Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: John Hollenberg on April 02, 2008, 12:04:13 am
-
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/ (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/)
Enjoy!
--John
-
See also the brief review of the public beta of LR 2.0 on Outback Photo:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_2007_0...Beta/index.html (http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_2007_01/section_workflow_basics/20080402_LR20Beta/index.html)
Edit: There is also a review by Ian Lyons here:
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lightroom...a/lr-2-beta.htm (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lightroom_2_beta/lr-2-beta.htm)
--John
-
Some additional notes and Beta Resources on Lightroom Journal (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2008/04/lightroom_2_beta_available.html).
Exciting News ...
-
I knew it was coming today but had no details, there is some really nice stuff here.
Hmm, let's see...
Dodge and Burn
Photomerge
Multiple Monitors
etc
-
The dodge and burn looks cool:
http://www.timaustinimages.com/p985663506/...4B0F9#403573156 (http://www.timaustinimages.com/p985663506/?photo=h0C64B0F9#403573156)
-
All looks very exciting.
I may wait for the bug count to go down a bit before testing (only due to time available).
Does anybody know if this version allows the re-export of untouched jpgs?
-
All looks very exciting.
I may wait for the bug count to go down a bit before testing (only due to time available).
Does anybody know if this version allows the re-export of untouched jpgs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186346\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ditto - Ill download and play around with it - but I wont be doing any serious work with 2.0 until the offical release.
Just quietly.. im pretty excited about local corrections
-
And yet they still haven't fixed the JPG exporting.
EDIT: Quick example.
Lightroom:
(http://i25.tinypic.com/244unu1.jpg)
Lightroom 2:
(http://i26.tinypic.com/2qnw3mg.jpg)
Photoshop:
(http://i26.tinypic.com/2h7ja6e.jpg)
(excuse the slightly different crop)
Look at the artefacts that Lightroom adds around all the text. An extreme example, but it's very annoying.
-
I just installed LR 2 Beta and had no real problems.
LR 1.3 is still running as LR 1.4 Beta loads as a separate program.
The only problem I found with LR 1.4 Beta will not open existing catalogs.
However with that said I did find that when importing images from the current location where I had LR 1.3 photos that all information from 1.3 was active in LR 2 Beta.
Meaning all changes made to images with LR 1.3 where still there after importing to LR 2 Beta.
Stu
-
Ditto - Ill download and play around with it - but I wont be doing any serious work with 2.0 until the offical release.
Just quietly.. im pretty excited about local corrections
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I forgot to add - as excited as I am about local correction capability [and I think that is uber cool ] - WTF happened to adding soft proofing to Lightroom?
-
All looks very exciting.
I may wait for the bug count to go down a bit before testing (only due to time available).
Does anybody know if this version allows the re-export of untouched jpgs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186346\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can export from the Print module to JPEG if that's what you mean.
-
I'd especially be interested in how users find the new output sharpening in the print module compared to output from 1.3.
-
I'd especially be interested in how users find the new output sharpening in the print module compared to output from 1.3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186366\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If its based on PK Sharpener its got to be good.
-
I forgot to add - as excited as I am about local correction capability [and I think that is uber cool ] - WTF happened to adding soft proofing to Lightroom?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
sigh...... looks like softproofing will be in LR v 3 or v4 or .....
Oh well, Qimage will continue to be my print tool of choice.
-
Yes, the new output sharpening is based on Photokit Sharpener and is the result of a collaboration between Jeff Schewe and the Lightroom enginners.
No, there is no softproofing yet!
I am recommending a million man march on Adobe's corporate headquarters to demand it.
Michael
-
I am recommending a million man march on Adobe's corporate headquarters to demand it.
Make it a million and 1
-
Yes, the new output sharpening is based on Photokit Sharpener and is the result of a collaboration between Jeff Schewe and the Lightroom enginners.
No, there is no softproofing yet!
I am recommending a million man march on Adobe's corporate headquarters to demand it.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Having just upgraded to the new Aperture 2 I thought I would use it till LR2 and then switch back. After using it for a couple of weeks I doubt that I will switch back. Sharpening still needs some work as does softproofing but with the new plug in features and the results I am getting Adobe will have to make it very very good before I will buy the update.
-
And no distortion and perspective correction! Arrgghhhhhh
Oh well, it looks decent enough in other ways..
-
Just installed it. It's much, much faster than the 1.X branch. A significant improve on speed on all modules.
The retouch tools are very cool but you can't, for instance, dodge and burn individual channels, which is a must for me. If I had that I'd never use Photoshop again! I like the small 1:1 preview window too.
The good side of not using Photoshop anymore is that you can do all the workflow over RAW images. You don't need gigantic 16-bit TIFFs anymore.
Regards,
Luis
-
Just installed it. It's much, much faster than the 1.X branch. A significant improve on speed on all modules.
Regards,
Luis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well that is welcomed news, I never felt LR was that fast, it was acceptable..never speedy though.
I shall have to try it later on, when I get the chance
-
Could a moderator check that potato1 is not posting an image ripped from Ian Lyon's tutorial? this was the case at DPreview with a user of the same nickname. Thanks.
-
Any estimates or guesses on how long this will be in beta before final release as 2.0?
