Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: seamus finn on November 22, 2007, 07:15:01 am

Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 22, 2007, 07:15:01 am
I think Adobe are at a crossroads with LR - they have to decide whether to develop the product to take over COMPLETELY from Photoshop as far as photographers are concerned, and leave PS for graphic designers  and rest of the industry. The alternatisve is to continue developing the product in small increments while leaving it in a tantalising state where photographers will still have to dip into PS for final retouching, sharpening, etc.

My  humble opinion: Adobe should go flat out with Lightroom for photographers, taking the best appropriate tools from Photoshop and incorporating them into LR. If they do that and devote the required resources to producing a solid, reliable photographic tool worthy of the name Adobe, they will have a massive success on their hands. I don't know of any photographer using Lightroom regularly who isn't well disposed to it and who is waiting impatitently for the day when the Lightroom Holy Grail will appear.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: canlogic on November 22, 2007, 08:11:26 am
It will never take over completely. LR is a metadata editor in that it never touches the original pixels and so has some limitations on what it can do. Version 2 which hopefully will come soon will include proper capture and output sharpening (aka PK sharpener) and hopefully softproofing. If they can also get noise reduction a bit better then 95% of my trips to CS3 will be gone.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 22, 2007, 09:03:01 am
Are we saying then that Lightroom will NEVER be a standalone photographer's programme - that, in fact, it's an impossible dream because of LR's basic structure?
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: method on November 22, 2007, 09:30:21 am
How do you know they are not?

With v1 you have got a great product, but naturally they had to ship, so decisions were made that restricted some of the features so as to get to market.

A potential v2 now has the opportunity to go further.

BTW: shouldn't you mention this is cross-posted to other forums???

--
Richard Earney
http://inside-lightroom.com (http://inside-lightroom.com)
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: digitaldog on November 22, 2007, 09:34:50 am
Quote
I think Adobe are at a crossroads with LR - they have to decide whether to develop the product to take over COMPLETELY from Photoshop as far as photographers are concerned, and leave PS for graphic designers  and rest of the industry.

I don't know what makes you say this considering LR and PS are completely different tools. So Adobe should make InDesign different because of Illustrator? I should worry about using a Phillips screwdriver instead of a hex wrench? They are totally different tools. LR is a metadata editor, Photoshop is a pixel editor. Big, big difference. Well we see more tools in LR that allow users to do work they could have done in Photoshop, like selective renderings (using metadata)? Yup. Does that mean you'll never use Photoshop to do precise clone work, blend modes, layer work, type work? Nope.

There's a type tool in InDesign, Illustrator, GoLive and Photoshop. Should we consider them even remotely similar due to a few tools?
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: tgphoto on November 22, 2007, 09:35:26 am
If Adobe were to incorporate tools from Photoshop into Lightroom in an attempt to make it a "standalone solution for photographers", where would they draw the line?  Who would decide what made the cut?  I think it'd be quite difficult for Adobe to go this route, given the seemingly infinite number of ways in which photographers use Photoshop.

On a similar note, didn't John Nack recently suggest (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/11/photoshop_as_se.html) the need for a streamlined UI for Photoshop?  I think this is a great idea.

Lightroom doesn't need to be added to as much as Photoshop needs to be slimmed down.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 22, 2007, 12:08:03 pm
Why is everybody so defensisve?  Personally, I think Lightroom is amazing, but I'm astonished that a simple, honest question should get some people's underwear in a twist. And by the way, I didn't know there was a law about posting a question on another forum (not other forums, only one). As far as I'm concerned, I'll post any question I feel like posting ANYWHERE so long as it doesn't break any civic law. So you can take your condescension and try it on somebody more easily intimidated by your snotty, know-it-all attitudes.
 
Preaching me a childish sermon about the difference between a wrench and screwdriver is just so much drivel. Why do you assume I don't know the difference between Lightroom and Photoshop. Or what makes them tick?  I use both of them constantly - CS3 and LR v.1.3. I've been using LR since day one. I think its potential is incredible. I've read and studied everything I can find on it. I've praised to colleages and wherever I get the opportunity So spare me the lectures and assume I know something - though obviously not as much as you. Personally, I would work in Lightroom exclusively if I could but the minute I have to leave it to do something fundamental in PS, I feel that the whole reason d'etre for LR has somehow been diminished. My dream (and I'm sure many others share it) is to be able to use LR from start to finish. I'm not talking about incorporating the power of Photoshop into Lightroom - just some basic tools which every digital photographer needs readily to hand and which will see the proscess through from beginning to end without the invervention of another application. Let it be plug-ins or whatever, but keep the workflow within Lightroom. Is that too difficult a concept for any of you to handle?

My question remains: do you think it is possible that Lightroom will develop into an application which will be able to handle a professional photographer's needs from start to finish without having to leave it? Forget about Photoshop and the differences between the two and just answer a straight question. Is it possible?  You're supposed to be experts who know everything, so act like experts with a bit of courtesy and common manners and stop being fecking smart asses.

Yours fondly,
Seamus Finn, newspaper editor of forty years standing.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: David White on November 22, 2007, 12:30:05 pm
Quote
You're supposed to be experts who know everything, so act like experts with a bit of courtesy and common manners and stop being fecking smart asses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Possible, yes.  Probable, no.  I think that Andrew stated it very clearly.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: HickersonJasonC on November 22, 2007, 12:45:23 pm
Quote
It will never take over completely. LR is a metadata editor in that it never touches the original pixels and so has some limitations on what it can do. Version 2 which hopefully will come soon will include proper capture and output sharpening (aka PK sharpener) and hopefully softproofing. If they can also get noise reduction a bit better then 95% of my trips to CS3 will be gone.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So because LR is  metadata editor, are you saying it would not be possible to add layers adjustments? LR would be almost everything I need were it able to handle dodging and burning similar to the PS 50% grey overlay method (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2478).

In the end, I don't think I would ever get rid of PS. But I would greatly appreciate not have to do the import, export, import, export routine because LR and PS are good at different things.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Tim Gray on November 22, 2007, 12:54:01 pm
Quote:

"My question remains: do you think it is possible that Lightroom will develop into an application which will be able to handle a professional photographer's needs from start to finish without having to leave it? Forget about Photoshop and the differences between the two and just answer a straight question. Is it possible? You're supposed to be experts who know everything, so act like experts with a bit of courtesy and common manners and stop being fecking smart asses.

Yours fondly,
Seamus Finn, newspaper editor of forty years standing."


Well, here's my 2 cents worth..

First, what defines the art of the possible?  Of course it's possible, there are no laws of physics that would be violated.   I'm not being a "fecking smart ass" just making the observation that that's probably not the right question.

Having said that...

