nospam
In article <lip4q10e81@news1.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:

PeterN
Yes, but not for all photographers. for event photographers and folks who shoot a set of images under similar lighting conditions, it is fine.

Savageduck
Where did you come up with that idea? LR handles batch adjustments in much the same way ACR handles batch adjustments. Its usefulness and functionality is not limited to "event photographers and folks who shoot a set of images under similar lighting conditions". I certainly don't use LR for batch processing, and I am quite capable of taking advantage of the tools and features it provides one image at a time. I am also well aware of its limitations and know when to move to PS.

PeterN
Yes ACR does all that. And as I've stated LR is simply ACR on steroids.

nospam
which is incorrect.

photoshop and lightroom use the same camera raw (and the same version of it if you have matching ps/lr versions).

there may be minor differences, but nothing significant. for instance, the control layout is a little different.

PeterN
IIRC the original purpose for LR was to create a speed processing tool, where sophisticated editing was not a requirement. It was originally designed to be an easy to use combination organizer and processor. We are both aware of its limits.

nospam
that too is wrong.

its editing is just as sophisticated, if not more so, than anything else available.

the main design goal of lightroom was to optimize the common use scenarios and do so entirely in one app rather than force the user to juggle multiple apps.

the edge cases are easily handled by roundtripping to photoshop for editing or by using a more sophisticated slide show or web design app for output.