-
If this is it for the feature set I don't know if I will upgrade (depends on the price). I need soft-proofing and to lesser extent noise reduction. If I'm going to Photoshop anyway for those things I might as well do my local corrections there. It's really frustrating to have to make a TIFF just for soft-proofing.
I'm guessing there will be a new Photoshop out this fall as well so that might get my money instead (still on CS2).
I will be watching closely for reviews on the new output sharpening though.
-
It's 1/2 of what I needed. CS3 will still need to be in my workflow, so it's not a very good update for me.
-
I am recommending a million man march on Adobe's corporate headquarters to demand it.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't be too angry. I was too when I found out. But I really want to see this done RIGHT. Do they provide soft proof in Develop? And if so, do you see it (and can you control it) in Print module? Or should you have limited develop for soft proof IN Print? Would the settings be only print specific and if so, would you want to have a history (of course). Or do we need a soft proof module? IOW,
Adobe could have just popped some (lame) Photoshop like soft proofing into the mix and that toothpaste would be out of the tube. I'd rather see the LR team really do a slick and useful job in the next version. Its not an easy task (soft proofing in Photoshop could be lot better in terms of ease of use and compare functionality). So, while we don't have soft proofing, lets encourage the LR team to build the functionality that far exceeds what we are currently using in Photoshop.
-
Nick,
Where do you see Photomerge?
Thanks
Dennis
-
Andrew,
I'd settle for a small soft proof preview similar to the one in CS3 Print, so I can make a quick decision on whether to use RelCol or Perceptual.
I'm not that hard to please.
Michael
-
Yes, the new output sharpening is based on Photokit Sharpener and is the result of a collaboration between Jeff Schewe and the Lightroom enginners.
No, there is no softproofing yet!
I am recommending a million man march on Adobe's corporate headquarters to demand it.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps, as a concession to the likelihood of mass laziness, we could simply photoshop our faces into a march on Adobe...
Local changes are nice, but if I have to do the round trip to Photoshop, I might as well do them there.
-
Don't be too angry. I was too when I found out. But I really want to see this done RIGHT. Do they provide soft proof in Develop? And if so, do you see it (and can you control it) in Print module? Or should you have limited develop for soft proof IN Print? Would the settings be only print specific and if so, would you want to have a history (of course). Or do we need a soft proof module? IOW,
Adobe could have just popped some (lame) Photoshop like soft proofing into the mix and that toothpaste would be out of the tube. I'd rather see the LR team really do a slick and useful job in the next version. Its not an easy task (soft proofing in Photoshop could be lot better in terms of ease of use and compare functionality). So, while we don't have soft proofing, lets encourage the LR team to build the functionality that far exceeds what we are currently using in Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In all honesty, they could have popped a lame version in to hold us over until it was done properly. I would have been delighted to have a soft-proof capacity that limited the round trips to Photoshop.
-
Any chance for one of those "smart selection tool"s to be added to the final release? Would love to use that with the new local enhancement choices we now have with the brushes in this current beta release. (ie: I could select a whole sky with a click and drag of the cursor then alter the exposure of just the sky, for instance). Eleanor Brown
-
Lightroom 2.0 - 4 Hours later.
After spending the last several hours playing with the new 2.0 beta, I'm impressed with the changes to-date. Its not perfect, and there are still some things missing that would be very useful (soft proofing anyone ?), however for MY workflow, the improvements have fixed a number of gotcha's with LR for me.
I think its now viable to use as a Image management (DAMlite as it were) product for image reviewing, cataloging and workflow for my image library. (Your mileage may vary of course).
The big changes that I think make this possible, that I've tested so far
1. Dual Monitor support. Finally can have LR on one screen, and the full screen preview on another.
2. 30,000 pixel size limit. This was a big boost, as previously with panoramas and scanned 4x5, it failed dismally for including these images in the library. New one works just fine.
3. Open in Photoshop for Photomerge, HDR and Smart Object. ! This is an excellent improvement, as is not requiring it to be saved as a Tiff first, (and saved someplace I didn't want it). I am hoping this is enough to give Bridge the flick for image review and processing.
If they support some of the other PS integration, such as image processor, or scripting, that will be even better, but this is a great start.
(Wishlist: Ability to script similar exports to other tools, like say, ptGui direct from the library).
4. Annoyance. I liked the old meta-data browser, specifically locations listed as a hierarchy. Shame thats gone. Can't see any way to reproduce that with the filters in the same way.
I don't print from Lightroom (yet), and roundtrip everything to PS CS3 still, however that could change. I like the new sharpening, and local adjustments. Hopefully this is the sign of things to come in the next CS as well. Looking forward to any other features they add prior to release, and in future versions, but so far, its looking really good. Thumbs up to the devs.
Caveat: Yes, I know its not perfect, there are MANY things that we all want, but I believe it’s a great step forward, and for me at least, looks like its now viable to use full time now.
Tomorrow my 8gb Vista 64 box arrives, so that will be a real test, and nice timing by adobe to release a 64bit app. With the usual caution of a beta product (i.e. Backups !), I think I'll be importing my entire library into LR2 on the weekend, on Vista 64, and see what happens.
Regards
Mark
-
Could a moderator check that potato1 is not posting an image ripped from Ian Lyon's tutorial? this was the case at DPreview with a user of the same nickname. Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Pierre,
The page is now a dead link and the same post he posted to DP Review has been removed by the sysop over there.
