Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: luxborealis on January 10, 2012, 08:09:11 pm
-
I know, I know - I'm raining on the parade, but at some point the "wish list" has to start. Don't get me wrong - I am enjoying LR4 and am still discovering nuances and improvements over LR3.
So let me get the ball rolling: here's the start of my "wish" list for LR4:
- LR4 still has only a "spot removal" brush and not a true healing/clone stamp brush;
- I'd like the option of having some book layouts with more informal rotated and layered photos, something iPhoto and Aperture have always offered - how difficult would it be to add a "rotate" function along with the "bring to front", "send to back" options built into iPhoto/Aperture
- I know many were hoping for an implementation of Layers in LR4 - not me, but it would be nice if the adjustment brush and graduated filter "pins" are numbered with those numbers referenced in the history so when reading the history, you know which steps correspond to which brush (we aren't all linear thinkers and doers!)
- integration with mobile devices such as tablets and phones; e.g. Capture1 can wirelessly send images to mobile devices from the app (while shooting tethered or processing, I believe);
- the Slideshow module is still one of LR's weak links - it could have done with some Ken Burns effects, a soundtrack timeline and an ability to vary the transitions without going random; while LR is great for a quick show, that's about it
- even the Web module hasn't seen any improvements along the lines of what some third party guys have done like the Turning Gate.
Perhaps Slideshow and Web should be dropped since third party solutions are so much more superior and it would make for a leaner app (LR4 does seem to run a bit slowly compared to LR3)
-
Perhaps Slideshow and Web should be dropped since third party solutions are so much more superior and it would make for a leaner app (LR4 does seem to run a bit slowly compared to LR3)
Yes I heartily agree they could have spent a little time improving the slideshow module. It's so annoying when the music un-syncs a few seconds with each playing of the show. If you have spent a lot of effort timing your dissolves with certain musical highlights, even less than a second of variance throws the impact you have built out the window.
Just curious about your musing about third party solutions - what do you recommend for a Mac user since ProShowGold does not have a Mac version?
DianeK
-
Perhaps Slideshow and Web should be dropped
I don't think dropping them is a good idea since they both have very useful applications.
I would have preferred to see more work on both of these; rather than the inclusion of 'Book' and 'Map'. But thats just me.. I like to finish one project before starting another ;D
-
I agree with your original point that Slideshow needs some extra features. Ken Burns and a timeline are obviously lacking, and I'd add multiple music tracks and videos in the slideshow. To drop it, as you then suggest, runs against the LR concept of one tool for the whole workflow.
Similarly with Web, we don't need Adobe creating new built-in web galleries (fwiw they have rewritten the Flash galleries so they are colour managed). The very concept is to host third party solutions, and all of us who have created galleries want one thing - the ability to define our own right-side panels.
As for mobile devices, notice the export to Revel (formerly Carousel).
I'm not sure there'll be much demand for layouts involving rotation, and I'd say there are already too many tutti frutti layouts . However, there is a mechanism like Web for creating your own layouts and I think implementing this is a better use of developers' time and skills.
-
What's missing in LR4?
#1 - the de-blur algorithm in the now famous video clip
#2 - might be there but I've seen no reference: being able to use the ruler for angle correction whilst zoomed in
#3 - object detection, via edge detection, so that you can adjust objects rather than need to use the brush and paint them.
#4 - being able to tell LR that a bunch of "edges" should all be parallel and have it calculate the transformation required to "fix" the picture rather than rely on lens correction
#5 - being able to "snap to lines" when selecting a position to start/end the rule for angle correction
#6 - button titled "magic" that automagically transforms any image into a pulitzer prize winner.
-
it would be nice if the adjustment brush and graduated filter "pins" are numbered with those numbers referenced in the history so when reading the history, you know which steps correspond to which brush (we aren't all linear thinkers and doers!)
What a good idea!
Perhaps Slideshow and Web should be dropped since third party solutions are so much more superior and it would make for a leaner app (LR4 does seem to run a bit slowly compared to LR3)
To be fair, you're running a beta of LR4 which probably contains a good deal of debugging code.
Jeremy
-
I was hoping for more a more flexible use of gradients. Like curved or circular ones. A more advanced lens correction tool would have been nice too. Especially the distortion correction could use one or two sliders to control second order distortions. Does anybody know if whether the built in lens profiles make use of higher orders?
-
I was hoping for more a more flexible use of gradients. Like curved or circular ones.
Oooh, being able to apply a gradient filter using a curved surface rather than a straight one sounds very nice. (Think of a circle as just being a curve that is closed on the screen rather than off.)
-
1. An overlay function like every medium format capture software has, so that magazine layouts can be placed over images during a shoot using tethered capture.
2. a 'same as previous' setting for auto-import from a folder. It exists already for tethered capture and would be useful for auto import for cameras not supported for tethered capture that run their own software in the background.
-
Support for 32 bit image formats. For at least cataloging if not editing.
-
1. An overlay function like every medium format capture software has, so that magazine layouts can be placed over images during a shoot using tethered capture.
You've not looked hard enough - it's under View > Layout Overlay. See this video (http://lightroomsolutions.com/ightroom-4-layout-overlay-options/) on a couple of tricks.
John
-
I was hoping for more a more flexible use of gradients. Like curved or circular ones. A more advanced lens correction tool would have been nice too. Especially the distortion correction could use one or two sliders to control second order distortions. Does anybody know if whether the built in lens profiles make use of higher orders?
Yes, the Adobe lens profiles correct high-order distortion (up to polynomial degree 7). They handle not only simple barrel/pincushion distortion, but also wave/half-wave distortion as found in many wide-angle lenses.
The manual distortion slider does up to degree 3. We found in our testing that providing additional sliders for higher-order distortion correction was very unintuitive, and a frustrating experience to get a scene line to appear straight in the image (esp. if there is wave or half-wave distortion). Much easier and more accurate to use a lens profile with a one-click operation.
-
This is a great start to a list for Adobe - please be sure to forward your suggestions to them, too!
I was hoping for more a more flexible use of gradients. Like curved or circular ones.
Agreed! It would be great to be able to "warp" the line. Also, it would be helpful to be able to shift the midpoint within the gradient.
The reason I suggest dropping Web and Slideshow (if Adobe isn't serious about improving them and implementing them well) is that I sure don't want Lightroom to be become code-bloated with "half-assed" features as has happened to other apps.
Just curious about your musing about third party solutions - what do you recommend for a Mac user since ProShowGold does not have a Mac version?
Diane - For slideshows on my Mac, I often use iPhoto/Aperture using properly sized and sharpened jpegs exported from LR. When I want to alter the transitions and timing with a simple soundtrack, I use Keynote (just drag and drop jpegs). For really serious slideshows, use iMovie.
I'm not sure there'll be much demand for layouts involving rotation, and I'd say there are already too many tutti frutti layouts . However, there is a mechanism like Web for creating your own layouts and I think implementing this is a better use of developers' time and skills.
John - "tutti frutti" to you is artistic and creative to many others! At least the option should be there and neither Web or Print has it. Many clients love it when one or more photos on the page are "offset" with a slight rotation. Take a look at modern layouts - it's jaunty, it's liberating and it is easy to implement. If a word processor can do it, a graphics package should be able to and when LR goes into "Book" module it becomes more of a graphics package and less of a photo package.
Also - Flash is dying a slow death and even Adobe recognizes it but won't give up on it quite yet. The sooner HTML5 is implemented, the better.
-
The manual distortion slider does up to degree 3. We found in our testing that providing additional sliders for higher-order distortion correction was very unintuitive, and a frustrating experience to get a scene line to appear straight in the image (esp. if there is wave or half-wave distortion). Much easier and more accurate to use a lens profile with a one-click operation.
Thank's a lot for this insight, I appreciate it a lot! I don't want to hijack this thread but could you explain to me, or point me to some explanation, of how higher order distortions are corrected with just a single slider? I agree that the lens profiles give excellent results in general, but for example with my Tamron 17-50 2.8 there still seem to be some residual distortions a bit away from the corners. (However, I haven't done any rigorous testing so far. Just noticed it in a series of architectural photos I made).
-
Also - Flash is dying a slow death and even Adobe recognizes it but won't give up on it quite yet. The sooner HTML5 is implemented, the better.
I didn't say I agreed it was a good thing that they'd put time into updating the Flash gallery - I agree it's beating a dying horse. LR3 already supported HTML5, so Adobe can leave it to the third parties. What they did do was strip out the Internet Explorer based browser in LR's Windows version and put in some Webkit code so 3rd party galleries would look right in LR on both platforms.
John
-
I would really like to see something similar to Capture's LCC correction. (http://help.phaseone.com/en/CO6/Editing-photos/Lens-Correction.aspx#item3)
-
You might want to describe what it is...
-
I'd like to see one day integrated 3rd party plug-in API (not after process) - that would enable features delivered much faster than the current iteration of LR.
A bit shame not to have a proper cloning brush tool in 2012, fingers crossed it will make into the final version.
-
Diane - For slideshows on my Mac, I often use iPhoto/Aperture using properly sized and sharpened jpegs exported from LR. When I want to alter the transitions and timing with a simple soundtrack, I use Keynote (just drag and drop jpegs). For really serious slideshows, use iMovie.
Thanks. I have been using iMovie and iPhoto for slideshows outside of LR3. I was hoping this was something of ProShowGold calibre out there for Mac that you knew of.
Thanks again.
Diane
-
I would really like to see something similar to Capture's LCC correction. (http://help.phaseone.com/en/CO6/Editing-photos/Lens-Correction.aspx#item3)
You can already create custom lens profiles for use in LR/ACR. And there is a lengthy list of lenses already profiled.
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lensprofile_creator/
-
You've not looked hard enough - it's under View > Layout Overlay. See this video (http://lightroomsolutions.com/ightroom-4-layout-overlay-options/) on a couple of tricks.
John
Hi John,
You're right - I didn't see this. Thanks very much!
Regards,
Ben
-
You can already create custom lens profiles for use in LR/ACR. And there is a lengthy list of lenses already profiled.
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lensprofile_creator/
LCC is not a lens profile.
-
LCC is essentially a flat field adjustment to fix shading (wavelength-dependent, spatially varying light response). ACR and LR actually support the technology (since version 5.4/2.4) but it's not currently exposed in the user interface.
-
Thank's a lot for this insight, I appreciate it a lot! I don't want to hijack this thread but could you explain to me, or point me to some explanation, of how higher order distortions are corrected with just a single slider? I agree that the lens profiles give excellent results in general, but for example with my Tamron 17-50 2.8 there still seem to be some residual distortions a bit away from the corners. (However, I haven't done any rigorous testing so far. Just noticed it in a series of architectural photos I made).
Unfortunately we don't have a single slider that can correct high-order distortions. What I meant was that the profile should ideally do that, and turning on the profile should be a single step. The trouble with some cases is that we don't have enough metadata to perform the ideal corrections. This is particularly true when using third-party lenses, since the focus distance metadata isn't available (the camera doesn't record it). Distortion behavior depends on focus distance (sometimes a lot), so when we don't have the available metadata -- such as in your Tamron case, we can't always correct fully. Often the Distortion slider under the Profile popup can be used to fix it, though.
-
Something else missing, I've noticed. In the Print Module it would be helpful if the borders and centre of ID Plate show up on the rulers as that would allow for more precise alignment; e.g. with centre of photo
OR - better yet, make "sticky" anchors as in the Slideshow module.
-
LCC is essentially a flat field adjustment to fix shading (wavelength-dependent, spatially varying light response). ACR and LR actually support the technology (since version 5.4/2.4) but it's not currently exposed in the user interface.
And why not ? I mean LR4 is great so far, but the ONLY thing I really would like to have is a good LCC correction in LR. It is the only way why I can only use lightrrom for tiff files.. :(
-
Unfortunately, flat field correction in the UI is not something we've been able to prioritize to date. That may change in the future, though.
-
#1 The facility to amend template layouts and save them in the Book module.
-
As in the other thread, Adobe have said this will be possible
-
Relative Adjustments in the Develop module. This would permit, for example, applying in Increase in black clipping level to multiple images rather than synchronizing Absolute black clipping level between images. This kind of thing comes up in my workflow when I'm preparing files for different output devices.
John Caldwell
-
A history panel in the book module.
Different option to sharpen for screen when outputting PDFs for ebooks.
-
Relative Adjustments in the Develop module. This would permit, for example, applying in Increase in black clipping level to multiple images rather than synchronizing Absolute black clipping level between images. This kind of thing comes up in my workflow when I'm preparing files for different output devices.
And/or being able to use a "grid view" in Develop and being able to select multiple images for applying certain changes rather than doing one and then "Sync Settings".
Which reminds me - with older lenses/cameras, it is sometimes necessary to manually select the lens maker and model. Often LR will correctly guess the model if I tell it the manufacturer BUT doing a sync to that from other pictures with a different model will cause the model from the master of the sync to become the model for the target of the sync.
-
+1
Erik
Relative Adjustments in the Develop module. This would permit, for example, applying in Increase in black clipping level to multiple images rather than synchronizing Absolute black clipping level between images. This kind of thing comes up in my workflow when I'm preparing files for different output devices.
John Caldwell
-
I am very pleased with the work in the Dev module around the basic panel and brushes for WB and noise. Thanks a million Eric! However, I think the auto mask edge algorithms for the adjustment brush need a little tweaking to prevent halos. I know adobe is aware of this so hopefully it gets some resources soon.
Maybe instead of a new clone brush we need to clone Eric ;)
-
The reason I suggest dropping Web and Slideshow (if Adobe isn't serious about improving them and implementing them well) is that I sure don't want Lightroom to be become code-bloated with "half-assed" features as has happened to other apps.
The web module is in fact very powerful as it allows people to make rather clever plugins for it. I've built my current website completely within LR. One which looks fine on any sized monitor and will work on mobile phones too using HTML5. You use LR's organising abilities to collect images for site and then to export them as well.
I will however be building a landing page to gather in all the various different projects that make up my portfolio and each will be in effect a mini-site in same style as the current version.
-
And/or being able to use a "grid view" in Develop and being able to select multiple images for applying certain changes rather than doing one and then "Sync Settings".
You can already do this. Use the second screen option - if you only have one monitor, it gives a floating panel. Also, switch on AutoSync and leave it on. Then whenever you have mutiple files selected your adjustments apply to all the files and you don't need to spend time going through SyncSettings.
-
The web module is in fact very powerful as it allows people to make rather clever plugins for it. I've built my current website completely within LR.
Agreed - I, too use it for galleries. What miffs me is that if you add one photo, the whole gallery needs to be republished. This is not an efficient use of the power of computers.
Perhaps aspects of Web can be made to run through "Publish" so that LR keeps track of what's already there (it might already be there for all I know). I would even advocate elevating "Publish" to a module, rather than a palette in Library.
-
Agreed - I, too use it for galleries. What miffs me is that if you add one photo, the whole gallery needs to be republished. This is not an efficient use of the power of computers.
No it isn't a good use at all, and back in v1 days I was encouraging Adobe to distinguish Web by attacking that very pain point. In its defence, it's no worse than the static web gallery generators in other products. Publish does of course hint at the kind of control that we really need, but my worry would be that any further development by Adobe would concentrate on online services ranging from Flickr to Photoshelter rather than to the static web galleries that Web generates. Maybe the days of static HTML galleries are over? But a Publish-Web might be done by a third party who knows plugins, PHP and HTML (I might dig around!)
John
-
You can already do this. Use the second screen option - if you only have one monitor, it gives a floating panel. Also, switch on AutoSync and leave it on. Then whenever you have mutiple files selected your adjustments apply to all the files and you don't need to spend time going through SyncSettings.
Oh, I see. I've been ignorant.
I can set the second screen to "grid view" and the primary to "develop".
If I could reverse that, so that the grid was on screen 1 and the image being edited was shown on 2, that'd be perfect.
Why that way around?
Because on screen 2 there is more screen real estate for the image that I'm editing - much less screen real estate is lost on the left, right or bottom to strips, be they the disappearing kind or not.
-
Oh, I see. I've been ignorant.
I didn't put it that way.
-
I would really like to see something similar to Capture's LCC correction. (http://help.phaseone.com/en/CO6/Editing-photos/Lens-Correction.aspx#item3)
+1. I was really hoping to see this in LR4. It would be very useful for both MFDB and rangefinder-lenses-on-NEX users.
-
Live Video Image from DSLRs for composing shots when shooting tethered. Like the Canon software can do.
-
LCC is essentially a flat field adjustment to fix shading (wavelength-dependent, spatially varying light response). ACR and LR actually support the technology (since version 5.4/2.4) but it's not currently exposed in the user interface.
+1. I was really hoping to see this in LR4. It would be very useful for both MFDB and rangefinder-lenses-on-NEX users.
Lightroom is obviously developing into a standalone application, which I do not agree with. To me it is the application I manage my entire image library with and prepare the files for further editing in Photoshop. Unfortunately LCC is extremely difficult to achieve in Photoshop, so it should be part of the RAW workflow. I dream of being able to embed LCC profiles in a DNG file (similar to Capture's EIP), so that they won't be lost during system migration etc.
