Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why/not <ACR LR>?  (Read 3899 times)
Bill Jaynes
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« on: December 10, 2009, 10:07:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,
Can anyone help me understand where corporate is going? I'm dabbling in LR and learning ACR and wondering why they are both there. I'm having VHSBetadejavu.  ACR was the first effort for RAW files so why LR? I'm hearing that the engines in LR [sharpening etc] are better than in ACR. And LR loves caters to package photography. But there is no set of selection tools as in PS. I write software for  repair businesses and I know the misery of trying to maintain two "similar" solutions, keeping track of how they are different and why while they are still cousins. But, I digress, would anyone care to suggest that the LR PS ACR triangle is going to integrate/resolve [make up?] and how?
Signed,  confused,
Logged

Best regards,
Bill Jaynes
http://www.montanahi-line.net/
866.584.5556
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5428


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2009, 12:28:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Bill Jaynes
Signed,  confused,


Whatta ya wanna do and how do you wanna do it?

That's the bottom line...

You can do pretty much EVERYTHING in Camera Raw or Lightroom (assuming equivalent versions) that you might wanna do...some limitations...you can't print out of Bridge...so if you have a raw image you wanna print, then you gotta open it into Photoshop to render it...with Lightroom, you just render it on the fly as you need it...

As far as the actual rendering pipeline, ACR and LR are exactly the same (the only differences are usability).

You would be better off deciding whether or not a database of your images is more useful than a browser of your images and leave it at that...you are actually making this whole thing far more complicated than it actually is...

What do you wanna do (and how do you wanna do it)?
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 02:21:13 AM by Schewe » Logged
Ed Blagden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2009, 04:28:37 AM »
ReplyReply

As I understand it, LR is basically the ACR processing engine, but with added functionality in terms of image library / database management, the ability to make slideshows, a wonderful printing module, and a web page production tool.

Think of Lightroom as a Swiss Army Knife, with ACR as one of its blades.

Hope I've got that one right, and am not going to be flamed.


Ed
Logged

Visit my Flickr page
Bill Jaynes
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2009, 10:10:15 AM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='Schewe' date='Dec 10 2009, 11:28 PM' post='331815']
Whatta ya wanna do and how do you wanna do it?

Thanks very much for your help. Watching a tutorial on LR3, it was mentioned that the sharpening algorithm was new and better. That means a lot to me for fine art pieces. I'll do a couple of comparative treatments. .
Logged

Best regards,
Bill Jaynes
http://www.montanahi-line.net/
866.584.5556
photopianeil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2009, 02:18:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Bill Jaynes
Hello,
Can anyone help me understand where corporate is going? I'm dabbling in LR and learning ACR and wondering why they are both there. I'm having VHSBetadejavu.  ACR was the first effort for RAW files so why LR? I'm hearing that the engines in LR [sharpening etc] are better than in ACR. And LR loves caters to package photography. But there is no set of selection tools as in PS. I write software for  repair businesses and I know the misery of trying to maintain two "similar" solutions, keeping track of how they are different and why while they are still cousins. But, I digress, would anyone care to suggest that the LR PS ACR triangle is going to integrate/resolve [make up?] and how?
Signed,  confused,
Besides the database which is portable w/o the image files, for me it's the history forever in LR that's the deal breaker.
Neil










lR
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7262


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2009, 05:25:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My impression is that raw-conversion and other tools in ACR and LR are essentially the same.

LR is a Workflow solution while ACR on it's own is not really a solution, it's a part of photoshop. The tools in Lightroom are parametric, that is they are "recepies" on how to do an image conversion, with the conversion done when needed.

If you use ACR than you need to save the image as a TIFF, prefererably 16-bits. It's going to be fat. If you want to change a single parameter in ACR you need to redo everything. With LR it's just a touch. LR is also a compete DAM (Digital Asset Management) application. What LR is lacking is pixel level image manipulation.

So my advice would be that everything that can be done in LR should be done in LR. When Photoshop is needed open Photoshop from Lightroom.

Best regards
Erik




Quote from: Bill Jaynes
Hello,
Can anyone help me understand where corporate is going? I'm dabbling in LR and learning ACR and wondering why they are both there. I'm having VHSBetadejavu.  ACR was the first effort for RAW files so why LR? I'm hearing that the engines in LR [sharpening etc] are better than in ACR. And LR loves caters to package photography. But there is no set of selection tools as in PS. I write software for  repair businesses and I know the misery of trying to maintain two "similar" solutions, keeping track of how they are different and why while they are still cousins. But, I digress, would anyone care to suggest that the LR PS ACR triangle is going to integrate/resolve [make up?] and how?
Signed,  confused,
Logged

Peter_DL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2010, 03:42:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
LR is a Workflow solution while ACR on it's own is not really a solution, it's a part of photoshop. The tools in Lightroom are parametric, that is they are "recepies" on how to do an image conversion, with the conversion done when needed.

If you use ACR than you need to save the image as a TIFF, prefererably 16-bits. It's going to be fat. If you want to change a single parameter in ACR you need to redo everything. With LR it's just a touch. LR is also a compete DAM (Digital Asset Management) application. What LR is lacking is pixel level image manipulation.
But then, there's Bridge + ACR as well.
Fully parametric if you want so.

Peter

--
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 586


« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2010, 12:10:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Bill Jaynes
Thanks very much for your help. Watching a tutorial on LR3, it was mentioned that the sharpening algorithm was new and better. That means a lot to me for fine art pieces. I'll do a couple of comparative treatments. .

That's because the LR3 beta contains a new processing engine, along with the option of using the current engine, aka the "old" engine.  When LR3 is actually released, I imagine a new ACR version will be released that contains the new processing engine and all the sharpening goodies of LR3.  So essentially, ACR and LR processing and sharpening features will always remain identical, while LR includes more workflow and image organizing features.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2010, 02:03:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
LR is a Workflow solution while ACR on it's own is not really a solution, it's a part of photoshop. The tools in Lightroom are parametric, that is they are "recepies" on how to do an image conversion, with the conversion done when needed.

If you use ACR than you need to save the image as a TIFF, prefererably 16-bits. It's going to be fat. If you want to change a single parameter in ACR you need to redo everything. With LR it's just a touch. LR is also a compete DAM (Digital Asset Management) application. What LR is lacking is pixel level image manipulation.

You ever used ACR? It's as parametric as LR, changes are saved to the header in the DNG file or to an XMP sidecar file, exactly the same as with LR. You can save files to numerous formats from ACR including DNG, Tiff, jpg, etc or open them to PS.

The difference between LR and Bridge/ACR is whether you want to work with a database system or with the files themselves. I prefer the latter as a busy wedding photographer but I accept that I'm in the minority. I hate database systems and prefer the Bridge layout and speed as well as the ACR processing window and the crucial ability to work with an sRGB histogram when I'm outputting to sRGB for print with thousands of files.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad