The Case for LR over Classic?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

I agree Photoshop is king, but to get a raw into Photoshop it has to go through ACR, and Lightroom Classic develop module is identical to ACR. And a simple right click to jump to Photoshop and a simple ctrl s in photoshop to get it back into the lightrokm library for organizing.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Download RAW to a folder on your computer
Open Bridge - view, cull rate (RAW ready for back up)
Open in ACR to do RAW edits. Either open each individually in PS or save the lot out to your Jpeg/PSD/whatever folder where you keep your edits. (one step to do this)
Also view that file straight from Bridge (you can have several tabs open in Bridge - and this makes for easy viewing and access)
Should you wish to continue your edits in Photoshop - open straight from your Jpg/Psd tab in Bridge. Edit in PS. From PS you can also use ACR as a filter on a layer - no switching between programs. If you work on a smart object in PS, the ACR filter is also editable - which is extremely powerful and means you don't have to re-do a whole filter layer if you want to make changes anywhere along the way or even delete that layer.
Save. (it immediately updates your photos and thumbnails in Bridge and your photo in your traditional folder.
No catalogs, not backwards and forwards. All integrated.
You might have noticed I dislike LR immensely.
 
Member's gallery
To be honest, the Lightroom catalog doesn't bother me at all and I don't even notice it. Maybe it's also because of how I organize my photos. I've been using Lightroom since the first or second version and I'm still convinced. I also can't understand why people own expensive camera equipment with appropriate lenses and then do the editing in the Apple Photo app. For me, the Apple photo app is more suitable for smartphone photographers. Just my opinion.
 
Winston Churchill (Sir) said:
Download RAW to a folder on your computer
Open Bridge - view, cull rate (RAW ready for back up)
Open in ACR to do RAW edits. Either open each individually in PS or save the lot out to your Jpeg/PSD/whatever folder where you keep your edits. (one step to do this)
Also view that file straight from Bridge (you can have several tabs open in Bridge - and this makes for easy viewing and access)
Should you wish to continue your edits in Photoshop - open straight from your Jpg/Psd tab in Bridge. Edit in PS. From PS you can also use ACR as a filter on a layer - no switching between programs. If you work on a smart object in PS, the ACR filter is also editable - which is extremely powerful and means you don't have to re-do a whole filter layer if you want to make changes anywhere along the way or even delete that layer.
Save. (it immediately updates your photos and thumbnails in Bridge and your photo in your traditional folder.
No catalogs, not backwards and forwards. All integrated.
You might have noticed I dislike LR immensely.
Click to expand...

Really comes down to individual workflow preferences, with pros and cons and how one likes to organize. No reason starting in Bridge can't end up eventually in the Lightroom classic library for organization, and no reason starting in lightroom can't use ACR, just set the ACR preferences to open Tiffs.

I agree that to most Bridge is avoided and perhaps intimidating at first, because of the ease of Lightroom once import is done.
 
Member's gallery
Winston Churchill (Sir) said:
Download RAW to a folder on your computer
Open Bridge - view, cull rate (RAW ready for back up)
Open in ACR to do RAW edits. Either open each individually in PS or save the lot out to your Jpeg/PSD/whatever folder where you keep your edits. (one step to do this)
Also view that file straight from Bridge (you can have several tabs open in Bridge - and this makes for easy viewing and access)
Should you wish to continue your edits in Photoshop - open straight from your Jpg/Psd tab in Bridge. Edit in PS. From PS you can also use ACR as a filter on a layer - no switching between programs. If you work on a smart object in PS, the ACR filter is also editable - which is extremely powerful and means you don't have to re-do a whole filter layer if you want to make changes anywhere along the way or even delete that layer.
Save. (it immediately updates your photos and thumbnails in Bridge and your photo in your traditional folder.
No catalogs, not backwards and forwards. All integrated.
You might have noticed I dislike LR immensely.
Click to expand...
Good example of how complexity is in the eye of the beholder. This sounds terribly complicated to me. Sounds like due to a dislike of the catalog function you've thrown out the baby with the bath water.

One question, with the Bridge/ACR combination can you edit one RAW photo and apply those edits to a whole series?
 
Photoshop and bridge has all kinds of bulk processing capabilities. Even beyond, Google Photoshop droplets to blow your mind.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
Good example of how complexity is in the eye of the beholder. This sounds terribly complicated to me. Sounds like due to a dislike of the catalog function you've thrown out the baby with the bath water.

