Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Tklimek on April 03, 2009, 12:47:57 pm
-
Ok....so it's a dreary Friday here in Chicago and I'm not sure why but I feel *compelled" to start this silly thread since I don’t recall seeing anyone else that had started it yet. I’m sure individual bits and pieces are on other various threads, but this may be a place to consolidate those ideas.
Almost feel a bit guilty about doing this too since I in fact am really grateful to Adobe for creating this software for us, but I guess the bottom line is that we are consumers of this Adobe product and well, consumers are hardly ever satisfied.
Based on the very short history of Adobe LR, the initial version was launched sometime around Feb of 2007. Version 2 came out roughly 1.5 years later sometime around August of 2008. Using very flawed logic, one can make a half arsed guess (once again, using terrible logic/data) that version 3 might be imminent around January of 2010 (so funny using 2010 in a REAL sentence!!).
I don't really recall seeing this "Lightroom 3 Wishlist" as its own thread, and like I said, since it's a crummy day here in the Windy city I thought I would start it.
So, what would you like to see in version 3.0?
***Note: If Adobe opens up the program to allow 3rd party plugins/functionality to create non-destructive additions to the RAW workflow (no export TIFF/re-import into LR craziness), many of these might be able to be provided via 3rd party.
My simple starters are included here and are very basic, I'm sure many folks have much better ideas than mine.
- Kick butt soft proofing; much like Jeff Schewe recommends in Photoshop but totally automated and done the CORRECT way
- Lens correction capabilities – along the lines of PTLens
- HDR capability
- Panoramic stitching support
- Support for picture book layouts
- Ability to search metadata for any data which exists (such as focal length)…this isn’t possible now…right?
Cheers…
Todd in “dreary” Chicago
-
The right place to post feature requests is
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3bc34322/ (http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3bc34322/)
-
It has been a bit dreary here in the south of England today. Yesterday was a beautiful warm Spring day!
The HDR and book layouts would be good. How about focus stacking?
I am fairly sure that you can already search for pictures using the lens info, but not sure that you can specify the actual setting
with a zoom lens.
Hope the sun shines for you tomorrow
Jim
-
The right place to post feature requests is
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3bc34322/ (http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3bc34322/)
True, but there's nothing wrong with chatting about this stuff on the forum.
Soft-proofing - yes. What I'd really like to see though is an LR architecture/SDK from Adobe that would provide 3rd party developers the ability to build PI's that could work non-destructively in the LR environment. That would be killer.
-
I appreciate Gabor's comment as the most "effective" place for this conversation; however there is nothing wrong with meeting at the local pub on Friday (today is Friday after all) for some fun discussion about these issues. And this forum is a darned good pub!
Yes, I think the most killer feature would be what you are talking about and what I had mentioned in my original post about letting 3rd party "functions" somehow integrate into the raw processing pipeline in the same non-destructive way that the other internal tools are implemented in Lightroom.
As far as whether or not this is possible from a technical point of view or desirable from an Adobe point of view is not really the point. Let the folks who use the program have their dreams/visions and the code wizards at the Willy Wonka factory (Adobe) see if they can make those dreams reality.
Everlasting Gobstopper anyone?
Happy Friday!
BTW...seems to have cleared up here in Chicago with sun and blue sky! Yay! Although may have snow by Monday...booooo!!
Todd in Chicago
True, but there's nothing wrong with chatting about this stuff on the forum.
Soft-proofing - yes. What I'd really like to see though is an LR architecture/SDK from Adobe that would provide 3rd party developers the ability to build PI's that could work non-destructively in the LR environment. That would be killer.
-
True, but there's nothing wrong with chatting about this stuff on the forum
Of course there is nothing wrong with it, except for the effectivity. I don't know if the Adobe LR designers give a fig for those requests, but if they do, then it is useful to post there; if others are requesting the same feature, then the likelihood is greated that it becomes reality.
-
Of course there is nothing wrong with it, except for the effectivity. I don't know if the Adobe LR designers give a fig for those requests, but if they do, then it is useful to post there; if others are requesting the same feature, then the likelihood is greated that it becomes reality.
It is absolutely as effective to post here as to post there. NIL=NIL
-
Add perspective correction to the lens corrections and you'll make my day!
-
It is absolutely as effective to post here as to post there. NIL=NIL
And it's more fun to see it here.
Good list, by the way.
-
Ok....so it's a dreary Friday here in Chicago and I'm not sure why but I feel *compelled" to start this silly thread since I don’t recall seeing anyone else that had started it yet. I’m sure individual bits and pieces are on other various threads, but this may be a place to consolidate those ideas.
Almost feel a bit guilty about doing this too since I in fact am really grateful to Adobe for creating this software for us, but I guess the bottom line is that we are consumers of this Adobe product and well, consumers are hardly ever satisfied.
Based on the very short history of Adobe LR, the initial version was launched sometime around Feb of 2007. Version 2 came out roughly 1.5 years later sometime around August of 2008. Using very flawed logic, one can make a half arsed guess (once again, using terrible logic/data) that version 3 might be imminent around January of 2010 (so funny using 2010 in a REAL sentence!!).