BTW, thanks to all who contacted me to let me know that my work was being ripped off, I appreciate you taking the time to drop me a note.
Ian
-
Thanks Mark. I just imported 10,000 images in 50 minutes, no crashes. Vista 64, 16 gigs of ram, 2 Zeon processors. This 64bit seems very stable.
Dennis
-
Andrew,
I'd settle for a small soft proof preview similar to the one in CS3 Print, so I can make a quick decision on whether to use RelCol or Perceptual.
I'm not that hard to please.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We need the paper simulation, otherwise just picking an intent isn't that big a deal (9 times out of ten, RelCol works for me, based on the profile package I use). With the simulation, we've got UI issues in Photoshop, a kludge of a means to show a before and after and so forth. Yes, Photoshop is far better than no soft proof but its far from the best solution. I hope that's something that is addressed properly (along with a way to save output specific edits in history) in LR.
Its not that difficult to setup a small low rez export to your encoding color space of choice and a droplet with that to open and view just to observe which rendering intent to use in PS, then go into LR to set it for print. The full soft proof and editing experience needs a lot more.
-
Nick,
Where do you see Photomerge?
Thanks
Dennis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Select two or more images, right click and choose the Edit in Photoshop flyout. If you have CS3 10.01 you will see some more options.
It's just like Tools/Photoshop/Photomerge in Bridge2. No batching though.
-
We need the paper simulation, otherwise just picking an intent isn't that big a deal (9 times out of ten, RelCol works for me, based on the profile package I use). With the simulation, we've got UI issues in Photoshop, a kludge of a means to show a before and after and so forth. Yes, Photoshop is far better than no soft proof but its far from the best solution. I hope that's something that is addressed properly (along with a way to save output specific edits in history) in LR.
Its not that difficult to setup a small low rez export to your encoding color space of choice and a droplet with that to open and view just to observe which rendering intent to use in PS, then go into LR to set it for print. The full soft proof and editing experience needs a lot more.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew - you are of course correct that we need the paper simulation as well as the rendering intent [and I am more than sure Michael meant to include it when he refered to soft proofing]. We also ideally need a before and after preview so we can adjust the preview to match the before [ala the Jeff Schewe approach in the Luminous Landscape FCtoP tutorial].
Surely this is not hard to do in LR - given the before and after is already a built in capability in LR. And.. rendering intents are already part of the print module. I would have thought this would be far easier to add than the local correction capability [which is just way uber cool] that is now in V2. Beta.
It just seems to me a no brainer to put soft proofing into LR - and totally up front and honestly I am REALLY surprised local correction has found its way into LR before soft proofing. Seems like the tail is wagging the dog at Adobe at the moment. [pardon the intended pun with the best of intentions]
I really hope... Softproofing finds its way into the full V2 release.
-
Works Great!
Thanks
-
Surely this is not hard to do in LR - given the before and after is already a built in capability in LR.
I really hope... Softproofing finds its way into the full V2 release.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nothing from the outside "seems hard". There's far more to all this than just setting up a before and after. There's more than this than "copy and pasting" some code from Photoshop. And no, you're not going to see soft proofing in Version 2 so let's all get over it and think about how it could be done in such a way that we all say "wow" like the other functionality that was unique in terms of design seen from the LR team in the past.
-
Could soft proofing be done as a plug-in?
-
You can export from the Print module to JPEG if that's what you mean.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not really. What I meant is that for those of us who shoot a mix of RAW and jpgs, LR does not re-export your jpgs untouched if you want to export a whole bunch of pictures to the web for example. It typicaly creates new jpgs which are about twice the size of the originals! This prevents a simple LR based workflow. A of 1.3 there was no workaround outside selective exporting and then moving around unmodified pics. It appears that this has not been addreesed in 2.0 beta...
-
I downloaded the beta today and played with it for about an hour. Only after reading Andrew Rodney's 2 page review did I find out about the 64-bit switch in the "info" tab.
So now, in addition to the new features, I'm excited about the 64 bit capability. It finally looks like Adobe LR and, hopefully PS soon, will let me see what my Mac Pro 8-core with 12GB RAM in internal RAID 0 drives can really do.
I agree with Michael that soft proofing is an important feature. And I'll add that the release version should include the full capability of PK Sharpener. I use it in PS CS3 and it is awesome.
Cheers.
Bud James
North Wales.
-
Nothing from the outside "seems hard". There's far more to all this than just setting up a before and after. There's more than this than "copy and pasting" some code from Photoshop. And no, you're not going to see soft proofing in Version 2 so let's all get over it and think about how it could be done in such a way that we all say "wow" like the other functionality that was unique in terms of design seen from the LR team in the past.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To elaborate on Andrew's point, it turns out there are complex technical (and cross platform) reasons why soft proofing is currently difficult to add to LR, even though it's been in PS for a long time. (Similarly, there are technical reasons why LR is getting 16-bit printing before PS.)
This is a really unsatisfying and frustrating (even stupid-sounding) reason to give to users, and I understand that. Photographers just want the darn thing in there (who cares about the little tech issues ...).
The message I want to convey here is that the LR team is pretty aware of the requests for soft proofing. But it won't be in V2.
