Andrea Acailawen wrote:
This is false. Tell me how you shoot tethered, batch add image metadata presets across a shoot or use plugins like Color Checker Passport in ACR? I gave a number of things that can be done in Lightroom that cannot be done in ACR/Phetoshop above, as have others in this thread. You clearly do not understand how to use Lightroom. That's fine. So be it. But, please stop repeatedly spreading misinformation in an industry forum. It helps no one.

I'm going to do something I've never done in the 7-1/2 years I've been on here, and just state that your response to my post is so totally wrong, that I'm not going to bother to try to defend my points further.  I stand by everything I've said here, based on tens of thousands of hours of PS experience (and hundreds of hours LR experience).

People can use whatever they want - my preference is ACR over LR any day of the week!

Mike Collins wrote:
Yep.  Say you wanted a whole folder of images to get the same treatment in ACR.  Just open that file of image in Bridge.  Do a Command/Control All and then right click or go to File>Open in Camera Raw.  All of the files will open in ACR and you will see a strip of all the images on the left hand side.  Just click above them where it says "Select All" and it will apply all you do to the image that is open to all the files.  If you click "Synchronize" it will ask you what controls you want or don't want it to apply to all.

and this is precisely why one should use LR and not ACR

It is about workflow. If you can do everything with one click of a button vs. several steps then it is a no brainer to use one step.

Gary Melton wrote:

I'm going to do something I've never done in the 7-1/2 years I've been on here, and just state that your response to my post is so totally wrong, that I'm not going to bother to try to defend my points further.  I stand by everything I've said here, based on tens of thousands of hours of PS experience (and hundreds of hours LR experience).

People can use whatever they want - my preference is ACR over LR any day of the week!

And, you are still completely wrong.

Mike Collins wrote:
Yep.  Say you wanted a whole folder of images to get the same treatment in ACR.  Just open that file of image in Bridge.  Do a Command/Control All and then right click or go to File>Open in Camera Raw.  All of the files will open in ACR and you will see a strip of all the images on the left hand side.  Just click above them where it says "Select All" and it will apply all you do to the image that is open to all the files.  If you click "Synchronize" it will ask you what controls you want or don't want it to apply to all.

Michael Lohr  wrote:
and this is precisely why one should use LR and not ACR

It is about workflow. If you can do everything with one click of a button vs. several steps then it is a no brainer to use one step.

Huh?

What Mike is demonstrating in his post is that ACR takes no more steps than LR to do the same thing.  Except that, generally, doing it in ACR is more intuitive, logical, direct and straight-forward.

photoimager wrote:
Some people still haven't 'got it' despite it having been very clearly laid out. There is no opinion about it, only fact.

ACR is not a stand alone programme. ACR is Adobe Camera Raw, it is the raw conversion engine from Adobe and is the front end of using LR, PS and Elements with raw files. Much as your computer needs an operating system installed in order to run your programmes so LR, PS and Elements needs ACR in order to be able to read raw files. With computers, once your OS is installed you can use any compatible programmes. Without your OS installed you cannot use any programmes. Without ACR none of the Adobe products mentioned can read raw files.
       
Can people please stop muddying the waters. ACR is a raw conversion engine that needs to be used within a vehicle in order for it to be used. It is that vehicle ( LR, PS or Elements ) that determines the differences, not the engine ( ACR ).

It is not 'ACR v LR', it is not 'ACR v PS', it IS ACR within LR or within PS or within Elements. LR, PS and Elements determine the other things that you can do.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
Tell me how you shoot tethered, ......in ACR/Photoshop

You can only tether in LR when considering the Adobe software.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
batch add image metadata presets across a shoot in....Photoshop

This can all be done in LR AND Bridge, the initial interface for PS. It is not just LR that can do this when considering Adobe software.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
...or use plugins like Color Checker Passport in ACR

ColourChecker Passport is NOT a plugin. It builds profiles that are used in ACR, that is Elements, LR and PS. Wherever ACR is used you can use the ColourChecker Passport profiles ( I think it is there for Elements ), this is NOT a LR only thing. Similarly actual plugins  can be used in all 3 programmes, Elements, LR and PS.