I would expect to see a coming together of functionality under a common user interface.  I think the products will evolve deeper connectivity and configurability as time goes by.  This will end up effectively blurring the distinction between the underlying technical models: pixel vs metadata editing, and let the user configure the interface such that any functionality that's not required is either simply not present, or at least not obtrusive.  Whether that ends up being called "Lightroom" is moot.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: digitaldog on November 22, 2007, 12:54:41 pm
Quote
My question remains: do you think it is possible that Lightroom will develop into an application which will be able to handle a professional photographer's needs from start to finish without having to leave it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No. Photographer need to edit pixels among other tasks.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: sniper on November 22, 2007, 12:54:51 pm
Personally I can't see LR taking over from PS, I can see it replacing bridge at some point though.
I suppose it comes down to what you need out of LR, for a lot of photographers just the basic editing, tweeking colours, a bit of cropping, and printing is all they do.
For the more advanced of us, and the serious pro's they need a lot more, although LR has a place in the workflow.  Without a massive increase in LR's tools it's just not going to be an option as a replacement.
Just my 2c worth.  Wayne
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: method on November 22, 2007, 01:01:58 pm
Quote
Why is everybody so defensisve?  Personally, I think Lightroom is amazing, but I'm astonished that a simple, honest question should get some people's underwear in a twist. And by the way, I didn't know there was a law about posting a question on another forum (not other forums, only one). As far as I'm concerned, I'll post any question I feel like posting ANYWHERE so long as it doesn't break any civic law. So you can take your condescension and try it on somebody more easily intimidated by your snotty, know-it-all attitudes.

Seamus - calm down!

It is fairly standard etiquette to mention in forums and mail lists when you cross-post, that is all.

There was nothing defensive about my explanation, I was simply stating the fact that they had a set of goals for 1 and 1.1 and they were, in the end, time limited.

There will be a new set of goals for 2 and they will take on board all the feedback from the original Labs site, the feedback from the forums and testers. Plus their own ideas.

Naturally those who have more insight into this can't say anything, but you can be pretty sure that there will be features that do some of Photoshop's concepts. I believe Adobe have already mentioned some form of output sharpening.

But the usual cries from users about running Photoshop Plugins (ie: more specific Photoshoppy code) probably won't get anywhere, because it is not that sort of app.

But thinking realistically they aren't going to cannibalize Photoshop sales to Photographers, so it will end up being a compromise.

Quote
You're supposed to be experts who know everything, so act like experts with a bit of courtesy and common manners and stop being fecking smart asses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yeah cheers for that!
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: digitaldog on November 22, 2007, 01:06:00 pm
Quote
So because LR is  metadata editor, are you saying it would not be possible to add layers adjustments?

I didn't say that. An Adjustment layer is very similar to a metadata instruction.

LR works with raw data primarily, using instructions to build a pixel based file. And, even when you do something like attempt to edit existing rendered images (something that should probably be done from the start in Raw or as a pixel based file in Photoshop), its still using metadata to build NEW pixels from the existing data. Its not a pixel editor. Photoshop is.


Quote
LR would be almost everything I need were it able to handle dodging and burning similar to the PS 50% grey overlay method (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2478).

Then if that's ALL you further need, you may end up seeing these capabilities and just using LR. But that doesn't mean there are other pressing pixel based edits that LR will not handle nor should it, just as a kitchen knife can be used as a screwdriver but that doesn't diminish using the right tool for the right job.

Quote
In the end, I don't think I would ever get rid of PS. But I would greatly appreciate not have to do the import, export, import, export routine because LR and PS are good at different things.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155000\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Got no argument with that. I do about 85% of my work now in LR. With newer functionality, that may raise to 90%. But I don't ever see it being 100% and the closer it would get, the more bloated, slower and less focused it would become as a great tool.

We all know the usefulness and lack of uses a Swiss Army knife has. I have a garage full of tools that are useful and some are somewhat duplicated by the Swiss Army knife. I don't intend to toss away either. At the end of the day, its about using the right tool for the right job. Even if Adobe could clone all or most of the photo centric functionally of Photoshop onto LR (or vise versa), both would suffer. What make LR so great IS its focus and the fact its not a pixel editor.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: macgyver on November 22, 2007, 01:59:23 pm
In my mind the only thing that LR has over PS/Bridge is the targeted adjustment tool. I really miss that, having ditched LR.

That being said, I think that LR is going in the right direction, mostly.  I'm happy to seen the needs of photographers being addressed. Most of my edits are what you would call parametric now a days, although I still prefer good ol' USM to the clarity slider (though I use both).
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Sunesha on November 22, 2007, 04:31:35 pm
Lightzone applies some area masking tools. If I could do something similar in Lightroom it would be great.

That and softproofing and use of plugins is what would save me money from photoshop upgrades.

Like the libary part mostly about Lightroom. Also how fast you can do rough adjustments. Just spending 20-30 seconds per photo and get a good starting point.

My biggest wishes:
• softproofing
• Ability to use plugins inside Lightroom even it means you have do it destructible
• Some masking abilities in layers, dodge burn, exposure, HSL would be great

Otherwise I am happy with Lightroom. After used in now since the start I cant imagine how to be without it. Even if Camera RAW existed. I like streamlined workflow and section 1 and down work off doing things.

Cheers,
Daniel
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 22, 2007, 04:52:10 pm
Don't worry - I'm as cool as a breeze here.

Now that we all know where we stand, let me see if I've got this right. Lightroom will never be a full, standalone application for working professionals - at least not in the forseeable future, if ever.  

For the professional, Photoshop will always be required to put the finishing touches to any serious work.

That's all I wanted to know, folks. Thanks for your trouble.

Leaving Adobe's self interest aside for the moment, I'm wondering is it technically possible to produce such a Lightroom product?  I stress the world technically.

Chill!!

Incidentally, on another forum, I was reminded of the following Adobe quote: 'New Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® software is the professional photographer's essential toolbox, providing one easy application for managing, adjusting, and presenting large volumes of digital photographs so you can spend less time in front of the computer and more time behind the lens.'

Interesting, huh. As an avid fan of LR, I hate to point out it is far from that at the moment, and according to you guys, will never reach that stage for the professional.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: barryfitzgerald on November 22, 2007, 06:54:00 pm
I am already using LR for 95% of what I do, and nothing else

Now a few areas that could help out a tad;

Lens distortion/correction
Output sharpening
Would not mind something like a burn to dvd slideshow option, but that is pretty unlikely.
Don't really use web, think that needs some work.
Ability to do selections could have a use, aka colour, or brightness etc..


Don't really need much else being honest.

It's a tough one to balance. They need to keep it powerful enough, but not swamp it with stuff.

And as for the person who said you NEED photoshop to do photography, sorry to disappoint you on that one! Christ, one wonders how we ever managed to take photos with film. (still do..love it!)
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: tgphoto on November 22, 2007, 06:56:09 pm
Quote
You're supposed to be experts who know everything, so act like experts with a bit of courtesy and common manners and stop being fecking smart asses.

Ya, you got a real cool head there guy.  Keep up the attitude and I'm sure the more knowledgeable people who frequent this forum will jump right in to help you.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: meyerweb on November 22, 2007, 09:01:32 pm
Quote
I would expect to see a coming together of functionality under a common user interface.  I think the products will evolve deeper connectivity and configurability as time goes by.  This will end up effectively blurring the distinction between the underlying technical models: pixel vs metadata editing, and let the user configure the interface such that any functionality that's not required is either simply not present, or at least not obtrusive.  Whether that ends up being called "Lightroom" is moot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Except, of course, that Adobe will continue to be able to sell us 2 products, at least one grossly overpriced, instead of one, so that we can get our job done.

