Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: John Camp on August 14, 2006, 09:48:23 pm
-
Things are moving more slowly than I expected with Lightroom. Beta 3 expires Jan. 30, so I expect we'll have something before then, but has anybody heard anything (other than Jan. 30) about when we can expect a fully functional, non-expiring commercial version? I'd originally heard this fall, but as I say, progress seems slow...
JC
-
Ever heard of NDA's?
Those that know can't say, those that can't don't know...(cause if they DID know, they would be under an NDA).
And don't presume ANYTHING based on the beta expiration...it has nothing to do about anything except for when that beta will expire.
-
Slow? Beta 3 was just recently released. Patience Grasshopper...
-
Ever heard of NDA's?
Those that know can't say, those that can't don't know...(cause if they DID know, they would be under an NDA).
Over-simplification.
People who know have either:
- signed an NDA
- been told without signing an NDA (accidents happen!)
- been told by someone who signed an NDA
- sneaked a peek at information belonging to someone who signed an NDA
- performed industrial espionage
- been told by someone who did anything of the above
- etc., ad nauseam
-
Yeah, I know all that. Everybody knows all that. I AM running out of patience, because I would like a product that is stable, that has a set of rules that go with it, that allows you to move stuff between computers without problems, etc., even if you have to buy multiple copies of the program. And I don't like to have to have photos scattered over three different programs, constantly in a state of transition, because nobody will tell us what's going to happen with Lightroom. If Adobe's got two guys drinking coffee, scratching their asses and writing ten lines of code a day, I'm going over to Aperture, although I like what I've seen about Lightroom better than Aperture. But I'm not going to wait three more years; I've got more than a thousand photos in my Lightroom Beta 3 right now, and I want a permanent solution that I don't have to worry about. All I want from Adobe is what I got from Leica last year with their M8: a target date. What's the big deal? If the target date for a commercial version is Jan. 30, and it gets pushed to Feb. 30, I'm not going to drop out. If the target date is sometime in 2008 if the moon is in Aquarius, I'm going to find something else. This, to repeat myself, is from a guy who likes Lightroom. A lot. But I need a permanent solution.
JC
-
Although not set in stone, Adobe has been stating the target date is by the end of 2006.
-
Instead of complaining, why not feel glad you've been able to try the product at this early stage, for so long, and for free?
John
-
Yeah, I know all that. Everybody knows all that. I AM running out of patience, because I would like a product that is stable, that has a set of rules that go with it, that allows you to move stuff between computers without problems, etc., even if you have to buy multiple copies of the program. And I don't like to have to have photos scattered over three different programs, constantly in a state of transition, because nobody will tell us what's going to happen with Lightroom. If Adobe's got two guys drinking coffee, scratching their asses and writing ten lines of code a day, I'm going over to Aperture, although I like what I've seen about Lightroom better than Aperture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, there is considerably more than two engineers scratching their asses doode, look at the Beta 3 credits screen...
Also, don't know what part of "due to ship end of 2006" you don't understand? But the end of 2006 has been the target date since Lightroom was announced in Jan.
As far as "progress", you fully understand that bringing the Windows version up to speed with the Mac was a major effort? And now that that's done, they (more then two guys drinking coffee) are working full steam to add new features?
Seems you got a feather up your butt for nothing doode...chill out. And again (even if you SAY you know it) those that know can't say, so asking is pretty much a moot point.
-
Also I'd rather wait a bit and get some RSE in the mix...
-
All right, I was a liittle intemperate. But part of that is because a few members of this forum seem to think that Lightroom is a gift from the gods, when, in fact, it's a blinkin' product. I like it -- so far -- except that it hangs up occasionally and is a bit slow, which I believe will get fixed; but there are other products out there, perhaps not as good as Lightroom will be someday, but pretty good. Usable. Right now. As for what part of "due to ship end of 2006" I don't understand, THAT was what I didn't understand; all I had was a rumor that said this fall. If somebody had politely answered my original question by saying, "Adobe says it's due to ship by the end of 2006," I would have said, "Thanks. I'll be looking forward to it."
JC
-
Well, there is considerably more than two engineers scratching their asses doode, look at the Beta 3 credits screen...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's right. In software development, ass-scratching is a team effort. Otherwise its just called open-source. *ahem*
Also I'd rather wait a bit and get some RSE in the mix...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73462\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Heck yes. The sharpening tools currently there are quite lame...
All right, I was a liittle intemperate. But part of that is because a few members of this forum seem to think that Lightroom is a gift from the gods, when, in fact, it's a blinkin' product.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
While certainly not from the gods (whomever they may be) I think much of the excitement over LR is not just over the product itself. I think most of it comes from the long overdue shift in the direction software will be taking as a result of LR (and Aperture). The future looks good.
