Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Craig Arnold on July 11, 2010, 05:51:11 pm
-
I understand that some people would rather have a fast startup and be prompted for backups when quitting.
But LR2 did it the other way round, and I far prefer a slower startup time and be able to quit quickly. I can't now quit LR and turn off my machine within a few seconds without compromising the backups.
If this was just the default and there was an option to do it the old way I would understand that, but if it's so blindingly obvious that I'm the only person in the world who liked the old way then why did they do that way in V1 & V2?
After a couple of weeks the only differences I can see are that:
1. The import dialog now puts all my files in the wrong places after an in-place upgrade.
2. The backup reminder is hugely annoying because it's at the wrong end of the workflow.
3. The add grain function is very poor.
4. Performance increase? Yeah right.
I am very much looking forward to Michael and Jeff's new tutorials because I'm feeling like the upgrade was seriously not worth it. I need enlightening.
-
There was huge demand for this change. It was counterintuitive that backup should happen when you started a program.
Have you not noticed the lens distortion correction or the better image quality? Minor features, I know....
John
-
3. The add grain function is very poor.
Uh huh...If you don't know how to use something, it would be useful to learn how to use it before saying it's poor...I find it quite useful for improving image quality.
As for the rest...who turns off their computer these days...seriously? Performance is fine on my machine, and you might also want to spend some time learning how to use import...I suggest using presets (less likely to make user errors that way which you seems to have issues with).
-
3. The add grain function is very poor.
Flip side of the coin...
I used the add Grain function to this shot (http://blog.jholko.com/2010/06/10/2010-nillumbik-prize-portrait-of-a-skipper/) - which was subsequently accepted for the Nillumbik prize and just sold for $750 for a 17" x 22" print.
so in my experience that add grain function is anything but poor - its actually extremely useful creatively.
Edit - as to back up on quit. All I can say is its about time this was implemented. I dont know about anyone else.. but I dont want to have to sit and wait forLightroom to back up before I can start working - much better on close.
-
Flip side of the coin...
I used the add Grain function to this shot (http://blog.jholko.com/2010/06/10/2010-nillumbik-prize-portrait-of-a-skipper/) - which was subsequently accepted for the Nillumbik prize and just sold for $750 for a 17" x 22" print.
so in my experience that add grain function is anything but poor - its actually extremely useful creatively.
Edit - as to back up on quit. All I can say is its about time this was implemented. I dont know about anyone else.. but I dont want to have to sit and wait forLightroom to back up before I can start working - much better on close.
And leaving the backup until the next session is pretty scary, IMHO.
Congrats on the prize and sale, Josh.
Eric
-
Congrats on the prize and sale, Josh.
Judging isnt final yet! But fingers crossed :-) The sale is a done deal though.
Thanks.
-
Hi!
In my view the processing pipeline is much improved and lens corrections are great to have. Those two tings alone are definitively worth the upgrade:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...htroom-3-beta-2 (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/32-new-raw-processing-pipeline-in-lightroom-3-beta-2)
Best regards
Erik
I understand that some people would rather have a fast startup and be prompted for backups when quitting.
But LR2 did it the other way round, and I far prefer a slower startup time and be able to quit quickly. I can't now quit LR and turn off my machine within a few seconds without compromising the backups.
If this was just the default and there was an option to do it the old way I would understand that, but if it's so blindingly obvious that I'm the only person in the world who liked the old way then why did they do that way in V1 & V2?
After a couple of weeks the only differences I can see are that:
1. The import dialog now puts all my files in the wrong places after an in-place upgrade.
2. The backup reminder is hugely annoying because it's at the wrong end of the workflow.
3. The add grain function is very poor.
4. Performance increase? Yeah right.
I am very much looking forward to Michael and Jeff's new tutorials because I'm feeling like the upgrade was seriously not worth it. I need enlightening.
-
And leaving the backup until the next session is pretty scary, IMHO.
Absolutely right! The previous scheme was highly illogical. "I've just spent several hours working on photos. I'm sufficiently concerned about disk failure to use a program that has its own backup strategy. Still, nothing bad can happen between now and when I next start it up, can it? I'm sure I'll be safe." Bizarre (with all due respect to whomever thought of it first).
Jeremy
-
Is this a wind-up?
The backup at the end of the session must be the best bet. The new import is great, once you bother to learn how it works. This is the best version of LR by far - and I've been using it since it was a beta, before publication.
-
After a couple of weeks the only differences I can see are that:
1. The import dialog now puts all my files in the wrong places after an in-place upgrade.
2. The backup reminder is hugely annoying because it's at the wrong end of the workflow.
3. The add grain function is very poor.
4. Performance increase? Yeah right.
2. What kind of backup plan do you have? I never use the backup function in LR, because my LR catalog files are backed up to online server automatically every day. You can just backup your normal catalog files.
3. The grain feature is awesome! Before I used Photoshop with color effex, but now I can finally process a whole wedding shoot without leaving LR3. I love it!
4. I dont really know what performance gains they are claiming, but the CPU has a big part in performance. I recently upgraded from 3.8GHz C2D to 3.8GHz C2Quad and was happy with the general improvement in LR3 performance.
-
As for the rest...who turns off their computer these days...seriously?
Well, energy bills being what they are (not to mention the heat generated by a 350W PS, it's already frying hot in Grenoble these days), we Europeans actually do that, yeah...
For that, a simple tickbox "shutdown computer at the end of the backup" would be almost as much appreciated as softproofing.
-
I understand that some people would rather have a fast startup and be prompted for backups when quitting.
But LR2 did it the other way round, and I far prefer a slower startup time and be able to quit quickly. I can't now quit LR and turn off my machine within a few seconds without compromising the backups.
If this was just the default and there was an option to do it the old way I would understand that, but if it's so blindingly obvious that I'm the only person in the world who liked the old way then why did they do that way in V1 & V2?
After a couple of weeks the only differences I can see are that:
1. The import dialog now puts all my files in the wrong places after an in-place upgrade.
2. The backup reminder is hugely annoying because it's at the wrong end of the workflow.
3. The add grain function is very poor.
4. Performance increase? Yeah right.
I am very much looking forward to Michael and Jeff's new tutorials because I'm feeling like the upgrade was seriously not worth it. I need enlightening.