-
To elaborate on Andrew's point, it turns out there are complex technical (and cross platform) reasons why soft proofing is currently difficult to add to LR, even though it's been in PS for a long time. (Similarly, there are technical reasons why LR is getting 16-bit printing before PS.)
This is a really unsatisfying and frustrating (even stupid-sounding) reason to give to users, and I understand that. Photographers just want the darn thing in there (who cares about the little tech issues ...).
The message I want to convey here is that the LR team is pretty aware of the requests for soft proofing. But it won't be in V2.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187127\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As a programmer, I understand the problem. The internal representation might just not ber amenable to soft-proofing, which could mean that adding soft-proofing would require rewriting virtually every piece of code that actually deals with the pixels. The thing about great programs is that they make complex things seem simple.
Of course, as a photographer, I want soft-proofing in there, now! Only the multi-image external editing is really interesting for me.
-Lars
-
So now, in addition to the new features, I'm excited about the 64 bit capability. It finally looks like Adobe LR and, hopefully PS soon, will let me see what my Mac Pro 8-core with 12GB RAM in internal RAID 0 drives can really do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Little chance for PS going 64 bit on Mac in the foreseeable future, I'm afraid.
-
still no tethering??
I want this badly and can only imagine its very easy to implement.
-
I want this badly and can only imagine its very easy to implement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187462\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You would be wrong...it's _VERY_ difficult to implement because there is not cross-platform standards for direct camera control. Even the camera makers have problems connecting to their cameras reliably and since Camera Raw/Lightroom supports over 180 cameras to date, support for tethered shooting with all cameras would be a massive effort.
However, setting up a "Watched Folder" in LR and using the camera maker's tethered software works quite well.
-
You would be wrong...it's _VERY_ difficult to implement because there is not cross-platform standards for direct camera control. Even the camera makers have problems connecting to their cameras reliably and since Camera Raw/Lightroom supports over 180 cameras to date, support for tethered shooting with all cameras would be a massive effort.
However, setting up a "Watched Folder" in LR and using the camera maker's tethered software works quite well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187479\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Apple implemented it based on a standard tethering protocol which works for all Canon and Nikon cameras *except* the 1D* Mark III cameras.
And people are bitching endlessly about that.
It's sorta a no-win situation. Support 92% of what's out there and the 8% will scream like you just stuck an eggplant up their mom's privates
-
Apple implemented it based on a standard tethering protocol which works for all Canon and Nikon cameras *except* the 1D* Mark III cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And Apple only had to deal with _ONE_ platform...image the shyte hitting the fan if that were to happen. Phase One only supports a small subset of cameras tethered and they are a camera company with a long history of tethered shooting for their own cameras.
Nope, it ain't easy in the least and considering the Watched Folder does allow for most of the functionality users need, it's simply not a subject that will get enough traction to pull resources away from other needed functions...
-
While there are lots of good features in 2.0, I'm disappointed that Aperture has seemingly taken the lead in providing plug-ins. There are a few features that I'd be willing to wait for before bothering to download (and presumably pay for) 2.0. These would be: soft proofing (I'm 1 million and 2), plug-ins from third parties and the ability to network a workgroup of computers. Until Adobe addresses these three issues, Lightroom will be of limited value to many pros.
-
While there are lots of good features in 2.0, I'm disappointed that Aperture has seemingly taken the lead in providing plug-ins.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187671\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You realize what's actually going on here? The plug-in's are NOT accessing the Raw pipeline. Aperture renders a TIFF, the filters operate as they would had you done all this with a trip into Photoshop. Its all done behind the scene but the important part is, this is not non destructive, metadata editing.
-
You realize what's actually going on here? The plug-in's are NOT accessing the Raw pipeline. Aperture renders a TIFF, the filters operate as they would had you done all this with a trip into Photoshop. Its all done behind the scene but the important part is, this is not non destructive, metadata editing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is true. Additionally the LR 2.0 provided brush corrections do form part of the non-destructive editing chain while Aperture dodge and burn filter doesn't. Regarding access to raw data, I have read that Apple have stated that the filters will be able to access raw data, so that part is left to the filter authors.
However the way you have phrased your statement seems to imply that all operations applied within a 'metadata' editor (and in a non-destructive edit chain) necessarily operate on raw (rather than RGB data). This I don't believe to be true (some operations may and some may not) although there's no clear documentation of the distinction on the part of the authors.
What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that the facts that an editor happens to be a raw converter and a metadata type of image editor should not be confused with each other.
I'm making this assertion in a general way not specific to LR. Since these forums seem to be frequented by quite a few LR insiders I would welcome some enlightening comments about this.
PS. We had a similar discussion in the Aperture thread which unfortunately deteriorated in an exchange of personal attacks and that was partly my fault. I hope this one doesn't.
-
I'd really hate to see LR turned into another version of Photoshop with eight million different gadgets that make it harder and harder to use. One of the best things about Lightroom is that it's straight-forward and intuitive. If you want Photoshop, use Photoshop. And it's not a matter of "Why not get everything, and then you can just use a subset and everybody else can use their own subset." Then you essentially have Photoshop again, and it no longer IS intuitive -- that means that the functions get buried in pop-up menus among all kinds of stuff that you'll never use, and if you don't use it frequently you've got to go find it...it freaks me out that people buy 8-core Macs so they can save two nanoseconds in processing, but use software that has a basic function that takes five minutes to look up off-line in a manual, when you can find the manual...