And that's the real reason Adobe will never give us all the tools we need in LR. It would impact sales of their cash cow.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Schewe on November 22, 2007, 11:17:52 pm
Quote
I think Adobe are at a crossroads with LR
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=154927\")


Since you seem intent on crossposting this in multiple place, I'll write the same answer here (no reason the waste the time typing).

Naw, they've already passed that crossroad a long time ago when they decided, in the fall of 2005, to actually go ahead and do Lightroom. You need to understand from where this application came, what it went through and how it almost didn't get produced in the first place.

Now that Adobe _HAS_ produced it, Adobe is committed, strongly, to continuing Lightroom without too much regard to the potential impact on it's other products. Photoshop really doesn't have too much competition in its core marketplace, graphics(photographers actually make up a minority % of Photoshop users). Adobe, when it did decide to release an app just for photographers knew that it would compete, to a degree, with Photoshop. But better the competition comes from within than without.

In so much as the dividing line between pixel editing and parametric editing exists, that is, essentially the dividing line between Lightroom and Photoshop. Lightroom may well be all the imaging that some photographers need...and Adobe is ok with that. Better you get it from Adobe than another company. And, also note that Photoshop has moved a bit more into new and expanded markets with medical, engineering and science...which actually, is way cool because those markets were under-represented in the past.

Naw, I really don't think you all need to worry over much that Adobe WON'T keep pushing both Lightroom _AND_ Photoshop to do more, better, faster. That sort of work is really in Adobe's DNA...

And you really do need to understand where Lightroom came from, the mind of the #2 engineer on Photoshop, Mark Hamburg...and in terms of the image processing pipeline, that being done for Lightroom by Thomas Knoll, the guy that coauthored Photoshop. Lightroom also benefits from some of the expats from Image Ready as well as new blood.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing...we all will. But I really wouldn't have a lot of angst that Adobe isn't going to do the right thing...

And, if you really want to comment on where Lightroom is, should or could go, you really do need to understand where it came from. Required reading is: [a href=\"http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/]THE SHADOWLAND/LIGHTROOM DEVELOPMENT STORY[/url]
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Pete JF on November 23, 2007, 10:19:13 am
If Lightroom had a featherable lasso (something simple) with a quick mask feature  for refining selections, it would be the almost perfect RAW processor/manager. It would be great to be able to make selections and edit non-destructively. As mentioned before in the thread, like Lightzone. Lightzone's to slow and I find ther interface to be kind of clunky.  

What would really kick LR over the top would be if you could snag the control panels and "what not" and float them wherever you wanted to...onto another monitor, well away from the image. So hard to work on an image in a serious way with all that crap surrounding it. It's a design nightmare IMO. Even with the lights dimmed, it's painful.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 23, 2007, 10:36:17 am
Just two sites, Jeff, here and Adobe Lightroom User to User Forum - at least the topic got some attention and like you, I won't waste time retyping but will simply paste my comment here on your own reply there:

First, I think the original question I posed was worth it just to get that very enlightening comment from Jeff Schewe which gives me great hopes for the future of Lightroom. The commitment by Adobe to developing the product as emphasised by Jeff is exactly what I wanted to hear from an authoratitive and respected figure in the industry who has his finger on the pulse, who knows the needs of photographers and who has a deep and intimate insight into the thinking and aspirations of the Lightroom team.

My dream would be a version of Lightroom that doesn't replace Photoshop, or even challenge its core user base, but which would meet the needs of photographers as a stand-alone application and deliver a quality performance. If in the opinion of some demanding professionals, this version of Lightroom fell short, why, then they can fall back on Photoshop and happily get on with their work. Either way, photographers will still be buying Adobe products so what's to lose?

Read Jeff Schewe again: 'Now that Adobe _HAS_ produced it, Adobe is committed, strongly, to continuing Lightroom without too much regard to the potential impact on its other products. Photoshop really doesn't have too much competition in its core marketplace, graphics(photographers actually make up a minority % of Photoshop users). Adobe, when it did decide to release an app just for photographers knew that it would compete, to a degree, with Photoshop. But better the competition comes from within than without.'

You can't ask for fairer than that. The dream is still alive that Lightroom will eventually become a solid, stand-alone application for photographers. It's up to us to keep the pressure on to see that it happens.

By the way, how does Mr. Gray's comment about my cool head add to the sum of human knowledge?

It seems I damaged some delicate egos here. I've spent forty years in a newspaper editor's chair shooting from the hip - it's hard to break the habit. Sorry. I apologise.  I hope you afficiandos aren't going to take it out on me the next time I have a query. For me, it was worth the risk just to get Jeff Schewe's reassuring comments on the future of Lightroom whose release in years to come will be regarded as a defining moment in the development of digital photography.

In the meantime, remember Rule 5 - enjoy!
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: zlatko-b on November 23, 2007, 11:46:17 am
Lightroom already is a solid, stand-alone application for photographers.  More than just solid, it's positively brilliant.  I use it to quickly bring hundreds or thousands of image into a proof-quality state.  And I use Photoshop for detailed pixel-based editing of select images.  Each tool serves for a different type of work. One tool for every photographic purpose is a nice dream, but specialized tools are even better.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: dennysb on November 23, 2007, 09:35:59 pm
One maim problem is that the role of a photographer has changed considerably, perhaps the right word would extended considerably

Today's photographers are doing to photography more that the digital equivalent of dodging and burning. In extreme cases, like in fashion photography, the amount of manipulation is significantly - If not sometimes absurd    , and a pixel editor is needed.

When I do work in Fashion Portraits, I sometime can end-up with 8-10 different layers on a photo, each of them only affecting a particular region or characteristic of the photo. Is this photography? Or should it be consider painting? Definitions, Definitions..

So my answer (opinion) to your question is NO. The "professional" photographer's needs are not clear cut. Photo journalist, Fashion, or landscape photographer will find LR to address 70% of what the universal photographer needs. However when you go outside that boundary, Photoshop and other tools will always be needed.

My 2 cents..  


Quote
My question remains: do you think it is possible that Lightroom will develop into an application which will be able to handle a professional photographer's needs from start to finish without having to leave it? Forget about Photoshop and the differences between the two and just answer a straight question. Is it possible?  You're supposed to be experts who know everything, so act like experts with a bit of courtesy and common manners and stop being fecking smart asses.

Yours fondly,
Seamus Finn, newspaper editor of forty years standing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: travelenfree on November 24, 2007, 05:17:53 am
I just like the "uncongested" format and feel of Lightroom.  I try to shoot the scene perfectly , taking my time, as if I was shooting film.  So I am not involved in manipulating an image very much, if at all.  For me, keeping it simple works best.  So, thank you Lightroom for simplicity.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 24, 2007, 07:42:37 am
It seems to me there are photographers and then there are the high-end super professionals demi-gods who operate in a rarified atmosphere whose excuisite work demends the strictest and most exacting standards which test even Photoshop to the limit. The latter are in a class of their own who will always need the flexibility and power of PS, with each upgrade providing more and more functionality to meet their perfectionist demands.

