Lightroom versus Adobe Camera Raw

8x10nomore

Can anyone compare Lightroom to Adobe Camera Raw? I use ACR and only shoot raw files. I am very happy with it in CS3. Why would I want to use Lightroom?

Thanks-

cmason

8x10nomore wrote:

Can anyone compare Lightroom to Adobe Camera Raw? I use ACR and only shoot raw files. I am very happy with it in CS3. Why would I want to use Lightroom?

Thanks-

Probably best answered from the source:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/faq/

Lightroom is among other things, another implementation of Camera Raw. For strictly RAW conversion, they are the same tool. Lightroom goes far beyond that...read further down in the FAQ

But personally, I see ACR as a image converter, Lightroom as a photo workflow tool.

Nikolai

8x10nomore wrote:

Can anyone compare Lightroom to Adobe Camera Raw? I use ACR and only shoot raw files. I am very happy with it in CS3. Why would I want to use Lightroom?

Thanks-

If you're happy with CS3 you'll be even more happier with CS4 due to the boosted performance of both Bridge and PS and the increased capabilities of the said ACR module alone.
However comparing ACR alone to the whole LR is apples to aranges. THe only thing in common is, as it has been already mentioned, the same RAW processing engine, but other than that they are very different pieces of software.
HTH

8x10nomore

Nikolai wrote:

If you're happy with CS3 you'll be even more happier with CS4 due to the boosted performance of both Bridge and PS and the increased capabilities of the said ACR module alone.
However comparing ACR alone to the whole LR is apples to aranges. THe only thing in common is, as it has been already mentioned, the same RAW processing engine, but other than that they are very different pieces of software.
HTH

Thanks for your reply. When you speak of boosted performance, do you mean faster through the hardware?

Best regards-

Nikolai

8x10nomore wrote:

Thanks for your reply. When you speak of boosted performance, do you mean faster through the hardware?

Best regards-

You're welcome!
No, I mean faster on existing hardware. But if you have a new/better one it would put it to a good use, since they finally started to put GPU to a better use (duh).

8x10nomore

Nikolai wrote:

You're welcome!
No, I mean faster on existing hardware. But if you have a new/better one it would put it to a good use, since they finally started to put GPU to a better use (duh).

That's good because CS3 hurt my machine. It's not the newest but I have fast drives and a raid array. It used to fly.

Thanks

Nikolai

8x10nomore wrote:

That's good because CS3 hurt my machine. It's not the newest but I have fast drives and a raid array. It used to fly.

Thanks

If CS3 hurts it, don't come even close to LR, that stuff crawls.

8x10nomore

Nikolai wrote:

If CS3 hurts it, don't come even close to LR, that stuff crawls.

Thanks for the info. I had no idea.

Best regards-

Nikolai

8x10nomore wrote:

Thanks for the info. I had no idea.

Best regards-

Don't take my word for it (I'm known to be biased:-), get a trial and check for yourself.

8x10nomore

Nikolai wrote:

Don't take my word for it (I'm known to be biased:-), get a trial and check for yourself.

Thanks. I think I will. I will post my opinion here as well.

Nikolai

8x10nomore wrote:

Thanks. I think I will. I will post my opinion here as well.

WTG!

perrelliphoto

cmason wrote: »

Probably best answered from the source:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/faq/

Lightroom is among other things, another implementation of Camera Raw. For strictly RAW conversion, they are the same tool. Lightroom goes far beyond that...read further down in the FAQ

But personally, I see ACR as a image converter, Lightroom as a photo workflow tool.

Hi,

On a similar note.
I have CS5 with c.raw not working.
I depend on the raw conversion for my infared work.
Usually, I would open in raw and used my saved actions to adjust the infrared image and then save to a jpeg.
Could I use lightroom to convert the raw file and then send it to PS CS5 for the finishing work via exporting or bridging?


Thanks much,
William

pathfinder

You can edit a file in CS5 at any time after importing the raw file into Lightroom. I prefer the Raw Sliders in Lr3-4, to those in ACR, but the underlying engine is the same software.

I use Photoshop, via stepping out of Lightroom, for whenever I need selections and local editing.

I will say the local editing gradients and brushes in LR3 are pretty good, and those in LR4 are even better.