I would like a LR where all the functions are out front, and if you need to do heavy-duty compositing, send it off to Photoshop. Lightroom was not intended to be a cheap Photoshop: it was intended to be a photographer's tool in which, it was assumed, most of the work would be done in the camera. Photographers are not computer geeks; they don't sit around eight hours a day memorizing keyboard shortcuts.
As for soft-proofing, I would prefer that Adobe come up with a separate hand-off program called "Adobe Soft-Proof" which would have some extensive soft-proofing capabilities, that could be independently upgraded over the years, as printers and printing technologies evolve, that wouldn't involve tearing the ass off Lightroom every four years. I don't see why it couldn't be virtually seamless -- put it right under "Edit in Photoshop": View in Soft-Proof.
JC
-
I don't know; maybe i missed the whole point about what lightroom should be but even the V2 isn't near the "one product for entire workflow" solution.
I was perfectly aware that v1 was just that; first version of the software that has in many ways served to collect user feedbacks, analising market needs etc. etc. But v2 as far i can see it isn't near what i hoped for to be.
Soft proofing, most of you here do share my opinion .. so i will not repeat it. If it was a Microsoft product i wouldn't be surprised but common Adobe .. what's your target user base here? Technical reasons? If that's the case then i'm even more concerned about the whole LR thing.
Sharpening.
Ok .. they have done something, and maybe it is the best they could do at the moment but for me personally, calling the output sharpening "lightroom's photokit sharpener" doesn't make sense; we don't have any option to apply it locally (this is why we have layers in PS) and we don't have any preview before printing. So, we are closer to what we have in LR 1 than what we have in PS IMHO.
(having it as a "correction tool brush" would be sufficient IMHO).
Dual monitor support;
better anything than nothing i guess but it isn't really so well implemented yet (to be fair i do believe this will be improved in the final version). Not to mention that i DO expect adobe to provide a workable solution for using monitor profiles; on windows at least this isn't the case since only one profile is applied on both monitors (yes, i'm aware of the mess Microsoft has created but they at least managed to sort this out with the color control applet, something adobe is ignoring.
Stacking
One of my favorite option in both Bridge and Lightroom but so limited in implementation. Why can't Adobe provide a simple basic autostack option based on file name? With the problematic (if not buggy) way adobe is treating "capture time" auto stacking option is very unreliable, at least for me. And .. having images in stacks and then applying keywords to only top stack image is at least questionable approach; even bridge has it implemented properly.
Now, Lightroom is maybe the only software i ever really wanted to be good. Many of us need something like Lightroom was promised to be but no matter how much i do like it, every time i use it, it brings various kind of frustrations and despite some nice additions this beta has provided i'm afraid that as soon it will be released i will wait for the next version to be released.
p.s.
plug-in interface was IMHO one of the main reasons why Photoshop has become so popular; i wish lightroom has provided similar architecture since waiting for adobe to get most things people want may take ages. And i'm not talking about export-plug-ins, web galleries or things like that; i'm talking about real plug-ins that do provide a true real time previews in develop module. Without real time previews we can use photoshop actions just as we can now use export modules ... isn't really all that different
Just IMHO of course
-
Sharpening.
Ok .. they have done something, and maybe it is the best they could do at the moment but for me personally, calling the output sharpening "lightroom's photokit sharpener" doesn't make sense; we don't have any option to apply it locally (this is why we have layers in PS) and we don't have any preview before printing. So, we are closer to what we have in LR 1 than what we have in PS IMHO.
(having it as a "correction tool brush" would be sufficient IMHO).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wrong...while PhotoKit Sharpener's Output Sharpening was layer based and thus allowed on to vary the opacity, I've never run across anybody who made a practice of allying layer masks to paint output sharpening in. The simply fact is that sharpening for output can not be done using a display feedback. A display is simply too low resolution to give you any meaningful feedback. You may be confusing output sharpening with "creative sharpening" which was designed to be applied locally. And since LR 2 is still beta, don't be surprised to see additional things added to the local corrections adjustments (things like sharpening and smoothing would not surprise me at all).
Combined with the capture sharpening in Develop and output sharpening in Print, 2/3's of the Sharpening Workflow designed by Bruce Fraser are now in Lightroom. All that's left is local creative sharpening...and that may still come.
-
You realize what's actually going on here? The plug-in's are NOT accessing the Raw pipeline. Aperture renders a TIFF, the filters operate as they would had you done all this with a trip into Photoshop. Its all done behind the scene but the important part is, this is not non destructive, metadata editing.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=187673\")
Yes, this is what the sample plug-in that ships with Aperture does. That doesn't necessarily mean that's the way ALL plug-ins will work... until we see the SDK we won't know for sure. I don't know how Nik and Noise Ninja are working, for example. Rob Galbraith notes the plug-ins can have access to the RAW data:
[a href=\"http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9308-9356]http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-9308-9356[/url]
But I don't know either way, not having seen the SDK yet.
-
As for soft-proofing, I would prefer that Adobe come up with a separate hand-off program called "Adobe Soft-Proof" which would have some extensive soft-proofing capabilities, that could be independently upgraded over the years, as printers and printing technologies evolve, that wouldn't involve tearing the ass off Lightroom every four years. I don't see why it couldn't be virtually seamless -- put it right under "Edit in Photoshop": View in Soft-Proof.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John-KIS! That's the smartest comment I've read on this Forum in months (especially in light of the 1.4 print fiasco). Don't want to hijack this thread, but I'd sure like some of the gurus to comment on this idea.