1. I have no problems with the import dialogs .. works perfectly and much nicer interface. I'm not sure what you are referring to as in the wrong place after an in place upgrade. I don't have anything in the wrong place.
2. The "backup" is definitely not at the wrong end of the workflow, it was bass ackwards before. How logical is it to backup something when you start on it, then spend a couple of hours changing things and then quit without backing up. The point of backing up is to back up. I never understood at all why backing up at the start was ever implemented. To correct the issue in v1 and v2 I always skipped it at the start, then when I was finished would quit LR, then relaunch it and backup, then quit it again. Many people went through this exercise in frustration. Sorry it doesn't float your boat, but you are in the minority here ... you may indeed be the only person in the world who doesn't like it.
3. no comment, I don't use it.
4. Not sure what you are using for hardware, but for me the performance increase was obvious and beneficial on both my laptop (macbook pro) and work station (macpro) running Snow Leopard.
There is a lot to like with LR 3, especially the new raw processing improvements as well as noise reduction. To me the interface changes are logical and once you get used to them are nice. Of course, I've been using it since the first beta so I'm very used to it.
-
I turn mine off every night as it is an unnecessary waste of energy and costs our household. If the energy saving personal responsibility route is tiresome for some then put it another way, I would rather purchase a few bottles of decent red wine for us rather than a shareholder enjoy the wine on our behalf.
Turning it off takes more energy than managing the system correctly allowing it to sleep after a period of not being used.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=powe...ower_management (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_management)
-
I understand that [everyone but me] would rather have a fast startup and be prompted for backups when quitting.
My correction above Having backup at the startup didn't make any sense and that was one of the most common complaints.
-
Uh huh...If you don't know how to use something, it would be useful to learn how to use it before saying it's poor...I find it quite useful for improving image quality.
As for the rest...who turns off their computer these days...seriously? Performance is fine on my machine, and you might also want to spend some time learning how to use import...I suggest using presets (less likely to make user errors that way which you seems to have issues with).
Those of us who use LR on laptops quite frequently turn off our machine and quite often this needs to happen quickly. On more than one occasion, I've spent the flight home doing a quick review of pictures, looking for the rejects, tidying up tags, etc. Of course in that case, we can simply opt to not do the backup but then, when can it happen? Maybe the answer is LR needs the ability to work differently in some scenarios and that it needs to be more sophisticated.
For example, in the plane scenario, maybe when it starts it needs to create a backup in the background and generate incremental backups whilst I'm running it so that shutdown should only be another small increment?
-
One of the biggest issue with the backup of Lightroom is that many folks do not realize that the backup is of the catalog only and not the images. For me my choice is backup never because I would rather use a program like Retrospect or Super Duper and backup both my catalog and my images multiple times a day automatically.
-
I understand that some people would rather have a fast startup and be prompted for backups when quitting.
But LR2 did it the other way round, and I far prefer a slower startup time and be able to quit quickly. I can't now quit LR and turn off my machine within a few seconds without compromising the backups.
If this was just the default and there was an option to do it the old way I would understand that, but if it's so blindingly obvious that I'm the only person in the world who liked the old way then why did they do that way in V1 & V2?
After a couple of weeks the only differences I can see are that:
1. The import dialog now puts all my files in the wrong places after an in-place upgrade.
2. The backup reminder is hugely annoying because it's at the wrong end of the workflow.
3. The add grain function is very poor.
4. Performance increase? Yeah right.
I am very much looking forward to Michael and Jeff's new tutorials because I'm feeling like the upgrade was seriously not worth it. I need enlightening.
Why? Sounds like your mind is made up.
The new import dialogue does blow chunks but for the rest, it's really not that big a deal. Backup at the beginning or the end, not a huge deal, doesn't bother me either way. If you're that set in your ways, that unwilling or unable to adapt, maybe going back to film would be a good idea.
The grain feature is kind of cool. Not something that's going to get used a ton but can be useful. Again though, probably not to a closed mind.
If you don't like the backup reminder coming at the time you close the program, turn it off entirely. Your catalogue should be getting backed up in a regular system back up anyway. You do back up your system regularly, right? Right? Or is that too much of a hassle when trying to turn your computer off so quickly too?
-
Those of us who use LR on laptops quite frequently turn off our machine and quite often this needs to happen quickly.
Really? Why?
The only time* I ever shut down my laptop (a MacBook Pro) is when I'm going away for many days, not taking it with me, and I'm concerned that the battery will run out before I get back. Otherwise, I simply close the lid and it goes to sleep, ready to awaken instantly when I need it. What reason do you have for shutting it down?
Jeremy
* correction: I did shut it down once when I wasn't going away, to insert some memory.
-
Jeremy - read the next sentence from the post you quoted.
In any case, what's the value in doing a backup in a hurry and onto the same machine as you're using? If you have to close down in a hurry, skip the backup until you have time to do it properly.
John
-
Really? Why?
The only time* I ever shut down my laptop (a MacBook Pro) is when I'm going away for many days, not taking it with me, and I'm concerned that the battery will run out before I get back. Otherwise, I simply close the lid and it goes to sleep, ready to awaken instantly when I need it. What reason do you have for shutting it down?
Jeremy
* correction: I did shut it down once when I wasn't going away, to insert some memory.
I do the same as you. Just shut the lid and put the laptop to sleep. A friend has a Lenovo and he always turns his off. His claim is that the read head on the hard drive doesn't park properly if the computer isn't fully powered off and the drive can get damaged as a result. I don't buy it, but he always powers his laptop off as well.
-
Really? Why?
The only time* I ever shut down my laptop (a MacBook Pro) is when I'm going away for many days, not taking it with me, and I'm concerned that the battery will run out before I get back. Otherwise, I simply close the lid and it goes to sleep, ready to awaken instantly when I need it. What reason do you have for shutting it down?
Jeremy
* correction: I did shut it down once when I wasn't going away, to insert some memory.