The camera profiles in LR3 and CS5 are much, much better than those available in CS3.

I preferred Photoshop prior to LR3, but now I only use Photoshop in a fraction of my images, and for assembling panos.

Once a file is in LR, you can edit an image in external image editors by using the built in command Edit which then exports a tiff, psd, or a copy of the original file - the choice of file type is determined by you at the time. When you finish your edit in PS and save the file, it is imported and stored in LR's database.

perrelliphoto

pathfinder wrote: »

You can edit a file in CS5 at any time after importing the raw file into Lightroom. I prefer the Raw Sliders in Lr3-4, to those in ACR, but the underlying engine is the same software.

I use Photoshop, via stepping out of Lightroom, for whenever I need selections and local editing.

I will say the local editing gradients and brushes in LR3 are pretty good, and those in LR4 are even better.

The camera profiles in LR3 and CS5 are much, much better than those available in CS3.

I preferred Photoshop prior to LR3, but now I only use Photoshop in a fraction of my images, and for assembling panos.

Once a file is in LR, you can edit an image in external image editors by using the built in command Edit which then exports a tiff, psd, or a copy of the original file - the choice of file type is determined by you at the time. When you finish your edit in PS and save the file, it is imported and stored in LR's database.

Thanks so much!!
I would think it is best to save as a tiff in LR and export out to PS. Do my IR adjusting and then save as a jpeg.

William

basflt

perrelliphoto wrote: »

Thanks so much!!
I would think it is best to save as a tiff in LR and export out to PS. Do my IR adjusting and then save as a jpeg.

William

no , dont save
right-click either image or thumbnail , choose Edit in > Photoshop
this way RAW data is preserved
if you would save first , data is partly lost

after editing in Photoshop , hit save (not save as) , then the image will be sent to LR again as a copy

pathfinder

Thanks, Bas, that was my point exactly, that you do not have to save a file out of LR to get it to PS, but that the Edit in>Photoshop will directly send a tiff or a psd to PS, with the RAW processing from LR's engine that you have already performed.

perrelliphoto

basflt wrote: »

no , dont save
right-click either image or thumbnail , choose Edit in > Photoshop
this way RAW data is preserved
if you would save first , data is partly lost

after editing in Photoshop , hit save (not save as) , then the image will be sent to LR again as a copy

Thank you!!

arodney

pathfinder wrote: »

Thanks, Bas, that was my point exactly, that you do not have to save a file out of LR to get it to PS, but that the Edit in>Photoshop will directly send a tiff or a psd to PS, with the RAW processing from LR's engine that you have already performed.

Actually, when you invoke the Edit in Photoshop command, it is ACR, not LR that renders the raw. This works prefectly fine when both ACR and LR are on version parity (LR3, CS5 as an example). If however you have an older version of Photoshop (say CS4 and LR3), you’ll get a dialog telling you this. IF you let ACR render the data (you click OK, go ahead), then any newer functionality in LR3 can’t and will not be used. So for in this analogy, if you had CS4 and LR3, and you asked for PV2010, or lens correction, you will not get that using the older ACR version cause it doesn’t support those newer functions. Export from LR, it uses it’s engine, you get all the new functionality of course.

perrelliphoto

arodney wrote: »

Actually, when you invoke the Edit in Photoshop command, it is ACR, not LR that renders the raw. This works prefectly fine when both ACR and LR are on version parity (LR3, CS5 as an example). If however you have an older version of Photoshop (say CS4 and LR3), you’ll get a dialog telling you this. IF you let ACR render the data (you click OK, go ahead), then any newer functionality in LR3 can’t and will not be used. So for in this analogy, if you had CS4 and LR3, and you asked for PV2010, or lens correction, you will not get that using the older ACR version cause it doesn’t support those newer functions. Export from LR, it uses it’s engine, you get all the new functionality of course.

Thank you!

MarkR

arodney wrote: »

Actually, when you invoke the Edit in Photoshop command, it is ACR, not LR that renders the raw. This works prefectly fine when both ACR and LR are on version parity (LR3, CS5 as an example). If however you have an older version of Photoshop (say CS4 and LR3), you’ll get a dialog telling you this. IF you let ACR render the data (you click OK, go ahead), then any newer functionality in LR3 can’t and will not be used. So for in this analogy, if you had CS4 and LR3, and you asked for PV2010, or lens correction, you will not get that using the older ACR version cause it doesn’t support those newer functions. Export from LR, it uses it’s engine, you get all the new functionality of course.