-
I for one think Adobe has it right for not releasing LR too quick. I have beta tested for years and software that is released before it's ready will punish you over and over. Imagine using any software for a mission critical and loosing your work. Even when LR goes public I could not count on it for my projects right away. Use whats been available and watch LR mature into THE raw imaging program we all have wanted. Adobe is trying very hard to get this one right.
-
James
-
For what it's worth, the publication date for the hardcopy version Martin Evening's book on Lightroom (Adobe Press) is 29th December. I assume the product is currently scheduled to ship before then.
<flamebait>I find it a little ironic that "NDA" starts getting bandied around when up until now we've been deluged with more information than we can cope with. Still, NDAs are great ego boosters.</flamebait>
-
<flamebait>I find it a little ironic that "NDA" starts getting bandied around when up until now we've been deluged with more information than we can cope with. Still, NDAs are great ego boosters.</flamebait>
Who mentioned NDAs? Apart from the one poster here who we'd all expect to be under one?
John
-
Still, NDAs are great ego boosters
LOL - not to mention a convenient way of not answering a question. *mischievous chuckle*
I find it unlikely that Adobe throw LR out to the world for Beta but hide a final release date under an NDA. Makes little sense to me. *shrug - but then what do I know!*
Personally, I think Ppl who are heavily involved with adobe and under supposed NDA's shouldnt be posting on the product full stop IMO - either they post to boost their ego [thats cool - we all need an ego boost every now and again] or they enjoy hinting at things they arent supposed to be discussing. Really who cares why though!
I dont really care either way - I love LR's workflow so I will buy it when it comes out. If it comes out in December or January - who cares? As long as it comes out eventually! All good things come to those who wait
Personally, I would rather wait a bit longer and get it fully featured and bug free that be handed a product that is incomplete or problematic.
-
Well, there is considerably more than two engineers scratching their asses doode, look at the Beta 3 credits screen...
Also, don't know what part of "due to ship end of 2006" you don't understand? But the end of 2006 has been the target date since Lightroom was announced in Jan.
As far as "progress", you fully understand that bringing the Windows version up to speed with the Mac was a major effort? And now that that's done, they (more then two guys drinking coffee) are working full steam to add new features?
Seems you got a feather up your butt for nothing doode...chill out. And again (even if you SAY you know it) those that know can't say, so asking is pretty much a moot point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting response. I thought the entire point of the beta process and this forum was to gather critique and feedback. Here is some critique, not even unsubstantiated I might add, and see what that amounts to. I also think it is an excellent question. First the product is a RAW processor, then it is a DAM, then a RAW processor again, oh no, maybe not, maybe something in between. Oh boy, just three more months to release (which I hope includes a manual with a "set of rules that go with it" and that, I believe, brilliantly summarizes the real issue).
Can you imagine these engineers make decisions about the product the same way they do about having a lunch break somewhere?
And then there is the cardinal rule of information: too much information is no information. What really has been the use and influence of the public beta? is it really the new wave of Adobe? if so, why can't I download the new Photoshop yet? Ever seen the discussions on the LR lab forums? Well, are they really discussions? Or simply single statements? Are engineers actually listening and responding to the issues? Even the normal Adobe forums get more feedback from the guys and galls at the front.
Apple had it right to really listen to and interact with a select set of photographers and then create the product. Going on some marketing trip halfway through the beta process with a bunch of renowned photographers is not exactly going to fundamentally establish the product's constituent is it?
And you know what the best part is? I also am going to purchase Lightroom, because I like it and I trust Adobe to make it the best product ever. And I am also willing to upgrade for RSE integration. Just skip the idea of public beta and mystifying podcasts next time.
-
Yes, the podcasts are a bit mystifing on theface of it...especially the last 4 or 5. They are extremely enjoyable, and actually could compete quite happily with the LL Video Journal. They give interesting insights into the photographers, but surprisingly little into Lightroom or into the photographer's impressions of Lightroom, which I assumed was the main point. Admittedly, Richard Morgenstein, for one, talks up the B&W conversion tools with great enthusiasm, but for example I'd be more interested in hearing at least some of Peter Krogh's views on Lightroom as a DAM tool. He is the de facto chief guru in this area, after all... It is a delicate issue, but sooner or later the question of comparison is going to have to addressed - basically, do all these people really find that Lightroom is a killer application, or is it simply an interesting alternative to the tools they're already using in production ? The impression that Richard Morgenstein gives is that there are interpretations of his photos that simply would not have occured to him outside of Lightroom - that is a pretty powerful message.
