pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Adobe camera raw vs lightroom  (Read 18842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 31, 2013, 14:55 »
0
I have been using adobe camera raw in photoshop to process my raw images for a while. However, i know a lot of people use lightroom. What are the main differences?


Ron

« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2013, 14:57 »
0
There are none. Camera  Raw is the same plugin for CS and LR. The only difference is the interface but LR has small editing options you already have in CS. LR however can be used directly in your workflow, it does what Bridge does for CS. So LR for me is the way forward as it combines CS and BR in one program.

« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2013, 15:08 »
0
It took me forever to add Lightroom to my workflow, even after I'd switched my RAW processing away from Capture One and DxO Optics to Camera RAW.

However, it was instrumental in me switching from shooting RAW+JPEG to just RAW as dealing with a few quick edits to a batch of RAW files and spitting out some web sized JPEGs became so quick and easy in LR. I still use Photoshop on every stock image I process, but for many quick edits, Lightroom is fast and easy and "good enough".

The performance in Bridge is just awful and LR is much peppier. I don't keyword in LR - although many people do. I like the notion of virtual copies to have a couple of different types of RAW processing on a single file without duplicating anything and being able to compare them side by side. Collections can be helpful to group and organize images.

It took a while to get used to it, and it still has some limitations and quirks I would love to see addressed, but it's been a very useful tool for me.

Ron

« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2013, 15:12 »
0
I had second thoughts about a workflow through LR at first, but I can no longer do without. I LOVE Lightroom, second to none. Its the backbone of my business.

« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2013, 15:20 »
0
Lightroom presets offer a significant advantage vs Photoshop CS. Presets effectively are non destructive processing recipes - often for example to use as a starting point for a specific look and feel - perhaps a film effect.

You can create your own presets - for example perhaps when using a particular camara and lens combination you always apply the same lens corrections and zero the sharpening. You can also buy some very good presets - the best of which will typically come with their own alternative camera profiles.

Ron

« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2013, 15:32 »
0
Lightroom presets offer a significant advantage vs Photoshop CS. Presets effectively are non destructive processing recipes - often for example to use as a starting point for a specific look and feel - perhaps a film effect.

You can create your own presets - for example perhaps when using a particular camara and lens combination you always apply the same lens corrections and zero the sharpening. You can also buy some very good presets - the best of which will typically come with their own alternative camera profiles.


Thats very true, I forgot about that, however, in CS its non destructive as well as the RAW image is opened as TIFF with edits in CS, but in LR it works with side cars applying non destructive changes to the RAW file.

http://dpexperience.com/2009/11/23/understanding-how-lightroom-works-with-your-images/

« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2013, 15:47 »
0
An obvious difference is that not only RAW files can be opened in LR. Your starting point might be a tiff or a jpeg. The same as with RAW files no changes (neither destructive nor non destructive) are made to the original.

« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2013, 15:51 »
0
An advantage of this sort of editing vs Camera RAW in PS is that the processing steps are saved and can be changed. You can go back to the RAW file and all of its processing and adjust a particular value setting which forms part of the processing.

Or you can apply all of those same processing values to, say, all of the other files in a particular shoot.

Ron

« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2013, 16:00 »
0
Yep, agree. THere is so much to LR, I cant even being to name them.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2013, 16:23 »
0
An obvious difference is that not only RAW files can be opened in LR. Your starting point might be a tiff or a jpeg. The same as with RAW files no changes (neither destructive nor non destructive) are made to the original.
you can open jpeg in ACR

in Bridge/ACR you can view all sorts of files and open them directly from there, so if you have your model releases saved as pdf you can view them from Bridge, LR AFAIK doesn't do this.


gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2013, 16:26 »
0
There are none.

they release updates for each at different times so they leapfrog each other.

LR however can be used directly in your workflow, it does what Bridge does for CS. So LR for me is the way forward as it combines CS and BR in one program.
LR, however,


erm, what do you mean "however"

Bridge/ACR is used in the same way in your workflow.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2013, 16:26 »
-1
Lightroom presets offer a significant advantage vs Photoshop CS.

the OP didn't ask for the difference between LR and PS.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2013, 16:28 »
0
An obvious difference is that not only RAW files can be opened in LR. Your starting point might be a tiff or a jpeg. The same as with RAW files no changes (neither destructive nor non destructive) are made to the original.
you can open jpeg in ACR
And tiff.