One question, with the Bridge/ACR combination can you edit one RAW photo and apply those edits to a whole series?
Click to expand...
Dan, if you are happy with LRc or LR, I see no reason why you should move. Should you decide though, you will see it is really easy. The difficult part is Photoshop as that program is next level. But you can decide how much you want to do in PS.
 
Member's gallery
Winston Churchill (Sir) said:
Interesting that you find LR (local) aimed at the smartphone shooter and not really at the pro - May I remind you that actually LR is the dumbed down version of Photoshop, so some might say a real Professional photographer will not even bother with LR. Photoshop is paired firstly with Bridge and ACR and does not use catalogs. Never has and never will. Even Abode understands this.
Click to expand...
How can you even compare LrC and Photoshop like you compare similar products like Lr Cloud and Lrc?
LrC Lightroom Classic is a complete DAM package with organisation, editing, printing and distribution etc.
Photoshop is a pure editing program - nothing else.
Lightroom is favored for its organizational capabilities, non-destructive editing, and ease of use in handling large volumes of images.
Photoshop, on the other hand, is known for its extensive editing capabilities, allowing for detailed and intricate photo manipulation and retouching.
And I would argue that many of the professional photographers today rely mostly on Lightroom Classic and do the fine tuning in Photoshop.
With exceptions of course, as always will be the case.
But there is less need for Photoshop these days when more advanced features have been implemented in Lightroom Classic.
Like masking, point color, AI denoise and similar.

And of course Lr is a dumb down version of Ligthroom Classic or how else do you explain all 20+ missing features and all workarounds needed to get other features available?

I also remember a early statement from Adobe ( I will try to find it again) that they wanted to create a product that could get other categories of people to use their products.
Not just PROs and advanced enthusiast. Hence the reason why they created Lightroom Cloud version to catch younger generations using smartphones and hobbyists that need just the most basic stuff.
 
TheLRC said:
How can you even compare LrC and Photoshop like you compare similar products like Lr Cloud and Lrc?
LrC Lightroom Classic is a complete DAM package with organisation, editing, printing and distribution etc.
Photoshop is a pure editing program - nothing else.
Lightroom is favored for its organizational capabilities, non-destructive editing, and ease of use in handling large volumes of images.
Photoshop, on the other hand, is known for its extensive editing capabilities, allowing for detailed and intricate photo manipulation and retouching.
And I would argue that many of the professional photographers today rely mostly on Lightroom Classic and do the fine tuning in Photoshop.
With exceptions of course, as always will be the case.
But there is less need for Photoshop these days when more advanced features have been implemented in Lightroom Classic.
Like masking, point color, AI denoise and similar.

And of course Lr is a dumb down version of Ligthroom Classic or how else do you explain all 20+ missing features and all workarounds needed to get other features available?

I also remember a early statement from Adobe ( I will try to find it again) that they wanted to create a product that could get other categories of people to use their products.
Not just PROs and advanced enthusiast. Hence the reason why they created Lightroom Cloud version to catch younger generations using smartphones and hobbyists that need just the most basic stuff.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, if you don't need the organization of the lightroom classic library then in terms of image Photoshop with its associated ACR and Bridge can do everything Lightroom and classic can and much much more. If I had to choose I would keep Photoshop/ACR/Bridge and give up Lightroom Classic. Happily I don't have to choose and they all work together. Hey they should market it in a group as a plan, yeah, that's it, a photography plan!
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
On the other hand, if you don't need the organization of the lightroom classic library then in terms of image Photoshop with its associated ACR and Bridge can do everything Lightroom and classic can and much much more. If I had to choose I would keep Photoshop/ACR/Bridge and give up Lightroom Classic. Happily I don't have to choose and they all work together. Hey they should market it in a group as a plan, yeah, that's it, a photography plan!
Click to expand...
What is this much much more you can do?
And why can you not choose to give up Lightroom Classic? What is stopping you?
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
The main issue is you can't just click an image and start working on it without going through the importing step first.
Click to expand...
I'm curious if that is most people's main issue - I'm not saying you are wrong I'm merely saying I don't know. We need a survey :).

Since I do useful stuff on import, the import step is a feature, not a bug, to me. I *want* to rename the RAW file, put it in a collection, do basic development (things like bump contrast and vibrant a bit, etc to make it more or less look like a jpg out of the camera would look).
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
If I had to choose I would keep Photoshop/ACR/Bridge and give up Lightroom Classic. Happily I don't have to choose and they all work together. Hey they should market it in a group as a plan, yeah, that's it, a photography plan!
Click to expand...
Or a plan for just Lightroom Classic and you could skip 3 products PS/ACR/Bridge totally.
That is all most hobbyists really need, straightforward and not so complex.
Especially PS is a big hurdle for many and in many cases not even used.
Personally I love the options PS deliver and the combination with LrC is simply the best (for me) :)
 
TheLRC said:
What is this much much more you can do?
And why can you not choose to give up Lightroom Classic? What is stopping you?
Click to expand...

