Lightroom superior to ACR + Photoshop

<p>I recently got the latest version of Lightroom for free, when buying a Wacom tablet. For three years now, I have been working very intensively with ACR and Photoshop CS4, using Bridge as the "Light table". So I am well versed in those programmes. Is there any advantage in now abandoning Bridge and ACR and using Lightroom instead? I am primarily interested in advantages in photo enhancement. However, if you experts out there see any advantages in storing and printing, I would also be interested in those.</p>

<p>you got great cataloging and "physical" file sorting; workflow is more comprehensive as all settings are to be set in one window; working with a second monitor and grid view there makes sorting extremely easy ( rating, color, tags, ...) ; you work in photo pro color space; got great printing tab for contact sheets or single prints; you can make html galleries, even export your pictures right to a wordpress plugin if you have wordpress running;<br>

LR3 is amazing fast; all your work is none destructive !<br>

if you got to work in PS just go there right from LR;<br>

if you export, you got plenty of options, frame, watermark, type,.....<br>

puhhh did i forget something ? LR is really worth it and not to compare with acr;<br>

cheers</p>

<p>Lightroom v3 (or whatever version you have) is for me a Bridge + ACR on steroid.... you can do the exact exact same result with both of them if you have the same latest version... but i prefer to do it in Lightroom since its introduction.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lightroom v3 (or whatever version you have) is for me a Bridge + ACR on steroid.... you can do the exact exact same result with both of them</p>

</blockquote>

<p>do you have the tools LR has in ACR ? can you organize thousands of files with either apps PS or bridge?<br>

do you have a pro workflow with a one solution app up to PS ?<br>

i wouldn't dare to call LR , ACR on steroids, you should really look to it features closer working with it for years it seems you missed some things;<br>

cheers</p>

<p><strong>do you have the tools LR has in ACR ?</strong></p>

<p>yes exactly the same if you use the latest version in both.</p>

<p><strong>can you organize thousands of files with either apps PS or bridge?</strong></p>

<p>yes, no problem.</p>

<p><strong>do you have a pro workflow with a one solution app up to PS ?</strong></p>

<p>yes, many people use acr + bridge and are very happy.</p>

<p><strong>you should really look to it features closer working with it for years it seems you missed some things;</strong></p>

<p>like what?</p>

<p>I really like Lightroom, and use it every day and i wouldtn personnaly go back to ACR + Bridge.. but let me know what Lr can do that ACR cant... beside do it faster.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>but let me know what Lr can do that ACR cant... beside do it faster.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>White balance point selector (dropper), clone/heal, crop, fake ND/color grad, adjustment brush, select color points in HSL, return to any step in history (unless you're REALLY into making snapshots) to name some. There's nothing LR can do that ACR <em>with</em> Photoshop can't, though, and plenty LR can't do.</p>

 

<p>to amke sure you follow me.. im all about Lr.. but ACR and LR are the SAME... both have the white balance dropper tool, clone/heal, crop, fake ND/color grad, adjustment brush, select color points in HSL.... but your right, there is no history in ACR... dam you beat me ; )</p>

<p>all the rest is there IF you sue the latest version of both.</p>

<p>And im not talking about Ps involment here... just purely in ACR.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but ACR and LR are the SAME</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Develop module in Lightroom 3.x and ACR 6.x (Creative Suite 5 apps like Photoshop CS 5) are the same but there is much more in Lightroom than in ACr or in the ACR + Bridge combination.</p>

<p>For starters: Lightroom has a built-in database; Bridge is merely a browser. and then there are the other modules in Lightroom.<br>

I find the user interface in Lightroom to be superior to the one in ACR, same tools but a different way of accessing them</p>

<p>One area in which ACR 6.3 trumps Lightroom 3.3 is that in ACR you can choose the working space ( sRGB, Adobe RGB (1998), or ProPhoto RGB , along with the bit depth; the resolution; and size you'll be exporting with as a TIFF, PSD or JPEG and these choices will have an effect on the view you see in ACR and Bridge and also in the ACR histogram. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>can you organize thousands of files with either apps PS or bridge?</strong><br>

yes, no problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>so please enlighten us how to do that ? I'll kick LR tomorrow if some other adobe app has the same features;<br>

and by the way, unless you load a raw file as smart layer does ACR give you a none destructive workflow ?<br>

I think it's not all about the money adobe gave us LR, in the end it's a pro tool used by pros. because it's exactly where a prof. workflow starts with a strong database and not a tiny viewer ? !<br>

for beginners and intermediate there is PS elements Ithink<br>

even if you forget bout the web or slideshow thing,... the LR interface is much more intuitive and don't forget bout tethered shooting; will PS do that too?<br>

so if LR and ACR are the same in the end, why isn't ACR just a module like the bridge so you could by it as a standalone version ?</p>

<p>Thank you all for your inspired comments. I have just one last question before deciding whether to jump into Lightroom 3:</p>

