marketing BS and technical correctness filters because he tends to write things that don't pass either.
IF ACR and LR are on version parity, the processing is identical and in fact, you can pass the same image and metadata through either and both, back and forth. Are there functions like unlimited history or Virtual Copies available in LR but not ACR? Yes. But the processing engine is the same. Kelby probably has some new LR video or coffee mug to sell, so he came up with 100 reasons why LR 'kicks ACR's butt' whatever that nonsensical title is supposed to mean.
It's a bit like making a video "100 reasons why InDesign kicks TextEdit @$$". Different tool for different needs. Both do have the ability to type and edit text.
-
I think it is about time that Adobe does something about the arcane thing called ACR which UI wise is not compatible with LR even though the underlying engine is the same. If you e.g. edit a file from LR and open it as a smart object in Photoshop then you will need to edit it further in ACR and not in LR. This is not well thought out in my opinion. Any history is gone as well from the point where the smart object is created. The edits done int the smart object cannot be seen in LR.
-
I think it is about time that Adobe does something about the arcane thing called ACR which UI wise is not compatible with LR even though the underlying engine is the same. If you e.g. edit a file from LR and open it as a smart object in Photoshop then you will need to edit it further in ACR and not in LR. This is not well thought out in my opinion. Any history is gone as well from the point where the smart object is created. The edits done int the smart object cannot be seen in LR.
I think that might be more due to the SO workflow along with restrictions with a plug-in architecture but someone like Schewe might have more info. If you embed the raw into a SO, how would that migrate to LR? I could see it with a SO that's got a DNG since the instructions could in theory move back and forth since it's embedded. Otherwise, with a proprietary raw, would the SO 'sidecar' somehow get transferred back and forth between the two applications?
Don't know, I've never fully understood the big deal about SO's anyway. I mean, all you're doing is embedding another iteration into the main PS doc.
I think if you're working with raw data, pick ACR or LR and stick to it, until you render the image and it is time for PS pixel editing.
-
I'm sure you are right that there are restrictions in the architecture used right now, but it sure is inelegant. If SO's were integrated with LR I would use them more as it is now I'm cutting when leaving LR and go into pixel editing. If I later realize that I wished I had edited the RAW a bit different in LR I will have to go back and redo this and the redo the Photoshop work. Of course you could argue that if I do everything in PS non destructively I could again just copy and paste the image into the PS doc where I did the editing. But these things are workarounds and I like elegance in design of software And this case is not one of them. I consider this a cludge that has developed over time.
-
If you e.g. edit a file from LR and open it as a smart object in Photoshop then you will need to edit it further in ACR and not in LR.
Deal breaker.
-
Softproofing is build into the edit module in Lightroom which is a difference as ACR does not have this.
To be clear, ACR does have soft proofing. That is, you can pick an output profile (even CMYK which LR can't) and you do get an on-screen simulation with or without paper/ink simulation.
-
Hans, look at linked smart objects.
-
Since the introduction of the subscription model, ACR and LR are not paired anymore. LR updates will only include support for new cameras while ACR updates may include new functionality such as the brushes for radial and graduated filters
-
Hans, look at linked smart objects.
Here is a proposal for what I wanted http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/linked_smart_object_support_for_lightroom_better_photoshop_integration_and_synchronisation
You can sort of manually do the linking now but only on the original version of the picture (not a virtual copy). The way to do it after having used edit in Open as Smart Object in Photoshop would be as follows. If the edit is changed in Lightroom then it is possible to move the same edits to the smart object in the Photoshop file by first save the edit in Lightroom so it goes to the xmp file. The in Photoshop double click on the smart object and from the basic panel in ACR load the settings from the xmp file.
The proposal above would solve that problem. I would like to be able to open a number of images from Lightroom as smart objects in the same Photoshop document and not as separate documents and have them as linked smart objects. So if I was blending several images together as smart objects I could go back and edit them again and not have to redo the blending. Granted as long as they are separate original files I could move the smart objects into the same document and I could use the method mentioned above to move the settings via xmp files.
-
To be clear, ACR does have soft proofing. That is, you can pick an output profile (even CMYK which LR can't) and you do get an on-screen simulation with or without paper/ink simulation.
Where do you find this in ACR?
-
Since the introduction of the subscription model, ACR and LR are not paired anymore. LR updates will only include support for new cameras while ACR updates may include new functionality such as the brushes for radial and graduated filters
I think this is true for ACR is CS6, but the new functionality is present in ACR with Bridge/PS CC
-
Where do you find this in ACR?
Workflow Option.
-
Workflow Option.
Ok, and how would this allow for soft proofing? I don't see this at all.
-
Ok, and how would this allow for soft proofing? I don't see this at all.
Pick a profile, RI and simulation for paper/ink.
https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/whats-new-acr-8-x.html
Soft proofing from within the ACR dialog. You can now choose an ICC color profile and simulate additional factors like rendering intent and the paper and ink. These options can now be applied to the photograph through the ACR dialog, even before you open it in Photoshop.
ICC-based color spaces support from within the ACR dialog. The ACR dialog now allows you to preview your photographs with arbitrary ICC-based output color spaces. Available color spaces include grayscale, RGB, Lab, and CMYK color spaces.
-
I think this is true for ACR is CS6, but the new functionality is present in ACR with Bridge/PS CC
The brush for radial and graduated filter is not available in LR. New functionality is added to ACR (CC version) only.
-
Pick a profile, RI and simulation for paper/ink.
https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/whats-new-acr-8-x.html
Thanks, I had not noticed this being added to ACR. I did not see a way to compare two versions of the same picture in ACR so that one was with e.g. the ProPhoto RGB profile and the other was with a print profile. Maybe I have overlooked something.
-
The brush for radial and graduated filter is not available in LR. New functionality is added to ACR (CC version) only.
That's kind of breaking the CC model for Lightroom, isn't it?
-
That's kind of breaking the CC model for Lightroom, isn't it?
why ?
-
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. ???
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 ::)
-
You can't be serious ::)
Agreed!
Tony Jay
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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/ (http://kelbyone.com/100ways/)
Bridge. ACR. Two sides of the same coin.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 :D
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
-
Vectors?
he might be referring to the fact that LR is not exactly a pixel editor...
-
he might be referring to the fact that LR is not exactly a pixel editor...
Right. So much confusion about LR / ACR / PS.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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