Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: macgyver on August 13, 2007, 05:58:36 pm
-
Just wondering if anyone else has or, is thinking of, abandoning Lightroom for other means. If so; why and has it been a good experiance?
Thanks folks.
-mac
-
Just wondering if anyone else has or, is thinking of, abandoning Lightroom for other means. If so; why and has it been a good experiance?
Thanks folks.
-mac
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No.
edit: since this appears not to be a troll, I'll give a real reply.
Lightroom - and I'm sure Aperture which I haven't tried - does what it advertises: it enables digital photographers who shoot a lot to make some sense of the shots. I moved to digital just under a year ago, and I now shoot 100-1000 frames per session, which is an order of a magnitude more than I used to in film days. Going through them in any other program would be a nightmare. Although I shoot a minute fraction of the pros, I still benefit greatly from the workflow, selections, flagging, rating and other features.
As others have pointed out, LR brings together 90+% of the workflow from RAW to print. And from the LL LR Tutorial it's apparent that LR will become even more complete as softproofing, proper printing and sharpening are added. When that happens I'll only need PS for the occasional heavy-duty tweaking and Noise Ninja for noise reduction.
-
Thanks folks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok. . .see ya, bye...
(don't let the door hit ya on the way out)
:~)
-
Just wondering if anyone else has or, is thinking of, abandoning Lightroom for other means. If so; why and has it been a good experiance?
Thanks folks.
-mac
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If it's been a good experience why would you "abandon" it?? The way you phrased your question implies you weren't happy with it. Why not?
Personally, I couldn't be happier with Lightroom.
-
Abandon Lightroom?
You'll have to wrestle it from my cold dead hands.
-
As far as I am concerned, it's the best thing that has happened to my workflow in many years. Looking forward to version 2.0.
All the best
-
With all due respect Macgyver, this is a pretty weak post. If you want to engage people in a discussion, you should be providing more information about your displeasure with Lightroom's results. Your tone makes it sound like you intended this post to be very open ended, but it really helps if people know where you're coming from.
I personally prefer Lightroom for image processing (followed by export to Photoshop) than the other competition. I do not print from Lightroom, make slideshows, or do any cataloging or organization within its Library (I use Photomechanic for that). I get the absolute best results from Lightroom's raw engine, and I achieve the desired look much quicker than Photoshop's Camera Raw. I have created my own develop presets, and have carefully created Neatimage profiles to match those presets. I also have DXO 4.5, and although an excellent program, I tend to use Lightroom over it. In addition, DXO has now been integrated with Lightroom as part of an optional workflow... I do like DXO's correction of optical flaws, chromatic aberration, and distortion.
So my current answer is No. I find the PS CS3 Camera Raw conversions tedious compared to Lightroom's. Targeted adjustment tool, the ability to create very flexible presets, and its intuitive GUI, all meet my current needs.
-
No.
Now it's live I have to say that I use PSx less and less. After the 1.1 update I'm only really using PSx for HDR and Soft Proofing. I started using it with the release of the first public beta and found it and Adobe to pretty responsive to my needs.
My previous workflow was based around CaptureNX, Bridge and PSx.
-
I think Lightroom has improved my workflow and has eliminated many other programs that I used to do the same job that Lightroom can do.
I still have some issues on printing large prints and other things relating to image management, all of which is mostly a learning curve on my part.
I will hang in there and eventually most everything should be done in lightroom.
-
Ok, sorry, didn't mean to rile anyone. Let me explain some...
I've been using LR since Beta one. I've come to enjoy its develope module greatly, as I love having (mostly) everything in one place at one time. I also find the GUI easy to use, and love the targeted adjustment tool - such a great resouce.
I was never a big fan of the database way of working though (and I know I'm not alone on this). It works fine when I have a shoot of several hundred pictures, but not as well when I have only a few; then it's just a hoop to jump through. As time as went on I've become more and more frustrated by that way of working.
My computer is an aging 1.67 G4 with a gig of ram. I know it's not exactly an ideal machine for what I do, but I am a student and can not justify the money for a new one at this time. On this machine Lightroom works OK, but is pretty slow when trying to run through and tag/cull photos; especially compared with something like PhotoMechanic (yes, I know I'm comparing Apples and Oranges here).
I suppose I could rephrase my question as this, :
Has anyone used Lightroom for a good period of time and then eventually decided to switch back to something like Photoshop/Bridge or the like? Why?
And Jeff, if I go anywhere it's back to photoshop/bridge (well, and maybe photomechanic) so I'm still in adobe's monolithic grasp.
Anyway, does that illuminate things better?
-
Yep, that explains a lot. While I liked Lightroom on my old computer it was frankly unusable. It was much faster for me to use BreezeBrowser and CS2. Bridge with CS2 felt ungainly huge and slow.
A new dual-core with 4GB RAM and Lightroom is pretty nimble. CS3 and Bridge are snappy as well.
Now, I'm anxiously awaiting a number of Lightroom enhancements that I know Jeff is lobbying for, especially softproof and a better final sharpening.
I'm using Lightroom for all the front end work (instead of ACR) and popping to CS3 when needed.
Sorry, I'm not someone abandoning LR.
-
I was never a big fan of the database way of working though (and I know I'm not alone on this). It works fine when I have a shoot of several hundred pictures, but not as well when I have only a few; then it's just a hoop to jump through. As time as went on I've become more and more frustrated by that way of working.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133080\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are you building standard sized previews when importing images?
I've not used Photomechanic but I'd find it hard to believe - based my own experience - that PS and Bridge/ACR would be any quicker.
-
Why do so many people expect an old, slow, outdated machine to perform well with the latest software?
-
Why do so many people expect an old, slow, outdated machine to perform well with the latest software?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sometimes I wonder the same thing about those who expect such things.
Also, the reason why Photo Mechanic is so fast at displaying them is because you aren't viewing RAW data at all, Photo Mechanic is extracting the embedded JPEGs. One easy way to prove this is converting your RAWs to DNG, and remove the JPEG previews while converting. If I do this, I can no longer view any DNG (former CR2) in Photo Mechanic. Photo Mechanic is so fast at displaying them because you ARE NOT actually looking at conversions, whereas programs like Bridge and Lightroom are ACTUALLY dealing with RAW conversion, and the previews reflect the individual changes you've made.
-
I have to say I'm generally very impressed with Lightroom. I particularly like the far greater control over RAW development, and the B&W conversion has at least matched if not bettered my previous conversion plugin of choice (Convert to BW Pro, which to be honest I always thought was a little clumsy). I don't use Lightroom for creation of web pages, I don't use it for slideshows, nor for printing.
As far as I'm concerned, the one great gaping hole in the functionality is the inability to handle large files. I have a great number of 6x7 slide scans and a number of stitched panoramas, and I can't include these in my database. I also found its performance to degrade quite quickly as I added a significant number of files (38,000 images so far) to the database. I have two dual core 2.67GHz processors in my PC with 4Gb of fast RAM, and I still get frustrated waiting for the thumbnails and full-size images to snap into focus.
Overall though, I like Lightroom and it will be the core of my workflow from now on.
-
I've been using Lightroom since the first beta (on a old 'first gen' flat white iMac G5/1.5GB RAM) and now use it on a simple MacBook (latest model) with 2GB RAM with a separate Cinema Display and still loving it.
I read all this stuff about how slow it is. Well, ok, the import can take a while (rendering the 1:1 previews, which you all do right ;-)), but once that's done it goes very smooth. There are some thing you need to check, like making sure you aren't browsing through the images in develop mode, since then it loads the raw in stead of the preview, and keep the catalog size 'manageable'. I split up my initial 54k database in 3 parts since the 1.1 introduced catalogs. One of 30K, 1 of 18K, and the 'current' one which is used for the new images of now about 6k, but still growing. This setup goes smooth.
Anyway, I also love DxO for it's optical corrections and since that's now integrated with LR (a bit rough still, like it doesn't copy all the metadata of the original) along with Photoshop I have pretty much all I need. An image for the printer goes to photoshop if additional non-parametric, pixel fine tuning is needed. Then a second copy is made for specific printer x/paper y treatment (output sharpening and since reviewing the fantastic video, some soft proofing tuning as well :-)
Some 'speciality' things need to be done 'outside' the LR/CS/DxO workflow. For example, creating a HDR (which I don't do often), the resulting image needs to be imported again and has no 'connection' with the original images, but this is done quickly manualy.
Anyway, although I also have Aperture, Lightroom is my tool of choice, because it's much faster (!) then Aperture and I love the develop module.
-
Yeah, I couldn't get LR to run on my Mac Plus 512 either.
But seriously, I've been using LR since beta 1 and somehow I got on the list of beta testers that are featured on the Adobe LR website. I was even video interviewed by Adobe about my LR experiences at the Photo Plus Expo this past November. I had the dubious honor of walking into the interview room in the middle of Jeff Schewe's interview causing them to stop the filming. (Sorry about that Jeff, but the guy outside said walk right in.
I'm an amateur photographer with a passion for nature, fine art and travel subjects. I used to use CaptureOne and Photoshop, now I only use LR 1.1 and PS3. Fine art prints (flattened tiffs) are still output to my Epson R2400 with ImagePrint's excellent RIP (version 7.0 currently).
To me, the best thing about LR was the whole experience of the beta program. It encouraged great discussions (or debates) in these forums and others on workflow, the future of image processing software, and a host of other related topics that allowed a lot of people to communicate in forums that would otherwise not have existed. Personally, it fired up my passion for photography and allowed me to focus on making images and quickly and reliably refining them with post processing that used to be a tedious, one-at-a-time process.
As part of the beta experience, I actually ditched my Dell PC's and Windows XP (yeah!!!) and replaced them with a MacBook Pro 15" and a Mac Pro 8-core desktop. The last time that I used a Mac before switching was over 13 years ago. Thank you very much LR for bring me back to the Mac.
All of the cool stuff like the Adobe LR Adventure to Iceland, George Jardine's podcasts, tutorials by Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe became available to all of us because of LR. If you didn't advance your knowledge of photography and image processing by being exposed to some or all of this great stuff, then you must have been living under a rock for the past year.
One more thing. I support Michael and Jeff by buying the tutorials and most recently, their excellent "Camera to Print" series of tutorials and, of course, being a charter subscriber to Michael's Luminous Landscape Video Journal. So if you want the good stuff to continue, spend a few bucks.
Thanks to all for a great first year with LR. The future of this product and photography is very exciting.
Now, I'm off to Quebec city and Bar Harbor, Maine for an overdue family vacation. Of course, I'm taking my Canon 1Ds MkII, a couple of lenses and my MacBook Pro loaded with LR 1.1!
Cheers.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
No, I'm definitely not abandoning LR. For me it's the real deal. Rather, I'm waiting for the next version which I trust will sort out some frustrating bugs and address the issues raised in forums like this. It's the way forward - current warts and all. From here on, it can only get better, given Adobe's commitment to the product and the talent at work behind the scenes. Most important of all for me is the basic fact that it's specifically for photographers. Not designers, graphic artists et all. PHOTOGRAPHERS.
Is is hard to learn? Remember the learning curve needed for Photoshop? Remember the nights and nights spent cross-eyed in front of a computer trying to come to grips with layers and all the rest? Remember the traditiional darkroom? Remember developing negatives and wondering how you got it so wrong? Remember the sheer, back-breaking labour of making a decent print in developer and fixer? Remember the health risks? Remember the gut-wrenching disappointment on discovering the print you thought was brilliant in the darkroom was in fact rubbish when viewed in daylight? I could go on for pages and ages but I don't want to bore a whole generation of photographes who haven't the faintest clue what I'm talking about. Believe me, it was the dark ages compared to now.