I have an impression (an impression - not an opinion, however misinformed) that the technical resources on Lightroom are quite limited, although maybe they're ramping up now. I think it was a clever move to do this Iceland thing - it appears expensive, but in terms of marketing budgets and bang for buck, I reckon it is a bargain. The public beta could be considered as an alternative to expensive market research, although it is very much a double edged sword - and the Adobe forums are so slow and unusable I think they probably filter out a lot of participation.
I would expect a shipping date to be announced at Photokina - that leaves a 3 month window of opportunity to meet the 2006 intention, and it seems like the right place to do it.
-
And you know what the best part is? I also am going to purchase Lightroom, because I like it and I trust Adobe to make it the best product ever. And I am also willing to upgrade for RSE integration. Just skip the idea of public beta and mystifying podcasts next time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73612\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But, Opgr, my big question is, are you getting the API to make an alternative plug in? I simply cannot be left without your Convert-to-BW-Pro. The Lightroom alternative does not excite me. I want your plug-in in Lightroom.
-
...do all these people really find that Lightroom is a killer application, or is it simply an interesting alternative to the tools they're already using...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73615\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, as a user of Peter Krogh's DAM workflow, I would also like to know his reactions and suggestions. And the same for the special interests of many of the other participants. Boku's question to Opgr about whether plugin developers are getting the API to make alternative plugins is also interesting and unanswered.
What we see on the videos is very effective marketing and one-ups-manship on the part of Adobe. My guess is that if we learned what the engineers have learned from the Iceland shoot, we would be applauding the effort.
-
Fred
Have you seen this article (http://www.thedambook.com/lightroom.html) or these discussions (http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?board=15.0)?
John
-
Boku's question to Opgr about whether plugin developers are getting the API to make alternative plugins is also interesting and unanswered.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73659\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then you haven't been reading the Lightroom forums...Adobe has stated there -WILL- be an SDK, which they will work on -AFTER- version 1.0 ships. They will not spend time working on an SDK until such time as the core engine has been finalized and it would be foolish for 3rd party developers to be working on development for something that will likely change up till the final shipping version. This is a 1.0 product (meaning brand spanking new) and as such, nobody outside the actual engineering team will get access to the inner workings until it's done.
-
Have you seen this article (http://www.thedambook.com/lightroom.html) or these discussions (http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?board=15.0)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you for the references John.
Peter Krogh comments in the article that Lightroom "will undergo significant changes over the coming months" with regard to tracking and managing image files. In the forum discussions, he suggests that "If you find that you like the way Lightroom converts RAW files, and that you like the way you can browse images with it, then you should keep any eye out for its capabilities as an Asset Manager."
...good things come for those who wait.
-
Then you haven't been reading the Lightroom forums...Adobe has stated there -WILL- be an SDK, which they will work on -AFTER- version 1.0 ships. They will not spend time working on an SDK until such time as the core engine has been finalized and it would be foolish for 3rd party developers to be working on development for something that will likely change up till the final shipping version.
I disagree. It would be good for plugin developers to work with the SDK during the beta process, so that the 1.0 won't be a plugin developer's beta process.
-
I disagree. It would be good for plugin developers to work with the SDK during the beta process, so that the 1.0 won't be a plugin developer's beta process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Unfortunately that just won't work until the means in which modules (not plugins - they want to distinguish between the two) are implemented is set. There are no guidelines for it yet. Any work a third-party developer may do for a module could turn out to be a foolish effort once everything is set in stone by 1.0 release.
-
Unfortunately that just won't work until the means in which modules (not plugins - they want to distinguish between the two) are implemented is set. There are no guidelines for it yet. Any work a third-party developer may do for a module could turn out to be a foolish effort once everything is set in stone by 1.0 release.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73679\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Especially if they're going to implement selective edits.... Since Photoshop plug-ins are designed to modify pixels, and Lightroom modifies metadata, I would imagine that except at a very high level of abstraction, plug-ins are going to be programmatically very different.
Maybe they're using PixelGenius to at least road test some 3rd party module API concepts. One could imagine that this might be the case... One could even hope so.
-
Unfortunately that just won't work until the means in which modules (not plugins - they want to distinguish between the two) are implemented is set. There are no guidelines for it yet. Any work a third-party developer may do for a module could turn out to be a foolish effort once everything is set in stone by 1.0 release.
Once again, I disagree.
There are two issues here, and you are both confusing them:
1) The work third-party developers put into developing modules.
2) The feedback third-party developers can give to the SDK and API, so that the SDK and API can be stable from the release version.
It's the second that concerns me, and for these developers, Lightroom 1.0 will feature an alpha or beta API or SDK, unless third party developers have been involved already.
-
I disagree. It would be good for plugin developers to work with the SDK during the beta process, so that the 1.0 won't be a plugin developer's beta process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are you a software developer?
I am and I can tell you that trying to engineer for a moving target is both difficult (at best) and a real waste of time and engineering resources...things at the core engine level are changing all the time...there is no guarantee that ANY engineering done now could even be used on the final 1.0 product.
