Several year ago, I switched from Lightroom Classic to using a combo of Bridge/Camera Raw/Photoshop. I've never looked back. I just don't like the whole catalog thing. I've taken Matt's Adobe Bridge mini course and found it very helpful. Thanks for that, Matt.
I'm an LR Classic user since LR3. But for simple photos like things I might be putting on ebay or Craigslist, I use ACR for speed because it hase the LR features, but is for re-sizing down; also I often expand the canvas and put 2 views on one 'canvas' - very quick. My 'good' photos are still cataloged in LR Classic and developed there too. You said it exactly right Matt, "depends on your workflow."
Thanks, Matt. Good video. The explanation of how LRC and ACR handle sidecar files was worth the viewing. I couldn't figure out how/if they shared the same .xmp file and data. This cleared it up.
Glad to help. They don't share the same XMP since LRC by default stores everything in the catalog. There is an advanced setting in LRC that will force it to write XMPs too, but trying to use that with Bridge and Camera Raw will create a mess for you. Better to just come to grips with the fact they are not meant to work together and any ways you do get them to work with each other is really just a hack and mostly non-intuitive. Thanks!
I was a LrC User but always found the Organizing cumbersome, why do I need to import if I already have the images in an organized structure? So I tried Bridge for culling and it works well (for me) so I now work with BR and ACR.
Great video Matt! Thanks for making the time to post this. Any chance you might do a video on the beat way to recover highlight detail in Camera Raw? I'd like to compare Camera Raw's Highlight Recovery to that of other image editing programs and want to make sure I'm making best use of Camera Raw's tools.
Great video. Now I have somewhere to send people to when they ask why I don't use lightroom. When lightroom came out I already had a good workflow using Bridge and ACR. Lightroom seemed to present a new learning curve that I wasn't enthused about ( also a change in file management/workflow ).I always tell people to use the photo management of Bridge or lightroom that is easiest for them as the editing part is the same for both.
I would like to hear more about the pros and cons of using a database (i.e. Lightroom catalog). I very often search for keywords, ratings and other Metadata that LR Catalog provides. What are the alternatives? Just date doesn't seem to be enough.
Excellent as always, Matt! I love Lightroom CLASSIC for organizing and editing, but sometimes there's a photo that I want to edit and then post to a blog or social media, and after editing I'm not even going to keep the original. And most often I also want to do that edit on a different computer from the one where my LRC catalog resides. ACR to the rescue! Edit, export, post, and done. And then I delete the original and the edits because I no longer need them, unlike my "serious" photos that are stored, backed up, and cataloged in LRC.
I could never be so sure that I wasn't ever going to want a particular photo. I find myself going back to old photos so I can use new tools on them for a much-improved "final" image.
@@kevins8575 Yes, I definitely agree for anything I've taken for "artistic" purposes, and I do have tens of thousands of images saved in my LRC catalog. But if I take a photo just to show something to accompany a blog or social media post then probably I don't care what happens to it. It's kind of the difference between "journalistic" v. "artistic", e.g., here's a picture of something to show what I'm talking about v. here's a landscape that I carefully composed and spent time editing to convey or evoke a feeling.
Matt, you mentioned that changes made in ACR vs. changes made in Lightroom are not compatible because your changes in Lightroom stay in Lightroom while ACR writes sidecar files. In the Catalog Settings, under metadata, I have the "Automatically write changes into XMP" setting ON, so my Lightroom edits on raw files (not virtual copies) are saved in sidecar files just like ACR will do.
The biggest reason I can see for using ACR over Lightroom is the amount of space you save by not having a catalogue. The second reason is how easy it is to accidentally lose images through cataloguing mistakes.
Matt - I bought your Lightroom course (not LrC) last year and have been leaning towards moving my workflow from LrC to Lightroom. I've seen a few TH-cam videos recently about Bridge & ACR, which seems very similar to what you presented in your Lightroom course. You also alluded to Bridge & ACR in this video. For someone like me thinking about switching from LrC, is there anything specific that you can think to sway someone towards one of the two options?