I don't really recall seeing this "Lightroom 3 Wishlist" as its own thread, and like I said, since it's a crummy day here in the Windy city I thought I would start it.
So, what would you like to see in version 3.0?
***Note: If Adobe opens up the program to allow 3rd party plugins/functionality to create non-destructive additions to the RAW workflow (no export TIFF/re-import into LR craziness), many of these might be able to be provided via 3rd party.
My simple starters are included here and are very basic, I'm sure many folks have much better ideas than mine.
- Kick butt soft proofing; much like Jeff Schewe recommends in Photoshop but totally automated and done the CORRECT way
- Lens correction capabilities – along the lines of PTLens
- HDR capability
- Panoramic stitching support
- Support for picture book layouts
- Ability to search metadata for any data which exists (such as focal length)…this isn’t possible now…right?
Cheers…
Todd in “dreary” Chicago
There are a couple of LR plug-ins for HDR, LR/Enfuse and Photomatix Pro 3.x. But it requires the round trip like the softproofing we have to do in PS.
-
LR 2 is just about perfect for me in terms of features. But. . . in order:
1. greater stability, LR 2 crashes on me every other time I use the grad filter (and works about 1/2 speed when iTunes is open on my machine)
2. lens correction module a la DxO (that works with DNGs)
3. an "advanced" curves option with points in RGB a la PS
4. soft-proofing in Print module
I would not need PS at all any more if this list were realized in LR3. Which almost guarantees they won't be ; ). I would personally rather LR NOT support HDR, image stitching, focus-stacking, book-binding, espresso-making. . . but I think we'll probably get some of these features before we see all of the above.
-
It is absolutely as effective to post here as to post there. NIL=NIL
If what you want to do is talk about LR 3, yes, I suppose here is as good as anywhere. But if you want to have any real impact about the 3.0 development, posting here won't do much good. You would be better off posting where LR engineering and product development people will see it.
-
One word. . . .
tetheredness
please
and make it stable and foolproof
thanks
-
Understood.....just a Friday discussion at the local pub for now.
Maybe when this thread has run it's course I could post the end results to the other forum mentioned; for now...just friendly discussion over a coupla virtual beerz!
Cheers...
Todd in Chicago
If what you want to do is talk about LR 3, yes, I suppose here is as good as anywhere. But if you want to have any real impact about the 3.0 development, posting here won't do much good. You would be better off posting where LR engineering and product development people will see it.
-
I would personally rather LR NOT support HDR, image stitching, focus-stacking, book-binding, espresso-making. . . but I think we'll probably get some of these features before we see all of the above.
I'm not sure about the espresso-making, but I agree with the other points. How about a mirror lockup button?
I guess an automatic Jolt dispenser could eliminate the need for the espresso maker. Pass me another virtual beer, will you?
-
I don't really recall seeing this "Lightroom 3 Wishlist" as its own thread, and like I said, since it's a crummy day here in the Windy city I thought I would start it.
So, what would you like to see in version 3.0?
At the top of my wishlist is improved stability and performance.
--Joe
-
I concur about the soft-proofing.
I also think it'd be nice if it could at least be able to view CMYK images. I just put together a book, and for most of my images, I wouldn't have needed PS if it weren't for the need to soft-proof CMYK images.
I definitely agree that there is no harm in having these discussions here. Conversation spurs innovation, and it seems prudent to take the output of these talks and send them adobe's way, but not burden them with chit-chat. Also, I sometimes find out about features I didn't even know existed through conversations such as these.
-
How about a mirror lockup button?
Heheh - they ought to! Maybe Canon et al will notice . . .
Speaking of fun goofy program features - did anyone notice Google's Chrome Browser with 3D?
http://chrome.blogspot.com/2009/04/introdu...me-with-3d.html (http://chrome.blogspot.com/2009/04/introducing-google-chrome-with-3d.html)
-
How about a mirror lockup button?
But then where would the LR engineers put the Direct Print button?
-
Can we make it version 2. something. If it;s a version 3 we will have to pay yet again.
Keith
-
Keith....
I believe in the past it has been made clear that "big" features such as softproofing will not make their way into a "dot" release but are destined for a "dot oh" release.....
Cheers....
Todd in Chicago
Can we make it version 2. something. If it;s a version 3 we will have to pay yet again.
Keith
-
Can we make it version 2. something. If it;s a version 3 we will have to pay yet again.
Thats the deal.
+1 for Softproofing. PLUUUEEEAAASE
Also like to see additional local color correction capability. For example - if there is a patch on someone's skin that is to red - it would be nice to be able to use the targeted adjustment tool to locally correct it. At the moment this can only be done with the local saturation adjustment - which typically is to coarse a tool for this type of correction. Thats a big one for me for portraits - locally correcting patchy skin color without having to round trip through CS4.
-
My primary request would be able to import all image and other files relevant to photography inc video and text files[for notes about locations , names of subjects into the catalogue, which I will then use in LR for renaming metadata etc]. A DAM app that is selective is fundamentally useless and also very frustrating for me as many of my PSD images are simply ignored by LR. I do not need to edit them in LR, just be able to catalogue and open in suitable editor, like PS. Every other feature request comes waaaaay below that for me, as until I can get all my photographs into LR it will simply be sidelined as a tool.