Ron

« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2013, 16:34 »
0
Lightroom presets offer a significant advantage vs Photoshop CS.

the OP didn't ask for the difference between LR and PS.
In a way he did. Because it all intertwined.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2013, 16:39 »
0
An advantage of this sort of editing vs Camera RAW in PS is that the processing steps are saved and can be changed. You can go back to the RAW file and all of its processing and adjust a particular value setting which forms part of the processing.

Or you can apply all of those same processing values to, say, all of the other files in a particular shoot.

ditto in ACR, you can jump back into ACR and make some changes, and then return to PS and the changes will be updated on the files you're working on.

(have you guys even used ACR?)

here's a big difference: ACR is free. It comes with PS. So if you're using PS you already own ACR.
another difference: LR is groovier. It looks better. ACR still has a clunky look about it that is a bit PC-ish.
another difference: LR has some some great options for showing off different edits of your files v quickly.
another difference: there are more presets available for LR than ACR (I tend to do creative styling in PS where I have greater control)

« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2013, 16:40 »
0
I did not realise until I just Googled it that ACR in PS also has presets these days. I have been using Lightroom for so long that I had no idea. I haven't used ACR in PS since Lightroom was first launched. It was always so clunky.

Ron

« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2013, 16:42 »
0
An advantage of this sort of editing vs Camera RAW in PS is that the processing steps are saved and can be changed. You can go back to the RAW file and all of its processing and adjust a particular value setting which forms part of the processing.

Or you can apply all of those same processing values to, say, all of the other files in a particular shoot.

ditto in ACR, you can jump back into ACR and make some changes, and then return to PS and the changes will be updated on the files you're working on.

(have you guys even used ACR?)

here's a big difference: ACR is free. It comes with PS. So if you're using PS you already own ACR.
another difference: LR is groovier. It looks better. ACR still has a clunky look about it that is a bit PC-ish.
another difference: LR has some some great options for showing off different edits of your files v quickly.
another difference: there are more presets available for LR than ACR (I tend to do creative styling in PS where I have greater control)
Yes, I have used ACR and I turned to LR coz I dont like the interface. No need for all these little jabs.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2013, 16:43 »
0
Lightroom presets offer a significant advantage vs Photoshop CS.

the OP didn't ask for the difference between LR and PS.
In a way he did. Because it all intertwined.

you can use just ACR if you want to. ACR and Bridge are intertwined. I open Br just like you open Lr, make my edits and either save directly from ACR or I continue into PS for further editing.


Ron

« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2013, 16:45 »
-6
I was here to help, I dont need your lectures. Cheers.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2013, 16:51 »
+4
Quote
Yes, I have used ACR and I turned to LR coz I dont like the interface. No need for all these little jabs.
I'm sorry if you feel I'm having a go.
I must confess i had a chuckle though, at you saying that. Cos you are so sweet and never niggle other people...

« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2013, 16:54 »
0
Interesting input Gillian. Now I'm tempted to spend some time trying out ACR & Bridge again just too see.

I see that VSCO presets are also available for ACR.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2013, 17:07 »
0
Interesting input Gillian. Now I'm tempted to spend some time trying out ACR & Bridge again just too see.

I see that VSCO presets are also available for ACR.

I think only the latest version of ACR though, I was looking the other day and there weren't any for my version (I'm using CS5). In the end I got some VSCO-esque PS actions. I'd love to see if the VSCO presets work as well in just ACR. usually I like to brush the effect off the skin.

your "these days" comment is also weird,  I learnt ACR in 2010 on CS4 and there were presets then.


« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2013, 17:19 »
0
your "these days" comment is also weird,  I learnt ACR in 2010 on CS4 and there were presets then.

Not weird. Lightroom considerably predates the launch of CS3. Even more so since Adobe made the stable betas and RC versions freely available to encourage adoption.