In comparison, LR is intuitive and logical. It's a gigantic leap forward - a photographer's dream. It gives us the freedom to do what we do best - take pictures - without having to become too immersed in a technology for which many photographers (me included) have absolutely no talent. Photoshop is a miracle, but it become too cumbersome trying to be all things to all men. Lightroom is for photographers only. Roll on a better LR, but not before everything is in place. I believe even at this early stage that LR is a significant step in the history of digital photographry. I expect the next stage will be an historic landmark against which everything else in the photo processing industry will be judged. It has the potential to be that good. Admittedly, in its current manifestation, LR has its problems. Many people don't like the data-base system because it is not familiar. In the long run, it's just a matter of adapting to it. Granted, the programme can be slow on some machines, including my own. In time, this will get better too. There are many other niggles also, some infuriating. But none of these in itself is a problem that cannot be fixed. Look at CS3 (which I still use) compared to the first edition of Photoshop. If LR were to progress at the same rate, think what it could become. I believe it's on that road right now
-
I personally prefer Lightroom for image processing (followed by export to Photoshop) than the other competition. I do not print from Lightroom, make slideshows, or do any cataloging or organization within its Library
<snip>
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, I"m not abandoning LR---in truth, I sort of just found my way back to LR after watching the Camera to Print videos. I started with the beta, excitedly used the Develop module--(esp. since I hadn't really cared for PS's RC [ACR] since the PS7 plugin and was using 3rd party RCs) but moved away from it (even though I have 1.0 and now 1.1 on my HD) back to PS when PSCS3 came out--and esp. with 4.1.
I've used Imatch for a DAM (but pretty basically since its sometimes more trouble than its worth to use all its features), used PS and Qimage to print, use actions in PS for web--so didn't feel a need for LR anymore---and--I always end up in PS for almost every image.
After watching the videos and the enthusiasm for LR, I wondered if I was really missing something LOL. I bought the REALLY inexpensively priced LR tute with the 1.1 addition to bring me up to speed--and, in short order had 5 years of files imported (referenced from disk). I had thought I could not use LR to catalog archived files--but found from the videos I could--and more easily searched than with Imatch (IMO). I'm still keywording, but even what I have done (working on second year), has helped me on just 2 searches when needed. I archive on external HDs plus DVDs and now know that I can continue to keyword on work on files without having the HDs hooked up--YAY!!! I also found I could easily do a turnaround into PS and back pretty easily--not sure if I will or not--but export to PS is fast--and easy. Still have to work that out for my workflow though.
So--like the above poster---I'm not using the print module (no softproof and sharpening is minimal), not using the web or slideshow module, but I'm using the library extensively--and I'm transitioning to using the develop module. I'm still not sure if I prefer this or using ACR from Bridge.
I also had a new computer built recently after PSCS3--and that, I'm sure, makes a difference in usage.
Diane
-
Since 1.1 arrived, I've been dealing with a lot of ... annoyances. My perception is that the performance has gotten a tad worse on the PC platform, and its prone to crashing fairly frequently (which, for me, means once a day). There are some features missing, obviously, and some that I'd like to work a bit differently.
Most of the slowness seems to be around building previews and the like - even when I generate 1:1 previews, things seem to take a while to load, and to change when I adjust the settings. And... sometimes clicking on handles for the sliders results in no change. I've reported this stuff to Adobe - they can't reproduce it, but others can. Hmmm...
Still.... I love the workflow, even with having to fly out to PS3 for some things. I love the Develop tab in 1.1. The B&W conversions are easier for me, too.
I will not be abandoning Lightroom, even with the current shortcomings. Future versions will fix some or all of these things (and undoubtedly cause other issues - that's the nature of software, folks), and the experience will get better.
Hopefully by the end of the year, I can upgrade hardware and at least address some of the slowness (currently on an Athlon64 3200+ w/ 2GB - not a slouch, but a solid generation behind). And, hopefully the software itself gets better, as well....
-
currently on an Athlon64 3200+ w/ 2GB - not a slouch, but a solid generation behind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Try 3 generations behind. Way old to expect good results.
-
Ok, ignoring the performance part (which I already know already has one answer), how do you feel about the database system? I ask this simply because I feel its been long enough for most people to be able to comment on it.
-
Besides Michael and Jeff's superb tutorial and Jeff's choice of shirts, Mikkel Allard's Lightroom Adventure is a great help in learning Lightroom. The book is laid out very logically and has lots of great tips.
Jed Best
-
Well got to say whilst there are some well known issues with LR, and some areas that do need working on more (web/slideshow/distortion correction etc), + a few performance issues, LR is def working for me
Runs well on my X2 4200 2Gb pc. LR likes a dual core processor. I have seen it run ok on a single one too.
Trust me I am no adobe fan, but LR has become a lot more than a overpriced way to play with ACR, its fine program. Credit where its due, it saves me time..wedding work..so much much faster to work with LR, and hardly ever go near another editing program.