Even the fact that the import from disk ignores some of the data on one's CF/SD card means I daren't use it for ingesting in case there are video files on board. Photography has moved on considerably since LR was envisaged, LR needs to move with the times and be a proper DAM app , not a half baked one. Some people claim LR is focused, my view is that it's crippled.
-
1. greater stability, LR 2 works about 1/2 speed when iTunes is open on my machine
Isn't that an iTunes issue? iTunes is a dreadful programme anyway, yeuch!
-
My primary request would be able to import all image and other files relevant to photography inc video and text files[for notes about locations , names of subjects into the catalogue, which I will then use in LR for renaming metadata etc]. A DAM app that is selective is fundamentally useless and also very frustrating for me as many of my PSD images are simply ignored by LR. I do not need to edit them in LR, just be able to catalogue and open in suitable editor, like PS. Every other feature request comes waaaaay below that for me, as until I can get all my photographs into LR it will simply be sidelined as a tool.
Even the fact that the import from disk ignores some of the data on one's CF/SD card means I daren't use it for ingesting in case there are video files on board. Photography has moved on considerably since LR was envisaged, LR needs to move with the times and be a proper DAM app , not a half baked one. Some people claim LR is focused, my view is that it's crippled.
I respectfully suggest that you are missing the point.
LR is an image editing app designed to make dealing with a large number of files easier than it has previously been - its not a word processor and its not a video editor. There are other applications for that.
Yes - its a DAM. But its a DAM for simplifying photography from shoot to finish - unquote. Again, its designed to come back from a shoot with a large number of images, quickly sort them, process them and export as required. no more, no less.
I spent 8 hours in the studio last Saturday - shooting over 20 gigs of images. I was able to import them, sort them and process them in LR in a minute period of time compared to what it would have taken in ACR or virtually any other application.
It doesnt get more fundamental - shoot images, import, process, export. If you dont understand that was and is LR's mantra then you need to go back and read listen to the shadowland [A.kA LR] design goals.
Who is to say what is relevant to photography? where does one draw the line in the sand? If I used my calculator to work out depth of field for my 355th frame and stored those calculations in a .xls file - is that excel calculation meant to be ingested into LR; if so how is it to be stored, how is it to be referenced to the original file? and to what end? More importantly.. is LR crippled because the engineers didnt forsee my requirement to import a .xls file? *shakes head*
What you are asking for is LR, PS, Word and a Video editor (and who knows what else) all rolled into one - what an ugly monster that would be....
-
Isn't that an iTunes issue? iTunes is a dreadful programme anyway, yeuch!
It may be an iTunes issue. But, I never have to shut down programs when using PS3. I simply cannot use iTunes and LR at the same time and expect any kind of performance.
OT, but what is lacking in iTunes? I've got around 10,000 albums catalogued in iTunes at the moment, so I'm not about to switch. What are you using? Seems to me that iTunes is basically the LR of music. It was certainly most people's first encounter with database-driven file management.. .
-
Hi,
One thing I´d like is relative adjustments which can be applied to a set of images on export. Let's say I'm preparing a slide show for an LCD projektor and I want to do some tweaking on all images, so I could just apply a relative preset on all selected items while exporting.
Adding more distortion elimination and perspective correction would also be nice and I see these as good candidates for parametric edits.
A small improvement would be cascading presets. So I could have LensPresets->ZA_24_70->at_24 and so on.
Support for NoiseNinja or similar as a parametric edit would be nice.
Best regards
Erik
Ok....so it's a dreary Friday here in Chicago and I'm not sure why but I feel *compelled" to start this silly thread since I don’t recall seeing anyone else that had started it yet. I’m sure individual bits and pieces are on other various threads, but this may be a place to consolidate those ideas.
Almost feel a bit guilty about doing this too since I in fact am really grateful to Adobe for creating this software for us, but I guess the bottom line is that we are consumers of this Adobe product and well, consumers are hardly ever satisfied.
Based on the very short history of Adobe LR, the initial version was launched sometime around Feb of 2007. Version 2 came out roughly 1.5 years later sometime around August of 2008. Using very flawed logic, one can make a half arsed guess (once again, using terrible logic/data) that version 3 might be imminent around January of 2010 (so funny using 2010 in a REAL sentence!!).
I don't really recall seeing this "Lightroom 3 Wishlist" as its own thread, and like I said, since it's a crummy day here in the Windy city I thought I would start it.
So, what would you like to see in version 3.0?
***Note: If Adobe opens up the program to allow 3rd party plugins/functionality to create non-destructive additions to the RAW workflow (no export TIFF/re-import into LR craziness), many of these might be able to be provided via 3rd party.
My simple starters are included here and are very basic, I'm sure many folks have much better ideas than mine.
- Kick butt soft proofing; much like Jeff Schewe recommends in Photoshop but totally automated and done the CORRECT way
- Lens correction capabilities – along the lines of PTLens
- HDR capability
- Panoramic stitching support
- Support for picture book layouts
- Ability to search metadata for any data which exists (such as focal length)…this isn’t possible now…right?