Lightroom is not for them - although they may use it as a major part of their workflow. However, when it comes to the finished product, Photoshop is where their critical work will always be done - at least as things stand for the forseeable future. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to conclude that Lightroom will never meet their needs without becoming a bloated Photoshop Mark 11.

On the other hand, the vast, vast majority of photographers do not operate in that climate, and need only a fraction of what Photoshop has to offer to produce outstanding work in its own right.  I'm not talkng about casual amateurs who take the odd snap for the family album or  e-mal friends with pictures of their holidays, having done a few rudimentary adjustments and exposure changes to make the picture reasonably pesentable.

In my long experience working with photographers of all kinds, stretching back to the days of the wet darkroom, I have found that very often, the 'keen amateur' (a phrase I detest) or hobbyist is often better equipped, more intellectually engaged, more knowledgeable, more widely read on the subject, more demanding and more passionate about the craft than many who operate under the banner of the run-of-the-mill 'professional' - a title they carry simply because they make a living from taking pictures. Just because they are 'professionals'  doesn't necessarily mean their work is anything special.  Some of the very best work I have ever seen has been created by so-called  'amateurs', and some of the worst  by those who purport to be professionals and who managed to get away with 'murder' under that designation because there is an assumption that they know what they're doing simply because they are 'professional'.

As a by the way, I am constantly amazed at the number of 'professionals' who are still using ancient versions of Photoshop, who haven't a clue about RAW, who run a mile from the very idea of using it or learning how to process it, and who never heard of Lightroom. Very often, their personal equipment is pretty cheapskate too compared to that provided for them by a studio or whoever pays their wages.

The foregoing is by way of putting my question about the future of Lightroom in context. Some contributors here appeared puzzled as to why it should have been asked at all. The world professional kept coming up.  It seems to me that a stand-alone Lightroom should be attainable to meet the needs of the  bulk of photographers who fall outside the category of the elite whose standard of work is so exacting that Lightroom simply couldn't cope.

The majoity of serious photographers who care about their craft, who want to produce the best they are capable of, whether 'professional' in the broader sense, or hobbyist, do not need alll of Photoshop's heavyweight technology which more often than not just gets in the way. In my opinion, they would welcome a leaner, more focussed (pardon the pun)  dedicated photographic application capable of delivering a standard of excellence which would meet all but their most esoteric processing needs.


If Adobe have the corporate will, I think they can deliver exactly that with Lightroom. Already, many photographers are doing 90% of their work there already at this very early stage in the application's development. It is a truly innovative concept with tremendous potential. The challenge is to close the remaining 10% to make Lightroom 'an independent republic'   I'm hoping - nay, praying! - that Adobe  will do exactly that sooner rather than later. If they don't, they will have made a monumental marketing mistake, will have ignored a huge market  and will be guilty of a woeful misreading of what a vast swathe of the photographic community is waiting for.

PS: I was reprimanded here for not mentioning that I had posted this topic on another site as well, so, be aware that you may see this as well on Adobe Lighthroom User to User Forum.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: sniper on November 24, 2007, 08:50:05 am
I strongly suspect Adobe are allready delivering what they want, after all we are now buying two products instead of just one, why would they want to cut their sales down?  Wayne
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 24, 2007, 09:13:35 am
Because whether you buy Photoshop or Lightroom, you're still buying an Adobe product. It's a very common practice in the car industry here in Europe to produce different cars made from the same manufacturer's parts - for example, the modern Skoda car - a very good vehicle - is put together with VW parts. Lift the bonnet (hood) and your looking at a VW car. Why would VW go up against itself? Because overall, it gets a bigger share of the market using its own parts under different brand names.

The same philosophy could be applied to Adobe - with Photoshop they get one share of the market, with Lightroom, the other. Either way, all their customers are inside the same tent pissing out rather than a huge chunk of them outside the tent pissing in, if you'll pardeon the crude anology.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: sniper on November 24, 2007, 10:35:37 am
Seamus if Skoda stopped selling cars tomorrow, not all their customers would switch to VW, many would buy Ford, GM etc etc.  Adobe doesn't have the competition the car market has, lets face it theres only really Paint shop pro that comes close to the full version of photoshop.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 24, 2007, 01:14:52 pm
Fair enough - probably the car market was a bad example thinking off the top of the head.

Still, I think mostAdobe customers will stick with the brand - otherwise there would have been mass migration to Paint Shop Pro long ago. As you know, photographers are a notoriously conservative and cautious species - we're very slow to move as witnessed by out initial reluctance to embrace the digital revolution. Many had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it!
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: barryfitzgerald on November 24, 2007, 03:15:40 pm
Panit shop pro "was" good, that was until Corel started messing about with it. A very good super budget alternative to PS. I have version 9 and 10, left it there..it went downhill rapidly IMHO.

Dont expect to see layers etc etc on LR. I dont think its part of what adobe are going for. I dont care myself, because I hardly ever use them.

I thought LR was a bit like the capture one 4 PR stuff...ala "we want you to spend less time on your pc, more taking shots". Design concept is def geared towards being able to make quick tweaks to an image.

That works for me. I really dont want this overloaded bloated beast of a program, jack of all master of none. If you need uber PP, PS or alternatives are your thing on that one. It's a speed thing to me..fast workflow.

There are only so many things you can slap onto a program like this. I expect to see just tweaks now, until the next release. I have a sneaky feeling, that lens corrections are being held back for LR 2. Aka distortion control/perspective. Shame..
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Sunesha on November 24, 2007, 04:42:21 pm
I just thought about it. Since Lightroom was released I been pleased with "point" updates. This software has moved in a great direction in my opinion. One off few software that I really liked.

If next real version Lightroom is even better.

I think Adobe made great work here. Hopefully I get better softproofing, which is my biggest wish. But sure I think there is alot to do. But think I will be stuck with pixel and local edits with photoshop. But it would blow my mind complety if get some kind mask tools in Lightroom.

The spot cleaning tools are great. It is fast does the work. I have photo maybe over 200 spots taken away which only took me 30 minutes to do.

I think if we get more smart tools like distortion correction other things. Or just let 3rd parties to make plugins to be used inside lightroom it would be great.

At present time I must goto photoshop mainly for printing. Also for those occassions I need to do some burning and dodging. To bring down overexposed sky.

But I think the orginal poster is a bit harsch. It is good step, which has made my time editing photos alot easier. If I wasnt such pixelpeeper I wouldnt have to do all this editing in photoshop. But showing this to more casual point and shooters what this software can do. They have really loved it.

The black and white editing with Lightroom has made it easy for me to do black and white.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: marty m on November 25, 2007, 02:39:51 am
Quote
Naw, they've already passed that crossroad a long time ago when they decided, in the fall of 2005, to actually go ahead and do Lightroom. Now that Adobe _HAS_ produced it, Adobe is committed, strongly, to continuing Lightroom without too much regard to the potential impact on it's other products. Photoshop really doesn't have too much competition in its core marketplace, graphics(photographers actually make up a minority % of Photoshop users). Naw, I really don't think you all need to worry over much that Adobe WON'T keep pushing both Lightroom _AND_ Photoshop to do more, better, faster. That sort of work is really in Adobe's DNA...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff, I'm delighted to hear it.  I also agree with the comments about the difference between Photoshop and Lightroom that were offered by others in this thread, but I'd add one more.