No, working on the full SDK -AFTER- the final version is locked down is the only thing that makes sense...which is why the Lightroom engineers are taking this position.
Frankly, Lightroom is really at the pre-alpha stage. The only reason Adobe calls it "beta" is they figured most people wouldn't understand a "pre-alpha" concept. This is software engineering with all the guts exposed. And until they stuff the guts in and sew it back up, there's no reason for others sticking their hands in.
-
In the meantime, if 3rd parties are interested in getting prepared, they would do well to learn Lua...
Lua.org (http://www.lua.org/)
You see, even the programing language is pretty radical...
-
Or if you want to dig around a little, why not take a look at the format of the templates and the SQLite database is open to prying eyes too - on Windows you can connect via ODBC if you want a peek. Yet when so much about the program is clearly missing or in flux, I wouldn't waste too much time yet.
John
-
there is no guarantee that ANY engineering done now could even be used on the final 1.0 product.
Jeff, surely it isn't quite that black & white. The whole purpose of abstraction is to decouple the interface from the implementation. An API can, at least in theory, remain quite stable whilst the implementation behind changes radically. A good example of this is the QuickTime API - or at least, it used to be.
And of course, no risk, no gain - a developer might be prepared to take a calculated risk developing on an unstable API in order to potentially be first to market...
I would have thought that by now there must be at least some basic ground rules set in Lightroom, so at least some kind of beta API could be built. I'd also venture that if the product is to be released in 2006, then given the requirements of a test cycle, of documentation, physical product design and all the rest of the stuff that a company like Adobe does, then surely there must be something very close to an internal Beta of Lightroom 1.0 (which of course might have very little in common with the Lightroom Public Beta).
I have to say I tend to agree that IF 1.0 was to have an API, then it must be in Beta now. But under strict NDA.
Nothing like wild speculation as an alternative to doing something useful with one's time, is there ?
-
Are you a software developer?
Among other things, yes, although it isn't currently my main professional activity.
I am and I can tell you that trying to engineer for a moving target is both difficult (at best) and a real waste of time and engineering resources...things at the core engine level are changing all the time...there is no guarantee that ANY engineering done now could even be used on the final 1.0 product.
That's close to tautological, if one assumes that this part of the product would be in flux all the time up to a 1.0 release.
However, leaving that part of the product in flux for so long is bad software engineering, as you well know.
I've had to work as a third party developer against software like that (and when I write "against", I mean "against"), and it's something that I'd rather not do, but hey, it paid good money to fix the problems creatively.
No, working on the full SDK -AFTER- the final version is locked down is the only thing that makes sense...which is why the Lightroom engineers are taking this position.
It only makes sense if you assume that SDK and API are perfect in their first released incarnation.
If not, you'll end up with patch releases and API changes even less consistent than those of Microsoft Office, or you'll stick to an API that most likely has glaringly obvious faults and problems but which you'll keep around for ages because you want backwards compatibility (like the legacy Windows 16-bit API).
This is to the detriment both for third party developers as well as end users.
Frankly, Lightroom is really at the pre-alpha stage. The only reason Adobe calls it "beta" is they figured most people wouldn't understand a "pre-alpha" concept. This is software engineering with all the guts exposed. And until they stuff the guts in and sew it back up, there's no reason for others sticking their hands in.
Well, it's not quite pre-alpha, because it appears to be mostly stable both feature-wise and in terms of data corruption and runtime.
Also, very little of the guts are exposed, as opposed to e.g. the GIMP, where you can feel free to dig around in the guts all you want (ewwww).
As David (drm) mentions in his response, yes, there could be a beta API available by now, and it could be used by third party developers to provide presumably valuable feedback on the API.
The SDK could wait a bit longer, of course, since that in itself depends on the API.
But who knows, maybe there will be a market for a third-party API wrapper ...
-
I would have thought that by now there must be at least some basic ground rules set in Lightroom, so at least some kind of beta API could be built.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Uh. . .I couldn't possibly comment on that silly statement...
::hint, hint-nudge, nudge::
:~)
-
I would have thought that by now there must be at least some basic ground rules set in Lightroom, so at least some kind of beta API could be built. I'd also venture that if the product is to be released in 2006, then given the requirements of a test cycle, of documentation, physical product design and all the rest of the stuff that a company like Adobe does, then surely there must be something very close to an internal Beta of Lightroom 1.0 (which of course might have very little in common with the Lightroom Public Beta).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To quote Schewe back up the thread, "what part of 'due to ship end of 2006' you don't understand?"
JC
-
OK, from all the churn my little question to Opgr created, I learned some things. (I am a software architect.)
1) This is not Beta, but pre-Alpha.