Cheers…
Todd in “dreary” Chicago
-
Heheh - they ought to! Maybe Canon et al will notice . . .
Speaking of fun goofy program features - did anyone notice Google's Chrome Browser with 3D?
Did you happen to notice the date on that blog?
-
Remember that Adobe wants to keep people buying LR and Photoshop. I don't think you will ever see LR improved to the point where serious photographers won't need PS, at least once in a while.
Peter
-
An automated softproofing option would be excellent, but at the very least I would like a small image window in the exportation menu which allows the user to see an approximation of what the output sharpening looks like (and at a magnification which is the best approximation of what it will look like in print). I imagine that softproofing is a pretty complex feature to program, but I think that it is also very important to get an idea of what a print will look like after setting output sharpening settings.
-
An automated softproofing option would be excellent, but at the very least I would like a small image window in the exportation menu which allows the user to see an approximation of what the output sharpening looks like (and at a magnification which is the best approximation of what it will look like in print). I imagine that softproofing is a pretty complex feature to program, but I think that it is also very important to get an idea of what a print will look like after setting output sharpening settings.
I agree. I know that Lightroom sharpening is pretty much using the same algorithms as Photokit Sharpener. But with PKS, I can see the output sharpening as well as the input sharpening on layers. Is there any way at all to see the output sharpening in LR or do we just guess as to what Low, Standard, High will do to the image.
-
Wouldn't it be faster to add a good DAM capability to C1 4.7?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Options in Highlight Recovery to recover to neutral or a selected color
Oh, yes, forgot this one!
This example (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=32880&view=findpost&p=267241) by Guillermo Luijk using DCRaw HR modes made my jaw drop. Having reset it back in place, I wouldn't want to edit a picture by command line though.
-
I'd really like the ability to simultaneously zoom four photos to 100% view and pan them together to check sharpness. I can do this in Aperture, but not in Lightroom.
-dbk123
Oh, yes, forgot this one!
This example (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=32880&view=findpost&p=267241) by Guillermo Luijk using DCRaw HR modes made my jaw drop. Having reset it back in place, I wouldn't want to edit a picture by command line though.
-
Softproofing, better noise reduction, more local ajustment options. Wayne
-
I respectfully suggest that you are missing the point.
No I am not. Just because LR imports the files you use, doesn't mean it isn't crippled.
And I respectly suggest you read posts more carefully before replying in such a patronising manner.
LR is an image editing app designed to make dealing with a large number of files easier than it has previously been - its not a word processor and its not a video editor. There are other applications for that.
Yes - its a DAM. But its a DAM for simplifying photography from shoot to finish - unquote. Again, its designed to come back from a shoot with a large number of images, quickly sort them, process them and export as required. no more, no less.
And to simplify things, it needs to deal with all image files not some of them. Duh! As it stands it complicates my workflow and gets sidelined as a result.
It doesnt get more fundamental - shoot images, import, process, export. If you dont understand that was and is LR's mantra then you need to go back and read listen to the shadowland [A.kA LR] design goals.
I have and they were not always perfectly realised and although trying different ways of doing things is good, realising a prior method is more effective is an even better way to improve. Are you also suggesting should one ignore some work produced previously to LR even exists or ignore the fact that times have changed? Again.
Video, for example is now a important part of many photographer's workflow. The Guardian Newpapers just bought a bunch of 5DIIs specifically as they have video, which they want their photographers to use.
Several of LRs early design desicisions were seen to not work, such as ignoring folder structure and were then thanfully altered. But LR not moving forward as photography has, will render it as ineffective as the software that was struggling with the change from film to digital. The revolution in photography has not finished yet. If I'm going to add metadata to my stills, why would I repeat the process for say my movieclips in yet another programme which probably has a diferent interface and way of working, when it would be so much easier to do both together in LR? And LR uses sound in the slideshows, yet has a pathtic and very clumsy sound import function. Some Pro Cameras can record sound to makes notes about images, which LR halfheartedly acknowledges.
The fact that the slideshow and Web gallery are part of LR, show that photography is not just about prints anymore and multimedia issues like these need to be addressed. Software can be focused andyet still be open as well. They are not mutually exlcusive.
Who is to say what is relevant to photography? where does one draw the line in the sand? If I used my calculator to work out depth of field for my 355th frame and stored those calculations in a .xmp file - is that excel calculation meant to be ingested into LR; if so how is it to be stored, how is it to be referenced to the original file? and to what end? More importantly.. is LR crippled because the engineers didnt forsee my requirement to import a .xmp file? *shakes head*
LR does import .xmp files and is how it can read changes made to files in say, Bridge. Do you know how to use programme?
What you are asking for is LR, PS, Word and a Video editor (and who knows what else) all rolled into one - what an ugly monster that would be....
Try reading posts much more more carefully before replying. I specifically said, it was not important for LR to edit these files, but merely to catalogue them, so I only had to use one DAM app not several. LR simply catalogues all my files relevant to photography and they get opened in the relevant programme, just like it does with PSD files and Photoshop for example. LR is not at present a usuable DAM app, as it can only catalogue RAW, Tiffs + JPEGs.