Photoshop is deep, rich, capable of a zillion amazing functions --

Photoshop is also intimidating and very difficult to learn to use, even for an advanced amateur.  (The comment in this thread that what is really needed is a complete overhaul of the UI of Photoshop is absolutely dead-on.  It is Photoshop that needs a complete overhaul, after years of just piling on one feature on top of another, even more than Lightroom needs to enhanced.)

With a few more changes and improvements, Lightroom could become a very effective replacement for Photoshop for many advanced amateurs.  Yes, it means you'll be limited to global adjustments, etc.  But for many of us, for many prints, that will suffice 80% of the time.

Advanced amateurs gravitate to Lightroom because it is more user-friendly than Photoshop.  Easier to learn and faster to use.  (And the absolutely excellent tutorials by Jeff and Michael should be recommended to anyone new to Lightroom.)

Personally, I don't want Lightroom to become a junior version of Photoshop.  That would be a disaster, and would move in the direction of making it difficult to use and not very user friendly -- just like Photoshop.

Fix and enhance the functions it already has, and Lightroom will evolve from a great program to an awesome program.  I now use five programs to accomplish the below.  Fix the below, and I will only use Lightroom 80% of the time.  I believe that is consistent with the message from Jeff Schewe.  I'm definitely not in the camp to trash Lightroom.  

Here are my top five choices for improvements, and I am really making these in the hope that Jeff is reading, since he can provide input into the Lightroom developers:

(1)  Output sharpening.  Maybe Photokit Sharpening for Lightroom is right around the corner?  Jeff, you'd make a fortune.  In the case of Photoshop, Photokit is competing with the native abilities of Photoshop.  Lightroom has no ability to do output sharpening, at least not on a serious level.  Everyone who uses Lightroom would buy the product.  Pixelgenius would need a larger server to accommodate all the sales and downloads.

If Pixelgenius doesn't do it, how about all of the other software developers?  There is a serious market for such a product.

(2)  Get rid of the really dumb import limit under which images cannot exceed 10,000 pixels in any dimension.  Geez, I'm just an amateur, but I have panos that exceed that. Panos are a hot topic and a growth area for photography. Lightroom has to be able to handle long panos that can often exceed that limitation, such as only three 1Ds files stitched together. Maybe it means that a full preview is not possible. But why not allow imports of completed tiffs, and then show them using thumbnails? Then those files could at least be catalogued and printed from Lightroom. This is a really dumb design decision that basically means that a complete catalogue is not possible within Lightroom. It is the equivalent of the NY Public Library banning books exceeding a given page length. This has to be one of the really dumb, self-inflicted, Achilles heels of Lightroom.

(3)  Soft proofing.

(4)  Lightroom should import WAV files created on Canon Pro bodies, and be able to play them back when the shots are reviewed, rather than throwing them away and failing to import them.  LATER EDIT -- Note below posting from ilyons -- audio files are now imported and can be played, but are buried within the metadata, of version 1.1.  Adobe made this change but apparently didn't tell anyone!  It would be nice if they included icons in the grid view with tags for the audio files though, as explained below.  That's how Photo Mechanic handles audio files, so you can easily spot which of your files include the audio files.

(5)  Better noise reduction.  Another need that could be addressed by Noise Ninja or Noiseware.  Competition is a great thing.  Which one will address this need first, and gain a huge jump on the competition?

I'm sure others have their own list of favorites.  

I only want to see the features it already has enhanced.  Right now, it has output sharpening, but it doesn't work.  It has a library cataloging function, but it bans and burns large books thereby defeating the purpose of a master catalogue.  (Woops, I meant that it censors and refuses to import large panos).  It has a great print dialogue, but it doesn't let you soft proof before printing.  And it has a great import function, but at the present time fails to import all of the files created by the top-of-the-line Canon pro bodies. It has noise reduction, but it is very weak.  

I'm in the camp to get a few modest improvements to make it even better.

(We had a thread that was dedicated to a list of requests for improving Lightroom 1.0  that appears to have died.  I will add the above to a new thread dedicated to a compilation of revisions to version 1.3.  I hope that doesn't constitute "cross-posting" since that I assume that referred to posting the same message in two forums, rather than two threads in the same forum.)
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 25, 2007, 07:51:12 am
Marty M,
You may misunderstand me. I am not here to thrash Lightoom but to praise it and advocate its enhancement to a point where it will be the first choice for the majority of photographers such as yourself.

Read my comments again - I do NOT want another bloated, over-featured application replacing Photoshop, but rather a lean, mean Lightroom that will bridge that 10% gap which still makes Photoshop essential for all of us who are serious about our work. Basically, we're singing from the same hymn  sheet. If it can be done, it's Lightroom all the way for me!

Perhaps much will be revealed with the release of the version for which we have to cough up hard cash, V2. That's when we'll discover where Lightroom is going.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Harold on November 25, 2007, 09:03:14 pm
Quote
Fair enough - probably the car market was a bad example thinking off the top of the head.

Still, I think mostAdobe customers will stick with the brand - otherwise there would have been mass migration to Paint Shop Pro long ago. As you know, photographers are a notoriously conservative and cautious species - we're very slow to move as witnessed by out initial reluctance to embrace the digital revolution. Many had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Harold on November 25, 2007, 09:03:37 pm
Quote
Fair enough - probably the car market was a bad example thinking off the top of the head.

Still, I think mostAdobe customers will stick with the brand - otherwise there would have been mass migration to Paint Shop Pro long ago. As you know, photographers are a notoriously conservative and cautious species - we're very slow to move as witnessed by out initial reluctance to embrace the digital revolution. Many had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Ian Lyons on November 26, 2007, 03:45:21 pm
Quote
(4)  Lightroom should import WAV files created on Canon Pro bodies, and be able to play them back when the shots are reviewed, rather than throwing them away and failing to import them.  (Michael stated in a previous thread that he also made this request during beta development.)  They fixed this issue with JPEGS but to my knowledge not with WAV files.  And include the ability to play them back.  I make heavy use of this feature when shooting with the 1Ds.  As long as Lightroom throws away the files, or won't play them back, I am forced to use other programs for my imports and first review of my shots.  That defeats a large part of the rationale for Lightroom, at least for me.  If Lightroom would make this fix, then I would no longer have to use Photo Mechanic.

Lightroom has been been able to import and play Wav files since version 1.1 was released.

See - http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr_11/lr-11-gps.htm (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr_11/lr-11-gps.htm)
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: marty m on November 27, 2007, 12:29:40 am
Quote
Lightroom has been been able to import and play Wav files since version 1.1 was released.

See - http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr_11/lr-11-gps.htm (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr_11/lr-11-gps.htm)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wow!  You are absolutely correct!  It not only applies to folders imported from CF cards, but also to folders that are imported from the hard drive as libraries or catalogues.  

ilyons, thanks very much for this correction!

Needless to say, they made this change and buried it.  I don't recall seeing this covered in any of the summaries of the new features for version 1.1.  Adobe made this change and didn't tell anyone about it.  