2) [big red flag]This software was not designed, but developed. Designed software starts by defining the APIs, stubbing them out, the gradually realizing the underlying code.[/big red flag]
3) We are talking about modules, not plug-ins (I already remember hearing that). Modules are meant to replace, not augment, functionality in Lightroom. Personally, I feel the market will not readily accept that architectural decision.
4) Everyone here is pissed off.
5) This thread started off that way with "an attitude" about Adobe.
6) I will welcome Lightroom 2.0, but probably buy 1.0 because I need to stay on the edge for my training enterprise.
7) Jeff Schewe seems to be taking any negative comment about Lightroom to heart. I guess thats OK - at least he's passionate. No harm in that.
-
Jeff Schewe seems to be taking any negative comment about Lightroom to heart. I guess thats OK - at least he's passionate. No harm in that
Agreed - he clearly has quite some investment of time in LR - which is very conmforting to me as it means he wants to make sure its right. I have watched the LR tutorials on the web, on LL Journal, listended to the pod casts etc.. and its obvious Jeff [sorry for talking about you Jeff!] is passionate about LR. As for taking it to heart - we all take critisism to heart when we are passionatte about something.
I only HOPE that the LR engineers are listening to some of the requests that are being made - both here and on the LR forums.
My biggest concern at the moment [its noted in another post] and I would be interested in Jeff's thoughts - is that the RAW conversions from LR are not as good as those from Canon's DPP 2.1. They are good - but just not as deeply saturated or as sharp as those from DPP2.1.
Any chance of using the Canon algorithim for processing Canon RAW files in LR?
-
3) We are talking about modules, not plug-ins (I already remember hearing that). Modules are meant to replace, not augment, functionality in Lightroom. Personally, I feel the market will not readily accept that architectural decision.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm quite certain modules will not be replacing functionality. They - in all effect - are plugins as the rest of the world knows them but Adobe isn't using that term in order to differentiate LR's extensibility from that of Photoshops.
Each of the sections in LR right now (Develop, Web, Print, Etc.) are modules themselves. Based off what I've read/heard thus far, third-parties will develop their own modules that will appear in that same list at the top-right.
It's just that exactly how those will be executed hasn't been set in stone (publicly, if at all). As has been mentioned in the podcasts, Adobe wants to be very careful how they execute any feature in LR because once they set a way of doing things for 1.0, it'll have to remain that way for the life-span of the software.
-
...is that the RAW conversions from LR are not as good as those from Canon's DPP 2.1. They are good - but just not as deeply saturated or as sharp as those from DPP2.1.
Any chance of using the Canon algorithim for processing Canon RAW files in LR?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lightroom is using the Camera Raw pipeline, if "color or saturation" is "better" in DPP, I would argue you don't know how to set Camera Raw/Lightroom settings to adjust for the color & tone you want. A common problem I might add.
As far as "sharpness" that depends on the DPP settings and the Camera Raw settings. Camera Raw has a tendancy to product less "sharp" (but very sharpenable) and slightly noisier (unless you view @ 200% and fine-tune the luminance noise setting) at defaults. Canon also has a tendancy to really step on the low end of the tone curve to hide noise while Camera Raw produces flatter results that show the noise.
The demosaicing and sharpening/noise reduction is something Thomas wants to work on for the next major rev and with Micheal Jonsson from pixmantic as well as former Photoshop engineer Zalman Stern on board the Camera Raw team, there should be talent and people to make major improvements in Camera Raw/Lightroom raw processing.
As to the second part-using Canon's algorithm, no, Canon's stuff really doesn't preform all that well. The only advantage that Canon has is using the proprietary metadata to do capture fixes that 3rd parties can't use unless they want to only use the Canon SDK and that would mean Camera Raw couldn't really use ANY of it's color/tone settings as currently designed, which just ain't gonna happen.
-
It's just that exactly how those will be executed hasn't been set in stone (publicly, if at all). As has been mentioned in the podcasts, Adobe wants to be very careful how they execute any feature in LR because once they set a way of doing things for 1.0, it'll have to remain that way for the life-span of the software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which is why they will not allow 3rd parties in earlier than after 1.0 is finalized. Only then will the work of producing the SDK begin.
-
To quote Schewe back up the thread, "what part of 'due to ship end of 2006' you don't understand?"
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm sorry John, but I don't see the point of your, er, contribution. My whole post was based on the premise that I accept the announced due date.