And although I tend to recommend LR over PS to people these days for most photographic work, I still think LR is deeply flawed and infuriatingly clumsy at times, but it's a lot better than it was. But Bridge is so much faster, less clumsy and more capable for DAM finding/sorting images than LR a lot of the time, so I use that instead. Less clicking and faffing needed.
-
how about the ability to create a multi gallery web page.
-
And I respectly suggest you read posts more carefully before replying in such a patronising manner.
My post wasn't patronizing - at least I did not intend for it to be. Thats why I said 'with respect'. If it was misconstrued I apologise.
Several of LRs early design desicisions were seen to not work, such as ignoring folder structure and were then thanfully altered. But LR not moving forward as photography has, will render it as ineffective as the software that was struggling with the change from film to digital. The revolution in photography has not finished yet. If I'm going to add metadata to my stills, why would I repeat the process for say my movieclips in yet another programme which probably has a diferent interface and way of working, when it would be so much easier to do both together in LR?
I agree that being able to do both inside of LR would be a nice function for photographers who also shoot video. My point was - LR is not crippled because it currently cant. Well.. at least it isnt crippled from my perspective since video is not part of my workflow.
And LR uses sound in the slideshows, yet has a pathtic and very clumsy sound import function. Some Pro Cameras can record sound to makes notes about images, which LR halfheartedly acknowledges.
Sound is something I really would like to be able to do more with in LR. It would be great to be able to import and playback the WAV files that I usually record in the field on the 1DSMK3. And there is no question that the sound capability in the slideshow is basic and could do with further development. LR is still only in version 2.3 so I have hope we will see more development in this area.
LR does import .xmp files and is how it can read changes made to files in say, Bridge. Do you know how to use programme?
Thank you - I am well aware of how to use LR. It was late when I wrote my reply above and as a result I typed .xmp instead of .xls [excel spreadsheet files] As you can see above in my earlier post I was refering to saving calculations; which are best done in a .xls file.
But Bridge is so much faster, less clumsy and more capable for DAM finding/sorting images than LR a lot of the time, so I use that instead. Less clicking and faffing needed.
I think that is a matter of personal taste - I find LR less annoying than bridge for cataloguing, sorting and finding. Although I do still use Bridge occasionally as a front end to LR - but not often.
-
Here's my top ten wish list.
1. Soft proofing
2. Improved curve option allowing separate RGB channel corrections like in PS, this would also be nice to have available as a local correction.
3. Improved print output to allow multiple sizes/images and the ability to add text boxes to pages. In other words Photo book layouts like iPhoto/Aperture etc.
4. The ability to have keyword sets containing many more than just 9 words.
5. A supplied standard controlled vocabulary.
6. The ability to add local notes to an image in the library and have a flag shown to indicate there is a note for that image. Like a 'post it' note. useful to be able to add this on a folder or collection too.
7. Lens corrections, like PT lens.
8. The ability to build scripts/macros/actions to automate applying presets by metadata. eg applying a specific lens correction to any image shot on a particular lens(as is possible with noise correction now)
9. Wider file format support. I agree that using LR as a DAM is becoming crucial and the ability to add other file formats, like video, for cataloguing, if not editing, will become essential.
10. Better noise correction
-
I have been using the Print feature out of Lightroom 2 for quite a while now and really like in more than Photoshop... Incorporating soft proofing will seal the deal for me at least.
Photo book/album design would be an AMAZING feature to add! Good call on that one Rhossydd!
-
Ok my predictable list!
1: Zero NR on raw files, ACR is in last place for high ISO work compared to rivals (or even free ones), no raw software should inflict NR on users without the choice to disable it.
2: Distortion correction and perspective correction, absolute must have features
3: Speed, it's still not as fast as it could be, esp the local corrections..bog down quickly
4: Soft proofing, I would agree on that
I would not want to see more advanced editing features put in, keep it simple, and this time..please, do get it "right" ;-)
-
Thank you for all the suggestions. We will do our best to keep you guys happy ...
-
Thank you for all the suggestions. We will do our best to keep you guys happy ...
-
I would like to add a few thoughts.
I agree with jjj, as a DAM solution, Lightroom is flawed, because of its limited focus, no pun intended.
In the real world, photographers work with all sorts of files, which is why a lot of people still use Bridge, or something else. If you are going to have a DAM solution, it really has to cover everything that your business might deal with, and that includes, for example the rest of the CS suite, which brings up the issue of CMYK. I am a commercial photographer, almost everything I shoot ends up on a press, and where possible I supply CMYK (anyone who doesn't, and then complains about the prepress guy stuffing their shots, gets what they deserve, sorry to be harsh. :-) ) so Lightroom is a no go. I also am only a small studio, but I have an assistant, the fact that only one machine can access the database at one time is a killer, I have discussed the issue of multi user network access with Adobe, ala Bridge and Version Cue, and got the impression that it could be done, but they don't really want to, because it would be hard. :-(
Oh yeah, soft-proofing would be nice too. Ha ha.
