LR is for production workflow only! Your take?

Question

Assuming that LR is capable of modifying adjustments in tonal ranges, exposure settings, shadow (1), and so on with, let's pick a number, 1,000 images being ingested, while Bridge is not because of lack of speed in processing, one could assume that LR is for the professional work environment where time constraints are the norm (2). LR is not then, as appropriate, on a cost/value/necessity parameter for the small photography shops with below average gross incomes per client, (which is where my studio exists). Bridge, in these cases, would be most appropriate, yes?
When it comes to displaying offline files, say on an external drive, then certainly LR has the edge. But other than this, I cannot seem to justify the expense without the production workflow.
Related question: Nowhere can I locate LR2's compatability with CS2 which is what I am using currently.
1. Photoshop Lightroom 2 provides a single environment that has all of the functions photographers most commonly need to perform on their images, in the cleanest, least cluttered, easiest to use package. Lightroom contains a focused set of features that are intuitive, powerful, and easy to learn. It is an image-editing tool and a workflow productivity tool. Photographers who require extensive painting and compositing tools and need to edit their images at the pixel level will still use Photoshop CS4 to achieve their additional goals.
2.For example, you may have 2,000 photographs and need to quickly preview, sort and rate them, embed your copyright on each, correct white balance, change tonal and color values, and make monochrome copies (or add a wide array of other special effects). Then, you need to output to a slide show, print, or the web, and all under the pressure of time constraints. For this common type of photographic workflow, Lightroom is the ideal solution.
Both of these can be found in the FAQ link http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/faq/

Answer 1

OutsideShooter wrote:
Bridge, in these cases, would be most appropriate, yes?
When it comes to displaying offline files, say on an external drive, then certainly LR has the edge. But other than this, I cannot seem to justify the expense without the production workflow.
Related question: Nowhere can I locate LR2's compatability with CS2 which is what I am using currently.
If Bridge / Camera Raw meets your needs then that's all that matters.
As for compatibility with CS2. Some of the features available within the Edit in Photoshop CSx menu will not work in quite the same way as they do if you were using CS4. For example, Lr2.x can open send an image to CS4 without first rendering it out a TIFF/PSD file. With CS2 Lr2.x has no option but to render the file before sending to Photoshop.