I will now correct my original posting to reflect this change.  I probably will sound ungrateful, but I would also ask that Adobe and Lightroom need to tag the audio files in a more obvious way.  It is safe to say that most of us don't make recordings on every file.  I do it on, at most, 1 of 100 shots.  I usually do it to explain what filter I used, as this is one item not reflected in metadata.

In other programs, like Photo Mechanic, I can see which shots have the audio files, because a little audio icon appears on the shot in the main review or grid window.  That then reminds me or tells me to play those audio files back.  

In the case of Lightroom, you'd have to click through each and every image and carefully watch the metadata for when the wav file pops up.  Rather than seeing the audio icon on the image in the view window.  Not impossible to do in LR, but not as easy as in other programs like Photo Mechanic or the Canon DPP program.

But it is a great step forward that audio files are now downloaded and can be played.  We can all safely use LR to download our CF cards and know that all files are imported -- raw, JPEGs, and WAV files.

Thanks again to ilyons for pointing this out.  

It is at moments like this that I really appreciate this forum and how much I learn from others.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 27, 2007, 04:08:13 am
Apart from soft proofing and output sharpening which I believe may be on the way at some point, is it technically possible to introduce some way of localised adjustments similar to Photoshop's lasso tool? Granted, the Targeted Adjustment Tool is already available in Lightroom but I don't think it's refined enough for very localalised work.

Would anybody care to suggest what specifics are possible to be brought into Lightroom rather than concentrating on the technial limitatons imposed by the LR system?
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: NikosR on November 27, 2007, 04:38:03 am
This is an interesting discussion. I would like to point out two issues that have been raised.

1. Is it technically feasible to do this or that? I believe anything is feasible, anything can be implemented without moving away from the underlying 'metadata editor' paradigm AS LONG AS Adobe marketing decides to do it.

2. 'Metadata editor' vs 'pixel editor' difference. Too many people are using this too many times to try and explain why LR does or does not do this or that as compared to PS. The fact is the two underlying paradigms are just different means to an end, and while they do impose workflow related differences and demand different sw writing approaches (making some things easier to do under the one or the other paradigm), there is nothing (image editing related) that can be done in one and cannot be done in the other, in principle, just because of different underlying paradigm.

After all both so called 'pixel editors' and 'metadata editors' actually end up affecting pixels, so in that sense a 'metadata editor' IS a pixel editor (i.e. it is not a vector editor). The 'metadata editor' just affects pixels indirectly.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 27, 2007, 06:30:57 am
Now were talking!

Let's concentrate on what IS technically and commercially viable with Lightroom rather than what is not. We don't need a pie-in-the-sky wish list. What this discussion needs, it seems to me, is a realistic what's do-able list.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: digitaldog on November 27, 2007, 09:24:44 am
Quote
After all both so called 'pixel editors' and 'metadata editors' actually end up affecting pixels, so in that sense a 'metadata editor' IS a pixel editor (i.e. it is not a vector editor). The 'metadata editor' just affects pixels indirectly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156347\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think its vitally important for users to understand the difference between parametric editing (metadata editing) and direct pixel manipulation. It has some wonderful advantages and some obvious limitations compared to direct pixel manipulation. Yes, at the end of the day, what LR provides are rendered pixels but using a vastly different mechanism than Photoshop.

One could use Excel instead of Word to write a letter. Both just manipulate, as far as the computer knows, 1's and zeros.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 27, 2007, 09:56:12 am
Fully understood and accepted, Andrew.  In your opinion, does Lightroom's structure impose specific limitations on its development into a standalone product capable of meeting the general  needs of the vast majority of photographers as outlined above? Or will Lightroom and Photoshop be forever joined at the hip, with LR. never being FULLY independent of PS? That's the core of my original question, and judging by the number of hits on this topic, there seems to be a very wide interest in the debate here.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: digitaldog on November 27, 2007, 10:10:35 am
Quote
Fully understood and accepted, Andrew.  In your opinion, does Lightroom's structure impose specific limitations on its development into a standalone product capable of meeting the general  needs of the vast majority of photographers as outlined above? Or will Lightroom and Photoshop be forever joined at the hip, with LR. never being FULLY independent of PS? That's the core of my original question, and judging by the number of hits on this topic, there seems to be a very wide interest in the debate here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't answer that with any authority. I've been working with Photoshop since 1.0.7. At the time, I couldn't possibility imagine what we have today (layers let alone Smart Objects as an example).

I think that as LR evolves, I'll be using Photoshop less and less. But it also depends on specific tasks. I don't scan film any longer so I don't need the precise cloning tools to remove dust that would be absolutely impossible to do today in LR using its clone tool. And yet, having 1000 images all with the same dust spot in the same position, and being able to remove it in all images with one clone application is amazing. So, different tool sets for different tasks.

Once LR has output sharpening and soft proofing, Photoshop will be used far less by me. Right now, its a must. Some selective dodge and burning, perspective crop, even less trips to PS.

The time may come where I'll do 100% of my work in LR on maybe 85% of my images. But I suspect there will be cases where I'll do 50% or more work in Photoshop on maybe 5% of images. It will all be mixed up.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Schewe on November 27, 2007, 10:27:35 am
Quote
In your opinion, does Lightroom's structure impose specific limitations on its development into a standalone product capable of meeting the general  needs of the vast majority of photographers as outlined above?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lightroom is designed for working with multiple images efficiently, Photoshop is designed for working intensely with single images. Pretty sure those design principles will continue down those relatively divergent paths. There are no artificial "specific limitations" to either applications other than what they are being designed to accomplish and the tasks they are required for.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: digitaldog on November 27, 2007, 10:33:58 am
Quote
Lightroom is designed for working with multiple images efficiently, Photoshop is designed for working intensely with single images.

Perfect! That's really what we need to examine. I've also said that Photoshop is, from day one, a one-image-at-a-time process. Even with stuff that's supposed to make it look like it handles multiple images (batch, droplets), its not an effective tool as we have with LR.

If the task requires you to work, as Jeff says intensely on a single image, the tool is most likely going to be Photoshop. But removing even a single dust spot on 100 images? No fun there, go directly to Lightroom.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Tim Gray on November 27, 2007, 10:52:36 am
Quote
...

I think that as LR evolves, I'll be using Photoshop less and less....

The time may come where I'll do 100% of my work in LR on maybe 85% of my images. But I suspect there will be cases where I'll do 50% or more work in Photoshop on maybe 5% of images. It will all be mixed up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

An interesting observation.  It will be interesting to see how this evolves.  I consider myself an advanced intermediate in PS (and LR).  But that took about 8 years of fairly serious effort to figure out (and practice) as much as I have.  If I was using LR for 50 or 60 or 70% of my processing requirements, I suspect that I'd have less of a grasp of what the art of the possible is in PS.  I wonder if there is a slippery slope where more and more people using LR for more and more, which means PS less and less - will lead to a decrease in the critical mass of PS skill and expertise available in the community as a whole (?), meaning an incentive to (even further) "do more and more in LR and less and less in PS".  