Gary is right to say that you are wrong on a variety of points although he is also mistaken in thinking of ACR as an independent programme.

photoimager wrote:
Gary is right to say that you are wrong on a variety of points although he is also mistaken in thinking of ACR as an independent programme.

...don't know where you're getting that - I TOTALLY understand that ACR is basically a "module" that is used in BOTH PS ACR and LR.  I've stated several times that LR is simply ACR (the ACR portion of PS) with a different interface.  In fact, this is where I see LR as just a more or less "contrived" program...LR simply took the ACR "module" and gave it a different interface/"look".

As far as the part of LR where you edit the photo file, it brings nothing new (no new capabilities) to the table.  As far as the photo file organization portion of LR, PSE's "Organize" module has 95+% the capabilities of LR for less money.  My work flow is to organize my files in PSE10 (the version I currently have), select the file from there that I want to edit in PS6 (which begins by opening the file in the ACR if it's a RAW file).  This happens with no additional steps compared to using LR/PS.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
Tell me how you shoot tethered, ......in ACR/Photoshop

photoimager wrote:
You can only tether in LR when considering the Adobe software.

That's all that was being discussed. My comment was solely addressing Gary's comparison between ACR and LR. You cannot shoot tethered in ACR or Photoshop, but you can in Lightroom. What I stated is correct.

Of course you can shoot tethered with other applications, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the comparison between ACR and Lightroom that I was addressing.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
batch add image metadata presets across a shoot in....Photoshop

Any particular reason you chose to remove a portion of my comment so that it is out of context? I did not say in Photoshop. I said in ACR.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
Tell me how you shoot tethered, batch add image metadata presets across a shoot or use plugins like Color Checker Passport in ACR?

You cannot do any of the things I stated while within ACR. My comment was absolutely correct. You are taking my comments completely out of context and completely missing the point of my statement.... which was that you, in fact, can do many things in Lightroom that you cannot within ACR.

photoimager wrote:
This can all be done in LR AND Bridge, the initial interface for PS. It is not just LR that can do this when considering Adobe software.

I never mentioned Bridge. He was comparing ACR to Lightroom. That is ALL that I was addressing.

Gary Melton wrote:
1)  ACR has ALL of the same tools that are in LR...LR does NOT have any tools that are not found in ACR.

Again, LR does, in fact, offer many tools that are NOT found in ACR. His statement, which I was addressing, is not accurate.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
...or use plugins like Color Checker Passport in ACR

photoimager wrote:
ColourChecker Passport is NOT a plugin. It builds profiles that are used in ACR, that is Elements, LR and PS. Wherever ACR is used you can use the ColourChecker Passport profiles ( I think it is there for Elements ), this is NOT a LR only thing. Similarly actual plugins  can be used in all 3 programmes, Elements, LR and PS.

Actually, you're incorrect. ColorChecker Passport is not just a standalone utility. It is also a plugin within Lightroom.

http://blog.xritephoto.com/2009/09/ligh … -passport/

The plugin can be used within Lightroom by using the "Export with Preset" option under the File menu. You cannot do that within ACR, Photoshop or Bridge. You can, of course, do it in the standalone utility and export it for use in the other applications, but not while using it as a plugin and it requires additional steps to do so. Also, please note that I said "plugins like ColorChecker Passport," as my comment was addressing the fact that you can use plugins within Lightroom, but not within ACR... another thing that proves that they are, in fact, very different things.

photoimager wrote:
Gary is right to say that you are wrong on a variety of points although he is also mistaken in thinking of ACR as an independent programme.

Ironic that you completely took what I said out of context only to make this statement, as his confusion over the differences between ACR and lightroom were the very reason I made the comparisons I did between them.

DougBPhoto wrote:
I'm just going to add that for a thread that isn't even at 1.5 pages yet, there is already enough misinformation and misrepresentation to choke a small horse.

Hopefully future people reading this thread can look through to see the information that is accurately representing what is being discussed, and not just opinions that primarily reflect what they are personally most comfortable using or think they understand.

Given that accurate information has been given (and oft ignored), it is rather pointless to discuss with folks whose minds are already closed and made up.