Cheers,
Jason
-
In the real world, photographers work with all sorts of files, which is why a lot of people still use Bridge, or something else. If you are going to have a DAM solution, it really has to cover everything that your business might deal with, and that includes, for example the rest of the CS suite, which brings up the issue of CMYK. I am a commercial photographer, almost everything I shoot ends up on a press, and where possible I supply CMYK (anyone who doesn't, and then complains about the prepress guy stuffing their shots, gets what they deserve, sorry to be harsh. :-) ) so Lightroom is a no go.
As the saying goes - Rome wasn't built in a day.
Regarding CMYK - the underlying infrastructure already exists and has done for some time. However, two things you can't do are direct import and edit an image in CMYK. That being said, you can save a CMYK image from Photoshop back into Lightroom. The tutorial following shows how you can indirectly import CMYK images. I'm not suggesting that you use it, but it does show that Lr 2 isn't totally brain dead when it comes to CMYK.
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr2_cmyk/lr-2-cmyk.htm (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr2_cmyk/lr-2-cmyk.htm)
-
As the saying goes - Rome wasn't built in a day.
Regarding CMYK - the underlying infrastructure already exists and has done for some time. However, two things you can't do are direct import and edit an image in CMYK. That being said, you can save a CMYK image from Photoshop back into Lightroom. The tutorial following shows how you can indirectly import CMYK images. I'm not suggesting that you use it, but it does show that Lr 2 isn't totally brain dead when it comes to CMYK.
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr2_cmyk/lr-2-cmyk.htm (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr2_cmyk/lr-2-cmyk.htm)
No offense Ian, but the method described is a work around. As you say the underlying infrastructure is there, it just needs to be part of the main product. DAM is really one of those "All or nothing" propositions, if you have to use more than one, because some aspect "is coming soon ( or never)" then in reality it just makes things harder, not easier, which was the whole idea of the product in the first place.
Which then brings me back to the multi user point. Adobe has the experience, they have already done it once with Bridge/Version Que. The point has been made that Lightroom is for photographers. Unfortunately we do not work in a vacuum, we have to deal with other file types, other workflows, other people/companies, and other IT structures, some use external hard drives, some NAS and some client/server. It needs to do all or it will not achieve its potential.
Another peeve I have is that it doesn't support some older backs from Leaf, and I am sure others as well, that are still in common use in commercial studios, so that splits the workflow again, and yet other modern RAW converters can dev the files I have, LightZone to name one.
It is a great product, but needs important features to break out of the Art market into commercial usage.
Heres hoping. :-)
Jason.
-
Already mentioned stuff:
More important:
* Soft proofing
* Non-destructive plug-ins functionality
Would like to see:
* Customizable signature (opacity, font, placement) on export/web
* Video files import
* Panorama tool
Hopefully we don't see issues like 'depth-of-field control found
only in professional video models', meaning you have to use
your feet which is by far not a camera feature.
-
I find myself resorting from LR to PS quite frequently in order to perform elementary transforms on an image - for example keystoning adjustment,or de-skewing. I'm wondering whether the crop area of the program, which now permits rotations (a non-destructive transform) copuld be expanded to include some of these other transforms in a non-destructive manner. I can see some of us being accused of trying to bring all of PS into LR, but quite to the contrary, my underlying approach in suggesting add-ins is to pinpoint the ones which are most frequently used and thereby simplify the overall image preparation workflow by eliminating the most frequent reasons to invoke PS from an LR workflow.
-
Good one that I've not heard before Mark!
Cheers...
Todd in Chicago
I find myself resorting from LR to PS quite frequently in order to perform elementary transforms on an image - for example keystoning adjustment,or de-skewing. I'm wondering whether the crop area of the program, which now permits rotations (a non-destructive transform) copuld be expanded to include some of these other transforms in a non-destructive manner. I can see some of us being accused of trying to bring all of PS into LR, but quite to the contrary, my underlying approach in suggesting add-ins is to pinpoint the ones which are most frequently used and thereby simplify the overall image preparation workflow by eliminating the most frequent reasons to invoke PS from an LR workflow.
-
I'm a bit slow and lazy, this is well known. I find Lightroom very difficult to understand, everytime I point my mouse cursor at it some part of the screen disappears and then re-appears when I am not expecting it to, please stop this haphazardly way of doing things. I have managed to get some pictures into the database, don't know how but they are there, so that's good, now I need to make them stop looking like crap so I twiddle a few sliders and make them worse, then I give up. So I want the following in version 3.
a) A button to press to import the pictures without all the reading bits.
2) A button to press to make the pictures look good to my wife.
q) A button to press to make a web site, no choices please.
6) A button to press to print good looking (to my wifes eye) (eyes) prints to put in a box (draw).
t) That's it.
no it's not, I also want a manual on which button to press and when, otherwise I will end up spending countless amounts of money on other people learning which buttons to press and then telling me in which order they should be pressed.
5) That's it. Finished. Over. End.
-
The first ten words of your post says it all.
Buy a good book on LR (e.g. Martin Evening's) or the Reichmann/Schewe DVD available on this website, sit yourself down with the learning materials and the program and teach yourself to use it correctly and reliably. It ain't rocket science and it's one of the best designed image editing programs ever released.
-
The first ten words of your post says it all.
