But I use that camera for event gigs and documentation, while I use film formats for stuff where I have artistic objectives, however unlikely it is they will be realized. If I’m doing something more serious with the few images I want to print, I use my scanning workflow. I can usually use JPEGs for blurb books and the like. If I’m taking a bunch of snaps to Costco for printing, I use the JPEGs. I ask my 5D to produce both raw and JPEG files. I have always used PS (also since 5.5), ACR, and Bridge, and I learned my workflow from scanning, before LR was available. So, LR is a powerful alternative to Bridge and ACR, I gather, and Photo Raw is an alternative to both? Some batch processing, but really designed to work with one file at a time.īridge: a browser hub, for selecting raw images to be converted, or converted files to be edited and printed.ĪCR: a one-file-at-a-time raw converter that points the converted result into PS. PS: raster image editor originally designed for pre-press, but expanded over the years to provide features for photographers. Provides many features supposedly designed for photographers, including perhaps enough to stand alone sufficiently to not need PS. Stores the conversion parameters with the catalogue. LR: cataloguing, and uses catalogues as the basis for converting batches of raw files into batches of PSD files. I’ve always divided up LR and PS this way:
YMMV, of course.So, are you using Photo Raw in lieu of Lightroom and doing any additional editing it doesn’t do in Photoshop? Being a PS user since v5.5, I find AP just a bit cumbersome to use even though it's touted as being nearly identical to PS. Btw, I also have Affinity Photo and, though it okay software, I much prefer Photo Raw. Also, I really like the fact that all adjustments are non-destructive. I find Photo Raw very easy to use with fantastic results. I don't process large files like what you've suggested, buy my Canon 5D II files are no issue. I've used ON1 products for many years currently using ON1 Photo Raw 2018.1.