It is not like anyone said that LR is a replacement for PS, they are complimentary/synergistic programs, that are intended to work together, not to replace each other.

Bottom line, as has been said... ACR is the engine...  one can either use the engine as the front-end for PS, as incorporated into LR, or the simplified version in PSE.  It is still the ACR engine in all 3 places.

Which is best, it depends on what someone is doing, because all workflows and all tasks are not identical, therefore what works best for one person is NOT supposed to be best for everyone else.   

The work that everyone does is different, therefore what works best for each of us is going to be different, hell, many of us even understand that what works best for an individual can still vary depending on the needs a given shoot.

+1

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
Tell me how you shoot tethered, ......in ACR/Photoshop

photoimager wrote:
You can only tether in LR when considering the Adobe software.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
That's all that was being discussed. My comment was solely addressing Gary's comparison between ACR and LR. You cannot shoot tethered in ACR or Photoshop, but you can in Lightroom. What I stated is correct.

Of course you can shoot tethered with other applications, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the comparison between ACR and Lightroom that I was addressing.

I was identifying where what you said is correct, no idea why you think anything otherwise if you actually read what was posted.

In your response you are still showing that you haven't 'got it' yet. There is no 'comparison between ACR and LR', only between LR, PS and Elements if you are just looking at Adobe software. ACR is the raw engine that is used in all 3 and except for the tools slimmed down version in Elements the implementation of ACR is the same. The programme that you then open the file into from ACR is where the different emphasis are.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
batch add image metadata presets across a shoot in....Photoshop

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
Any particular reason you chose to remove a portion of my comment so that it would be taken out of context? I did not say in Photoshop. I said in ACR.

I did not take it out of context, it is a reflection of how you still haven't got it. ACR is used within another programme and you cannot isolate what you can do in ACR from what can be done in those other programmes.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
Tell me how you shoot tethered, batch add image metadata presets across a shoot or use plugins like Color Checker Passport in ACR?

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
You cannot do any of the things I stated while within ACR. My comment was absolutely correct. You are taking my comments completely out of context and completely missing the point of my statement.... which was that you, in fact, can do many things in Lightroom that you cannot within ACR.

photoimager wrote:
This can all be done in LR AND Bridge, the initial interface for PS. It is not just LR that can do this when considering Adobe software.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
I never mentioned Bridge. He was comparing ACR to Lightroom. That is ALL that I was addressing.

I repeat, you cannot 'compare ACR to LR' you can only compare what you can do in the programme that ACR is opened within. Hence it is Bridge, an often forgotten part of PS, compared to LR, if you have any idea what you are talking about.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
...or use plugins like Color Checker Passport in ACR

photoimager wrote:
ColourChecker Passport is NOT a plugin. It builds profiles that are used in ACR, that is Elements, LR and PS. Wherever ACR is used you can use the ColourChecker Passport profiles ( I think it is there for Elements ), this is NOT a LR only thing. Similarly actual plugins  can be used in all 3 programmes, Elements, LR and PS.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
Actually, you're incorrect. ColorChecker Passport is not just a standalone utility. It is also a plugin within Lightroom.

If you are making use of what ColourChecker Passport can do at any point after the first steps in post-processing a raw file you are somewhat missing the point of using it. I use profiles for each camera under each lighting type and modifier as part of my use of ACR in both LR and bridge. When used in the best way it does not act as a plugin any more than setting your colour space is a 'plugin'.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
ColorChecker Passport," as my comment was addressing the fact that you can use plugins within Lightroom, but not within ACR... another thing that proves that they are, in fact, very different things.

I repeat, again, ACR is an engine within other programmes. Just as you can use plugins in LR so too can you use them in PS and Elements. You cannot use ACR with any meaning without one of those three programmes. Therefore to,state that you cannot use plugins within ACR, whilst it is true you are missing the point. You cannot separate ACR from what the shell programme can do but you can compare what the shell programmes can do, you can compare Elements, LR and PS. You cannot compare ACR with any of Elements, LR and PS since that is meaningless.