<p>In CS4, which I am using now, I am missing a lens correction facility in ACR. Does the new Lightroom 3 embody such a facility, which would allow me to precisely correct the optical distortion in my Nikon lens, which is the Nikkor 16-85 mm 3.5-5.6 GED for the Nikon D90?</p>

<p>no LR doesn't feature such corrections but capture 1 from phase one will do; it's comparable to LR with ( again,) some cons and pros. <a href="http://www.phaseone.com/Phase%20One/Software/Capture-One-Pro-6/Pro-Tutorials/Adjust-Optimize.aspx">LINK</a></p>

<p>but using cs4 you have a tool for that task, so what are you missing ?<br>

you could correct the distortion first, re import as DNG and go on in LR.</p>

<p>Yes Lr 3 have the lens correction feature.. it is one of the most important new features of it.<br>

----</p>

<p>Nikolai, as you may or not know, i am a pro retoucher, so i use Lightroom + Photoshop 40hres + per week ... in fact im using it today on a photoshoot (im also a digital assistant 20% of my time, retouching being the 80% of my income) so i really really know the poor and con of such a software vs ACR vs C1Pro.</p>

<p>When i said that Lr was like a ACR + Bridge on steroid i meant just that... everything that ACR + Bridge can do, Lr do it better and faster.. i was not comparing the 2 to tell the OP to stick with ACR.. maybe this is what you tought?</p>

<p>For some, ACR + Bridge is all they need and feel comfortable with.. and like the OP they ask if Lr would be a better solution, because they dont want to lose some ressource they use to have.. so this is why i said that if the OP like ACR, he will feel right at home with Lr.</p>

<p>No need to be arrogant, and yes i can enlight you if i could by answering some of your question...</p>

<p><strong>unless you load a raw file as smart layer does ACR give you a none destructive workflow ?</strong></p>

<p>why add Photoshop in this equation? working in ACR or Lr is the SAME.. the change you made are non destructive because you simply have to push the reset button in both case to get back your original, or delete the xmp file. Same in both software.</p>

<p><strong>LR, in the end it's a pro tool used by pros. because it's exactly where a prof. workflow starts with a strong database and not a tiny viewer ? !</strong></p>

<p>agree with you, but Bridge is m ore than just a viewer.. some use it also to create web page, pdf, add star and color label.. it is not a DAM software like Lr of course, but you can do a lot with it also.</p>

<p><strong>for beginners and intermediate there is PS elements Ithink</strong></p>

<p>again, you are now comparing apple and orange here.. Lr is not a Element or Photoshop rival, Lr is a ACR + Bridge rival.</p>

<p><strong>LR interface is much more intuitive and don't forget bout tethered shooting; will PS do that too?</strong></p>

<p>again, why talk about Ps? Lr is Lr. And many people use the Canon or Nikon software to acquire there image when shoothing tethered, so for them this new Lr feature is not even a option to use it. It is a nice addition that need a lot of refinement, but for now it work well for what he offer.</p>

<p><strong>so if LR and ACR are the same in the end, why isn't ACR just a module like the bridge so you could by it as a standalone version ?</strong></p>

<p>The ACR and Lr development part are the same (minus the history) and Lr and Bridge are the same in many way as for the Librairy part .. nto exactly the same, but they share a lot of features. Lr is for me clearly a better - stronger software.</p>

<p>i hope that answer your question for now, for any further one please contact me by email if you need clarification.. as i think whe already take way too much time here talking about a lot of stuf that the OP might or not fully understand today before putting is hand on Lr.</p>

<p><strong>So to the question was ;</strong></p>

<p><em>Is there any advantage in now abandoning Bridge and ACR and using Lightroom instead?</em></p>

<p><strong>and my answer was</strong></p>

<p><strong>Lightroom v3</strong> (or whatever version you have)<strong> is for me a Bridge + ACR on steroid</strong>.... <strong>you can do the exact exact same result <em>(should had add in the development department)</em> with both of them if you have the same latest version</strong> ... but i prefer to do it in Lightroom since its introduction.</p>

<p>I didtn say they where the same software, i said that you can have the same end result using ACR or Lightroom if using the same latest version... things got somewhere else when nikolai interpret my word.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i'm still missing your statement to file organization, cataloging and tagging in on the fly, well almost all of it on import; but i guess you are too pro to come down to the basics;<br>

no offense , but you'll know that LR is developed not by the guys adobe that code PS or ACR; sure they share some algorithms but remember the clarity function in LR2 while we had CS4; we had to tweak the unsharpen mask to get these midtone-contrast ? i think LR is the "outrider" and acr tries to follow, just look at the interface,<br>

if you wouldn't have mentioned i've never seen the tools on top of ACR;<br>

doesn't matter I do my work in LR and edit in PS "importing" my work as a smart layer; pretty handy to get any mask you need.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot Patrick, for your info on lens correction! That settles the issue for me. Since I get Lightroom 3 for free, I won't have to upgrade to CS5 to get this excellent new feature. I'll have a quick look at it as soon as I have uploaded the programme to check, whether my Nikon lens is covered by this targeted lens correction mechanism.</p>

<p>Nikolai, why do you have to be so arrogant..." but i guess you are too pro to come down to the basics "...</p>

