Up to a point , there is quite an overlap is there not?I didn't know it was an either or, I thought they did different things and people use both. Is that not the case?
Ive often wondered how different they are given the identical GUI, unless you of course refer to the profiles in camera calibration which dont have native ACR 5 ( unless that is the Adobe standard)I stick to silent browsing until I know what I am doing My latest pet project is my amusement at ACR 4.4/4.3 vs Adobe Standard in LR making one given landscape shot have a pinkish vs orange hue
I bought Scott Kelby's book on Lightroom & worked my way through it. Thankfully, I already had a pretty good understanding of ACR in CS3, so a lot of the functionallity was very similar.OK, got it now, mainly thanks to Senu's help and his screenshot showed it looked easier to use than CS3, are there any links for newbies to it or advice on the easy bits or standard bits to do ie sharpening etc etc
IMG_0112 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!Ive often wondered how different they are given the identical GUI, unless you of course refer to the profiles in camera calibration which dont have native ACR 5 ( unless that is the Adobe standard)
In fact LR3 (beta) RAW processing seems different to LR2.5 using similar settings , so Im guessing the changes are not just cosmetic
exactly! couldnt have put it better myselfHe had been trying to get round the use of CS3 with the ACR and on balance felt a dedicated but fairly cleanly laid of out GUI of LR was better for him
Hes aware that CS3 is different but a lot of folk who have both use LR for a lot more than they use CS3 especially if they dont want the advanced features
It may be the case he will be best off with LR and Elements if CS3 is not proving " user friendly"