--Dave
-
Jeff, I'm certainly not prepared to go in any discussion in this regard especially because i imagine how much we all owe you when LR is concerned. Still ..
Wrong...while PhotoKit Sharpener's Output Sharpening was layer based and thus allowed on to vary the opacity, I've never run across anybody who made a practice of allying layer masks to paint output sharpening in.
I'm not sure if i should be ashamed to be one ?
I used to do that even on my final sharpening step for printing. Of course it is a image-to-image situations but i change the opacity of the final sharpening layer depending on the image area. If i'm alone in doing that then my apologies for thinking this is a requirement to have.
The simply fact is that sharpening for output can not be done using a display feedback. A display is simply too low resolution to give you any meaningful feedback.
I'm aware of this and that's why i tried to "find an appropriate workaround" and develop module seems the only place suitable to do it (or a "mighty power new feature" to provide a small box in the print module or a new small loupe thing for checking details taking in mind all limitation monitor display have when "judging" final print files).
(no i'm not confusing this with "creative" sharpening)
And since LR 2 is still beta, don't be surprised to see additional things added to the local corrections adjustments (things like sharpening and smoothing would not surprise me at all).
That's what i hoped to hear
Combined with the capture sharpening in Develop and output sharpening in Print, 2/3's of the Sharpening Workflow designed by Bruce Fraser are now in Lightroom. All that's left is local creative sharpening...and that may still come.
If you say so ...
Still some kind of layers or stacks or regions (as found in lightzone for example) in the develop module would be even better but then again i can't expect to have Lightroom acting as PS (but i'm sure it will be very close at some point few years from now )
It is all about workflow and i would really like to be able to process most of my shots "from capture to print" within lightroom; it is just that personally i don't think we are close to that point but as you said, hopefully the final version may surprise me
Happy shooting !
-
You would be wrong...it's _VERY_ difficult to implement because there is not cross-platform standards for direct camera control. Even the camera makers have problems connecting to their cameras reliably and since Camera Raw/Lightroom supports over 180 cameras to date, support for tethered shooting with all cameras would be a massive effort.
However, setting up a "Watched Folder" in LR and using the camera maker's tethered software works quite well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187479\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It would be nice if this could be support via plugins. Any news if there will be a more advanced plugin support with LR 2.0?
This way maybe Canon and Nikon etc could add tethered support to Lightroom, or possible some 3rd party could make a business of this.
Maybe even softproofing could be added by a third party this way (even though it might not have full access to all the internal pixel data, one could atleast get some basic soft proofing done).
Another thing that would be nice is having a plugin for lens correction based on profiles (PTLens or DXO optics)..
-
This way maybe Canon and Nikon etc could add tethered support to Lightroom, or possible some 3rd party could make a business of this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're kidding, right? Nikon or Canon make a plug-in or module to work with Lightroom? The phrase "cold day in hell" comes to mind.
Look, camera communications is a VERY DIFFICULT thing to engineer. Phase One has a long history of camera com because, well, all their cameras used to be tethered and HAVE to be controlled by the software and even Phase only added tethered support for a small subset of pro DSLRs...
Setting up a Watched Folder and the sort order to be most recent at the top and control the camera with the camera software to set F stop and shutter speed and ISO works perfectly well. As soon as the image is saved to disk it's auto-imported into Lightroom. Click on the image and hit the D key and you're in Develop.
The one thing I'll note however, the whole tethered approach works a lot better/faster under Windows than Mac. Some of this may be because of Apple's USB 2.0 pipeline but it's also the fault of the camera makers.
On a recent Lightroom shoot with Martin Evening, he had to boot via Bootcamp into Windows and use Remote Capture from Canon under Windows because the Mac version sucks, is real slow and prone to losing connections...and that's Canon's own software on the Mac sucking. Imagine the problems Lightroom would have asking Canon for help tethering to their cameras when Canon can't get their own stuff to work well on Mac.
I also wouldn't hold your breath for Phase One to pony up and make a tethered plug-in for Lightroom...
Asking for tethered support is fine...but you really must understand what you are asking for. It ain't easy and would certainly take away from other LR features for what is arguably a small subset of users.
Tethered works now, about as well as one can expect using the camera makers' software.
-
...
Tethered works now, about as well as one can expect using the camera makers' software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that's the point
The camera makers' software sucks (hell, Canon's DPP 3.2 doesn't even *run* on Leopard... so I don't think you CAN capture with the camera manufacturer's software), so it would be nice to have an alternative. This is something that Aperture 2.0 *does* do, again with the caveat that it doesn't work for their latest and greatest cameras.
Just when you thought there was a way out of the quagmire... right back into it I guess.
-
John-KIS! That's the smartest comment I've read on this Forum in months (especially in light of the 1.4 print fiasco). Don't want to hijack this thread, but I'd sure like some of the gurus to comment on this idea.
--Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187731\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I might have missed something in soft proofing (only now getting it into my workflow), but wouldn't you want to have access to most of the color tweaking settings of LR while soft proofing in order to get the best out of the image and printer combination?