In my opinion... if you don't use LRC, you should use LR... period. There is no really good reason to use a Bridge/ACR workflow now that LR (not LRC) has local browsing. But that's a hill to climb in another video so I kept it simple in this one :-)
Matt-- IIRC, the new Denoise is only in ACR (?) If I want to use that to do a better job than what is in LR, and I open/process in ACR, looks like by choosing the proper item in LR when dealing with metadata conflict, I can get LR to recognize the ACR's Denoise?
Hi. DeNoise is the same. In ACR with the "tech preview" option on, it will just now do it on the raw file instead of creating a DNG. But the quality of the result is no different and does not do a "better job" as you put it. Thanks!
I asked a pro why he used Lightroom, and he said he was dealing with so many photos that he needed the organization, etc., it has. With the convergence of ACR with Lightroom controls and the development of Bridge, maybe the advantage would be smaller. Since I’ve used Photoshop for 25+ years, and I find the Lightroom cataloguing and organization at best unnecessary for me, I’m better off with Bridge/ACR/Photoshop. I have used Lightroom when I was working on a book to be printed, and I did fine with the book module. I don’t mess with beta features normally, but might try something if all else fails.
I'm so used to doing everything in LR Classic that I have a difficult time with the ACR or non-classic LR due to the differences in the interface, despite them being essentially the same. I think that non-classic is the worst and I have the hardest time finding some of the controls I want. Would be nice if they could actually make them look a bit closer overall.
Thanks. I guess it's a matter of preference. After using LRC for many years, I welcome the simplicity and ease of use in the interface in LR. So for me, the last thing I want them to do is make LR look anything like LRC - I hope that never happens :-)
Hi. I’ve never had anyone ask should I use Lightroom, Adobe camera raw or affinity. It does not have a viable raw editor that a photographer would use.
I actually went back to using ACR myself (along with Bridge). I had been using LR classic for the longest time, but have lately gotten a little frustrated with it as the new features do seem to bog it down quite a bit in some cases, particularly when dealing with masks, as the extra overhead of the library module seems to impact performance. I also found the LIbrary module to be very redundant in many cases (my Library module was basically a coyp of the same file structure I have on my computer, so the LIbrary module for me was not very useful and just sort of wasted time with importing). But what really sort of started to get to me is the resource consumption and the database concept, which I'm not a big fan of. I prefer Bridge/ACR since I mostly work on one or maybe a few images at a time. If it crashes, then I've only lost the edits to those photos, but don't run the risk of a corrupt catalog (which I've had a few times, and one reason I'm glad to move away from LR Classic at least). I will use LR Desktop to do culling and to compare photos side-by-side (since Bridge isn't the best for comparing photos) but as far as I'm concerned, Bridge/ACR/Photoshop (with a bit of LR Desktop for some basic tasks) is my new workflow moving forward, as it's a bit faster (maybe a little clunkier) but does offer what I need, without the extra steps that Lr Classic at least required (mainly importing and the database concept which seems to slow things down a bit especially if you have a large catalog). Obviously the downside to the others is that you have to have the original files with you to edit them (as LR Classic at least does offer Smart Previews which can be helpful). So while I will miss some features or LR Classic (collection sets or the ability to categorize collections into folders, and virtual copies) I feel that I've gained a bit of freedom with ACR/Bridge/PS at a very small cost (no virtual copies or collection sets). In the end, my physical photo storage was being mirrored in LR Classic and just wasted time having to import and create collections for new photos, whereas with the other options (Bridge/LR Desktop) this is not needed, and I can start organizing and editing right away.
Great summary between the 2 interfaces. I use LR over ACR because I’m lazy and it’s much easier to make mass changes on lots of photos for a typical job where I could have 1 or 2000 photos. But I can’t stand having to monitor the LR database. I think my life would be simpler, albeit slower, if I used ACR.Also I like the Bridge interface better- more customizable.
Several year ago, I switched from Lightroom Classic to using a combo of Bridge/Camera Raw/Photoshop.
I've never looked back. I just don't like the whole catalog thing.
I've taken Matt's Adobe Bridge mini course and found it very helpful. Thanks for that, Matt.