Ron

« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2013, 17:22 »
-1
I dont get you, you tell me the OP isnt asking about CS, yet you go on talking about using ACR, CS and BR workflow. I use LR where you use 3 programs. I wonder if you even know what you are talking about. LR works better for me then ACR, and thats what I told the OP.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #24 on: September 01, 2013, 04:07 »
+1
I have been using adobe camera raw in photoshop to process my raw images for a while. However, i know a lot of people use lightroom. What are the main differences?

What is the main difference?

Lightroom has to be considered in the whole, not only as a simple raw developer.

ACR is an engine used to manage raw files.
Photoshop and Lightroom use (share) this same engine but with a different interface.
So in reality it should not be a very big difference.
IMHO the Lightroom interface is more ergonomic and usable, allowing you a faster and more accurate workflow.

But the huge difference is that LR proposes you a librarian module permitting you to organize, put keywords, titles, descriptions, in a very easy and fast way.
LR allows you to export in batch a bunch of images in the size/resolution/file format, where you want, in a very simpler way that can do Photoshop. You can create different exportation sets according to your needs.

With this you can also create photo albums, web pages (sites), geotag you images directly on a map, organize a slideshow, all directly without to leave the program.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2013, 04:09 by Beppe Grillo »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: September 01, 2013, 04:54 »
0
There are none. Camera  Raw is the same plugin for CS and LR. The only difference is the interface but LR has small editing options you already have in CS. LR however can be used directly in your workflow, it does what Bridge does for CS. So LR for me is the way forward as it combines CS and BR in one program.

I'm extremely new to LR, and it seems to be a steep learning curve; but so far I don't see much difference in principle/time between moving between the different modules in LR and going seamlessly from Bridge > ACR > PS. (Click a RAW file in Bridge and it opens in ACR, Open Image in ACR and it opens in PS, you don't even notice you're going from one program to another, whereas in LR you seem (I could be wrong) to have to actually move between the modules.
That said, I can't even get Bridge CC to launch  ::), so am still using Bridge CS5 with PSCC.

Ron

« Reply #26 on: September 01, 2013, 05:25 »
0
I have been in this discussion many times before and I am going to get out of it now. Its always the same discussion about using 3 programs vs 1 program to do the same. If you think that clicking between tabs in LR is more cumbersome then using 3 programs, thats fine. I dont like the BR>ACR>PS workflow one bit, so I dont use it. Thats the end of it for me. Cheers.

Beppe hit the nail on the head regarding the OP

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #27 on: September 01, 2013, 06:03 »
0
I'm sure it's just 'what you're used to' like Nikon/Canon or Apple/MS.

A bug fix which took half an hour (for six modules, since Friday night!) has let me launch Bridge CC, so onwards with the experimentation.

Ron

« Reply #28 on: September 01, 2013, 06:08 »
0
I dont think its what you are used to. I have had two phones for a while and I was used to both of them, yet one was a breeze and the other was utter crap.

Sorry to hear about your bugs, hope you get it sorted.

« Reply #29 on: September 02, 2013, 21:52 »
+2
Here's a nice bridge vs lightroom vid
Adobe Bridge CC vs. Lightroom 5

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #30 on: September 06, 2013, 06:24 »
0
wow, as usual even the Adobe guys downplay the similarities.  Because, they want to sell you Lightroom rather than have you use their freebie

in LR you can *amazingly* choose what to import.. wow! except, yep, same in Bridge, but he didn't click on the "advanced" tab to show that option, which I use all the time, plus the fact you can create templates to apply metadata to your imports. although apparently "these are things LR excels at" even though you can do this in Bridge.

If you use LR you have to import images somehow, he didn't cover that.  that's an extra step in your glorious LR workflow that we'll gloss over, and then you have to import them into LR? so you import it via a card reader? and then into LR? seriously?

Yes, the preview viewing of the presets is a real difference. phew! glad I found something genuine.

