Do I need Adobe Camera Raw if I already use Lightroom?
Asked 2/18/2014
3 views
2 answers
0
I’m new to both Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom. From what I can tell, Lightroom seems to include the same RAW-processing controls as Camera Raw. Since Lightroom can also send an image to Photoshop for further editing, is Adobe Camera Raw redundant if you already have Lightroom? When is Camera Raw useful, and how does it differ from Lightroom in a typical workflow?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
12y ago
2 Answers
8
Lightroom IS Camera RAW. Well, it is built upon it. All of Camera RAW functions exist in Lightroom, and the RAW conversion is identical code. Of course, there is more to Lightroom than Camera RAW itself provides, just as there is more that Photoshop offers over Lightroom.
If you are looking for RAW conversion, then Lightroom and Camera RAW in Photoshop are identical.
Rather than use Camera RAW, I use Lightroom as my primary photo tool. If there is some task that I need Photoshop for, I will simply select "Edit in Photoshop" from Lightroom, and I am taken into the Photoshop interface. Camera RAW is not needed, as Lightroom passes the file to Photoshop as a .psd or .tif, depending on your setting. After I am finished with my edit, I can close Photoshop and return to Lightroom, with my edited file intact, for completion in Lightroom.
Edit: in response to your question about Adobe Bridge: I have never taken to Bridge, but as far as arranging, tagging, rating photos functions in Bridge: those functions are available in Lightroom as well. In my opinion, LR provides many more functions, but also superior ease of use to Bridge.
For anyone wishing to compare LR to Photoshop, I encourage you to simply download the 30 day trial of Lightroom and give it a spin.
Originally by user4880. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4880
12y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
For RAW processing, Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw are essentially the same engine. The RAW conversion and core adjustment tools are shared, so the results are effectively identical.
The difference is workflow:
- Lightroom is designed as a primary photo-management and editing application.
- Camera Raw is the RAW-editing interface used when opening files through Photoshop.
- Photoshop adds pixel-level editing that Lightroom does not focus on.
A common workflow is to do your RAW adjustments in Lightroom, then choose “Edit in Photoshop” only when you need Photoshop-specific work. In that case, Lightroom sends the image to Photoshop as a rendered file such as a TIFF or PSD, so you usually don’t need to use Camera Raw separately.
So if Lightroom is your main tool, Camera Raw is not redundant exactly—but you may rarely need to interact with it directly unless you open RAW files from within Photoshop.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI12y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why use RAW processors like Lightroom or Darktable instead of converting to 16-bit TIFF and editing elsewhere?
Does a photo stay "raw" after opening from Adobe Camera Raw into Photoshop?
Do Photoshop CS5.5 and Bridge include Lightroom 3’s photo-editing features, or is Lightroom still worth buying?
Can I reopen a Photoshop layer in Camera Raw for editing?
Why use a dedicated RAW processor before editing in Photoshop or PaintShop Pro?