I'm an LR Classic user since LR3. But for simple photos like things I might be putting on ebay or Craigslist, I use ACR for speed because it hase the LR features, but is for re-sizing down; also I often expand the canvas and put 2 views on one 'canvas' - very quick. My 'good' photos are still cataloged in LR Classic and developed there too. You said it exactly right Matt, "depends on your workflow."
For my runway. I use Lightroom. Just quicker. For individual portraits. It's Bridge to ACR to Photoshop.
Thanks, Matt. Good video. The explanation of how LRC and ACR handle sidecar files was worth the viewing. I couldn't figure out how/if they shared the same .xmp file and data. This cleared it up.
Glad to help. They don't share the same XMP since LRC by default stores everything in the catalog. There is an advanced setting in LRC that will force it to write XMPs too, but trying to use that with Bridge and Camera Raw will create a mess for you. Better to just come to grips with the fact they are not meant to work together and any ways you do get them to work with each other is really just a hack and mostly non-intuitive. Thanks!
I was a LrC User but always found the Organizing cumbersome, why do I need to import if I already have the images in an organized structure? So I tried Bridge for culling and it works well (for me) so I now work with BR and ACR.
Same reason I never switched from bridge.
Great video Matt! Thanks for making the time to post this.
Any chance you might do a video on the beat way to recover highlight detail in Camera Raw? I'd like to compare Camera Raw's Highlight Recovery to that of other image editing programs and want to make sure I'm making best use of Camera Raw's tools.
Great video. Now I have somewhere to send people to when they ask why I don't use lightroom. When lightroom came out I already had a good workflow using Bridge and ACR. Lightroom seemed to present a new learning curve that I wasn't enthused about ( also a change in file management/workflow ).I always tell people to use the photo management of Bridge or lightroom that is easiest for them as the editing part is the same for both.
Nicely explained. Thanks.
I would like to hear more about the pros and cons of using a database (i.e. Lightroom catalog). I very often search for keywords, ratings and other Metadata that LR Catalog provides. What are the alternatives? Just date doesn't seem to be enough.
Excellent as always, Matt! I love Lightroom CLASSIC for organizing and editing, but sometimes there's a photo that I want to edit and then post to a blog or social media, and after editing I'm not even going to keep the original. And most often I also want to do that edit on a different computer from the one where my LRC catalog resides. ACR to the rescue! Edit, export, post, and done. And then I delete the original and the edits because I no longer need them, unlike my "serious" photos that are stored, backed up, and cataloged in LRC.
I could never be so sure that I wasn't ever going to want a particular photo. I find myself going back to old photos so I can use new tools on them for a much-improved "final" image.
@@kevins8575 Yes, I definitely agree for anything I've taken for "artistic" purposes, and I do have tens of thousands of images saved in my LRC catalog. But if I take a photo just to show something to accompany a blog or social media post then probably I don't care what happens to it. It's kind of the difference between "journalistic" v. "artistic", e.g., here's a picture of something to show what I'm talking about v. here's a landscape that I carefully composed and spent time editing to convey or evoke a feeling.
Matt, you mentioned that changes made in ACR vs. changes made in Lightroom are not compatible because your changes in Lightroom stay in Lightroom while ACR writes sidecar files. In the Catalog Settings, under metadata, I have the "Automatically write changes into XMP" setting ON, so my Lightroom edits on raw files (not virtual copies) are saved in sidecar files just like ACR will do.
Reminds me of the video you did with scott kelby comparing acr and lightroom
The biggest reason I can see for using ACR over Lightroom is the amount of space you save by not having a catalogue. The second reason is how easy it is to accidentally lose images through cataloguing mistakes.
Matt - I bought your Lightroom course (not LrC) last year and have been leaning towards moving my workflow from LrC to Lightroom. I've seen a few TH-cam videos recently about Bridge & ACR, which seems very similar to what you presented in your Lightroom course. You also alluded to Bridge & ACR in this video. For someone like me thinking about switching from LrC, is there anything specific that you can think to sway someone towards one of the two options?