-Lars
-
I'd really hate to see LR turned into another version of Photoshop with eight million different gadgets that make it harder and harder to use. One of the best things about Lightroom is that it's straight-forward and intuitive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've used PS since PS3 and it's become so much easier to use due to the additional features. Much, much easier. Drop shadows, now a couple of clicks rather than a complex series of actions. Not only that, they're live and editable. Soooo much better. Adjustment layers - woo-hoo, another fantastic tool. Customisable interface/keyboard shortcuts, context senitive tool bar all made the PS user's life easier. The only thing I can think of that made PS worse was actually the removal of a feature, the palette well. Which made for a more cluttered/clumsy interface.
Lots of thing in LR are anything but intuitive. Batch renaming was one that needed some head scratching; as did simple renaming, which works differently from every other piece of software I've ever used. There were quite a few others too, but I think some have been eliminated through version changes and others I've become used to so forgotten how daft they were to discover.
-
Am I the only one to find the selective edits, ala saturation, brightness etc..slow and choppy? I mean ok for a bit, then chug chug ...
Faster to do it with another program being honest..
-
I've used PS since PS3 and it's become so much easier to use due to the additional features. Much, much easier. Drop shadows, now a couple of clicks rather than a complex series of actions. Not only that, they're live and editable. Soooo much better. Adjustment layers - woo-hoo, another fantastic tool. <snip>
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The key phrase in your post is "I've used PS since PS3," which means that you've used it a lot. PS is a brilliant program if you're a photo-compositor, but the fact of the matter is, there are entire books on the use of layers...or the use of camera raw...Martin Evening's CS2 book is 675 pages long. *That's* what I don't want, and it's not necessary for a straight photo-processing program. As I said in my post, if you want to do photo-compositing, go to Photoshop, but there's little point in making Lightroom into Photoshop; we already *have* a Photoshop. It's called *Photoshop*.
And I think this an important point, because in the rush to compete, the *easiest* way to show apparent progress is to kludge on a few new features. It's like putting another two megapixels into a P&S and advertising a "better camera." If you do that every time, in a few iterations you've got a monster.
I thought -- and I thought Adobe's concept was -- that Lightroom would combine the features you need to make a really good professional-level "straight" photo, and to print it at exhibit quality, and to provide a DAM. One solid program for straight photographers, that will take you from capture to print, and provide for data management.
To get there, there's still a lot of work to do, but it's not the glamorous, "We've added a lot of features" stuff. It's making the DAM better, it's making the current controls more sensitive, it's providing (one way or another - I suggest a hand-off program) for soft-proofing. Schewe and another guy have been going back and forth about tethered shooting, and Jeff's suggestion that a watched-file be used seems straight-forward enough. Perhaps there would be a way to make this solution more apparent; perhaps even with a "Helpful hint" for tethered shooters. But we don't need a tethered shooting module that has 180 cameras and climbing, and takes up another 2 gigs of memory and climbing...
Straight photographers don't need two clicks to drop shadows, because the shadows are already in the photo. The key to Lightroom, IMHO, is to keep it relatively simple. *It's not Photoshop.*
JC
-
Performance will be improved in the final version. Optimizations for local corrections aren't in the public beta. (The idea is to get the basic functionality in there to see if it meets the users' editing needs. Performance is usually the last thing to get put in.)
-
The key phrase in your post is "I've used PS since PS3," which means that you've used it a lot.
And I mentioned that, only to illustrate how much easier it has become, by adding new features and making it less complex to use. Especially for a beginner to PS.
PS is a brilliant program if you're a photo-compositor, but the fact of the matter is, there are entire books on the use of layers...or the use of camera raw...Martin Evening's CS2 book is 675 pages long. *That's* what I don't want, and it's not necessary for a straight photo-processing program. As I said in my post, if you want to do photo-compositing, go to Photoshop, but there's little point in making Lightroom into Photoshop; we already *have* a Photoshop. It's called *Photoshop*.
To repeat myself - I was not talking about LR Vs PS, I was illustrating a point that adding new features does not necessarily makes a programme more difficult. LR has had numerous features added since the first version I tried and is waaaay better aas a result. Still a fair way to go though.
Besides if you think of PS as a compositing programme, you're missing most of what PS can do. Oh BTW, Martin Evening's book on LR is 352 pages and with supplements for .1 upgrades too. And that's for simply for version one, not Version 10!
And I think this an important point, because in the rush to compete, the *easiest* way to show apparent progress is to kludge on a few new features. It's like putting another two megapixels into a P&S and advertising a "better camera." If you do that every time, in a few iterations you've got a monster.
Bad analogy as more MP is a quality attribute and does not affect usuability of camera, which is what most feature requests are.
I thought -- and I thought Adobe's concept was -- that Lightroom would combine the features you need to make a really good professional-level "straight" photo, and to print it at exhibit quality, and to provide a DAM. One solid program for straight photographers, that will take you from capture to print, and provide for data management.
And to do that it needs a whole lot more features! So
To get there, there's still a lot of work to do, but it's not the glamorous, "We've added a lot of features" stuff. It's making the DAM better, it's making the current controls more sensitive, it's providing (one way or another - I suggest a hand-off program) for soft-proofing. Schewe and another guy have been going back and forth about tethered shooting, and Jeff's suggestion that a watched-file be used seems straight-forward enough. Perhaps there would be a way to make this solution more apparent; perhaps even with a "Helpful hint" for tethered shooters. But we don't need a tethered shooting module that has 180 cameras and climbing, and takes up another 2 gigs of memory and climbing...