You wouldn't be "trying to suck up to teacher", would you ? Heavens forbid :-)
-
Those of us who know, or imagine we know, something about software engineering really should have a look at the Lua site (link posted by Schewe above). And also Mark Hamburg's presentation slides given at the Lua conference held at Adobe (don't bother unless you're interested in software engineering - there's no secret info on Lightroom)
Whilst I don't pretend to have spent 10% of the time I'd need to understand 10% of this, I do get a few hints that possibly this language brings with it some powerful data sharing mechanisms, as well as a different methodology, which may have some impact on traditional software development cycles - such as, reading between the lines, greatly reduced testing overhead. So, perhaps those of us pontificating on software matters (we're safe enough here...) might be on the wrong track when second guessing Adobe. Especially me.
Anyway, enough of that. This is a photography forum.
-
Lightroom is using the Camera Raw pipeline, if "color or saturation" is "better" in DPP, I would argue you don't know how to set Camera Raw/Lightroom settings to adjust for the color & tone you want. A common problem I might add.
As far as "sharpness" that depends on the DPP settings and the Camera Raw settings. Camera Raw has a tendancy to product less "sharp" (but very sharpenable) and slightly noisier (unless you view @ 200% and fine-tune the luminance noise setting) at defaults. Canon also has a tendancy to really step on the low end of the tone curve to hide noise while Camera Raw produces flatter results that show the noise.
The demosaicing and sharpening/noise reduction is something Thomas wants to work on for the next major rev and with Micheal Jonsson from pixmantic as well as former Photoshop engineer Zalman Stern on board the Camera Raw team, there should be talent and people to make major improvements in Camera Raw/Lightroom raw processing.
As to the second part-using Canon's algorithm, no, Canon's stuff really doesn't preform all that well. The only advantage that Canon has is using the proprietary metadata to do capture fixes that 3rd parties can't use unless they want to only use the Canon SDK and that would mean Camera Raw couldn't really use ANY of it's color/tone settings as currently designed, which just ain't gonna happen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff, Interesting response. I've used DPP 2.1 and at the defaults settings, I think that the conversions are better than LR, ACR and C1Pro. That said, DPP is akward to use compared to the others.
I subscribe to the LL Video Journal and I watched your recent intro and tutorial on LR many times over. I'm certain that LR and ACR can produce great results, otherwise, pros like you and Michael Reichman wouldn't use them.
Being an optomist, I'm thinking that I need more training on LR and ACR to get the best quality output. I love the workflow of LR and the print module is amazing. Any suggestions for basic settings and where to gain this knowledge through some education to produce the best conversions?
Thanks.
Bud James
-
Being an optomist, I'm thinking that I need more training on LR and ACR to get the best quality output. I love the workflow of LR and the print module is amazing. Any suggestions for basic settings and where to gain this knowledge through some education to produce the best conversions?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73755\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, they problem is that what we have is an application that is in the process of being developed on the fly...so, for authors and experts it's also pretty hard to be writting stuff about a moving target.
Scott Kelby has an eBook on Lightroom. Martin Evening also has his Adobe Lightroom Book that is being released as a "Rough Cut" meaning that you can get the book in stages as PDFs and then get the final book when it ships.
Michael and I have also completed a second Lightroom tutorial DVD that will be released pretty soon.
But the best thing, I think, is to just use Lightroom. Get the feel for what can be done and then be prepared for things to change as the next beta rolls around. I would not try to use it for real serious mission critical work and jobs-it is still beta ya know. But getting the real feel for the logic and design behind the app will help a lot.
-
....
But the best thing, I think, is to just use Lightroom. Get the feel for what can be done and then be prepared for things to change as the next beta rolls around. I would not try to use it for real serious mission critical work and jobs-it is still beta ya know. But getting the real feel for the logic and design behind the app will help a lot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, there´s the problem. Personally, I like what I´ve seen of Lightroom a lot; at present I use ACR, and while ACR delivers, I wouldn´t miss it once LR is ready to take over.
Still, as long as LR can´t use my older ACR edits, and I can´t be sure even the next LR wlii be able to use edits I do now in LR, I simply cannot afford to dive right in. The only thing I can do is to experiment a little when I have some spare time, and that´s not enough to really get the feel of it.
Read this as a simple statement of fact, not as critique. But I´m sure feelings like these are what lie behind much of the impatience vented here. Not very constructive, to be sure, but in a way they show that many of us are both willing and eager to actually USE LR on a day-to-day basis, and we´re counting the days to when we can do that.
A wild idea: I´ve looked into some of the sidecar files of images I´ve edited in both ACR and LR. Both seem to write XML code in different parts of the sidecar, so couldn´t an enterprising and XML-speaking person write a simple "translation" script that edits an xmp file and makes the settings from one application as similar as possible to those of the other (I think of settings like colour balance, overall brightness, and the like)? It wouldn´t go the whole way, but at least it would come closer to showing the files in a similar way, and since the raw´s themselves are unaffected, there´s not much risk involved.
-
Well, they problem is that what we have is an application that is in the process of being developed on the fly...so, for authors and experts it's also pretty hard to be writting stuff about a moving target.