In my opinion... if you don't use LRC, you should use LR... period. There is no really good reason to use a Bridge/ACR workflow now that LR (not LRC) has local browsing. But that's a hill to climb in another video so I kept it simple in this one :-)
Matt-- IIRC, the new Denoise is only in ACR (?) If I want to use that to do a better job than what is in LR, and I open/process in ACR, looks like by choosing the proper item in LR when dealing with metadata conflict, I can get LR to recognize the ACR's Denoise?
Hi. DeNoise is the same. In ACR with the "tech preview" option on, it will just now do it on the raw file instead of creating a DNG. But the quality of the result is no different and does not do a "better job" as you put it. Thanks!
I asked a pro why he used Lightroom, and he said he was dealing with so many photos that he needed the organization, etc., it has. With the convergence of ACR with Lightroom controls and the development of Bridge, maybe the advantage would be smaller. Since I’ve used Photoshop for 25+ years, and I find the Lightroom cataloguing and organization at best unnecessary for me, I’m better off with Bridge/ACR/Photoshop. I have used Lightroom when I was working on a book to be printed, and I did fine with the book module. I don’t mess with beta features normally, but might try something if all else fails.
Bridge used to be great but now when I import it imports 2 of every image
If shooting raw+jpeg, may be showing both files? Perhaps previously had been grouping the two and just showing the one "in front"????
I'm so used to doing everything in LR Classic that I have a difficult time with the ACR or non-classic LR due to the differences in the interface, despite them being essentially the same. I think that non-classic is the worst and I have the hardest time finding some of the controls I want. Would be nice if they could actually make them look a bit closer overall.
Thanks. I guess it's a matter of preference. After using LRC for many years, I welcome the simplicity and ease of use in the interface in LR. So for me, the last thing I want them to do is make LR look anything like LRC - I hope that never happens :-)
Why can you not also mention Affinity2 ..
Hi. I’ve never had anyone ask should I use Lightroom, Adobe camera raw or affinity. It does not have a viable raw editor that a photographer would use.
I actually went back to using ACR myself (along with Bridge). I had been using LR classic for the longest time, but have lately gotten a little frustrated with it as the new features do seem to bog it down quite a bit in some cases, particularly when dealing with masks, as the extra overhead of the library module seems to impact performance. I also found the LIbrary module to be very redundant in many cases (my Library module was basically a coyp of the same file structure I have on my computer, so the LIbrary module for me was not very useful and just sort of wasted time with importing). But what really sort of started to get to me is the resource consumption and the database concept, which I'm not a big fan of. I prefer Bridge/ACR since I mostly work on one or maybe a few images at a time. If it crashes, then I've only lost the edits to those photos, but don't run the risk of a corrupt catalog (which I've had a few times, and one reason I'm glad to move away from LR Classic at least). I will use LR Desktop to do culling and to compare photos side-by-side (since Bridge isn't the best for comparing photos) but as far as I'm concerned, Bridge/ACR/Photoshop (with a bit of LR Desktop for some basic tasks) is my new workflow moving forward, as it's a bit faster (maybe a little clunkier) but does offer what I need, without the extra steps that Lr Classic at least required (mainly importing and the database concept which seems to slow things down a bit especially if you have a large catalog). Obviously the downside to the others is that you have to have the original files with you to edit them (as LR Classic at least does offer Smart Previews which can be helpful). So while I will miss some features or LR Classic (collection sets or the ability to categorize collections into folders, and virtual copies) I feel that I've gained a bit of freedom with ACR/Bridge/PS at a very small cost (no virtual copies or collection sets). In the end, my physical photo storage was being mirrored in LR Classic and just wasted time having to import and create collections for new photos, whereas with the other options (Bridge/LR Desktop) this is not needed, and I can start organizing and editing right away.
Great summary between the 2 interfaces. I use LR over ACR because I’m lazy and it’s much easier to make mass changes on lots of photos for a typical job where I could have 1 or 2000 photos. But I can’t stand having to monitor the LR database. I think my life would be simpler, albeit slower, if I used ACR.Also I like the Bridge interface better- more customizable.
To me, LR (not classic) is a better alternative to the Bridge / ACR workflow, so you're definitely on the right path.
@ Interesting!