I really don't want to start a war here but I heard otherwise... That LR2 RAW conversion is more accurate and with
Adobe uses the same Adobe Camera Raw code in all its conversions- like any software company, they reuse as much code as possible. The ACR conversions are *easy* to test head-to-head, so don't go on what you "heard," go on what you can *see.*
My own testing of ACR has held up that the only raw converter which was worse was the 1.x version of Aperture[1]. My original test set included ACR, Bibble Pro, Aperture, NC, and dcraw. I now test against ACR, Bibble Pro, Aperture 2, Capture NX, dcraw and Raw Photo Processor.
With all due respect, "I heard" is never anywhere near as credible as "my tests indicate.[2]" I'd encourage you to do some tests yourself rather than parroting opinion. Try several images, high and low contrast, as well as with small details and gradual tonal variations. It's not a quick thing, but if you're concerned about getting the best out of your images, the time will be well-spent. IMO, two or three conversions with Adobe's converter and pretty-much anything else will be sufficient to have enough base data to see which you prefer. I've never had anyone who's done it prefer the Adobe conversion- but my sample set is less than a dozen.
In terms of image quality, Adobe's raw converter is the worst of the current crop for Nikon raw files based upon my moderate testing[3]. I don't have a Canon camera, and I haven't gone back to redo any Fuji raw files yet (it's on my project list.) However, given the base adjustments and my test results, I urge anyone who actually does care to test head-to-head, then after some pixel peeping, print some images and see if the microdetail differences are worth it for your own images.
I'll say that the first person I asked to try a new raw converter (neither Aperture, nor ACR) could see a fair amount of detail differences in a head-to-head comparison- enough in my opinion that their first conversion missed enough microdetail in the ACR conversion to make it completely not worth using for a print.
CameraProfiles it gets better.
Honestly, it's not something that should be a major deciding factor (unless you're into printing and publishing) but you should choose by your working style.
The initial profiling Adobe does includes adding or subtracting additional exposure to the image, and you can't control these base exposure adjustments. This is well documented on the Internet, and easy to validate if you have multiple converters to test with. Besides, profiling isn't about the base image data, it's about contrast, exposure and color- my tests show me differences in detail and actual pixels in each converter (funnily enough, no two converters seem to convert the same pixels edge-to-edge!)
As to if it should be a major deciding factor, that's up to the photographer, there are lots and lots of photographers who've gone through a lot more in terms of printing papers, developers, films and enlarging lenses to get the "perfect print" than it takes to choose a raw converter and tweak the settings for an image.
As I said, if you're happy with Adobe's conversion, then the choice is a toss-up. Lots of people were perfectly happy with prints from almost any film through almost any mini-lab printed on almost any paper by almost any processor with the default settings. For that class of photographer, where the print's content is important, but the print itself isn't, there's no wrong choice.
I would however suggest you do some minimal side-by-side testing with LR and your camera manufacturer's own raw converter before deciding that Adobe's doing (a) accurate conversion or (b) the best conversion. My testing says no way for (a) and not so much for (b.) That doesn't mean I don't use it- but I almost never use Adobe's conversion for anything critical.
YMMV
[1] Never should have been released in that state IMO.
[2] Unless the tester is a complete bozo!
[3] I expect to do more complete and comprehensive testing over the next few months, just in case there are certain image attributes that make a specific converter a better choice.