So..my advice is to stick with it, the quirks will get ironed out. There is a lot of good here.
-
Ok, ignoring the performance part (which I already know already has one answer), how do you feel about the database system? I ask this simply because I feel its been long enough for most people to be able to comment on it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm comfortable with the database approach used by LR. It certainly provides more features than Bridge provides. Most importantly, it doesn't impose any folder structure on you - you are free to organize your database anyway you want. In addition, you get virtual copies, collections, keywording, and stacks. What's not to like :-) I suppose it would be nice to be able to have multiple catalogs open at once, although frankly I don't feel the current approach is in any way limiting me. I personally like Aperture's backup approach a little better, in that it backs up both the actual images, in addition to the user's alterations (as far as I know, LR only backs up the user's alterations, but maybe I've overlooked something here).
-
Try 3 generations behind. Way old to expect good results.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Whatever
-
Whatever what?
Whatever that it's from 2003, runs at a paltry 2GHz, on an old platform, socket 754 which means old and very slow DDR around 200MHz, with a tiny 128MB cache...and only a single core.
Whatever that it only scores 401 CPU marks compared to 2047 for a 6850 Core 2 Duo (not even close to the top level score of 6000+ for a quad xeon as used in mac pros)? Yeah, you're right, 6.5% - 15% of current processor power - pshhh, whatever.
So yeah, whatever, that ignorant people expect good results from old, slow, outdated systems with today's heavy hitting software. And whatever that morons like to pretend they know what they are talking about by making stupid remarks to posts about it.
-
Three words I detest unless you're looking in a mirror: ignorant, moron and stupid.
On another subject, Lightroom Killer Tips by Matt Kowslowski has some great information in digestable chunks. The vidoes are downloadable and free. There are also some short, sharp paragraphs giving very useful keyboard and other tips. Overall a very good resource for quick information. Also, Michael's and Jeffs videos on Lightroom, Lightroom 1.1 update and to round it off, From Camera to Print. Great work by both veterans. There's enough there to start anybody on the road.
And just in case somebody is wondering how many shares I have in Adobe in view of my post re Lightroom above, the answer is none. Rest assured, folks, Lightroom will rise above its current shortcomings and emerge as one of the great breakthroughs for digital photographers. Just be patient.
-
Three words I detest unless you're looking in a mirror: ignorant, moron and stupid.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey, you gotta remember that Bryan thinks he knows everything, and that anyone who doesn't agree with him is those things, or a doofus He's easy enough to get going, though, and I enjoy seeing him act like a fool, so.... Let's bait him some more, shall we???
Again, I say.... Whatever
As far as the topic goes, I agree, Seamus. I expect that the coming versions of LR are going to be pretty darn sweet. Even with the drawbacks I experience on my system, and the seeming yo-yo quality that LR 1.1 has to it right now, this workflow is quite a bit quicker than others that I've tried, and its almost 100% RAW. Awesome.
For certain things, I still use Breezebrowser - when I've shot action, especially using high frame rates, its snappier to do first pass editing (cause I don't have to generate 1-1s, or import, or any of that), and it speeds up overall time later by avoiding DB overhead and all that. That may change once a hardware upgrade renders Lightroom faster, but that'll remain to be seen. I don't think I want to get into testing LR's DB consistency right now, either, but doing a bunch of adds and deletes all the time Give it another couple dot releases for other folks to stress that code a little more....
-
I'm still right, no matter your personal opinion of me
(http://www.sbtontheweb.com/images/wah.jpg)
-
sigh . . .
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplig...nfo/systemreqs/ (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/productinfo/systemreqs/)
-
I'm not sure who that was intended for, but regardless - Required minimums are in no way to be taken as 'required minimums to perform well'. They are just as they state - minimums to function, period.
You can run Windows XP on the published minimum of 128MB of RAM for example...it runs alright...like crap. Required minimums are just about useless.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upg...ng/sysreqs.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx)
-
Ive just stuck with photoshop and find cs3 and bridge sufficient for me but have been wondering exactly where LR does a better job and wether or not I should consider it, just finished C2P and thought it was an excellent watch, lots of info, great rapour between Michael and Jeff. Interesting shirts...