Scott Kelby has an eBook on Lightroom. Martin Evening also has his Adobe Lightroom Book that is being released as a "Rough Cut" meaning that you can get the book in stages as PDFs and then get the final book when it ships.
Michael and I have also completed a second Lightroom tutorial DVD that will be released pretty soon.
But the best thing, I think, is to just use Lightroom. Get the feel for what can be done and then be prepared for things to change as the next beta rolls around. I would not try to use it for real serious mission critical work and jobs-it is still beta ya know. But getting the real feel for the logic and design behind the app will help a lot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff,
I've listened to all of the Jardine Podcasts numerous times over. They are great and very insiteful.
I am playing with LR as a serious photo amateur. I really like the workflow.
One issue that I have not seem much on is what happens when LR Shoots tab has months or years of shoots? How can you manage them?
Is there a provision to "archive" old shoots to remove from the menu but keep the metadata info in case I want to go back later and reprint an image massaged in LR you can add it back to LR and have all of the adjustments preserved?
I would like to be able to streamline my program useage to PS CS2, LR and perhaps BreezeBrower.
I also use ImagePrint 6.1 with my Epson R2400. Anyway (or need) to be able to print to this from LR in the future?
Thanks again for your input and continued inspiration.
Bud James
-
Is there a provision to "archive" old shoots to remove from the menu but keep the metadata info in case I want to go back later and reprint an image massaged in LR you can add it back to LR and have all of the adjustments preserved?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bud
Create a collection/shoot called Archive and drag older collections/shoots into it.
John
-
Bud
Create a collection/shoot called Archive and drag older collections/shoots into it.
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73801\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John,
That makes sense. Good idea.
However, if you hard disk start filling up and you have to archive images by moving them to an external drive or network drive, then how does LR know where to find the images? I gather I would have to manually tell LR where the file is when I try to open it in LR?
Bud
-
However, if your hard disk starts filling up and you have to archive images by moving them to an external drive or network drive, then how does LR know where to find the images? I gather I would have to manually tell LR where the file is when I try to open it in LR?
Bud
That file management area is where I feel Lightroom is currently weak. I'm 100% behind the program's database concept and am not suggesting a file browser tool, but I really think Lightroom needs a folder tree such as you get in cataloguing programs such as Portfolio and iView. These show where the database thinks files are, and let you reset the paths to the new location.
Careful what I say here, but right now in Beta 3 do thumbnails show any indication when a file has been moved?
One solution may be to rely on the OS, and maybe that's what the designers are doing.
I'm not a Mac user but I've heard its latest OS tells Lightroom where you've moved the files. But that's not in Windows XP, so the designers have some work to do (unless they're going to insist we upgrade to Vista if it has such OS level file locations).
A wacky alternative, which people may well need if they move thousands of files to a new drive (as I did yesterday), might be to update the database directly with SQL. You can connect to the database and should be able to do a search and replace on the file paths. Not that I'm proposing you do it - but it's what people are going to have to do if file management doesn't receive some attention.
John
-
I think you'll find that by the time LR 1.0 ships it will have a robust database capability, including the ability to export, import and merge databases. This is vital for when one comes back from a shoot or trip with a hard disk full of files, and need to merge it with a master database. Or, when a database exceeds to size of its current drive.
This is the current fatal flaw in Aperture, which I'm sure will be resolved once they complete their rewrite.
Michael
-
I think you'll find that by the time LR 1.0 ships it will have a robust database capability, including the ability to export, import and merge databases. This is vital for when one comes back from a shoot or trip with a hard disk full of files, and need to merge it with a master database. Or, when a database exceeds to size of its current drive.
This is the current fatal flaw in Aperture, which I'm sure will be resolved once they complete their rewrite.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael,
Today, I just watched again the Lightroom Tutorial that came with VJ 13. You and Jeff Schewe did a great job.
I'm using the PC version, beta3, so I'm looking forward to a tutorial on the product when it finally ships.
Using LR and gaining more experience with ACR, I've stopped using C1Pro. I was curious if you are now doing all of your RAW conversions in LR/ACR too or whether you still use C1Pro?
Kindly yours,
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
I think you'll find that by the time LR 1.0 ships it will have a robust database capability, including the ability to export, import and merge databases. <snip>
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One thing that I've been curious about is not shuffling files around one system, but moving them back and forth between, say, a studio and a home machine. MichaEl, you have a country house as do I; and when I'm shooting out of there, I want to see what I've got on the local machine, and do some preliminary sorting, and when you're doing that, you automatically do a few adjustments and so on (or at least I do.) Then how do you move all that partially processed information to a completely different machine? Will that be addressed? I'd be happy to buy two LR programs, but its the getting back and forth that confuses me.