Buy a good book on LR (e.g. Martin Evening's) or the Reichmann/Schewe DVD available on this website, sit yourself down with the learning materials and the program and teach yourself to use it correctly and reliably. It ain't rocket science and it's one of the best designed image editing programs ever released.
Ok
-
It'll be interesting to see what is in v3.0, although I suspect softproofing won't be one of them. Wayne
-
It'll be interesting to see what is in v3.0, although I suspect softproofing won't be one of them. Wayne
Forecasts are dangerous these days.
Mark
-
Wayne....
I'll go out on a limb here, but I think that softproofing will be in 3.0.
I think from the very first version it was one of the most requested features and many were surprised that it was not in v2. I think it was made pretty clear by folks who are closer to "knowing" that softproofing would NOT be in ANY 2.x release.....hinting that we would have to wait for 3.0. You could be right, but if I was in Vegas, I'd put $10 down on softproofing being in ver 3.
;-)
Cheers....
Todd in Chicago
It'll be interesting to see what is in v3.0, although I suspect softproofing won't be one of them. Wayne
-
Forecasts are dangerous these days.
Mark
In which way would it be dangerous? Are they going to get a hit man?? Or do you just mean I might be wrong (not dangerous at all) Wayne
-
In which way would it be dangerous? Are they going to get a hit man?? Or do you just mean I might be wrong (not dangerous at all) Wayne
Oh - that's easy - the hit man - whadidya expect?
-
Oh - that's easy - the hit man - whadidya expect?
Yep, sniper's wrong...
:~)
-
Yep, sniper's wrong...
:~)
So your saying LR3.0 will have softproofing. Wayne
-
It's not too late to plunk down your $10 at an oddsmakers! ;-)
Cheers....
Todd in Chicago
So your saying LR3.0 will have softproofing. Wayne
-
My post wasn't patronizing - at least I did not intend for it to be. Thats why I said 'with respect'. If it was misconstrued I apologise.
No Problem.
I agree that being able to do both inside of LR would be a nice function for photographers who also shoot video. My point was - LR is not crippled because it currently cant. Well.. at least it isnt crippled from my perspective since video is not part of my workflow.
Video is not really the issue when I talk about LR being crippled, it's the fact that the catalogue is limited at all in image file types and files used with images [such as sound] that it recognizes, which means it cannot be used as a DAM application - thus undermining one of it's main functions.
I think that is a matter of personal taste - I find LR less annoying than bridge for cataloguing, sorting and finding. Although I do still use Bridge occasionally as a front end to LR - but not often.
I think it's less to do with personal taste, more likely the fact that most people do not know what Bridge is or how to use Bridge if they do as they think it's not worth bothering with. I use both programmes and Br CS4 is my tool of choice more often than LR these days as it's faster for most things. With Br CS3 and LR 1.4 it was the other way around. I've demo-ed Br on many occasions and people haven't a clue about how good/fast Br is, as a rule.
-
I find myself resorting from LR to PS quite frequently in order to perform elementary transforms on an image - for example keystoning adjustment,or de-skewing. I'm wondering whether the crop area of the program, which now permits rotations (a non-destructive transform) copuld be expanded to include some of these other transforms in a non-destructive manner. I can see some of us being accused of trying to bring all of PS into LR, but quite to the contrary, my underlying approach in suggesting add-ins is to pinpoint the ones which are most frequently used and thereby simplify the overall image preparation workflow by eliminating the most frequent reasons to invoke PS from an LR workflow.
An alternative view is that by doing all the basic stuff on the RAW file in LR, such as you request, it leaves more time to do the more fun stuff in PS. I rarely do any global adjustment work in PS now unless as part of actions.
-
No offense Ian, but the method described is a work around. As you say the underlying infrastructure is there, it just needs to be part of the main product. DAM is really one of those "All or nothing" propositions, if you have to use more than one, because some aspect "is coming soon ( or never)" then in reality it just makes things harder, not easier, which was the whole idea of the product in the first place.
My view exactly.
Although I used LR from the Beta, I did not use LR for work until v1.3 as there were too many irritating workarounds and bodges as well as poor performance to make it usable to my mind.
-
I am surprised that most people only think about adding new features when there are serious problems with the very core of the program. http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizing-Lightroom.html (http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizing-Lightroom.html)
This article clearly shows that LR is very poor at utilizing multiple cores and faster machines. IMO LR2.3 is pretty good as is and for it is rock solid (Windows Vista 64 bit with 8GB RAM). Cutting your post-work-time in half by getting a newer i7 machine would be awesome, but that would require LR to be able to better use the multiple cores.
-
A rather curious set of statements there
there are serious problems with the very core of the program. ... IMO LR2.3 is pretty good as is and for it is rock solid
If it's "pretty good and rock solid", there's not really a "serious problem" is there?
I find LR 2.3 fast enough and am very rarely inconvenienced by waiting for the software to react or process files, even though I don't have a screamingly fast PC.
Adding functionality is more important to me than worrying about trimming a few seconds off every import or export when I can be doing something else whilst LR works anyway.
-
I'll add my wish and excuse me if it has already been mention some where in this thread: Make LR capable of pulling detail from images on a level closer to Capture One Pro Ver 4 or Capture NX2.