-
Lightroom is obviously developing into a standalone application, which I do not agree with. To me it is the application I manage my entire image library with and prepare the files for further editing in Photoshop. Unfortunately LCC is extremely difficult to achieve in Photoshop, so it should be part of the RAW workflow. I dream of being able to embed LCC profiles in a DNG file (similar to Capture's EIP), so that they won't be lost during system migration etc.
LR has always been a "standalone application". From the outset, you have been able to import, adjust, and print. Each iteration has made it better at doing all three. Many people (me included, FWIW) find that a substantial majority of photos can be processed to completion in LR without any need for PS, and view this as a Good Thing. I'm not clear what aspect of that you "do not agree with".
Whether a particular adjustment becomes incorporated into LR is a matter for Adobe, who are not wholly unresponsive to their customers' requests. The history of the program shows that new corrections are added: for example, IIRC, lens corrections and distortion were new in v3. Make the argument to the designers; maybe they'll respond.
Jeremy
-
I could do with a possibility to alter a graduated filter mask a bit further.
What I mean by that is the ability to "paint" away the effect of a graduated filter from taller trees for example. Or when you have a clear horizon, but 1/3rd of the photo is land etc.
-
I would like a mask feature on each adjustment tool highlights, mid-tones and shadows
-
I could do with a possibility to alter a graduated filter mask a bit further.
What I mean by that is the ability to "paint" away the effect of a graduated filter from taller trees for example. Or when you have a clear horizon, but 1/3rd of the photo is land etc.
That would be nice, yes. However, you can use an adjustment brush with settings which reverse those of the graduated filter to achieve pretty much that effect already. The brushed area won't move if you then move the filter, of course, but if you finalise the filter settings before starting with the brush, it's a usable approach.
Jeremy
-
One very obvious niggle is a lack of amber/blue WB adjustment. Sometimes I find the green/magenta not sufficient to get the WB that I want.
I don't want to use the word "major oversight" but it's quite a simple one IMO
-
That would be nice, yes. However, you can use an adjustment brush with settings which reverse those of the graduated filter to achieve pretty much that effect already.
True - you mentioned a workaround that many of us use. However I must agree with JanneAavasalo about how useful it would be to "paint" away the graduated filter. If the grad filter was improved so that it became a true mask, varying in intensity from 0 to 100, then we could turn on and off its overlay and paint it away where necessary.
Also, William Wilson raises a great point about being able to "paint" away basic sliders. I believe this can be done in Aperture.
-
I've been thinking more and more about a comment I made at the beginning of this post regarding the weakness of the Slideshow module in Lightroom as well as some of the comments about the inflexibility of the Book module (despite the myriad templates provided) and I started thinking more about PDFs.
Slideshow allows for some flexibility in layout and design that Print and Book does not. As well, Slideshow allows you to publish to PDF. While the PDFs can be exported to custom sizes (in the Export to PDF dialogue box), there is no provision for output sharpening.
Perhaps what LR needs is - no, not another module - but a smarter module that would allow Slideshow and PDF creation that has:
- output size as an initial set-up (e.g. for book page templates);
- page templates to introduce text to PDFs or at least the ability to add a text box beyond ID plate and basic Text Overlays;
- design features to allow free-form layout design including rotating images (what can be done to create high quality PDFs in e.g. iWork Pages is amazing!)
- output sharpening parameters similar to the Print module but for halftone printing as well;
- transitions like those found in Acrobat;
- some of the wonderful capabilities of LR/Mogrify;
to name a few.
I know, I've just turned LR into InDesign or Acrobat but that trend has already begun. Maybe this new and improved module could be called "Publishing" or "Design Sandbox". This is, after all, Adobe's forté - it would be great to see more of it built into LR.
-
How many users actually want that level of production capacity and how much more are you willing to pay to have it within LR?
-
Agreed - I, too use it for galleries. What miffs me is that if you add one photo, the whole gallery needs to be republished. This is not an efficient use of the power of computers.
The way to best use the web module is to have enough images in a collection to use for designing the gallery/site and once you are happy with it save a template [and also save design as you go along]. Simply add the photos you want to use when design is finished.