My gosh Photoshop is so deep I'll never get to the bottom of it.

Nothing really stops me from quitting Lightroom classic except it is free with photoshop and it's a great organizer. The develop module is identical in tools to the ACR part of Photoshop, so is interchangeable with that part of Photoshop and very convenient.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
On the other hand, if you don't need the organization of the lightroom classic library then in terms of image Photoshop with its associated ACR and Bridge can do everything Lightroom and classic can and much much more. If I had to choose I would keep Photoshop/ACR/Bridge and give up Lightroom Classic. Happily I don't have to choose and they all work together. Hey they should market it in a group as a plan, yeah, that's it, a photography plan!
Click to expand...
Don't understand how that would be a better combination??
I have choosen to NOT use the combination PS/ACR/Bridge, since I can use everything you got there and much much more (organisation included) with only Lightroom Classic and Photoshop.
 
TheLRC said:
Don't understand how that would be a better combination??
I have choosen to NOT use the combination PS/ACR/Bridge, since I can use everything you got there and much much more (organisation included) with only Lightroom Classic and Photoshop.
Click to expand...

Me neither, I like Lightroom classic and I'm happy with the photography plan that includes all. To me I'm happy that Photoshop includes Lightroom classic for free, but if it didn't I'd still be happy. Others are happy that Lightroom classic includes Photoshop for free, but if it didn't they still would be happy. It's all good, everyone does their own thing.
 
Member's gallery
Winston Churchill (Sir) said:
...May I remind you that actually LR is the dumbed down version of Photoshop, so some might say a real Professional photographer will not even bother with LR. Photoshop is paired firstly with Bridge and ACR and does not use catalogs. Never has and never will. Even Abode understands this.
Click to expand...
Note: thoughout this post the term LR refers to the legacy version of LR and/or what is currently called LRC. No discussion here about the web-based version.

LR is in no way a dumbed down version of PS nor has it ever been such. The original LR was intended as a pro DAM tool/RAW converter with bare minimum ability to adjust overall WB, lighting, color, etc. It was integrated with PS for heavy duty editing. They were completely separate products both intended for pros, LR for DAM and PS for editing. Also keep in mind the PS is not and has never been focused primarily at photographers. It is focused at the much broader user group of graphic arts which includes photography. That's one reason it is so complicated. Arguably LR has always been specifically focused more on the pro photographer than PS. If anything more and more so as they've added clone tools, masking, NR, etc, etc. Adobe has invested a lot to make LR a comprehensive photo editing tool without all of the additional complexity needed by the rest of the graphic arts community.

Winston Churchill (Sir) said:
While LR of any hue is enough for many many photographers - Photoshop is the ACTUAL professional editing and retouching program. LR is simply not on the same professional level as Photoshop. So many have said that ppl just don't understand the catalogs properly. I would say people who use LR do so because they don't understand how to use Photoshop.
Stone-throwing may commence 😂
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if there aren't as many/more pro photographers who use LR as PS. For one thing there's the whole DAM thing. Plus consider all of those photojournalists or others with client bases that don't allow cloning etc which are the real advantages of PS. If all you need to do with a photo is adjust lighting, WB, or color, there's really no need to go beyond LR. Certainly in its current form. So for pros with thousands of images in their portfolios who are already using it for DAM and no need for extensive pixel editing LR now offers a single solution.

For my own needs that is the route that I've gone. A few years ago I was using Nikon's software as my RAW converter/basic editor and various other products(including PSE) for pixel editing. I grudgingly started using LR for the DAM features and once in the door figured might as well use it for RAW editing. Over time as LR's features improved I've done more and more of my editing in it. When the masking and content aware repair tool finally came of age I pretty much stopped using pixel editors for anything other than those times when I try to make a purse from a sow's ear. That's a job that certainly needs PS or something similar.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
@NorthernFocus what's interesting to me is that two critical things in LRc are not as "precise" as PS, or maybe I haven't figured them out.
One is using a grey mid point to set white balance combined with the Auto settings in PS Curves (snap neutral mid point and find dark and light colors), and the second is sharpening (compare say using Vivid Light Sharpening or Smart Sharpening on a Smart Layer.

I am using both and most of my images don't go to PS. But if they do, I have a process I follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top