<p>im pro enough to come here to answer question, to give feedback and info for those who need it , and to know when a discusion have reach is end and walk away.</p>

<p>you believe what you want and you use what you want.. the fact remain that Lr 3 and ACR 6.0 have the same tool as far as development goes.. that you see it or not it is not really my problem.</p>

<p>Nikolai, try not to be a jerk to the most knowledgeable forums members we have on photo.net. <br>

ACR and LR are just about identical. Sometimes LR comes first with a new feature and ACR follows and other times it's the opposite, but for development they're really the same. </p>

<p>Nikolai, try not to be a jerk to the most knowledgeable forums members we have on photo.net. <br>

ACR and LR are just about identical. Sometimes LR comes first with a new feature and ACR follows and other times it's the opposite, but for development they're really the same. </p>

<p><strong>In CS4, which I am using now, I am missing a lens correction facility in ACR. Does the new Lightroom 3 embody such a facility, which would allow me to precisely correct the optical distortion in my Nikon lens, which is the Nikkor 16-85 mm 3.5-5.6 GED for the Nikon D90?</strong></p>

<p>Yes, assuming your lens is in the current database. If not Adobe provides a utility to add lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>emil wrote, besides processing pictures:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, if you experts out there see any advantages in storing and printing, I would also be interested in those.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>patrick "the most knowledgeable forums member" on photo net ;-) (not to denigrate you patrick but i just don't like truckler that just have to add nothing but a platitude to post something like this (twice )) discusses post by post about LR vs. ACR processing; yet no answer to emil's initial question;<br>

> is there an advantage to storing and printing ? i'd like to know too? cause i thought this would be the main reason of the existence of LR. btw, I really missed that lens "correction" tab; technically speaking wouldn't it be correct to call it distortion but correction ?</p>

 

<p>I also had a workflow thread going about LR3 as an end to end solution. There still seem to be a body of opinion that supports the view that View/Capture NX2 is better for interpreting the Nikon NEF files, and then exporting the TIFF to LR3 for final editing and catalogueing.<br>

My question of Patrick and others here is this: Whats your opinion of the above two step process. Some say that the lastest LR3 does the NEF conversion as well as NX2. If thats the case I could confine my whole workflow to LR3. That would be a real timesaver. I really don't want to face the steep learning curve and costs of CS5. Maybe later when I am more skilled. </p>

<p>*My* copy of CS4 ACR has lens correction... ?!</p>

There is one major difference that goes almost unmentioned, but can be a big deal. LR really has the only good non-

vendor-specific tethering system available. It can write to the card and the hard drive simultaneously, and it will auto

apply your corrections to a tethered shoot while you are shooting. I chose aperture over light room for a number of

very good reasons, and yet I very may well end up with LR soon anyway. Shooting high volume tethered work

changes things.

<blockquote>

<p>no LR doesn't feature such corrections</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Patrick pointed out, Lightroom 3 definitely does have those tools.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>no offense , but you'll know that LR is developed not by the guys adobe that code PS or ACR</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know some of those people and you are just flat wrong in several cases. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>remember the clarity function in LR2 while we had CS4; we had to tweak the unsharpen mask to get these midtone-contrast ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong again. Clarity isn't unsharp masking. To do the same , and do it better as Calrity I use Mac Holbert's "Midtone Contrast Enhancement" which what Clarity is based on on. For high end work IO still prefer to use as a layer in PsCS5 over Clarity.</p>

<p>At a workshop, Scott Kelby mentioned that Lightroom's Develop Module is the same as ACR. However, given that Lightroom's controls are completely non-destructive, that's what I prefer to use in most cases. I rarely us PS anymore except to combine multiple exposures into one image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>do you have the tools LR has in ACR ? can you organize thousands of files with either apps PS or bridge?<br /> do you have a pro workflow with a one solution app up to PS ?<br /> i wouldn't dare to call LR , ACR on steroids, you should really look to it features closer working with it for years it seems you missed some things;</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, Patrick is right and seems you missed some things. Bridge is the same as LR in terms of adding keywords, tagging, making collections, stars, numbers, colours. Bridge can search both, or either, within Bridge or your file system. That's very handy to have. LR does not. Many people like Bridge search better. I work with a few Adobe products and all the file types like .ai, .indd and .pdf show up in Bridge and is very handy for handling jobs and clients. LR, not so. You only get image files. Like LR, with Bridge you can export web galleries and pdf. I find with Bridge, my hand moves less and uses less short cuts than it would with LR.</p>

<p>A brief video on Bridge CS4 from Adobe Tv is here</p>

<p>http://tv.adobe.com/watch/everyday-timesavers-photography/a-bridge-to-savings/</p>

<p>Another on Bridge CS5 here.</p>

<p>http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-adobe-bridge-cs5/what-is-adobe-bridge-cs5-</p>

<p>Although I love LR and use it with Bridge, LR is still new on the market to us seniors that have been using PS for a couple decades. We seem to get by just fine with Bridge. And in some ways better.</p>