With the solution I currently use [LR, SlideshowPro + Director - as does John B.], I simply create gallery in LR, export the design online and then add images by exporting the photos directly to Director from LR. Director is then used to populate the galleries of the numerous websites that use the template I originally designed in LR.
-
How many users actually want that level of production capacity and how much more are you willing to pay to have it within LR?
The thing you need to bear in mind is that different users need different parts of any software's toolset. Just because there's a part of say Photoshop that doesn't interest me, for example like 3D, doesn't mean there is a huge demand for it. Same goes for LR.
All those suggestions fall within what many photographers would use and as LR is for photographers....
-
True, but if you want to get a feature added then if you can answer the questions that I asked, you have a much better chance (particularly the second one - if you can commit to a company that it adds economic value that you will lay down cash for, they'll see the return).
-
How many users actually want that level of production capacity and how much more are you willing to pay to have it within LR?
I think Terry's idea is excellent and shouldn't really add much, if anything to the cost.
All it requires is pulling together different features that already exist within the program into one module.
-
Not cost much? You realise that sometimes just changing a small UI component can be a major issue, right?
Adding an entire new module isn't a small exercise, and even if it doesn't cost much in cash it costs in terms of development time and resources working toward other things.
That's all fine, if there are actually enough users who are willing to pay for those features. As it stands, the attitude seems to be "oh, this should be easy, let's just incorporate design features from ID and Acrobat Pro and mesh them into LR and, yeah, don't charge me any more for it."
That's *not* going to excite Adobe to rush to add this feature :-)
-
This is perhaps a little trivial, compared to some posts, but unless I'm missing something I still can't switch off the color management chain if I want to import and print out a standard target for calibration purposes - it's the only reason I keep an old copy of Photoshop.
-
This is perhaps a little trivial, compared to some posts, but unless I'm missing something I still can't switch off the color management chain if I want to import and print out a standard target for calibration purposes - it's the only reason I keep an old copy of Photoshop.
I suppose Adobe feels that as they created the Colour Print Utility for this purpose, there was no longer any need for such an ability in Lightroom (or Photoshop).
Anthony.
-
#1. LCC correction, preferably model-based in which something like the lensprofile creator takes images with varying apertures, and degrees of shift and tilt, and constructs a shading model for the lens. Ease of use will sell better than technical perfection as blending will take care of edge effects during pano construction. Add a "strength" slider to allow easy balancing of correction accuracy against visual naturalness in skies and the like.
#2. Take a close look at Alpa Lens Corrector. Do that, with a nice UI.
-
Good Lord, I wasn't aware such a utility existed. Feeling a bit silly about my observation now.
-
Good Lord, I wasn't aware such a utility existed. Feeling a bit silly about my observation now.
No need to feel silly. Asking questions is all about gaining knowledge - something we can/should do. I have made an art form from asking 'silly' questions over the years - still do- and I now have a store of knowledge I wouldn't otherwise have.
Anthony.
-
I suppose Adobe feels that as they created the Colour Print Utility for this purpose, there was no longer any need for such an ability in Lightroom (or Photoshop).
Anthony.
History rewritten. At some point in time you could no longer print untagged targets properly through Adobe software on Macs. People had to invent tweaked workflows to get that done on Macs. Then Adobe removed the CM OFF setting completely for all platforms. Months later the Color Print Utility appeared.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
330+ paper white spectral plots:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Correct, no color management is no longer a supported print workflow on the Mac (there's no public API to do this anymore, from a software perspective).
-
This is perhaps a little trivial, compared to some posts, but unless I'm missing something I still can't switch off the color management chain if I want to import and print out a standard target for calibration purposes - it's the only reason I keep an old copy of Photoshop.
Which is functionality the folks who build and sell ICC profile creation packages should be supporting.
-
Hi guys, new in the forum.
Having a thought in what I missed in LR (haven´t yet try the LR4 version), what I mostly miss is:
- A complete index catalog with thumbnails of all the catalogs I have in LR, so that clicking in one you´re sent straight to that catalog, and incluiding the names of the collections. This not much Mb consuming and will help from closing LR every time we want to change catalog. Even better would be if you can open in a catalog collectios selected from different catalogs in a, let´s call it, working catalog, wich would be only temporal with the ability to give it a name so that it can be recalled any time.
- Enhanced ability to contain a bigger amount of photographs on every catalog.