-
Ok, ignoring the performance part (which I already know already has one answer), how do you feel about the database system? I ask this simply because I feel its been long enough for most people to be able to comment on it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Honestly, the database system is something I'm getting used to. I got very used to simply opening images in Photoshop, but the database system allows me to tinker on my photos every now and then without having to open each one in that traditional way. I am a hobby photographer, and out of the thousands of photos I take per year, only dozens end up making their way to my LR database... the best of the best. The nice thing about the database system is that when you start up the program, your files are already "opened". I always store my files as RAWs and DNGs, until they are either posted on the web or printed- they become temporary files, either quality JPEG or TIFF. I do not import all the photos I take into LR, because frankly, it would be a waste of time and a waste of resources.
I store all my selected photos in separate folders from my shoots, sorted by camera and subject matter. Whenever there are new photos to contribute, I copy them from my ingested folders to my portfolio folder and reimport that folder into LR to update the database.
The LR database has not caused me any errors or problems that I've read about. It may be due to my limited use of the catalogue, but Lightroom is about producing great photos in the Develop module, and I would still use it even if there was an occasional crash-- but there hasn't been anything yet.
-
CS3 is trememdous. Improved filters like the black and white conversion and contrast, among a whole bunch of other improvements, make it a great tool. The latest camera raw is splendid too. Used together, they are a fantastic combination and at present, CS3 will be needed to put the finishing touches to most quality work done in Lightroom. Selections, cloning and the like, including final output sharpening are just some. I prefer to print from CS3. Fine work that Lightroom cannot handle yet must be handed over to any recent version of Photoshop.
What I personally find about Lightroom, however, is its user interface - neat, logical, sequential steps. On the panels, you move down in a structured workflow which leads to a natural conclusion. If you find too many panels cluttering up the real estate, right click on, say, basic and activate SOLO MODE and see what happens. Then simply click on whateve mode you want in either panel. Things like that make Lightroom very user friendly whereas Photoshop can sometimes be a pain in the ass, especially when you're trying to learn it. From now on, I keep out of PS as much as possible and stick with Lightroom - warts and all.
-
Ive just stuck with photoshop and find cs3 and bridge sufficient for me but have been wondering exactly where LR does a better job and wether or not I should consider it, just finished C2P and thought it was an excellent watch, lots of info, great rapour between Michael and Jeff. Interesting shirts...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gerry, that's exacty what I was wondering---and I even had used the LR beta for awhie, but had some things 'stuck' in my head about archiving and some other things. Nonetheless, since I owned LR (due to having a license for RSP and Adobe offering vs. 1.0 of LR to RSP users), I thought I would bring myself up to speed. I bought the really 'cheap' LR video tute of Michael's and Jeff's ($14.95--that can't be beat LOL) and found that I was wrong about some things, other things I wasn't utilizing the best way, etc.--and some things I just hadn't gotten right.
So--perhaps you should dl the demo and perhaps buy the video and see for yourself if it works for you. I expect I will use a hybrid version of LR and PSCS3, myself, but for others, LR is---or will be when they upgrade some things, as in the printing module--all they need.
Diane
-
Whatever what?
Whatever that it's from 2003, runs at a paltry 2GHz, on an old platform, socket 754 which means old and very slow DDR around 200MHz, with a tiny 128MB cache...and only a single core.
Whatever that it only scores 401 CPU marks compared to 2047 for a 6850 Core 2 Duo (not even close to the top level score of 6000+ for a quad xeon as used in mac pros)? Yeah, you're right, 6.5% - 15% of current processor power - pshhh, whatever.
So yeah, whatever, that ignorant people expect good results from old, slow, outdated systems with today's heavy hitting software. And whatever that morons like to pretend they know what they are talking about by making stupid remarks to posts about it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Um well maybe a pc builder should come in on this!
Right LR isnt hammering your CPU until you start to export shots.
Doing normal processing doesnt max out my X2 4200 or anywhere near it..neither would I expect it too. Thats kinda telling me any performance issues are not cpu bound.
A decent bit of ram and an ok processor should do the job. Rushing out getting a top line cpu isnt really that smart just for this program.