-
I have no issue with the detail which LR "pulls-in". If one knows what one is doing, the results look very well-detailed to me.
-
I have no issue with the detail which LR "pulls-in". If one knows what one is doing, the results look very well-detailed to me.
Hence, that is why it's on my wish list. This question of which program pulls more detail from a nef has been done to death and not probably required in this thread.
-
Put me in for
. Lens Correction (they should just buy DxO, we'd get the added bonus of the "DxO lighting" auto adjustments which are right on spot 80% of the time).
. Soft Proofing
. Photo Books
If I have that I'll have very little reason to get out of LR ever, except for heavy editing in PS, which is very well integrated already. Interacting with DxO to lens-correct can only be described as awkward at the moment .
There! My 2cents . You heard it here first Adobe!
(noisily slapping the mug of virtual beer back on the virtual bar)
-
Cheers Stephane!!
Put me in for
. Lens Correction (they should just buy DxO, we'd get the added bonus of the "DxO lighting" auto adjustments which are right on spot 80% of the time).
. Soft Proofing
. Photo Books
If I have that I'll have very little reason to get out of LR ever, except for heavy editing in PS, which is very well integrated already. Interacting with DxO to lens-correct can only be described as awkward at the moment .
There! My 2cents . You heard it here first Adobe!
(noisily slapping the mug of virtual beer back on the virtual bar)
-
How about some better low level sharpening? LR looks pale in comparison to some clever RAW converters like RAW Developer... (http://joemullins.com/archive/2008/08/06/r...d-photoshop.php (http://joemullins.com/archive/2008/08/06/raw-developer-vs-lightroom-2-and-photoshop.php))
-
With all due respect viahorizon, I do not think that that hyperlink shows any conclusive evidence that Raw Developer is actually able to pull more detail from the displayed photo. What I'm seeing is that Raw Developer is simply leaving in the uniform noise pattern which covers the whole photo, although I believe you are very correct to say that LR removes some of this very fine noise. However, when looking at the actual detail present in the photo, I don't actually see anything extra in the Raw Developer crop. All that is missing is the very fine noise, which should not be apparent in actual prints. Unlike previous versions of Lightroom, I think that 2.3 has a beneficial amount of this effect- it does not actually remove real details if you pixelpeep (which, in my opinion, is the necessary response with the nature of your request).
By doing this small amount of noise reduction in the demosaicing, it actually allows photos to be sharpened more without having to sharpen the micro-noise, which has no significant benefit in real-world terms. Additionally, when this would actually be significant is when the photo is being interpolated for large prints, but in that stage of the workflow adding a fine layer of monochrome noise (or "false detail" as Photozoom Pro puts it) will restore that impression of micro-detail, if the user wishes. I think that too many people are incorrectly identifying what they are seeing in 100% crops of LR conversions- I believe Jeff Schewe might agree on this point- and that if you are really that concerned about it, you are under no obligation to use Lightroom. What some people identify as a disadvantage is actually an advantage when Lightroom is used well in conjunction with its sharpening, which is actually pretty good IMHO. I think it was somewhere on this site that I found a user's approximations of Photoshop's PK Sharpener Capture Sharpening presets, which is a really good starting point to get familiar with ways to sharpen the LR files.
It's all a matter of taste, I know, but it is very easy to re-add what you are mistaking as micro-detail later in the workflow by adding a monochrome layer of noise. What deconvolution routines do, such as FocusMagic, is that they enhance the grain-- it is yet another way to visually create the impression that detail exists when it is the enhancement of grain you are seeing (which is why deconvolution can make high-ISO pictures look damned ugly by enhancing the noise). I think deconvolution techniques can create some great effects with low-ISO pictures, and it is something that is requested every so often for new features (I have requested it myself in the past), but LR capture sharpening can actually do a pretty good job if treated right, and you understand what you are seeing at high magnification.
-
What deconvolution routines do, such as FocusMagic, is that they enhance the grain-- it is yet another way to visually create the impression that detail exists when it is the enhancement of grain you are seeing (which is why deconvolution can make high-ISO pictures look damned ugly by enhancing the noise). I think deconvolution techniques can create some great effects with low-ISO pictures, and it is something that is requested every so often for new features (I have requested it myself in the past), but LR capture sharpening can actually do a pretty good job if treated right, and you understand what you are seeing at high magnification.
From what I've seen, I think one needs to tread very carefully with deconvultion even at lower ISOs - it can turn images too crunchy very easily.
-
From what I've seen, I think one needs to tread very carefully with deconvultion even at lower ISOs - it can turn images too crunchy very easily.
Agreed- it can also increase the appearance of undesirable artifacts that anti-aliasing filters attempt to mitigate.
-
Oldcsar, I believe what you address is the issue of balance between perceived (low, no-) noise and detail. So it may be a matter of taste, still 1) I want to have an option to pick one over the other, and 2) the LR 2.3 approach is to get rid of the noise, so 1:1 crops have these nasty worm-like patterns and plastic look. I’m sure it is not only the noise that’s being smoothened out.
I print large and prefer not to do “this small amount of noise reduction in the demosaicing” just to add noise layer again to upsized images.