I'm not sure about the "print" function... is this for printing on your home printer? (are we talking about photographers? or home amateurs? i'm confused, because this guy says "this is where LR shines"..... in enabling you to print your pics from home?? wowser! it looks like the same feature iPhoto has)

if you want to put pics on a page to print at home (for whatever reason) I would use the output pdf feature and it's easy to put them on a page, with labels, watermarks, etc. Plus my stupid canon printer is happier with a pdf. I rarely print at home, unless it's last minute stuff for one of my kid's school assignments.

it's the comments like "and if I haven't convinced you by now" that really, really annoy me. cos actually, I haven't seen anything other than fluff.

the Collections things was cool, but I could just create a folder and put in my favourites bar... same result.  then he created virtual copies which I can do via "duplicate". "a lot of this can be done in Bridge but nowhere near the ease..." I didn't see much difference. I could create a duplicate, go into ACR which is "Develop" and then hit one of my presets.... yet he didn't show you how to do this in Bridge.

ah, I love that now they are pushing the "use both" concept, now that CC is their agenda. good one Adobe.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #31 on: September 06, 2013, 06:34 »
0
^^^
Gillian, don't be angry

These are only two softwares allowing you to get similar results in different ways.

Nobody obliges you to use Lightroom or other, you are free to make your choices in function of your personal preferences.

But have you ever used Lightroom seriously?
I mean, did you used it enough to be able to speak about it (in good or in bad)

The print function give you the possibility to create Contact Sheets in various and very fast ways.

With the Book module you can create albums that you can then send to printing services.
Personally I will never use, but I think that it can be useful for people proposing a standard product (albums for various celebrations, family, travels)

The Virtual copies are not duplicates. A duplicate is a copy of the original: I have a 30 MB image, I make a duplicate and I get another 30 MB image (30 + 30 = 60). A virtual copy is the original image + a new preview image + the  correction (numbers > text > few Kb). So an original + a virtual copy will be the weight of your original 30 MB + 1 or 2 MB for the preview + few kilobytes for the corrections (30 + 2 = 32)
If from an original you make various duplicates or virtual copies at the end it will make a big difference.

Collections (and Smart Collections) allow you to do a lot of things automatically. You can define a lot of various criterions as type of image, size, date, rating, etc.
So you can create a collection that will group in it (for example) all you psd file with the longest side < 3000 pixel, shot before may 2010, with a 4 stars rating, etc

About keywords, in LR you can just copy and paste them from an image to another (or to a group of images), in Bridge I have never understood how to do that (but I don't use Bridge because I find his interface execrable, so I cannot tell. I remember that I had to open the file info, to copy the keywords, to close the file info, to open the file info of the other image, to paste the keywords, to close the file info and that I had to do this one image at the time. But surely there should be a simpler way to do that).

----
Lightroom is an enough new product compared to Photoshop and even to Bridge, if we consider a "mature" version of LR (LR 4 and +).
Don't you think that it is normal for a company to push their new products? And not for this they must say that the other products are not valid.
If you had your one company will you not make all the possible to push the new products more than the old ones?
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 07:35 by Beppe Grillo »

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #32 on: September 06, 2013, 19:22 »
0
^^^


But have you ever used ACR seriously?
I mean, did you used it enough to be able to speak about it (in good or in bad)


back at ya ;)

I'm not angry, just annoyed that you keep replying to a question that wasn't asked. you keep comparing LR to just Bridge or to PS, which suggests a lack of understanding. Honestly, no one has come along yet who has switched from ACR to LR or viseversa.

looks like with the $9.99 offer from Adobe I'll be switching to CC soon enough, and I can't see if ACR is going to be included so I may well be forced to switch over to LR. I'll let you know how that works out :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: September 06, 2013, 20:29 »
0
I don't know if they've crippled PS for this offer, but since it has shipped with Bridge and ACR for ages now, it would be most people's expectation that they would be in this deal unless it clearly says otherwise.
But you probably have a 30 day cool-off period if you haven't taken advantage of the 30 day free trial.
If you have a lot of images scattered over a lot of HDs, and duplicated in 'unusual' ways like I have, be prepared to take quite some time organising your images before importing them into LR. I don't think it would work well for me, but I hear a lot of people love LR - but mostly the reasons they give either exist in Bridge (like Collections) or I don't need them, like the output options.

Ed

« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2013, 21:03 »
+1
I'll give it a stab at the risk of getting rotten tomatoes thrown at me  ;D

Adobe Camera Raw is a great program for basic editing and rendering of RAW images.