Companies sometimes do not have optimal code. Anyone who has used Sony Vegas compared to Adobe's Premiere will tell you just how well coded Vegas is...it flies even on moderate spec pc's.
-
Your X2 4200 is also more than 2x as powerful as a 3200 single core, with a smaller die, much more onboard cache, and ram that is over 4x as fast. A big improvement, relatively speaking.
CPU speed is just as important for an overall system - when you get to a certian age, everything works against you - FSB speed, ram type and speed, memory addressing/bandwidth, CPU cache/speed, etc.
'Do the job' is also relative. Speed that might be good for you, with the file sizes you happen to work on, may be painfully slow to someone else. Or let's say you upgrade cameras, and all of a sudden you notice your system is not as quick dealing with larger file sizes
There is always a certain point where it becomes noticeable.
I work on the same files sometimes here at the office and at home. Home is a 3.4GHz C2D 2GB ram system. Office is an old XP 3200 (get the idea of how well I know this dicussion now?) with 1GB. It's simply day and night, no comparison.
-
You see that appeal to the police above - the one about having 'a different opinion than me'? Shouldn't that read 'different FROM MINE'?
-
Um well maybe a pc builder should come in on this!
Right LR isnt hammering your CPU until you start to export shots.
Doing normal processing doesnt max out my X2 4200 or anywhere near it..neither would I expect it too. Thats kinda telling me any performance issues are not cpu bound.
A decent bit of ram and an ok processor should do the job. Rushing out getting a top line cpu isnt really that smart just for this program.
Companies sometimes do not have optimal code. Anyone who has used Sony Vegas compared to Adobe's Premiere will tell you just how well coded Vegas is...it flies even on moderate spec pc's.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133276\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So is it RAM and GPU that counts more?
-
I switched to digital only this year, and LR was the software I picked for RAW conversion reasons and speed (LR is much more forgiving if you haven't got the latest and best hardware).
It is an extreme pleasure to work with, and more than once I added a session just after midnight ("just one more image") , but finally worked until four in the morning.
LR has issues, but that's normal in early versions. They aren't crippling.
Hardware demands are up with 1.1, that's for sure. My G5 iMac 2.1 Ghz is getting slow with its single processor, but it's still fun.
Issues:
1. cyclically the loading times of images go up to six seconds, and after a while go back to 2 seconds when you leave the application, and restart it (or for some other reason, sometimes it speeds up all by itself again)
2. Library and develop modul less separated. I would like to have access to Metadata in develop.
3. A compare feature of snapshots in develop.
This is all no reason to say goodbye.
I just hope they will fix point 1) soon.
If you look at Aperture, you can't see the curve to really adjust contrast, just the contrast slider, there is no vibrance, and I like the screen appearance of Lightroom more. It's just more elegant.
So, Macgyver, maybe this is just a moment of frustration everybody experiences once in a while, but I guess it's more your old G4 that deserves it than this application.
-
It did take me some time to get used to the database system in LR. I was coming from Bridge in CS2, which was more of a file browser.
But now I really like the database-driven system in LR even though it requires an initial import step. Makes it much easier to organize and find images taken a long time ago, assuming thorough keywording (which I have become pretty proficient with).
My main beef right now with LR is actually the sharpening ... while LR 1.1 has improved sharpening a lot and I appreciate the efforts that Jeff Schewe and others have made in explaining (with examples) how the new tools and sliders work, I still find I'm getting consistently better results in Photoshop, usually either with PhotoKit Sharpener or with my own tools. I think it's great that LR has an on-the-fly masking system now for sharpening, but I also find that often the edge mask isn't well-suited to the particular image, in that the method in which the mask is formed doesn't quite pick out the edges the way I prefer. It may seem like nit-picking, but I bring it up because I find that for important prints I'm still going into PS to do the capture sharpening, whereas I really would prefer to do it all in LR -- better workflow.
-
I personally haven't seen much of a difference between copying images from a card to my hard drive or using Lightroom to do the same thing while at the same time importing the images to a database. It really doesn't seem like an extra step to me.
Except for an occasional crash, LR is actually performing decent on my P4,3GHz,3 GB RAM ancient system.
I would expect it would be quite an adjustment to go from a database driven image management system to one of purely using file system folders and keywords.