I suspect one answer to this dilemma is, as proposed by John Nack, a complete re-engineering of PS to increase intuitive use and reduce redundancy.  It strikes me that this would be an opportunity to think about a convergence.  With all respect - the distinction between pixels and metadata doesn't pursuade me - there's no reason why a single program (or at least a transparent user experience) couldn't embrace both methodologies as appropriate.  As far as I can tell, the smart object metaphor in PS is a sophisticated example of metadata editing (as is ACR).  As far as LR goes, all those metadata edits don't amount to anything until they've been applied to the pixels of the image to facilitate output of some sort.  I think the distinction between the database vs cache model is probably more difficult to harmonize than editing pixels vs metadata.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Schewe on November 27, 2007, 11:14:28 am
Quote
With all respect - the distinction between pixels and metadata doesn't pursuade me - there's no reason why a single program (or at least a transparent user experience) couldn't embrace both methodologies as appropriate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156430\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I think the distinction is FAR more than you realize...you may not see it from the outside, but from inside the app, on the fly parametric edits are extremely different from loading the entire image in ram and tracking the changes to each and every RGB pixel. You mention Smart Objects, but those are not real Photoshop edits...it's a hybrid between parametric and pixel edits but other than Smart Filters there's not a lot left that Photoshop can do about radically extending the SO metaphor. You also forget the size debt you pay–a HUGE debt–for maintaining that SO.

While Photoshop may be in for a UI revamp and updates, you must realize that it's already 4 millions lines of code and counting...any changes in the Photoshop working environment will be evolutionary not revolutionary...after 17 years (PS shipped Feb 1990) you're not gonna turn that battleship on a dime and move it into an entirely different direction–nor would the extended user base want it. Again photographer use of Photoshop is a minority of all users so photography ain't the driving force behind Photoshop (in spite of the word Photo in the name).

Lightroom is an app designed only for photographers and it doesn't need to worry about multiple masters.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: jjj on November 27, 2007, 11:18:59 am
Quote
Now that we all know where we stand, let me see if I've got this right. Lightroom will never be a full, standalone application for working professionals - at least not in the forseeable future, if ever.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For many photographers, pro or amateur, LR will be all they ever need, PS was overkill for the majority of people. But for those who do any photography that involves say compositing or specific selections, LR will naturally fall short and PS will be the better tool.
Only now with LR1.3 am I starting to use LR for serious work, it was too flawed and buggy before for my needs. It's brilliant in places and very clumsy in others, but with each update it get a lot better. I'm still having to do some silly workarounds, but not so many that prevents me using it since the last update.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Tim Gray on November 27, 2007, 11:37:47 am
Quote
You also forget the size debt you pay–a HUGE debt–for maintaining that SO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I guess 640 K should be enough for anyone

Andrew made the point about the un-imaginable changes that have occurred to PS over it's history...  and the rate of change is exponential.  As an arbitrary metric, I'd suggest that we'll see as much change in this space in the next 5 years as we saw in the previous ten.  Some of the common sense restrictions and limitations today won't deserve a second thought 2 or 3 product release cycles from today.

You raise a valid point about the majority of PS users not being photographers.  I was just wondering if the logical progression would be to even fewer photographers even owing the product in the future, assuming the product trajectory you are suggesting?      

Having said all that, I'm still the guy that expects an aggressive Software as a Service model from Adobe hitting the advanced consumer market within the next 5 years.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: jjj on November 27, 2007, 11:47:12 am
Quote
Lightroom is an app designed only for photographers....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And that will hobble it I think - Even photographers need a DAM app that can recognise files other than just images. As Ian mentioned above, LR has some recognition of WAV files, but as it's hidden away, no-one seemed to know! Which seems to be a very LR trait. Lots of very clever things in LR, but it can be hard to find them at times.
Back to other file types. I used LR to import images off my compact for the first time the other day, instead of Bridge and nearly deleted the movie files created by the compact, when the import/copy was finished!

Slideshows are also becoming more common with photojournalists, so being able to handle soundfiles in the library would be a good way to deal with the job. In fact a wave/loop editing module would be a fantastic addition to LR. And for those who will stamp their feet and say that's not for photographers, simply ignore or do not install the module. LR would be an even better tool if it was a proper DAM app and didn't care if a file was video, sound, stills or artwork.
A Soundslides module or a DVD module or a [basic] video editing module would make LR into a very powerful programme indeed. Not so focussed on just photography, but if you just enable/install the modules you need/want, then you can be as streamlined or powerful as you want.
The reason why PS is so good now, is that people other than Photgraphers guided its development. And photographers really benefitted from these other ideas. Even the non photographic text pallette is very handy for producing copyright marks or logos on your web images. The drawing tools can produce frames for prints, layer comps can make for one single PS file rather than several variations and so on.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: AjantaKVS on November 28, 2007, 12:05:17 pm
Quote
Again photographer use of Photoshop is a minority of all users so photography ain't the driving force behind Photoshop (in spite of the word Photo in the name).

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This being the case, then what made Adobe to bundle ACR in to PS, when it is not needed by majority of PS users ? (say 95% of total users,who are not photographers).
 They could have introduced LR as the new and innovative work flow solution for photographers once for all , with out the ACR and Bridge in PS as alternative workflow solution. Just my thought and nothing else, May be I am totally wrong as I am new here
and if so kindly pardon me for putting such a trivial question to a great and experienced person like Jeff

AjantaKVS
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: jjj on November 28, 2007, 12:53:35 pm
Quote
This being the case, then what made Adobe to bundle ACR in to PS, when it is not needed by majority of PS users ? (say 95% of total users,who are not photographers).[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ACR is simply part of PS like web slicing tools are part of PS. Everyone uses a different subset of tools. You simply ignore the ones you don't use.
Taking any tool out will simply upset a lot of people.
Besides even 5% of all PS users is a pretty large no.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: John.Murray on November 28, 2007, 01:01:59 pm
Quote
This being the case, then what made Adobe to bundle ACR in to PS, when it is not needed by majority of PS users ? (say 95% of total users,who are not photographers).
 They could have introduced LR as the new and innovative work flow solution for photographers once for all , with out the ACR and Bridge in PS as alternative workflow solution. Just my thought and nothing else, May be I am totally wrong as I am new here
and if so kindly pardon me for putting such a trivial question to a great and experienced person like Jeff

AjantaKVS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ajanta:  Jeff is merely stating what everyone knows - I regularly send raw files of real estate exteriors to a design person that works with several mortgage companies - she uses photoshop, along with acr - does that make her a photgrapher?  On the other hand, I as a photgrapher rarely have had the need to do separations to send to press, but i have done so - does that make me a "design professional" or graphic artist???

Photoshop has always been a "broad brush" because it's user base comes from many disciplines.  Criticizing Adobe for including the same raw convertor in LR and in PS/Bridge is ludicrous.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Schewe on November 28, 2007, 01:18:27 pm
Quote
This being the case, then what made Adobe to bundle ACR in to PS, when it is not needed by majority of PS users ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Originally, Camera Raw was available (for Photoshop 7.01) as a stand alone purchase for $99.95. And, they sold a lot (don't know the exact quantity, but it was well worth their efforts) but it was deemed that Camera Raw, included with Photoshop (because it was a Photoshop plug-in and required Photoshop to run) made more sense and thus CR 2.0 was included (bundled) into Photoshop CS in the fall of 2003. Which, ironically was just about the time that Mark Hamburg STARTED working on Lightroom (originally called Shadowland).