Stewart Ransom wrote:
LR just off the top of my head, book creation templates,slide show creation, contacts sheets with options, picture package, more detailed controls like vibrancy,shadow, clarity. And have you ever tried to open 1000 photos in photoshop. Can't be done nor is it practical . Or is for organizing and collecting sets of photos. Syncing settings to large numbers of photos, tethering with presetsapplied to photos as they are imported. Auto upload to your favorite web photo printer,
Saved photo presets for batch application, I use PS %90 less as most of what I do can now be done faster and more economically time wise. Did I leave anything out.

Some of what you state is available in anything that uses ACR as it's engine - vibrancy, shadow etc. Most of the above is available in Bridge, the raw file front-end of PS. Only tether support, photo organising into collections is different. It seems as though most people have either completely forgotten about Bridge or have never used it. It is easy to see the similarities if you are familiar with both, which I am.

photoimager wrote:
Some of what you state is available in anything that uses ACR as it's engine - vibrancy, shadow etc. Most of the above is available in Bridge, the raw file front-end of PS. Only tether support, photo organising into collections is different. It seems as though most people have either completely forgotten about Bridge or have never used it. It is easy to see the similarities if you are familiar with both, which I am.

Bridge, what a great name.

It is almost as if Adobe knew they were going to be developing Lightroom and developed something first to put with Photoshop as a front-end, to bridge between where PS was a that date as they were trying to bring LR to where it could be released and generate a profit.

Kinda makes one wonder why there might be similarities... Bridge.... hmmm

photoimager wrote:
I was identifying where what you said is correct, no idea why you think anything otherwise if you actually read what was posted.

In your response you are still showing that you haven't 'got it' yet. There is no 'comparison between ACR and LR', only between LR, PS and Elements if you are just looking at Adobe software. ACR is the raw engine that is used in all 3 and except for the tools slimmed down version in Elements the implementation of ACR is the same. The programme that you then open the file into from ACR is where the different emphasis are.

No, I have got it. It is you who apparently does not. ACR is only the raw image processor within both applications. In Photoshop, it is a plug-in that runs when you bring new images into Photoshop. It is not the core engine in Photoshop. Lightroom is built using the same raw image processing technology, but Lightroom is not the same as ACR

Read the following from Adobe:

"The camera raw converter functionality in Adobe® Photoshop® software provides fast and easy access to the raw image formats produced by many leading professional and midrange digital cameras. By working with these "digital negatives," you can achieve the results you want with greater artistic control and flexibility while still maintaining the original raw files.

The Adobe Camera Raw plug-in became the latest must-have tool for professional photographers when it was released in February 2003. This powerful plug-in has been frequently updated to support more cameras and include more features and is available as part of Adobe Photoshop CC. Adobe Photoshop Lightroom® software is built upon the same powerful raw processing technology that is available in the Camera Raw plug-in."

You can read it here yourself
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.edu.html

Adobe refers to ACR is a plug-in. Not an engine. A raw image processing plug-in! It did not even exist until 2003. I have been using Photoshop since 1991 (23 years now), long, long before ACR ever existed! ACR is not the engine behind Photoshop.  It is merely the raw image processing plug-in that opens up whenever you open a raw image in Photoshop. It's involvement in Photoshop ends as soon as you click "open" or "done" and bring the image(s) fully into Photoshop.

Lightroom includes the same raw processing technology that is found in ACR, but it is not the same thing as ACR. Lightroom's capabilities are not limited to raw image processing. It does a great deal more. THAT has been the point of EVERY one of my posts!! That the functionality in Lightroom is not limited to the raw processing technology that it shares in common with the ACR plugin within Photoshop, and it has even less in common with the slimmed down version of the ACR plug-in that exists within Photoshop Ellements.

I do not know any other way to try and get this simple point across. It seems that no matter how much I beat my head against a wall, some of you are determined not to get it. No offense, but I'm not even going to read past the part of your post that I quoted, since your entire basis of comment toward me has being made on a misunderstanding of the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. I will simply state it one more time and then I am done with this thread.

ACR is the raw camera plug-in that comes up whenever you open up a raw image in Photoshop. It is not the backbone of Photoshop. It is a plug-in. That's it. Its functionality is limited to one thing... the initial processing of camera raw images. That is all that it does.