JC
-
Common sense says it will be addressed.... Hm, let's wait and see.
John
-
Jeff,
Adobe makes very good usable software. I like it; in fact I use it 95% of the time.
However, the camera maker's software will beat Adobe on any individual file. And so it should be.
In particular, Canon have designed both their sensor and AA filter and the lenses, and therefore they can deconvolve the sharpness back into the image, and they know the noise profiles of their sensors.
The proof of this is in the DPP files. At my last batch of fashion show shoots here in Paris, I ran the pix through ACR/PS/CS and sent them off to the client who's happy. I also shot kids playing in front of the Eiffel tower thru the window of the show hall but THAT unique supersharp picture went through DPP into my portofolio, and will eventually land in a gallery.
Different horses for different courses. When I use ACR/CS I have a nice workflow and good imagery. When I use DPP I have a ghastly workflow and superb imagery.
Oh, and by the way, Jeff, telling people that if they are getting bad results it must be because they are intellectually challenged is not exactly diplomatic. But then Adobe don't do this themselves - Adobe usually listen carefully to their customers and steadily improve their product. I suggest you let them listen to us when we tell them that we think image quality is still a tad better in some apps which don't really compete with them- they might fix it by just integrating a quick way to run an image through the Canon or Nikon code or application when it's really necessary ...
Edmund
Lightroom is using the Camera Raw pipeline, if "color or saturation" is "better" in DPP, I would argue you don't know how to set Camera Raw/Lightroom settings to adjust for the color & tone you want. A common problem I might add.
As far as "sharpness" that depends on the DPP settings and the Camera Raw settings. Camera Raw has a tendancy to product less "sharp" (but very sharpenable) and slightly noisier (unless you view @ 200% and fine-tune the luminance noise setting) at defaults. Canon also has a tendancy to really step on the low end of the tone curve to hide noise while Camera Raw produces flatter results that show the noise.
The demosaicing and sharpening/noise reduction is something Thomas wants to work on for the next major rev and with Micheal Jonsson from pixmantic as well as former Photoshop engineer Zalman Stern on board the Camera Raw team, there should be talent and people to make major improvements in Camera Raw/Lightroom raw processing.
As to the second part-using Canon's algorithm, no, Canon's stuff really doesn't preform all that well. The only advantage that Canon has is using the proprietary metadata to do capture fixes that 3rd parties can't use unless they want to only use the Canon SDK and that would mean Camera Raw couldn't really use ANY of it's color/tone settings as currently designed, which just ain't gonna happen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Personally.. I couldnt agree more with the above post - which was why I originally noted that I prefered the conversions from DPP.
It may be that it is possible to achieve the same result in LR - however, it requires more work [at least for me anyway].
That said.. and re-iterating some of the above - in terms of workflow.. LR has it all over DPP.
-
Jeff,
You have noted several times now that the ACR/LR defaults can be tweaked to provide the snappier color and sharpness of Canon DPP's defaults.
How about showing us how to do that?
Thanks.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
Well, most manufacters have "tweaked" thier programs to provide more saturation, more contrast and some even and some noise removal. These "tweaked" settings are pleasing to most consumers but when color accuracy is desired, this simply won't do.
I would recommend using some sort of camera calibration in LightRoom or PS to get a starting place that will provide some developing consistancy( tone wise) and then modify your image - adusting the black points and white points to your liking.
__
James
Jeff,
You have noted several times now that the ACR/LR defaults can be tweaked to provide the snappier color and sharpness of Canon DPP's defaults.
How about showing us how to do that?
Thanks.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76037\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Well, most manufacters have "tweaked" thier programs to provide more saturation, more contrast and some even and some noise removal. These "tweaked" settings are pleasing to most consumers but when color accuracy is desired, this simply won't do.
I would recommend using some sort of camera calibration in LightRoom or PS to get a starting place that will provide some developing consistancy( tone wise) and then modify your image - adusting the black points and white points to your liking.
James
James, your advice is sound, but I'm afraid many of us here have run training courses or written about PS, and we do know the basics. In fact most here, including Jeff himself of course , know substantially more than the basics.
Edmund
-
I am not bold enough to challenge any one's credentials here and I would apologize if I came across as condescending in any way.
__
James
James, your advice is sound, but I'm afraid many of us here have run training courses or written about PS, and we do know the basics. In fact most here, including Jeff himself of course , know substantially more than the basics.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Sorry, James, you blundered into an ongoing discussion about Adobe vs. the specialist software (DPP, Nikon Capture, maybe C1) which has been ongoing for about five years now. To a certain extent we use the other software as hares to make Adobe give us better stuff .
I am not bold enough to challenge any one's credentials here and I would apologize if I came across as condescending in any way.
__
James