Camera Raw has gone through 4 major revs since Feb 2003 (when it was first released as a 1.0 stand alone purchase). But it wasn't until the early spring of 2005 that Thomas Knoll (Camera Raw originator) and Mark Hamburg (Lightroom originator) decided to unify the pipeline of Camera Raw & Lightroom and make all the rendering equal.

Now both Thomas and Mark are collaborating on the future of both Camera Raw and Lightroom, which is a way-cool thing! And yet, Photoshop is "stealing" some things from CR/LR...the Back and White adjustment layer is a direct descendent of Lightroom as is Bridge 2 and Element 6.0's dark UI. Also note that even Capture One's 4.0 beta seems to be "stealing" Lightroom's dark UI look.

But, as for photographers representing a minority (I never said an unimportant minority, just that other users rank higher), that's a fact. There are a LOT of people who use Photoshop professionally that AREN'T photographers, even if they have to deal with photos in their work. They USE the photos, not create them and that's a big difference in how they use it.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 28, 2007, 02:10:25 pm
Exactly,  Jeff Schewe. My proposition is that perhaps Lightroom could be deveoped in its own right with sufficient power to cater for the needs of those who CREATE photographs. Let PS deal with those who USE them. I think the distinction you have highlighted here is critical to this entire debate.  I fully understand your repeated assertion that both LR and PS will continue to be developed in tandem for various compelling reasons, and that some photographers will always fall back on PS no matter what. But whereas PS can stand on its own two feet for photography, LR cannot - at least not yet.

Without putting you on the spot or inviting you to reveal any Adobe secrets, may I ask you a genuine and sincere question: do you personally foresee the day when LR will be able to handle what the vast mjority of photographers need. Not esoteric, specialist tools -  just  everyday tasks that can be applied more judiciously and selectively to an image from import to print without having to leave LR at any stage?
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Schewe on November 28, 2007, 02:17:54 pm
Quote
Without putting you on the spot or inviting you to reveal any Adobe secrets, may I ask you a genuine and sincere question: do you personally foresee the day when LR will be able to handle what the vast mjority of photographers need.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156710\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It already does...for many.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 28, 2007, 02:22:17 pm
Perhaps but with all due respect, there is a very large cohort of users who need somewhat more than is available at present
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Schewe on November 28, 2007, 02:39:45 pm
Quote
Perhaps but with all due respect, there is a very large cohort of users who need somewhat more than is available at present
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156717\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uh huh...it's ONLY AT VERSION 1.0 FOR GODSAKE!!!!!

It shipped LESS THAN 1 YEAR AGO!!!!!

Photoshop, by contrast shipped Feb, 1990. It's 17, going on 18. Not even old enough to vote, let alone drink! Photoshop's now at version 10.01 (with two major .5 updates that actually make it version 12).

And Photoshop _STILL_ doesn't have everything photographers need/want.

You might want to quit holding your breath there bud...it's gonna take a while ya know?

Which is why I come back to this idea of spending your time wisely, telling Adobe what you need/want and quit worrying about what Adobe is gonna do with Lightroom & Photoshop. They're in good hands, believe me...
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Tim Gray on November 28, 2007, 02:49:19 pm
Quote
Perhaps but with all due respect, there is a very large cohort of users who need somewhat more than is available at present
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=156717\")

Part of the issue may be familiarity and experience.  Here is a link to a post from the Lightroom-news blog that describes a technique that you might normally think would require a trip to photoshop....

[a href=\"http://lightroom-news.com/2007/11/23/muted-colours-and-other-fashionable-looks/]http://lightroom-news.com/2007/11/23/muted...hionable-looks/[/url]

I think Jeff's reply simply highlights the fact that MOST photographers don't even use Photoshop - so it goes without saying that their needs would be more than adequately served by LR.  Anything beyond that ends up being a slippery slope. The question how much is enough? can be debated endlessly.  The other aspect to the slippery slope metaphor is that as soon as you open it up to a itsy bitsy teeny weeny bit of selective editing...  - well the arguement would be that the entire application architecture would have to change to support that.
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Schewe on November 28, 2007, 04:16:41 pm
Quote
I think Jeff's reply simply highlights the fact that MOST photographers don't even use Photoshop - so it goes without saying that their needs would be more than adequately served by LR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think it might be a bit more accurate to say the MOST photographers don't need MOST of Photoshop...

Lightroom was designed to try to address about 80% of a typical photographer's workflow...
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 28, 2007, 04:38:19 pm
Well, in view of that, is it fair to assume that as things stand, Lightroom 's design will always be governed by the 80% limit?
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: Schewe on November 28, 2007, 04:50:14 pm
Quote
Well, in view of that, is it fair to assume that as things stand, Lightroom 's design will always be governed by the 80% limit?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156753\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Who knows...(well, some us do, but can't say).

Workflows change, adapt or die...
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: barryfitzgerald on November 28, 2007, 07:11:44 pm
I can only speak for myself, and more than a few fellow photographers I know well. And I get the feel that LR really is enough for most of their work.

There will always be some need for a pixel level editor, to some, even I sometimes use one. But overall, LR is saving me lots of time, and its doing the same for most people I know who also use it.

That isnt to say there are not some things to tweak and add..but its def on the right track.

I hardly ever use anything else..bar the odd retouch job...
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: AjantaKVS on November 28, 2007, 11:53:17 pm
Quote
Lightroom is designed for working with multiple images efficiently, Photoshop is designed for working intensely with single images. Pretty sure those design principles will continue down those relatively divergent paths.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From the above quote it makes me think that  a common pro photographer will need both PS and LR,

As a common  pro photographer,in some assignments you may land up in processing large number images in shortest possible amount time with best possible quality  with the above time constraint, in that case you need LR.

And the same pro photographer in some other assignment  may land up in the situation of intensely tweaking very few images, in that case he needs  to fall back on PS.

So, the moral of the story is YOU need both LR and PS, as of now! or may be forever !!!
and the simple trick is choosing the right tool and right work flow for the job at hand.

AjantaKVS
Title: Decision time for Adobe
Post by: seamus finn on November 29, 2007, 04:28:34 am
Schewe: 'Who knows...(well, some  (of) us do, but can't say).
Workflows change, adapt or die'

And Schewe again: 'You might want to quit holding your breath there bud...it's gonna take a while ya know? Which is why I come back to this idea of spending your time wisely, telling Adobe what you need/want and quit worrying about what Adobe is gonna do with Lightroom & Photoshop. They're in good hands, believe me...'


Firstly, Jeff - I'm not holding my  breath here, bud. And I thought I WAS telling Adobe what I - and many others - want. A better Lightroom which, judging from your enigmatic reply about who knows what, means it's on the way only it will take time. No problems with that. I'm a very reasonable and patient person. Better some time than never.

I don't want to go down the road of specifying particular needs - that just ends up in useless, endless wish lists, which are available elsewhere anyway. And I'm quite sure Adobe already knows precisely what people want and in due course will decide what and what not to deliver in V2.

Anyway, the best of luck with the new book.