Lightroom shares the same raw image processing engine that is found in ACR, but it is NOT the same thing as ACR. Lightroom is not limited to the raw processing functionality that it shares in common with the ACR plug-in. It is an application with cataloging, tethering and many other features that cannot be found when using the ACR plug-in while in Photoshop.

So, yes... when someone else makes the comparison between the ACR plugin within Photoshop and Lightroom, it IS most certainly accurate for me to correct the misconception that they offer the same functionality or that ACR somehow does more than Lightroom. This is simply not true. And, that is the ONLY misconception that I have been trying to correct in this thread. And, yes, a comparison between Photoshop and Lightroom would be far more valuable, but the comments I was addressing were not between Photoshop and Lightroom. They were between Lightroom and ACR. So, that is all I addressed.

As for this thread, I have said everything that I have to say and stand behind my statements 100%. So, from here, I'm out.

photoimager wrote:
To the poster above, one word - Bridge.

Or to expand, whilst you can open single raw images into Photoshop in the way that you are stating that is not a balanced comparison with LR. The balanced comparison is LR and Bridge, as I have previously mentioned and some others have also mentioned.

By the way, quoting Adobe for accurate meaning of words is a little bit of a miss. The prevalence of the 'DPI / ppi' problem would not be around if Adobe had got that right. Similarly the number of people who use 'edit' for post-processing, post-production and retouching is down to Adobe rebranding Photoshop as an 'editing' program when they found photographers were using it as well as the intended graphic designers.

Only people who do solely photography seem to think that Adobe Bridge is somehow a substitute for or comparable to Lightroom.

Andrea has detailed many of the very robust features of LR. Aside from that, though, Bridge is meant to be the Adobe browser so you're not confined to the OS browser when you need to open, view, search, etc your files. Sure, you can do a few things that Lightroom does but that's minor. I use Br, PS, LR and ID daily. They're ("they" being LR and Bridge) not comparable programs.

I mean, it would be one thing if it wasn't an Adobe product but it IS. The mere fact that they're making all of them, they're not going to make them with that much overlap because they want you to use them all.

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
Only people who do solely photography seem to think that Adobe Bridge is somehow a substitute for or comparable to Lightroom.

Andrea has detailed many of the very robust features of LR. Aside from that, though, Bridge is meant to be the Adobe browser so you're not confined to the OS browser when you need to ..........

Andrea was trying to compare LR and ACR. Myself and a few others have been making the very clear point that you cannot do this. You can only compare the feature sets of the programmes that ACR is embedded in. Different things are possible in Bridge, LR, PS and Elements but, apart from the smaller feature set of ACR in Elements, the ACR engine is the same. Yes, LR is much more capable than Bridge and, in different ways, is more capable than opening a single file into PS via ACR. At no point have I disagreed with that. What has been disagreed with is the misconception that ACR is a standalone package that you can compare to a shell programme.

If I'm using Adobe then my first choice front end is LR rather than Bridge because the feature set is better for what I do. I am not extolling other programmes or being down on LR. I am just emphasising that you cannot compare ACR to LR, Bridge, or PS, you can only compare the feature sets that those programmes add. You can however compare the features in ACR for LR and ACR for Elements since there is a difference at ACR level between these two.

photoimager wrote:
Andrea was trying to compare LR and ACR. Myself and a few others have been making the very clear point that you cannot do this. You can only compare the feature sets of the programmes that ACR is embedded in. Different things are possible in Bridge, LR, PS and Elements but, apart from the smaller feature set of ACR in Elements, the ACR engine is the same. Yes, LR is much more capable than Bridge and, in different ways, is more capable than opening a single file into PS via ACR. At no point have I disagreed with that. What has been disagreed with is the misconception that ACR is a standalone package that you can compare to a shell programme.

If I'm using Adobe then my first choice front end is LR rather than Bridge because the feature set is better for what I do. I am not extolling other programmes or being down on LR. I am just emphasising that you cannot compare ACR to LR, Bridge, or PS, you can only compare the feature sets that those programmes add. You can however compare the features in ACR for LR and ACR for Elements since there is a difference at ACR level between these two.

I was not the one trying to compare ACR and LR! It was the subject of this thread, which I did NOT start! Then another poster said that you could do more in ACR than in Lightroom. I have pointed out ad nausem in this thread why that belief is flawed! ACR is merely a plugin-in within Photoshop that is limited to raw image processing capabilities. Lightroom is a full program with many capabilities that go well beyond the processing of raw files (the portion of it that is based upon ACR).

I never ONCE said ACR or Lightroom SHOULD be compared. Never! In fact, I believe they are such vastly different things that you cannot make a proper comparison between them, because one is merely a plug-in with a limited focus and the other is a full application that includes those same capabilities and much more. The examples I gave showing what Lightroom can do that cannot be done while in the ACR plug-in within Photoshop was meant solely to make that point.

Raw image processing is only a small portion of the capabilities found in either Photoshop or Lightroom, therefore it is impossible for ACR to offer more functionality than Lightroom. Lightroom does vastly more than process raw files. That was the ONLY point I attempted to make earlier. And, I have no desire to continue to try to explain this further. How ironic that I keep stating a position that you should fully be in agreement with, yet you simply cannot see it. You are welcome to argue your position in this thread for as long as you like. Feel free. But, since you cannot understand the purpose of my comments and continue to take them out of context in a thread I already stated I no longer wished to participate in, I will ask that you please stop using your false perception of what I have said as the basis for your comments. You couldn't be further off base. So, please keep me out of your arguments from here forward. Thank you.

photoimager wrote:
Andrea was trying to compare LR and ACR. Myself and a few others have been making the very clear point that you cannot do this. You can only compare the feature sets of the programmes that ACR is embedded in. Different things are possible in Bridge, LR, PS and Elements but, apart from the smaller feature set of ACR in Elements, the ACR engine is the same. Yes, LR is much more capable than Bridge and, in different ways, is more capable than opening a single file into PS via ACR. At no point have I disagreed with that. What has been disagreed with is the misconception that ACR is a standalone package that you can compare to a shell programme.

If I'm using Adobe then my first choice front end is LR rather than Bridge because the feature set is better for what I do. I am not extolling other programmes or being down on LR. I am just emphasising that you cannot compare ACR to LR, Bridge, or PS, you can only compare the feature sets that those programmes add. You can however compare the features in ACR for LR and ACR for Elements since there is a difference at ACR level between these two.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
I was not the one trying to compare ACR and LR! It was the subject of this thread, which I did NOT start!

If it is any help, I understood what you were saying and why.

It is kinda sad that the forums have such difficulty avoiding misinformation relating to the topics, but I really wish people could stop or something could be done about these types of posts where false representations are made about other posters in threads.

The site claims to have a rule that we are supposed to respond to the post and not the person posting, and these types of comments where folks post about what they believe other users are trying to do or otherwise misrepresenting the person not just the topic, are not helpful.

This thread is already bad enough with misinformation about the topic, I hate to see posting misinformation about the persons posting in the thread as well.

Back to folks illustrating their poor understanding of the topic (instead of their poor understanding of other forum users.)

/rant

DougBPhoto wrote:
If it is any help, I understood what you were saying and why.

It is kinda sad that the forums have such difficulty avoiding misinformation relating to the topics, but I really wish people could stop or something could be done about these types of posts where false representations are made about other posters in threads.

The site claims to have a rule that we are supposed to respond to the post and not the person posting, and these types of comments where folks post about what they believe other users are trying to do or otherwise misrepresenting the person not just the topic, are not helpful.

This thread is already bad enough with misinformation about the topic, I hate to see posting misinformation about the persons posting in the thread as well.

Back to folks illustrating their poor understanding of the topic (instead of their poor understanding of other forum users.)

/rant

Thank you. I do appreciate that. And, I absolutely agree with you. That is one of the main reasons I post on this site as infrequently as I do. I just don't have time for nonsense or beating my head against a wall. And, on that note, I am stepping back out of this thread. Have a great weekend, Doug.

DougBPhoto wrote:

photoimager wrote:
Andrea was trying to compare LR and ACR. Myself and a few others have been making the very clear point that you cannot do this. You can only compare the feature sets of the programmes that ACR is embedded in. Different things are possible in Bridge, LR, PS and Elements but, apart from the smaller feature set of ACR in Elements, the ACR engine is the same. Yes, LR is much more capable than Bridge and, in different ways, is more capable than opening a single file into PS via ACR. At no point have I disagreed with that. What has been disagreed with is the misconception that ACR is a standalone package that you can compare to a shell programme.

If I'm using Adobe then my first choice front end is LR rather than Bridge because the feature set is better for what I do. I am not extolling other programmes or being down on LR. I am just emphasising that you cannot compare ACR to LR, Bridge, or PS, you can only compare the feature sets that those programmes add. You can however compare the features in ACR for LR and ACR for Elements since there is a difference at ACR level between these two.

If it is any help, I understood what you were saying and why.

It is kinda sad that the forums have such difficulty avoiding misinformation relating to the topics, but I really wish people could stop or something could be done about these types of posts where false representations are made about other posters in threads.

The site claims to have a rule that we are supposed to respond to the post and not the person posting, and these types of comments where folks post about what they believe other users are trying to do or otherwise misrepresenting the person not just the topic, are not helpful.

This thread is already bad enough with misinformation about the topic, I hate to see posting misinformation about the persons posting in the thread as well.

Back to folks illustrating their poor understanding of the topic (instead of their poor understanding of other forum users.)

/rant

Part of the overall problem (and it contributed to a lot of the real industry people leaving MM which perpetuates the problem), is the prohibition on critiques. (not referring to this thread).
When someone is just making-stuff-up about some technical area of photography or industry best-practice and their work shows that they are completely unqualified to be making their assertion, it is completely relevant to refer to that.

If someone is arguing "lighting depth-of-field" and their lighting shows they can't even produce proper exposure for instance, it's completely relevant to point that out.

If someone is arguing modeling agency practice and their portfolio is full of horribly lit, naked girls of questionable modeling caliber - it's fair to point that out.

GerardoC91 wrote:
So far it seems like Camera RAW is the same as Lightroom.  Am I missing something, or can anyone point out anything in particular. Usually I just shoot RAW do some stuff in Camera RAW and photoshop the rest. I have used lightroom but really have not seen nothing different. I am not much of a photographer so i am not really that into photo stuff I mainly just use photoshop for other internet purposes so be gentle on my ignorance on this.

Interms of image editing they are basically the same. Lightroom has slightly different interface and a library function that has a major issue. I ended up going to going to Camera and Bridge because the library issue. I did talk to Tom Hogarty Lightroom Product Manager, a while back and Adobe is looking into it but have not come up with a practical solution yet.

On top of that Adobe went to CC nonsense so, I no longer trust Adobe with an image Library.

Gary Melton wrote:

You are basically correct - all Lightroom does is allow you to make the same adjustments to a RAW file that you can make in the PS ACR...just with a different interface.

Personally, I much prefer PS ACR to LR.  I use the cataloging portion of PSE10 to organize my photo files.

I own LR, but never use it (I did use it for about 4 months before going back to PS ACR and PSE10 cataloging).  I've never understood the appeal of LR.

edit: I will say that the ONE thing I do like about LR is how it lets you rank photos on 2 levels...makes it a little easier to get down to a number of the best shots, then reduce that group down to the top finalists to edit.

It's fast, consistent and simple - and doesn't crash often. The guys (and gals) who find more purpose in it are the ones who have larger bulk-edits/conversions to do. I've had gigs where I had 1100 & 1200 captures made (Dance/Music/etc), I loaded them up in my bony Notebook with it's 2 GB of RAMM and mere 1.1 GHz Celeron chip and away it went. I started with LR3 now I'm on LR5, and both run quite light comparatively. My Capture nx2 is a PIG - I love the look of it's conversions, though - and Capture One Express is annoyingly combersome to do bulk-conversions after bulk-edits - and too saturated for my tastes. Lightroom is quick and simple, in my personal experiences and opinion.

I do not use it for cataloging. Ever. I find that annoying, and have my own process for editing photos (making selections of 'keepers' from 'losers').

My on the topic alone;

Ðanny
DBImagery Toronto (Website)
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site)
   
“The vilest deeds – like poison weeds – bloom well in prison air; it is only what is good in man that wastes & withers there.”
~Oscar Wilde