Ralph....
It also probably depends on what you typically do with your images and how many images you deal with.
The more images you deal with will tend you toward LR. If you do a lot of "special manipulation", then Photoshop will still be in your future. When Michael and these guys come back from Antartica with 5000+ images; using just photoshop to do all your corrections etc. could be very time consuming. However there is bridge and ACR to consider.........I'll let others comment on the "whole package"; i.e.; using Bridge+ACR+Photoshop instead of just using LR.
I think it depends on your workflow. It would *appear* that most people who use both in their workflow (and anyone that has photoshop WILL use both) probably end up with an 80/20 rule; probably 80% of what they need to do can be accomplished in LR without going to Photoshop. Actually; I bet that number (80%) is actually much higher for most people. Full disclosure here; I do NOT have Photoshop but do have a copy of Photoshop Elements. The sharpening and printing capabilities in LR should be up to or exceed those in Photoshop (no creative sharpening in LR.....YET); and it would appear that LR also excels in dealing with many images simultaneously while Photoshop excels in one at a time. Jeff Schewe who is a regular on this board and Photoshop guru has indicated a similar philsophy (I believe he has; not trying to put words in Jeff's mouth). From my own perspective, I can really appreciate the speed at which LR lets me quickly move around my images and apply similar global edits across multiple photos very quickly. And although I have not yet taken to heart Seth Reznicks excellent advice from the "Where the bleep are my pictures?" video; if the DAM capability is important to you, you most likely would be using LR already.
I fully expect the next version of LR to even close the gap more (less and less reason to exit LR and go to Photoshop for additional manipulation of an image).
Best regards.....
Todd in Chicago
QUOTE (reburns @ Jul 28 2009, 04:32 PM)

Chris, et. al. -
I'm a little confused what to buy, and this may be a matter of personal choice. I currently run ACR and CS4, and have resisted buying Lightroom to avoid learning more software and didn't find the need to batch process large quantities of files (but could benefit more lately). I'll also be getting Capture One for an alternate raw processor, but still want to be on top with Adobe Raw. I did purchase Schewe's ACR CS4 book but have not spent sufficient time to work thru it. So:
- do find that the video tutorials give a decent amount of learning for the time invested (bought C2P)
- not sure if there's a substantial overlap between the LR2 and CS4 Raw videos
- am interested in the metadata video, even if I don't *think* that I have a library problem.
What can you recommend? Why get and use ACR + video versus the LR2 counterpart? I'm feeling that time spent and results are more valuable than money spent.
Thank you, Ralph