Also I have very little time for those who moan about other people's new ideas for features, that they don't need. Don't be so damn selfish. If you don't want it, ignore it. Others may think the feature you have no need for is brilliant. Tethered shooting is not a pressing need for me, but I appreciate it is very useful for others, so let people request it.
I read a review of a product recently and it was slagged off for having a pointless feature. That feature was the specific reason I chose that product above all others in market place. People should be more open minded and less self centred.
Apart from anything else, the improvements you want are also new features.
Straight photographers don't need two clicks to drop shadows, because the shadows are already in the photo. The key to Lightroom, IMHO, is to keep it relatively simple. *It's not Photoshop.*[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To repeat myself again, creating DropShadoes in PS used to be a laborious process, now it's easy. This does not follow that I want LR to have Drop Shadows, it was simply an example of more features making life easier.
Not sure why you are raging about LR becoming PS. If you read my post properly, you'd notice I didn't suggest such a thing.
Amongst other things, drop shadows are very useful for say framing an image, they are not just to add shadows to the contents of image
-
[inserted quote : external soft-proofing suggestion]
wouldn't you want to have access to most of the color tweaking settings of LR while soft proofing in order to get the best out of the image and printer combination?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ditto... At least some global or color-based saturation and tonal controls.
To elaborate a bit, I'd prefer have one tool dealing with most of the workflow. It sounds much more like a logical and wise UI to me than relying on multiple softwares, which could only add more complexity.
Keep it simple, but not TOO simple.
-
You're kidding, right? Nikon or Canon make a plug-in or module to work with Lightroom? The phrase "cold day in hell" comes to mind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why so? Aren't Canon and Nikon in the business of selling cameras and not making money on their software?
Well indirectly they make money on the software on those few people who only use their raw converters, but my feeling (no facts, just my general impression from every forum and photographer I've spoken too) is that most photographers use some third party RAW converter instead of what is supplied with Canon and Nikon.
Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to make a bundle deal with Adobe (as Mamiya has done) and cut their costs in development of their own RAW converter?
This way they could focus on supporting Adobe with any SDKs/utility libraries and get the things more stable and better...
Look, camera communications is a VERY DIFFICULT thing to engineer. Phase One has a long history of camera com because, well, all their cameras used to be tethered and HAVE to be controlled by the software and even Phase only added tethered support for a small subset of pro DSLRs...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't see why this should be difficult to do by the camera maker, when they control the firmware in the camera that communicates with their own software on the computer.
If they have problems with this then it's because of bad programmers/engineers, not because it's a difficult task.
That it is difficult to do for a third party, when Nikon or Canon don't supply them with the information, is another thing. Then you might have to reverse engineer and try to guess what the quirks and possible bugs that need a workaround are present in each and every cameras firmware.
Setting up a Watched Folder and the sort order to be most recent at the top and control the camera with the camera software to set F stop and shutter speed and ISO works perfectly well. As soon as the image is saved to disk it's auto-imported into Lightroom. Click on the image and hit the D key and you're in Develop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I know and I use this when I shoot tethered.
The one thing I'll note however, the whole tethered approach works a lot better/faster under Windows than Mac. Some of this may be because of Apple's USB 2.0 pipeline but it's also the fault of the camera makers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Probably the fault of the camera makers as they probably allocate more resources for windows development than Mac.
Imagine the problems Lightroom would have asking Canon for help tethering to their cameras when Canon can't get their own stuff to work well on Mac.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My suggestion, clarified above, was that Canon would make the plugin for LR, meaning it would be 'their own stuff'.
However if Canon's Mac programmers are not good, then it would still work bad.
On the other hand if Canons engineers could focus on this part instead of developing their own RAW converter then things might work better
I also wouldn't hold your breath for Phase One to pony up and make a tethered plug-in for Lightroom...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course not, unless it would be an interesting business for them (which I doubt).
Asking for tethered support is fine...but you really must understand what you are asking for.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe my original question was about plugin support in LR, so that other companies can add features to LR.
One of the suggestions for plugins I gave was tethered and another (which I find more important) would be to have lens correction.
DXO optics already considers they have a simple form of "plugin" for LR, having a propper plugin interface would most probably be very interesting for them and all of LR's users.
To repeat one of my questions.
"Any news if there will be a more advanced plugin support with LR 2.0?"
-
Why so? Aren't Canon and Nikon in the business of selling cameras and not making money on their software?
You'd think so but they don't act that way.
...my feeling (no facts, just my general impression from every forum and photographer I've spoken too) is that most photographers use some third party RAW converter instead of what is supplied with Canon and Nikon.
As a photographer, I can say, most of us are cheap <g>. So I suspect the reason we use 3rd party software is because the manufacturers products suck so bad. And yet, ask them to do something reasonable, like allow DNG support in their software, or ask them not to encrypt white balance data and they act like they do sell a software product.
Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to make a bundle deal with Adobe (as Mamiya has done) and cut their costs in development of their own RAW converter?
Or like the scanner manufactures who bundled Photoshop.