Photoshop and Lightroom both use Adobe Camera Raw as a developer for RAW images.  When you import the images into either program, they are "rendered" from Adobe Camera RAW.

Lightroom takes it to a different level.  The Lightroom Library is similar to Adobe Bridge.  Very true...to a point.  Lightroom allows you to catalog your images a little more differently - think of it as constantly having a Windows Navigation menu available on the left side.  In Adobe Bridge you can do this, but it's not as user friendly.

In the "Lightroom Developer Tab" you have the essential photoshop functions available to you through Photoshop.  You have a cloning tool, you have a masking tool, you have brushes that allow for adjusting exposure in defined areas (dodging, burning, etc.).  You have cloning and healing stamps.  You have crop tools.  You can adjust white balance, exposure, sharpness, edit for noise, change color profiles based on camera and lens, and you can use various pre-sets.  You also have specific brushes available to you for whitening teeth, adjusting the iris in an eye, etc., etc.  You can also synchronize everything you changed on one image with every other photo (i.e. color and exposure adjustments) with one click - this is very hand if you have sensor dust and have to clone it out from the same spot in every single image.

If you need to do any advanced Photoshop work, you can right click, launch the image in Photoshop (which also goes through an Adobe Camera Raw conversion) and do that work there, then save it back to Lightroom as a different "layer"...it evolves as a "stack" of images.

Lightroom also allows you to export images with watermark, at a certain size, etc. much easier than creating a Photoshop action that allows you to do the same.  There are also plugins you can use in conjunction with Lightroom that allow you to deliver images to various places easier (SmugMug, Zenfolio, Photoshelter, etc.)

I started out with the Adobe Camera Raw, Adobe Bridge, Adobe CS route...and eventually after learning to use Lightroom, I found it was much more efficient than using the other three programs.

My current workflow is I import into Lightroom, Cull and Edit in Lightroom, Keyword and Caption in Lightroom, then export to Photoshelter.  From Photoshelter I FTP images to the agents that accept FTP transfers (you can FTP simultaneously using Photoshelter's servers within Photoshelter).  Then I finish up editing at the agent's side if needed.  If I have an agent that doesn't accept FTP transfers (currently, the only agent I have that doesn't is Alamy's standard collection - their news route has FTP functionality) then I export from Lightroom and upload from a different folder.

Occasionally, I still use CS6 to edit...and about the only thing I use in CS6 is the liquify filter, and to edit model releases by inserting a models photo onto the release (I store electronic copies of all model releases in Lightroom in with the image library as a jpg)

« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2013, 21:35 »
0
looks like with the $9.99 offer from Adobe I'll be switching to CC soon enough, and I can't see if ACR is going to be included so I may well be forced to switch over to LR. I'll let you know how that works out :)

As best I can tell, ACR is always included with PS.  I have a Nikon D800, which is newer than PS CS5.  That means ACR doesn't know how to deal with its RAW files.  But I was able to download a trial of CS6, which updated my ACR to the current version that knew how to handle D800 RAW files.  That version of ACR is used by CS5 and CS6, so I am able to keep using it after my CS6 trial expired.

More recently I bought a Nikon 70-200mm F/4 lens.  ACR's Lens Correction didn't have an entry for that lens, which came out post-CS6.  So I just installed a trial of PS CC, which includes the latest ACR.  And now my copy of CS5 has lens correction data for the new lens, although it's still using a pre-CC version of ACR.

So to summarize, each version of Photoshop includes the current version of ACR.  And in some cases, that version will be used by earlier versions of PS on your computer, including the latest RAW converters and lens data.  Which is pretty good news, even though I'll probably go for the new $10/month CC subscription.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 21:45 by disorderly »

