ACR vs LR vs Aperture ?

printergirl

Okay, so I was with a group of local photographers (many actual working photogs and some advanced amateurs). We were talking about how we processed our RAW files and our cataloging methods, and the vast majority used LR, not surprising. A few of the working pros used Aperture, and I was the only one in the group using ACR/Bridge. Upon explaining my workflow and processing method, it almost felt like they were "looking down" on me for my choice. Huh? :dunno Don't LR and ACR share the same processing engine for RAW images?

I have worked with both LR and Aperture, giving them each a 30 day demo time to get a feel for them, and just found the ACR works into MY work flow much better. Both LR and Aperture were much SLOWER on my system than ACR -- don't know why, but they were! -- and I already have a very good database and filing system in place for my photos that works for me. I keyword within Bridge, file shots by date and project name, and am able to find anything I am looking for very quickly in Bridge.

So why was I made to feel "inferior" for not using one of the "Big Boys?" I was actually a little shocked and some of the photogs tried to tell me that LR and ACR are not the same when it comes to processing. They sure seemed like it when I demoed LR! Maybe THEY have never used ACR or maybe I am totally wrong? Thoughts.

Richard

printergirl wrote:

Okay, so I was with a group of local photographers (many actual working photogs and some advanced amateurs). We were talking about how we processed our RAW files and our cataloging methods, and the vast majority used LR, not surprising. A few of the working pros used Aperture, and I was the only one in the group using ACR/Bridge. Upon explaining my workflow and processing method, it almost felt like they were "looking down" on me for my choice. Huh? Don't LR and ACR share the same processing engine for RAW images?

I have worked with both LR and Aperture, giving them each a 30 day demo time to get a feel for them, and just found the ACR works into MY work flow much better. Both LR and Aperture were much SLOWER on my system than ACR -- don't know why, but they were! -- and I already have a very good database and filing system in place for my photos that works for me. I keyword within Bridge, file shots by date and project name, and am able to find anything I am looking for very quickly in Bridge.

So why was I made to feel "inferior" for not using one of the "Big Boys?" I was actually a little shocked and some of the photogs tried to tell me that LR and ACR are not the same when it comes to processing. They sure seemed like it when I demoed LR! Maybe THEY have never used ACR or maybe I am totally wrong? Thoughts.

You are correct. If you have a database and filing system to handle your workflow and catalog, Bridge/ACR is just fine. That's the combination I use. LR does have a good print management module as well, which is an advantage for those who do a lot of their own printing. But under the hood, ACR and LR use the same RAW processing software.

printergirl

OK. Nice to know I am not crazy. That's what I thought. I never print my own photos, so printing has never really been an issue for me.

zoomer

Use what works for you. If it ain't broke....

Sometimes people have an agenda and like to represent their way as the only way or best way.
Sometimes people are just trying to help you out.

I use Lightroom and it has changed my life with regard to processing time, so I tend to recommend it to others if they are having problems in that area.

Art Scott

It is what ever works best for YOU that counts
I was an ACR user in the begining and then moved to LightRoom and that was mainly due to the lack of good books or actually any books I could find that were as good as Scott Kelby on lightroom for ACR/ Bridge.....I like easy to follow recipe type books so after spending most evenings at Borders reading 99% of A PS LR for Digital Photos by Kelby....i bought the book and software and it helpped me tremdously.....but as mentioned above.....it is what ever system works best for you that counts............

Terrence

That is absolutely ridiculous that they react that way. Sounds like some egos that are too big for their own good. What is this high school with the cool kids clique?!

I use LR just because I like having everything in one place and I am not a heavy PS user. I certainly wouldn't look down (or up) on anyone just because they used something else. Sheesh.

For an outstanding and deep treatment of ACR, I am reading "Real World Camera Raw With Adobe Photoshop CS4" by Fraser and Schewe and am learning more than I ever have about what is really going on in ACR and the interplay of various adjustments.

colourbox

printergirl wrote:

A few of the working pros used Aperture, and I was the only one in the group using ACR/Bridge. Upon explaining my workflow and processing method, it almost felt like they were "looking down" on me for my choice. Huh? Don't LR and ACR share the same processing engine for RAW images?

It probably wasn't anything personal. Yes, ACR and Lightroom share the same processing engine. But the processing engine, like the engine in a car, is just the engine. Where Lightroom really makes a difference is in overall workflow. It's much smoother, you don't need 3 programs just to process, organize, and print, and all your photos are accessible immediately. I'm not saying ACR is wrong, what I'm trying to point out is that many people who have worked in ACR/Bridge for a long time come to resent the hoops you have to jump through and when they move to Lightroom it's like a painful burden has been lifted so they can't believe it when someone does it the other way.

Again, I'm not judging you or your decision. In fact, I myself am very comfortable editing raw in either ACR/Bridge or Lightroom and I sometimes choose ACR/Bridge for some things or for work I don't need to add to my Lightroom database. But I totally understand where people might be coming from. On the whole Lightroom has been a savior and I don't want to go back to a world without it.

Another theory: Many photogs don't seem to know ACR/Bridge very well. they might not be aware of how much of the same Lightroom tasks you can do in Bridge (CS4 at least). This is a problem with Bridge because it serves so many Adobe apps it can't bring all the photographer features up front. Some don't even know that ACR now has most of Lightroom's develop tools. They took to Lightroom because the photog features and workflow are all front and center.

If they knew what you know about using ACR/Bridge to its fullest, they wouldn't look down on it so much.

pathfinder

Like colourbox, I am a bit AC/DC when it comes to LR2 versus ACR/PS.

Most of my routine image editing, not involving HDR or panos, I do in LR because of the ease of use for single frame images.

But I also rumage back through my older multi frame files looking for potential images, and for this I tend to use Bridge and PS. I drag and drop multi exposure files from Bridge to Photomatix - I have not found LR quite as easy for this.

So I use both, now and again.

When people turn up their nose at your processing, I think it is just because they cannot see without their mental bifocals

Do what works for you!

arodney

In terms of Lightroom versus ACR, the two are 99% identical. So use whatever you prefer. There are tiny difference (which are shrinking), such as ACR has a point curve, LR doesn’t. ACR has four encoding color space options, LR has as many as you have RGB profiles for. The scale of the numeric values (percentages versus those based on 0-255) are different. But as I said, the differences are 1% or so. The engine is the same. You can move back and forth if you wish (assuming the two are at the same version parity). There are a lot of advantages IMHO to LR as a full toolset (a DAM, a great print module etc).

tinmice

Hi,

Pretty new to the whole processing of images and playing with RAW files. After looking around and playing with a few bits of software, I finally ended up using the ACR/Bridge combination (the laptop I'm using is a little old for LR).

I've been taking .NEF files from my camera, tweaking a few bits and trying to export them as jpgs. I hunted around the ACR and bridge interface to look for any export settings, but I couldn't find any. I went ahead and saved it, and the resulting picture was 1.9MB, a lot smaller than I was expecting. I did the same in LR and it ended up being 5.4MB. Does anyone know if I missed anything obvious? After reading that the processing engines in each are the same, I am a little confused.

Any help would be hugely appreciated.

Ben