I cringe when I read stories like this. If you're doing the above then you're also likely not keeping your system up to date with patches (or at least as far as Microsoft Windows products go.) As someone who has looked after computer systems professionally, I associate long periods without rebooting a computer as poor proactive system maintenance.
But a better answer is this: I don't always know when I'll open the laptop back up again and if I've shut the lid when the battery is low, there's a chance that the battery may die supporting the hibernation, resulting in the system effectively being in a state similar to when the power is yanked out. The "instant on" you get is a result of the battery keeping certain parts of the laptop continuously running - like your system's memory - so that it doesn't need to be restored from disk. The battery's power source is limited and thus the time your system can spend in hibernation is also limited. I use hibernation when I (a) want to turn the system "off" but restore instantly whilst connected to the mains and (B) on short trips that I know the battery will survive whilst hibernating. Note that hibernation is different to suspend (-to-disk) which powers the machine off completely.
-
Can't speak for anyone else, but I get all the Windoze update notifications available even though I only put the laptop into hibernation. Same with anti-virus software.
-
Really? Why?
The only time* I ever shut down my laptop (a MacBook Pro) is when I'm going away for many days, not taking it with me, and I'm concerned that the battery will run out before I get back. Otherwise, I simply close the lid and it goes to sleep, ready to awaken instantly when I need it. What reason do you have for shutting it down?
Jeremy
You might not care about small things like money or the enviroment, but some of actually do...
-
As for the rest...who turns off their computer these days...seriously?
Seriously? Me... and quite possibly a lot of people in the world who care about pointless and needless consumption of power. Jeez, talk about conspicuous consumption from the American contingent...! (unless you guys run from renewables, in which case I take it all back. I'm planning to fit solar panels eventually).
I turn my Macpro off when it isn't doing anything- any time I will be away from it longer than half an hour or so. Overnight? Absolutely. Off at the wall. (I know it sometimes needs to run scheduled jobs in the early hours, but it gets to stay up all night encoding video once or twice a month, which is plenty often enough for it to run these cleanups). Lunchtime? Possibly , unless I'm coming right back to work on it. Going out of the house? Yes, definitely. I can't be using the computer when I am not sitting in front of it, so why waste power having it running?
And my Macbook Pro with SSD is so fast to reboot that I can see no reason not to power it off when I've stopped using it. The less power it uses, the better, although I'm sure the drain on standby is minimal compared with (say) needlessly leaving the Macpro running overnight.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
I cringe when I read stories like this. If you're doing the above then you're also likely not keeping your system up to date with patches (or at least as far as Microsoft Windows products go.) As someone who has looked after computer systems professionally, I associate long periods without rebooting a computer as poor proactive system maintenance.
Happily, I don't use Windows. Software Update runs regularly and automatically: when it tells me that there are updates available, I usually install them immediately. If that involves a reboot, I reboot. Your association with poor proactive system maintenance is indicative of working with Windows, no doubt.
Jeremy
-
You might not care about small things like money or the enviroment, but some of actually do...
The power consumption when it's asleep is about 3 watts, which impinges noticeably on neither money nor the environment.
Jeremy
-
Happily, I don't use Windows. Software Update runs regularly and automatically: when it tells me that there are updates available, I usually install them immediately. If that involves a reboot, I reboot. Your association with poor proactive system maintenance is indicative of working with Windows, no doubt.
Jeremy
Not sure what you mean: that's exactly how it has worked since Win XP. You can also configure it to run automatically in the background, which might even be default behavior. Ubuntu does the same.
-
Turning it off takes more energy than managing the system correctly allowing it to sleep after a period of not being used.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=powe...ower_management (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_management)
The link does not actually say that; it merely recommends using poser management, which make sense. If one does use power management, is it energy saving to turn off the computer at night? If you leave the office at 5:00 p.m. it takes some time of disuse for the power management to kick in (depending on the settings)f, and in the meantime, the computer is at full power rather than being turned off.
-
Not sure what you mean: that's exactly how it has worked since Win XP. You can also configure it to run automatically in the background, which might even be default behavior. Ubuntu does the same.
I was making the point that dreed's cringing was unnecessary.
Jeremy
-
Happily, I don't use Windows. Software Update runs regularly and automatically: when it tells me that there are updates available, I usually install them immediately. If that involves a reboot, I reboot. Your association with poor proactive system maintenance is indicative of working with Windows, no doubt.
Jeremy
So you do actually shutdown and reboot, rather than always just "hibernate", from time to time. And no, not just working with Windows, the same rules apply to all manner of operating systems and computers. Doesn't matter if it is Ubuntu or XP or OS-X. If you think otherwise, you're being naive about software. Anyway, the point that I wanted to make is that bragging about never needing to shutdown your laptop because you can hibernate is not a meme that should be promulgated, and to which you actually agree by way of the above comment.
-
So you do actually shutdown and reboot, rather than always just "hibernate", from time to time. And no, not just working with Windows, the same rules apply to all manner of operating systems and computers. Doesn't matter if it is Ubuntu or XP or OS-X. If you think otherwise, you're being naive about software. Anyway, the point that I wanted to make is that bragging about never needing to shutdown your laptop because you can hibernate is not a meme that should be promulgated, and to which you actually agree by way of the above comment.
I wasn't bragging and I don't agree (re-read what I have written) but I can't see any point in continuing the discussion.
Jeremy
-
As a collective I disagree.
If we all powered off standby lights in the UK it is estimated that two power stations could be decommissioned from just extinguishing those insignificant LEDs. UK energy experts state that approximately 7% of our energy is wasted by needlessly leaving on standby lights - US research indicates 5%.
It's not the standby lights that use the power! It's the machines which consume power when supposedly sleeping. Most of them draw considerably more than 3w. I take the point in general but if we start worrying about such trivia we lose sight of the more important picture.
Jeremy
-
Turning the system off and unplugging for 8-10 hours per night uses less energy than sleep mode - shutting down takes barely any energy. Sleep mode is important for daily use where the computer is used intermittently.
You should also be aware that turning off and turing on any electronics (particularly computers & hard drives) puts more stress on the electronic components than leaving them on and putting them in low power/sleep. Which is why the ONLY time I ever completely shut down my main systems is when I won't be around for multi days/weeks. I use my stuff professionally...anything I can do to keep my system optimal and good health I do.
-
! It's the machines which consume power when supposedly sleeping. Most of them draw considerably more than 3w.
Jeremy
Jeremy is right, most things draw more. A bit off topic from the original discussion, but for those interested see http://standby.lbl.gov/faq.html (http://standby.lbl.gov/faq.html)
From the energy perspective, sleep is better than fully running, but off (at the wall) is better still. My workstation (at work), which I need to be able to access 24-7 remotely, always on, my home computer (also a workstation), where I do my photography stuff, always shutdown and off at the plugstrip. For me, the inconvenience of waiting the 1 minute or so for booting is offset by my desire to have a smaller energy footprint, when possible.
best regards, Darcy
-
Total B.S.
Excerpt from:
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html (http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html)
You won't wear your computer out by turning it off
You won't wear your computer out any faster by cycling it once a day, or even a few times a day. Modern computers just aren't that fragile. I did hardware troubleshooting at Apple, by the way. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Jonathan Koomey, a project scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who says, "PCs are not hurt by turning them on and off a few times a day." (Wall St. Journal) The useful life of a computer these days is only a few years anyway. The computer will become obsolete long before you wear it out, no matter how often you cycle it. Bottom line: Turn your computer off when you're done with it (or simply Sleep it), and don't worry about it.
Yeah and also:
It also doesn't take more energy to start a computer than to keep it running. The only extra energy it takes to start a computer is the two minutes or so it takes to start up, which is barely different than any other two minutes' of use. You'll always save energy by turning your computer off when you're not using it.
Despite looking like a cross between Michael Bolton and Angus Young, the dude seems to know what he is talking about.
-
Total B.S.
Excerpt from:
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html (http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html)
You won't wear your computer out by turning it off
You won't wear your computer out any faster by cycling it once a day, or even a few times a day. Modern computers just aren't that fragile. I did hardware troubleshooting at Apple, by the way. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Jonathan Koomey, a project scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who says, "PCs are not hurt by turning them on and off a few times a day." (Wall St. Journal) The useful life of a computer these days is only a few years anyway. The computer will become obsolete long before you wear it out, no matter how often you cycle it. Bottom line: Turn your computer off when you're done with it (or simply Sleep it), and don't worry about it.
What Jeff said does not contradict the above. Hard drives are not able to spin up and down an infinite number of times. They're simply not made for that kind of use - even hard drives for laptops. Spin up and down does increase the stress on the drive but at the same time, you've got to do it far more often than a few times a day for it to make a difference.
On the other side of the equation, many hard drives made for consumer systems are designed with an expected usage profile that does not involve them running 24x7.
Whilst I doubt anyone here would wear out a hard drive in a short span of time, I do know people that have because of the sleep-wakeup cycle they were using was just too short (less than a minute) over continued use (several months of 24x7 running.)
-
What Jeff said does not contradict the above. Hard drives are not able to spin up and down an infinite number of times. They're simply not made for that kind of use - even hard drives for laptops. Spin up and down does increase the stress on the drive but at the same time, you've got to do it far more often than a few times a day for it to make a difference.
On the other side of the equation, many hard drives made for consumer systems are designed with an expected usage profile that does not involve them running 24x7.
Whilst I doubt anyone here would wear out a hard drive in a short span of time, I do know people that have because of the sleep-wakeup cycle they were using was just too short (less than a minute) over continued use (several months of 24x7 running.)
How do you know that is what killed them?
-
How do you know that is what killed them?
Because after a change was made to increase the time between spinups, the lifespan of the hard drives increased dramatically.
-
What Jeff said does not contradict the above. Hard drives are not able to spin up and down an infinite number of times. They're simply not made for that kind of use - even hard drives for laptops. Spin up and down does increase the stress on the drive but at the same time, you've got to do it far more often than a few times a day for it to make a difference.
On the other side of the equation, many hard drives made for consumer systems are designed with an expected usage profile that does not involve them running 24x7.
Whilst I doubt anyone here would wear out a hard drive in a short span of time, I do know people that have because of the sleep-wakeup cycle they were using was just too short (less than a minute) over continued use (several months of 24x7 running.)
This neglects the fact that using power management may turn off the hard drive many times per day, depending on the settings. If you don't use power management and turn off the computer only at night, there is only one spin up cycle.
-
Because after a change was made to increase the time between spinups, the lifespan of the hard drives increased dramatically.
Same drive brand/series?
-
Same drive brand/series?
Does it matter? It seems like you don't want to believe this is actually a problem. In that case I'd recommend buying a hard drive and writing a test program to spin it up, randomly select a file to read and spin it down again once a minute, every minute of the day and leave it running 24x7 so that you can get back to us on how long it takes before the hard drive fails.
Whilst they're manufactured to predominately not fail during the expected duty cycle inside the warranty period, the above scenario is a long way outside of that expected duty cycle.
-
I fully accept that most people would rather have the backup reminder at the end, and therefore that should be the default. But surely it would be trivial to have kept the old functionality as an option? To have not done it that was is simply ridiculous.
I always switch off my computer, simply because my home MacPro often doesn't get switched on for days at a time: I basically use it for photo processing, and not being a professional photographer I don't have cause to use it every day. Usually I carry on late into the night until I realise that I really need to get some sleep and want to turn the thing off and walk away. Not wait 5-10 minutes for the backup. On the other hand I always have 5 minutes to spare when I'm booting and going into LR. To get a cup of tea perhaps before I start working on my images.
For grain I am currently using DXO Filmpack, which is MUCH better. But maybe there is stuff that I cannot see how to do, or how to do well. Hence the desire for the tutorial.
The new import dialog certainly looks like it has far more functionality than the old, but after a simple upgrade stuff that it used to do fine it now no longer does. Hence the desire for the tutorial. [Edit: I used to use presets extensively, being a bit dim I prefer to set these things up and then leave them alone. Reduces user error. The old presets were still there after the upgrade. But they don't produce the same results, probably something I'm doing wrong. I'm not very bright. *sigh*]
As for the alleged performance enhancements, so far I haven't seen anything noticeable. But I'm no expert. Hence my desire for the tutorial.
As to the alleged image processing improvements, so far I haven't seen anything noticeable, but I haven't really had time to spend scouring my images for small gains. If some experts were to produce a tutorial then I would realise WHERE I should be looking, and perhaps which images might be likely to benefit from being revisited.
One thing that I was very curious about was the Web Output module, it has always seemed to be such a weak offering that I was surprised it was included at all in an otherwise excellent product. As far as I can see it has not been improved at all. It's still terrible. Perhaps all the engineering went into the other parts, and that's fine of course - just surprised that even in V3 it's so shocking.
I still love LR. Great product. Rather have LR than PS if I had to choose just one.
But everyone has been making such a big deal out of the V3 upgrade I was expecting to be wowed. Not so far, but I reckon that's probably because I haven't spent enough time trying to learn the new features. The help system is hopeless, and the simple lists of new features on the Adobe site have left me underwhelmed once I had actually bought the upgrade, though they sure did look enticing.
So... I'm keen on purchasing the new MR & JS tutorial. Even if Jeff does think I'm an idiot, I think he's very entertaining, and more importantly has a great deal of knowledge to impart and the LL tutorials present it in a very digestible format. Photography for me is just for fun. If it was a job I'd have to RTFM. :-)
-
The new import is great, once you bother to learn how it works. This is the best version of LR by far - and I've been using it since it was a beta, before publication.
I try and try learning this lame database/import etc on LR, but everytime I get stuck, I jump to C1 :-) (I guess you can't learn on the fly of doing a job)
As long as C1 is not missing anything in Stricktly processing raw...then I have other tools for DAM, and PS5 works for all my Tiff-16bit edits. This has been the case since I first got LR1, then 2, and now 3...... I have been burning money on LR since the first version.
I use ACDSeePro3 which is super fast ..for Metadata, watermark, batch resize super print options even contact sheets, etc...ftp built in, email built in....burn built in...EVEN some cool Raw processing for a bit of fun....I really like it.
I feel like the ACDSEE cheerleader...but I rather have a program like it that manages, and a program that does RAW best, and CS5 that does edits/plugins for effects really well do its thing. I guess the subject you work with has a lot to do with this. I find Landscapes easier to deal all in the RAW, but for fashion, product, commercial work, you are going to PS like it or not...MOST of the time.
So back to the backup at the end....Can't you pick start or end....or a schedule to backup? I too rarely turn my system OFF...so I am sure there is a way to turn it off and then manually start a backup.
-
I fully accept that most people would rather have the backup reminder at the end, and therefore that should be the default. But surely it would be trivial to have kept the old functionality as an option? To have not done it that was is simply ridiculous.
See, that's where you are wrong...keeping the old behavior wasn't really an option because the code changes to go from backup upon launch to backup upon quit was so major. When people say, keep the old behavior and just add a preference don't understand the complexities of writing code. Having two separate behaviors isn't 2x the code complexities, it's prolly more like 4x or more. The additional QE and testing make it more complex. The bottom line was it was gonna be an either/or proposition. The camp of users who wanted the ability to backup all the work just done at the end of a session had a much stronger use case and therefore the decision was to get rid of the old function and write the new function. The users (and they were the majority) who wanted to backup at the end won. The apparently few people who still want to backup upon launch (which really was backwards from the start) lost...
-
See, that's where you are wrong...keeping the old behavior wasn't really an option because the code changes to go from backup upon launch to backup upon quit was so major. When people say, keep the old behavior and just add a preference don't understand the complexities of writing code. Having two separate behaviors isn't 2x the code complexities, it's prolly more like 4x or more. The additional QE and testing make it more complex. The bottom line was it was gonna be an either/or proposition. The camp of users who wanted the ability to backup all the work just done at the end of a session had a much stronger use case and therefore the decision was to get rid of the old function and write the new function. The users (and they were the majority) who wanted to backup at the end won. The apparently few people who still want to backup upon launch (which really was backwards from the start) lost...
So are you saying Adobe is just cheap and doesn't want to write code with thought put into it? And since it is the author on photo editing that mentallity trickles to this, and we should take it the way it is dished out to us?
-
So are you saying Adobe is just cheap and doesn't want to write code with thought put into it? And since it is the author on photo editing that mentallity trickles to this, and we should take it the way it is dished out to us?
Yeah, that's right...they're cheap and incompetent. Can't understand why you even bother to use the product. Clearly it's way below your expectations. If I were you, I would get my money back. Keep using C1 if that makes you happy.
Do you understand how to write code? Do you understand what 4X the complexity means? Do you want to backup up AFTER doing a lot of work or when you launch? Really, since you seem to prefer C1, do you even have a dog in this hunt?
-
You should also be aware that turning off and turing on any electronics (particularly computers & hard drives) puts more stress on the electronic components than leaving them on and putting them in low power/sleep. Which is why the ONLY time I ever completely shut down my main systems is when I won't be around for multi days/weeks. I use my stuff professionally...anything I can do to keep my system optimal and good health I do.
That is just plain silly
-
Yeah, that's right...they're cheap and incompetent. Can't understand why you even bother to use the product. Clearly it's way below your expectations. If I were you, I would get my money back. Keep using C1 if that makes you happy.
Do you understand how to write code? Do you understand what 4X the complexity means? Do you want to backup up AFTER doing a lot of work or when you launch? Really, since you seem to prefer C1, do you even have a dog in this hunt?
I use most of Adobe software offerings(creative suite) and have been using Adobe products for over 15 years. I have invested a great chunk of my support for their software. I am a big fan of Adobe. I have seen some critical slips lately. and they should be aware of it so they can clean up house.
They have gotten a lot more greedy and sloppy in the past 3 years than I have ever seen them. The CS4 Cs5 upgrade launches with clear issues doesn't help.
C1 has its own issues...for me it is being slow to load the thumbnails and slow in focusing each image. SO my dog is in the hut because I have purchased all 3 breeds of it, and still have issues putting it to use.
to answer your other question. I don't write code. and I want to back up when I click something Like TOOLS_backups_At Start Up, At Close, or manual. How hard is it to make backups of exisiting files? Its some tar file that indexes what relationships it needs to associate with each job, and duplicate it and move it with extensions other than native, and be done.
My post was to only helps the original posters perspective to understand not to expect much of a change or improvment.
-
That is just plain silly
Schewe would be right if you were using OLD hard drives...they used to have the heads park on the spindle, but now are magnetic and dont touch the surface.
So silly is harsh...its habit...One constant that doesn't change is heat...the less your system is exposed to it, the better...harddrives hate heat.
-
it's prolly more like 4x or more.
backup upon launch (which really was backwards from the start) lost...
4x is a bit of a stretch Jeff, and yes I am a programmer. In the object oriented environment encapsulating the back up process and calling it from different point in the program would not be a huge issue. What is an issue and one that all software designers are concerned with is unnecessary complexity. Having a preference for when the backup will occur is unnecessary, for reasons I'll explain next.
Whether or not the backup is completed at the end or the beginning of a session is immaterial. Either way the backup is occurring between sessions and anyone that expresses a preference is stating their opinion rather than fact or any preferred logical process. With the Before process it is backed up before the catalog was opened by LR, with the After process it is backed up after the catalog is closed, so the end result is the same... session | backup | session | backup | session | backup etc...
I do agree that there is a emotional aspect to before or after. IMO, Before is "I want to protect myself during this session and know I have a catalog backup." After is "Whew, I made it through this session I better get a backup while the getting is good." Yes, I'm a fan of the Before process, mainly because I don't consider the LR backup to be anything other that a convenience item, rather than a true backup policy and regimen. Anyone who has adopted this as their backup policy will experience disaster at some point in time.
And all of this arguing is ridiculous if you are doing backups with any setting other than "Every time Lightroom exits." Any other setting is going to contain multiple sessions and it's completely immaterial if it occurs before or after the 10th or 20th session. If its not in this one it will be in the next.
I won't even touch the power down / sleep / hibernate issue. Again a complete non-issue fraught with opinions.
-
4x is a bit of a stretch Jeff, and yes I am a programmer. In the object oriented environment encapsulating the back up process and calling it from different point in the program would not be a huge issue. What is an issue and one that all software designers are concerned with is unnecessary complexity. Having a preference for when the backup will occur is unnecessary, for reasons I'll explain next.
Ever code in Lua? Not sure just how "object oriented" Lightroom is...I do know that the "state of the Lightroom Database" is critical when cuing up a database backup. Lightroom could be absolutely assured that upon launch, the database was then currently in a state of "nothing else going on"...and it's really, REALLY critical that the actual backup is NOT taking place while a critical background process might possibly be going on while a backup is taking place.
So, users decide backing up on launch is contra to the workflow of making sure you save work after doing it (well. DOH) complain. So Lightroom engineers spend the time and effort to make sure they code a SAFE BACKUP ON QUIT where they have to code explicit function to make sure all background processes have completed BEFORE the actual backup process.
When I said 4x the complexity, I was not kidding (nor pulling a number out of my ass). There was discussion amongst the engineers and alpha testers such as Seth Resnick who might spend 8-10 hours keywording thousands of images, who made a really good case that it made MORE sense to back up new work AFTER you do it, not before. Yes, I fell in that camp because I thought it was friggin' goofy to backup BEFORE you work.
So, keeping the old behavior wasn't an option...what would YOU do? Based on 80/20, the Lightroom engineers made the best decision possible. If you don't like it, don't use Lightroom. That's the bottom line.
-
Of course you *could* start Lightroom, then immediately quit / backup, then relaunch. That's what the rest of us basically did after a long editing session . . .
-
Of course you *could* start Lightroom, then immediately quit / backup, then relaunch. That's what the rest of us basically did after a long editing session . . .
Sure...but from the standpoint of software designers (who really DO try to arrive at elegant solutions) that's less good that committing the resources and engineering time to properly code a safe backup upon quit. Really, this is something that was very high on the Lightroom forums...
About all I can say is: careful what you wish for, you may get it (and not like the results).
So, bottom line? Lightroom does backups on quite instead of launch...deal with it.
-
I sure hope Adobe doesn't pay you to be their spokesperson, because if they do they must not read all the demeaning, arrogant, brash, and downright jerky comments you make all the time.
You may be an expert, a very good photographer, and *maybe* a good teacher but your social skills just plain suck.
*steve
Sure...but from the standpoint of software designers (who really DO try to arrive at elegant solutions) that's less good that committing the resources and engineering time to properly code a safe backup upon quit. Really, this is something that was very high on the Lightroom forums...
About all I can say is: careful what you wish for, you may get it (and not like the results).
So, bottom line? Lightroom does backups on quite instead of launch...deal with it.
-
I sure hope Adobe doesn't pay you to be their spokesperson, because if they do they must not read all the demeaning, arrogant, brash, and downright jerky comments you make all the time.
Uh no...I don't work for Adobe (which if you had half a clue about the industry you would already know).
And my comments are what they are...if you find them demeaning, I would suggest maybe you need an ego boost (which the odds of me giving you are pretty friggin' slight). And regarding my "social skills"? Guess what, I don't care, do you? Really? Heck, it makes for interesting discourse (unless you happen you be a shrinking rose).
You a rose, bud?
(actually, that's a joke, bud...)
-
I do have a clue, but you obviously don't. It's too bad because with a positive attitude and a friendly way of doling out information people might actually respect you. If you had half a clue about how most respectful people treated each other you would know that.
(that's not a joke, bud...)
Uh no...I don't work for Adobe (which if you had half a clue about the industry you would already know).
And my comments are what they are...if you find them demeaning, I would suggest maybe you need an ego boost (which the odds of me giving you are pretty friggin' slight). And regarding my "social skills"? Guess what, I don't care, do you? Really? Heck, it makes for interesting discourse (unless you happen you be a shrinking rose).
You a rose, bud?
(actually, that's a joke, bud...)
-
I do have a clue...
No, actually, I think you THINK you do, but I'm afraid you really don't...
What you DON'T understand is that I don't care about (and sincerely don't crave), respect...my attitude is actually positive (in a warped sort of perspective) and I really don't (really, REALLY don't) care what you think...what I do care about is moving forward, making progress and advancing the industry. If that means pissing off a few delicate people, so be it. Seems a fair deal to me...
:~)
-
See, that's where you are wrong...keeping the old behavior wasn't really an option because the code changes to go from backup upon launch to backup upon quit was so major. When people say, keep the old behavior and just add a preference don't understand the complexities of writing code. Having two separate behaviors isn't 2x the code complexities, it's prolly more like 4x or more.
I write code for a living. And that is the most stupid thing I've ever heard you say. It's a function call to a bit of code that is very easy to encapsulate - just as easy to put it at the start as at the end, or both. If that is seriously more than 15 minutes' work then their developers are idiots, which I don't believe.
Far more likely that they just got pissed off with people nagging them about it and said. "Fine if that's the way you want it."
-
I write code for a living. And that is the most stupid thing I've ever heard you say. It's a function call to a bit of code that is very easy to encapsulate - just as easy to put it at the start as at the end, or both. If that is seriously more than 15 minutes' work then their developers are idiots, which I don't believe.
Uh huh...so, what apps have YOU created?
What exactly have YOU done that might be pointed at as indicative of proving that setting the backup from launch to save is more that 15 minutes of code work?
Sorry, don't know you from Adam...I know the Lightroom engineers, and respect them...don't know your creds bud...care to share? (and have you ever coded anything in Lua using MySQL?)
Since you are such an expert, care to share exactly how the Lightroom engineers screwed up? Lota people talk...not many ship products. What had YOU done lately?
-
Jeff
Just being pedantic, I think it was shrinking "violet", rather than rose. But the "rosebud" bit was rather good
John
-
Just being pedantic, I think it was shrinking "violet", rather than rose. But the "rosebud" bit was rather good
Yeah, I think you are right...the phrase is indeed "shrinking violet"...got that wrong (not so much wrong on the difficulty of the code though). Glad you liked the Rose Bud...(we actually have a Rosebud restaurant here in Chicago-never been yet).
-
I do have a clue, but you obviously don't. It's too bad because with a positive attitude and a friendly way of doling out information people might actually respect you. If you had half a clue about how most respectful people treated each other you would know that.
(that's not a joke, bud...)
This may be relevant... (http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/27/arguing.jpg)
-
Uh huh...so, what apps have YOU created?
What exactly have YOU done that might be pointed at as indicative of proving that setting the backup from launch to save is more that 15 minutes of code work?
Sorry, don't know you from Adam...I know the Lightroom engineers, and respect them...don't know your creds bud...care to share? (and have you ever coded anything in Lua using MySQL?)
Since you are such an expert, care to share exactly how the Lightroom engineers screwed up? Lota people talk...not many ship products. What had YOU done lately?
I know that argumentum ad hominem is your default mode of arguing, but you do realise that whether I have shipped any apps or not has about as much relevance as whether you have a beard or not?
Attacking the arguer rather than the argument is a useful debating tactic because it throws off the debater, but it has nothing to do with whether either party is talking sense or not.
To satisfy your curiousity however: As it happens my team is releasing a new version of our stockbroking application this evening. I have worked in banking and finance application development for the last 15 years. You wouldn't have heard of any of our systems as they are not the kind of thing that the general public has any use for. But we do have to be quite careful and know at least a little bit about software development because millions of dollars pass through our systems every day and mistakes can be costly. I have experience with a variety of database systems, ISAM-based (like SQLite), relational (like MySQL), and object-based (like Cache). I have never used Lua for anything serious, though I have written a few World-of-Warcraft add-ons with it.
You have made a few points which show actually that YOU don't have much of a clue about software development, you don't get much credibility by just knowing someone who does. I know a bunch of people who can do cool things, but that doesn't mean I can comment on them with any authority or coming off as out of my depth.
"The coding behind performing a database backup needs to be radically different depending on whether the process is run at the start or the end of the application." This is nonsense. The code needs to ensure that all database access has ceased - this is easier to establish at the start rather than at the end, which is presumably why it was put there in the first place, but once the work has been done to make it robust enough to run at the end after all connections have been closed and the writes flushed, the EXACT same code can be called at the start - if it can't then it's bad coding. Been there done that, many times.
The only alarming thing is the implication that LR 1&2 were allowing the application to close before a clean shutdown of the database had been performed in the first place. BTW LR doesn't use MySql, it uses SQLite which is a very different kind of database. If LR were using MySql then it would actually be quite easy to run background backups, even while the LR application was in use. I have worked on a number of applications that use MySql.
I also respect the LR engineers. It's a nice product and every one of them doubtless knows a LOT more about image processing than I do. But about databases? Maybe not.
Anyway, as someone else has suggested, this user would be equally happy with an option to "Backup and turn off computer when done." If there really is some arcane reason why it's really true that the routine has to be 4x as complicated if it needs to be able to be run at both the start and the end. And that code is just a one-liner! :-)
-
Ever code in Lua? Not sure just how "object oriented" Lightroom is...I do know that the "state of the Lightroom Database" is critical when cuing up a database backup. Lightroom could be absolutely assured that upon launch, the database was then currently in a state of "nothing else going on"...and it's really, REALLY critical that the actual backup is NOT taking place while a critical background process might possibly be going on while a backup is taking place.
So, users decide backing up on launch is contra to the workflow of making sure you save work after doing it (well. DOH) complain. So Lightroom engineers spend the time and effort to make sure they code a SAFE BACKUP ON QUIT where they have to code explicit function to make sure all background processes have completed BEFORE the actual backup process.
When I said 4x the complexity, I was not kidding (nor pulling a number out of my ass). There was discussion amongst the engineers and alpha testers such as Seth Resnick who might spend 8-10 hours keywording thousands of images, who made a really good case that it made MORE sense to back up new work AFTER you do it, not before. Yes, I fell in that camp because I thought it was friggin' goofy to backup BEFORE you work.
So, keeping the old behavior wasn't an option...what would YOU do? Based on 80/20, the Lightroom engineers made the best decision possible. If you don't like it, don't use Lightroom. That's the bottom line.
See, I would be in the camp that would say Lightroom should be doing the equivalent of a snapshot backup when it launches and thereafter, writing a journal or creating incremental snapshots.
That way you don't have to wait until you quit the application for the backup to materialise. This is a lot more complicated than either "at launch" or "at quit" but does mean that if you've spent 6 and a half hours keywording and the system crashes, you would only lose (say) half an hour of changes because the main database was corrupted by an errant write as the system died and the last incremental snapshot was made at the 6 hour mark. If you were to quit, then it would create a new backup of the entire database and deletes all of the snapshots. Or you might say "do an incremental every 5 minutes and a full backup every hour." Or whatever.
Think of it as an "auto-backup" that doesn't need to backup the entire database while you are working.
Yup, that's a lot more complicated than what happens now, but for people who are spending an entire workday using the same instance of Lightroom, it has a lot more to offer than the current version. I suppose the chances are that something like this is too complicated for Lightroom's targe audience
Neither "quit" nor "launch" are appropriate as the only mechanism to create a backup for an application that people can spend 8 hours or more in.
-
I think you are really expecting far too much of an application like Lightroom. The "target audience" you mention is really the key, here. Lightroom is not an industrial-strength application designed for critical enterprise-wide end use in quite this way. It is not even multi-user. Here at work we use Sequel-Server based applications which have to be robust enough for several hundred simultaneous users, and they have a rollback function so that one can recover from a corrupt index or record with minimal data loss at any time. But LR is only 200 quid, for heaven's sake. What you get is a brilliant piece of software for editing and printing photographs for personal use. I wouldn't dream of rolling it out as my departmental solution to Digital Asset Management, but that is not it's intended function.
John
-
I want to buy the tutorials for the information they contain. I could really give a [DELETED] about his attitude.
Señor Schewe,
It would be in your best interest to tone it down. Why? Well simply, you and Michael sell tutorial videos, which are obviously for some sort of profit, or why bother. Personally, I don't need the tutorials, but there is a large audience who do and your attitude (for a long time now) downright sucks. So why would anyone want to buy the tutorials with your name associated with them?
Humility is grand. There will always be someone smarter, more creative, wiser, more talented and the list goes on and on. Facts of life. Someone will always have a higher perch. Being argumentative and just douchey isn't a quality you want associated with yourself.
Take some time away, update your website, get the copyright date at least to 2010. Modernize and readjust the attitude. Photo industry is shit, sure photography is fun and all, but this stuff is all self serving whether for our own art or a clients needs, it's still self serving which skews a lot of heads.
-
Comedic Interlude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kpVovlKq2k...feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kpVovlKq2k&feature=related)
I don't know what language they were speaking, but the moustaches convinced I'm on the righ track growing one.
-
Comedic Interlude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kpVovlKq2k...feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kpVovlKq2k&feature=related)
That is funny stuff...It reminds me of how much I liked Benny Hill.
-
Señor Schewe,
It would be in your best interest to tone it down. Why? Well simply, you and Michael sell tutorial videos, which are obviously for some sort of profit, or why bother. Personally, I don't need the tutorials, but there is a large audience who do and your attitude (for a long time now) downright sucks. So why would anyone want to buy the tutorials with your name associated with them?...
John, I guess you missed Mr. Schewe's earlier eloquent explanation on the subject, and I guess it would be too boring for him to repeat it, so, as a friendly gesture, I will do it (excerpts from his post in an earlier thread):
[Schewe]... I don't take the mentality that I want something from ANYBODY, so you can pretty much forget about me treating you all like a potential "client" and being "nice" to you because I want you to buy something from me. Do, or don't based entirely on your own wishes and desires...but you seriously shouldn't be expecting any particularly behavior from me in that regard...
At this point in my career, there is nothing I can be induced to do for money...I'm retired from advertising photography largely because in order to be successful as an ad shooter, you _DO_ have to treat idiots and a$$holes like they matter. And...they simply don't matter to me anymore...
-
DarkPenguin,
There is hope, you could well be the last vestige of audience members for Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson movies. Bravo. Stand by them. They will need your strength in their final hours.
If they produce a film worth watching I'll watch it.
-
Jeff is succeeding at being a douche and by all means he seems quite content of it. It's nothing new, it goes back years on this forum. Like I've said, I've had enough of douches.
Hum...I don't recall ever calling somebody here on the forums a name such as "a douche"...if you think I'm a douche, what does that say about you bud? I'm gruff and verbally aggressive...but I personally draw the line at calling people names. You apparently don't. So I would say that's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
-
Hum...I don't recall ever calling somebody here on the forums a name such as "a douche"...if you think I'm a douche, what does that say about you bud? I'm gruff and verbally aggressive...but I personally draw the line at calling people names. You apparently don't. So I would say that's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
Schewe...you dont have to kiss anyones tush. I think people on this or any respectable forum expect others to treat them and them on to others at some level of professioanl and most of all...OPEN MINDED approach. I think many people come here to either gain insite or have questions to probelms or thoughts, complaints getting it off the chest sorta speak.... There is a human approach and a mechanical approach. The human approach can shift, it can morph, adapt, improve, fall apart even, and mostly survive. The mechanical approach is always give back the same you put into it, it doesn't know any other way, it will be accurate to only what it is loaded with to its capacity. It will not see a different point of view, and if it doesn't do or see something that computes to its own equasion, it will go onto the next or get stuck.
Being the former takes some , some....I think John or someone called it social skills. Well it takes an open mind.
Now that I am a bit older and aging, I find those who either have it in their mind and have learned about life, and surely those who have had children, understand this a little better. Sometimes when we are alone and used to being so....just ensure that block and it keeps things at a distance.
I really dont know where I am going with this and how it applies to you, but if you can gain something from it...I hope you can come around with a surprising and tranquil approach, and mostly an open mind.
-
OK kids - time to put a cork in it. Topic closed.