KB

« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2013, 22:54 »
0
In the "Lightroom Developer Tab" you have the essential photoshop functions available to you through Photoshop.  You have a cloning tool, you have a masking tool, you have brushes that allow for adjusting exposure in defined areas (dodging, burning, etc.).  You have cloning and healing stamps.  You have crop tools.  You can adjust white balance, exposure, sharpness, edit for noise, change color profiles based on camera and lens, and you can use various pre-sets.  You also have specific brushes available to you for whitening teeth, adjusting the iris in an eye, etc., etc.  You can also synchronize everything you changed on one image with every other photo (i.e. color and exposure adjustments) with one click - this is very hand if you have sensor dust and have to clone it out from the same spot in every single image.
No tomatoes from me; thanks for the post. But just so you know, you can do most or all of these things in ACR, too. ACR has continued to evolve, right alongside LR, so I think they are fairly evenly matched in their editing / adjusting abilities. Though not being familiar with the current LR, there might be some things that only LR can do. But all in all, I think it's as someone else said: Whichever tool you know and you're used to is probably the best choice.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #37 on: September 07, 2013, 05:52 »
+2
^^^


But have you ever used ACR seriously?
I mean, did you used it enough to be able to speak about it (in good or in bad)


back at ya ;)

I'm not angry, just annoyed that you keep replying to a question that wasn't asked. you keep comparing LR to just Bridge or to PS, which suggests a lack of understanding. Honestly, no one has come along yet who has switched from ACR to LR or viseversa.

looks like with the $9.99 offer from Adobe I'll be switching to CC soon enough, and I can't see if ACR is going to be included so I may well be forced to switch over to LR. I'll let you know how that works out :)

Yes of course I have used ACR seriously, I use it every day using Lightroom and Photoshop
(In fact the software name is not Lightroom but Adobe Photoshop Lightroom)

But yes I am not expert of Bridge. I have tried to use it last week to put keywords in in eps files, but I have found the way to do that so tricky that I have fast abandoned.
But surely there is a simpler way to do that  than the one I used (if you could explain me how to do it I would be very grateful ;)

The point is that ACR is not (to be considered as) an application.

ACR is an "engine" (a component) and it is use by Photoshop and by Lightroom (a little like the operating system of your computer is used by all the applications of your computer)

Both Photoshop and Lightroom use ACR (I have already written this some posts above)
Only the interface is different (and not even so much)
Bridge is another thing, we could call it an asset manager [?]
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 06:30 by Beppe Grillo »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: September 07, 2013, 06:35 »
0
But yes I am not expert of Bridge. I have tried to use it last week to put keywords in in eps files, but I have found the way to do that so tricky that I have fast abandoned.
But surely there is a simpler way to do that  than the one I used (if you could explain me how to do it I would be very grateful ;)
I find it extremely cumbersome too. On first glance, I don't think LR keywording would be any easier for my purposes, but I haven't investigated fully yet.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #39 on: September 07, 2013, 17:24 »
-1

Adobe is messing with our heads with their confusing names. So they include Photoshop in the name of LR, just to confuse buyers? (or trick them?) You don't buy a "BMW 318 X6" Nobody cares users don't care what engine you built your software on, nor how it all works under the hood.  No one else here would think they are using ACR when they are in LR, cos they don't know what's under the hood like you do.
When you go into Develop Module are you hitting a button that says "ACR" actually it appears to be just known as "Camera Raw"? How would a user know this?   

Quote
The point is that ACR is not (to be considered as) an application.
why not? are you going to tell me Bridge isn't an app? I launch ACR from Bridge, NOT from photoshop, even though you keep saying ACR is PS, even though if you open PS how do you get to ACR? oh right, through Bridge.....  This is just more confusing naming by Adobe, hiding ACR in Bridge, but they must have their reasons. *probably selling a program called LR - sorry, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, is the reason*

I get where your head is at with all of this, but you've got your head under the bonnet. From a users point of view you can either use Bridge/ACR and then Photoshop or LR and then Photoshop.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3513 Views
Last post July 21, 2006, 01:35
by leaf
7 Replies
3950 Views
Last post September 26, 2006, 08:11
by CJPhoto
Adobe Lightroom 1.0

Started by Istock News Microstock News

5 Replies
3303 Views
Last post February 19, 2007, 18:24
by leaf
7 Replies
4580 Views
Last post June 24, 2007, 08:34
by kosmikkreeper
0 Replies
2362 Views
Last post April 16, 2008, 07:52
by vphoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle