[microlight]

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged Pentax Forum stalwarts when I ask - do I really need to use Lightroom? Let me explain.

I've been using Camera Raw/Photoshop CS4 for a long time, and when my laptop died I got a new Win10 high spec laptop some weeks back. Given the relative age of CS4 I decided to modernise and get the Photoshop CC/Lightroom bundle - and I'm back with the new improved CC versions of Ps/ACR as previously. So far so good.

But the bundle includes Lr, which on the face of it appears to have very similar raw processing tools to those I'm used to in ACR. I have no interest in cataloguing my pictures in Lr (happy with the system I've developed over the years), so my questions to all you Lr users are: how does Lr compare to ACR in processing terms? Are the DNG processing tools much different, or better? Without using the cataloguing function, is it worth investing the time in learning Lr?

Thanks all.
Martyn

[boriscleto]

Are the DNG processing tools much different, or better?

It's all ACR. Just a different interface. If you aren't going to use the organization tools don't bother.

[BigMackCam]

It's all ACR. Just a different interface. If you aren't going to use the organization tools don't bother.

Actually, I'd respectfully disagree. I'm pretty sure (if my memory serves me well) that the amount of available shadow and highlight recovery is greater in LR than it is in ACR. Whether that's an intentional limitation or a difference in processing, I don't know... and I'm talking about LR6 vs ACR... but it's there, as I recall

[mattt]

IMO - I'd say if you're not cataloging in Lightroom you're not getting value for the program. That being said, the power of the Lightroom cataloging tools is incredible, and I can hardly imagine any manual folder based system approaching its utility.

[Na Horuk]

LR is pretty good. Its the same Adobe engine underneath it all, but it very easy to use, nice interface, and some of the tools are available in convenient ways (brush, gradient,..). LR is also good for easy, quick conversions, batch processing, and automatic PP (for example, you can automate how much NR it applies to an image depending on its camera and ISO; you can automate lens profiles, CA correction..).
I use LR for all photo stuff, and only rarely photoshop. PS takes longer and the results are not as good. LR is easy to use and fast, and you can then apply that processing to other shots from the series automatically.

LR is also good with Presets, you can download them or make your own, and with third party plugins (lots of them are available, some really interesting).
The cataloging is not bad, either. It can probably work alongside your system.
But only use LR if you shoot raw.

[pakinjapan]

It might be depending on you workflow? I am currently on Bridge Camera Raw Photoshop too. I don’t have a problem catalog images on Bridge. I usually use a combination of file name and number suffix and do Batch rename. BUT I don't like the image preview on Bridge. It seems to work a lot slower than in LR if I have a lot of photo in one place. Another thing I really like on LR is the ability to work offline on the Smart Preview and it will to auto sync the editing with high resolution RAW file later, see this video, the guy explains really well. It is about how to move files using LR but the Smart preview which he also cover looks really nice. This feature alone is enough to convince me to move to LR.
However, My workflow is involving image stacking and layer blending in Photoshop. That forces me to carry either or both RAW files and or Photoshop file with me anyway. If I only edit RAW file one by one, I would switch to LR long ago. I can see smart preview help save a lot of time and disk space.

I just found and article about image blending in LR with a plugin! it seems like a good time to make a move for me.

[Tas]

LR seems to be a cataloguing program with ACR built in. If it's all you had to use it would be easy to recommend LR, however your workflow doesn't seem to use LR so if I understand you correctly there's no point bothering with it .

I have PS CS6 and LR6. I stopped using LR when On1 PhotoRAW was updated back in March. In many ways it's a better RAW converter than ACR/LR and unless I need the finesse of Photoshop I rarely need to go any further. As On1 plugs into PS I can suggest you consider it in that capacity or one of the many other PS plug-ins if they add value to your workflow. Otherwise I think if you're happy with ACR/PS then you've already got your answer.

Good luck with the outraged stalwarts.

Tas

[jatrax]

Actually, I'd respectfully disagree. I'm pretty sure (if my memory serves me well) that the amount of available shadow and highlight recovery is greater in LR than it is in ACR. Whether that's an intentional limitation or a difference in processing, I don't know... and I'm talking about LR6 vs ACR... but it's there, as I recall

I believe ACR and LR are identical, provided you have the same release version of ACR. It is quite possible to run an older version of ACR in PS than what is used in LR, and the other way round as well and in that case you might be correct. If you are using CC then of course everything should be the same in both programs provided you are performing regular updates.

I have no interest in cataloguing my pictures in Lr (happy with the system I've developed over the years), so my questions to all you Lr users are: how does Lr compare to ACR in processing terms? Are the DNG processing tools much different, or better? Without using the cataloguing function, is it worth investing the time in learning Lr?

Personally I believe you should be using the catalog functions of Lightroom. When I started using LR I had much the same thoughts as you, I already had an extensive and logical system of tracking images. But I gave LR a shot and soon realized how primitive my system was. Fortunately LR does not really care what your file storage looks like and will gladly use the system you already have in place. I was able to import my entire catalog while leaving everything in place and to use LR to continue saving my files in the same logical fashion I have always used. My structure is intact and if I quit using LR tomorrow it will not matter because my system is still in place.

But to answer your question: if you do not want to use the organization features of LR and are comfortable using a PS workflow, then don't bother learning LR, it will only frustrate you. The processing tools are identical. The best use of CC is with LR as the host and file catalog manager and PS or any other processing program used like a plugin. Manage everything in LR and then use PS or any other program only as needed, out for adjustments and then back to LR. My workflow is 90% Lightroom and then out to PS or Photomatix or Topaz only for the few images that need it.

[ramseybuckeye]

Adobe developed LR for Photographers, it's the same tools as PS, ACR, and Bridge with an interface for photography, to make it easier and faster to use. Use whatever works for you. I've been using PS for many years, I have CC at work and CS3 at home, but bought LR3 and then 4, I prefer using LR over the PS package, I think it's faster, but probably because I've got used to it. I also have a copy of Corel Paint Shop Pro, which does a couple of things LR doesn't. I'm trialing LRCC right now, but haven't made up my mind to switch, I might so I can edit on my iphone, but would I ever do that?

[BigMackCam]

I believe ACR and LR are identical, provided you have the same release version of ACR. It is quite possible to run an older version of ACR in PS than what is used in LR, and the other way round as well and in that case you might be correct. If you are using CC then of course everything should be the same in both programs provided you are performing regular updates.

That makes sense. I was comparing LR6 vs the ACR provided with Photoshop Elements 14 (the latter bought some months later than the former, but both were current at the time). I haven't used ACR recently, as I typically launch PSE as a plug-in, so it's possible that it has been updated to match my current LR6 processing. I'll have to do some tests when I get the opportunity...

[BigMackCam]

It's all ACR. Just a different interface. If you aren't going to use the organization tools don't bother.

Actually, I'd respectfully disagree. I'm pretty sure (if my memory serves me well) that the amount of available shadow and highlight recovery is greater in LR than it is in ACR. Whether that's an intentional limitation or a difference in processing, I don't know... and I'm talking about LR6 vs ACR... but it's there, as I recall

I believe ACR and LR are identical, provided you have the same release version of ACR. It is quite possible to run an older version of ACR in PS than what is used in LR, and the other way round as well and in that case you might be correct.

That makes sense. I was comparing LR6 vs the ACR provided with Photoshop Elements 14 (the latter bought some months later than the former, but both were current at the time). I haven't used ACR recently, as I typically launch PSE as a plug-in, so it's possible that it has been updated to match my current LR6 processing. I'll have to do some tests when I get the opportunity...

And just to confirm, you guys were right and I was wrong. Since whatever updates I've installed over the last couple of years, ACR for my PSE 14 installation and LR6 do indeed have the same range of operation!

[microlight]

Many thanks for all of the feedback; it seems wasteful to not use Lr at all (seeing that I have it) so I'll probably give it a try, but it would require adjustments to my routine workflow, which currently is: ACR -> Photoshop (for fisheye lens corrections mainly) and TIFF export -> Faststone for cloning/sharpening. It seems to me that Faststone has the edge on Ps in these. Ps/ICE/Photomatix still used for special effects work.

What is there if anything that Lr doesn't do, that has to be done elsewhere?

[Oldbayrunner]

As a long long time user of PS and one who was not a proponent of using Lightroom, when I converted to the CC format when it first came out my thoughts were oh well light room is included I'll never use it because PS does so much more. As I've delved more into Lightroom and it's capabilities I use it a lot more than just for photo organizing and it has become my main software for the beginning and for some the end of all of my photo editing. I find It does beautifully what PS ACR can do in one program. I say this because there is no opening in Bridge, then ACR, then switching to PS. The beauty of the CC format is I can do my editing in lightroom, If I need or want to continue with what requires layering, with a couple clicks of a button while still in Lightroom open my photo in PS for any layered effects or using other software such as Topaz I wish to perform.

[Na Horuk]

ACR -> Photoshop (for fisheye lens corrections mainly) and TIFF export -> Faststone for cloning/sharpening. It seems to me that Faststone has the edge on Ps in these. Ps/ICE/Photomatix still used for special effects work.

In LR you can right click and select "edit in" and it will export the dng into tiff, catalogue it alongside the dng, and open the tiff in the program you chose. And then you can add LR edits on top of that, after you close the other program.
I think LR's lens profiles are easier to tweak the in PS ACR. LR's NR is not bad. CA correction, defringing are also good. Dust spot removal, adding digital ND filter,.. I would do all of these in LR. Some third parties have better sharpening tools, or better "HDR" tonemapping tools. Main difference is the algorithms and the way a program tries to deal with the raw data to produce an image. There are big differences between RawTherapee, Adobe, and others. But within Adobe, there is not as much difference between their various products. LR just makes all the tools that photographers need easily accessible and easy to apply. With a function that lets you revert to original, or remove just one edit and leave the others..

[jatrax]

What is there if anything that Lr doesn't do, that has to be done elsewhere?

Layers? That is really all I can think of. Some things might be done better in other programs in special circumstances but it depends on how much fiddling you do with each image. For example if you are using using masks to adjust specific areas of an image Lightroom has the adjustment brush but it will not be as accurate as taking the time in PS to do all the masking. The question is whether the image is worth the time to do that.

As others have said LR was built for photographers, Photoshop for graphic artists / designers. Photoshop was all there was for a long time but as a photographer I believe LR is far superior from a workflow perspective. But you will have to learn a new workflow. I have worked with several people who were longtime PS workflow people, and the paradigm change to Lightroom was not easy for them. Once learned they were fine, but you must understand that a LR workflow is not just a new way to handle your existing workflow, it is a completely different way of working with images.

The main problem with starting out with Lightroom is that you alter your workflow. It is difficult to 'test the water' because in order to really learn it you must move your workflow to it. Just 'playing around' with it generally leads to frustration. I strongly suggest you take an online course or get a good book on it before making the plunge, without understanding the concept behind the program learning to make it work will be frustrating.