When using LR4 (beta) and CS5, I do get an option to "render using Lightroom" when I edit in Photoshop. It then generates a tiff based on the Lightroom ACR edits, and opens PS for further editing.

pathfinder

arodney wrote: »

Actually, when you invoke the Edit in Photoshop command, it is ACR, not LR that renders the raw. This works prefectly fine when both ACR and LR are on version parity (LR3, CS5 as an example). If however you have an older version of Photoshop (say CS4 and LR3), you’ll get a dialog telling you this. IF you let ACR render the data (you click OK, go ahead), then any newer functionality in LR3 can’t and will not be used. So for in this analogy, if you had CS4 and LR3, and you asked for PV2010, or lens correction, you will not get that using the older ACR version cause it doesn’t support those newer functions. Export from LR, it uses it’s engine, you get all the new functionality of course.

I stand corrected.

Since the rendering is via ACR from CS3 say ( while LR3 has the same basic Raw engine with newer profiles ), why isn't the rendering done in LR3's RAW engine, since all CS3 will be getting is a tiff which it presumably understands?

Does this mean that we are going to have to have CS6 to enjoy all the advantages of LR4 when it comes out also, if we want to use an external editor?

basflt

that right
if both versions are not the same , you will get a warning message , telling you to update

i guess that if they update ACR for CS5 , you could still use it , just as they did before

arodney

Since the rendering is via ACR from CS3 say ( while LR3 has the same basic Raw engine with newer profiles ), why isn't the rendering done in LR3's RAW engine, since all CS3 will be getting is a tiff which it presumably understands?

LR’s engine is used when exporting, ACR is used when you ask to Edit in Photoshop. Been that way since LR2. In LR1, LR did this task (and it took time as it had to write the rendered image to disk). With the newer behavior, LR hands the instructions and raw to ACR, you never see the ACR dialog and you end up with the image in Photoshop (which you then save).

Does this mean that we are going to have to have CS6 to enjoy all the advantages of LR4 when it comes out also, if we want to use an external editor?

Yup, if you must use the Edit in Photoshop command (or you want to deal with Smart Objects and a raw file after building metadata edits first in LR).

Adobe doesn’t however force LR users to update Photoshop, you can always export the raw from LR and hand that to an older version of Photoshop of course.

arodney

MarkR wrote: »

When using LR4 (beta) and CS5, I do get an option to "render using Lightroom" when I edit in Photoshop. It then generates a tiff based on the Lightroom ACR edits, and opens PS for further editing.

Because it is a beta and because it ‘knows’ you don’t have the version of ACR that is on parity. When CS6 ships, then you’ll have the option to edit in Photoshop because the two will be in parity.

pathfinder

Thank you Andrew for keeping us accurate and informed!

vdotmatrix

Just a quick reply Lightroom does so much more than just ACR. If you only have CS4 youwon't be able to upgrade to the latest ACR versions anyway, but Lightroom is by far a necessary tool in this industry next to CS5.

pathfinder

The original poster asked why he could not just continue with CS3 instead of LR3( or CS5 ) or LR4 ( or CS6 ), as if their was no difference in the camera profiles and RAW engines.

The CS3 engine will not open many more recent digital RAW files, and those it is able to open, are not rendered with nearly as nice a result as the newer 2010- PV profiles in LR3 or CS5, and LR4/CS6 will offer even more improvements in noise reduction and color correctness over LR3/CS5.


If you render a file from a 20D in CS3 and LR3, there are quite visible improvements with the better RAW engine in LR3/CS5, and I expect even further improvements when LR4 is finally released. I am not talking about theoretical improvements, but easily seen improvements. I have gone back and reedited several of my files from my 10D and my 20D and 40D precisely because of the improved profiles that were delivered with LR3.

There was minimal online discussion about the improved profiles in LR3/CS5 when they were introduced, but they were quite real, and I think we will see this again with LR4/CS6.