- As I´d like it to be my ultimate software for photographers, it still lacks some abilities most of us use with third party appliances: Pano, HDR (although this is being enhanced with the ability to get more detail from shadows and clipping lights), Focus HDR (as the helicon) ...
- An option to burn DVD straight from LR, so we don´t have to export files for customers, friends, etc, in wich there should be the possibility to transform files to JPEG & TIFF, so that they can be seen on any Mac/PC.
I know this is not easy at all, but a while working with top engineers taught me that one should imagine the ultimate thing you´d like to have, so that they start thinking how to achieve it and, if they cannot now, keep it in mind so that when choosing one way or another in the development process they keep doors open for the last required result. Engineers love to have inputs to develop.
-
How many photographs do you want in one catalogue? I've not seen anyone with a million, but I know of plenty that are 300-500,000 pictures and some bigger than that. Numbers of pictures aren't a reason for losing control of your catalogues.
Also, in LR4 there is burning to DVD on both platforms.
Maybe try LR4 before saying what it can't do?
-
I don´t know if I´ll dare to try that with my own catalogs. On a couple of books about LR3 I read they said it´s far better to keep below 40 to 50.000 images to avoid getting it slow down or (my fear) to start having some failures.
Anyway, if you confirm that point, I´ll try to push it a bit further to see what happens, but really wouldn´t like it if I have to start restoring catalogs.
It would be great for me to have all my pics in one catalog.
-
Then they're not very well-informed books? In fact one of the goals of Lr3 was to improve performance with very big catalogues. Just make sure you have a decent computer, but you don't need anything exotic.
-
I'd like to see one of the geometry corrections available in DXO:
- Pick 4 points and LR warps the image so they become a straightened rectangle
- Draw two near horizontal or vertical lines and LR warps the perspective so they are straightened and parallel
For both of these tools, in order to provide EASY pixel level precision, provide a 16x magnifying glass when "dropping" the points, like the panorama stitching software does for dropping "control points".
Best,
Stephane
-
I'd like to see one of the geometry corrections available in DXO:
- Pick 4 points and LR warps the image so they become a straightened rectangle
- Draw two near horizontal or vertical lines and LR warps the perspective so they are straightened and parallel
For both of these tools, in order to provide EASY pixel level precision, provide a 16x magnifying glass when "dropping" the points, like the panorama stitching software does for dropping "control points".
If DxO does that then I need to seriously try it out.
I'd love to see that in LR but for it to allow for more than just two lines or a box.
-
I don´t know if I´ll dare to try that with my own catalogs. On a couple of books about LR3 I read they said it´s far better to keep below 40 to 50.000 images to avoid getting it slow down or (my fear) to start having some failures.
Anyway, if you confirm that point, I´ll try to push it a bit further to see what happens, but really wouldn´t like it if I have to start restoring catalogs.
It would be great for me to have all my pics in one catalog.
Not doing so basically cripples how LR works. And I'm with John in saying those books were giving poor advice.
Back up catalogue regularly to make sure if anything goes wrong, you have a back up. LR can remind you every session, every day or every week to do just that when closing LR.
-
I don´t know if I´ll dare to try that with my own catalogs. On a couple of books about LR3 I read they said it´s far better to keep below 40 to 50.000 images to avoid getting it slow down or (my fear) to start having some failures.
Horseshyte...what books, what authors (I'll send them a personal email correcting them).
I'm just under 300K with my main catalog and it ain't slow and I haven't had any "failures".
The whole purpose of LR is to store your images in a catalog...all of them.
When you get to a million, get back to us (I'll update you when I get to a mil).
-
Hi Dreed,
DXO doesn't have the 16x magnification glass when dropping points sadly - I cant understand why, it's a no-brainer. Stitching software has had it for years.
-
Improvements to keywording
There's no difference in this key area of LR4b.
When keywording there's a lot of wasted screen space, especially on large screens.
I'd like to see the option to have much larger panels of suggested keywords, and larger keyword sets.
The suggested list could be configurable like the number of recent files list in PS (and other apps).
Changing the size of keyword sets could have difficulties, but maybe the option to one more than one at the same time would be useful.
-
One thing I'd really like to see... Color balance against a variety of skintones? That would make my life so much easier, to give me a starting point when doing portraits! I'm actually surprised I haven't seen utilities that provide that - am I missing something ?
Best,
Stephane
-
Improvements to keywording
There's no difference in this key area of LR4b.
When keywording there's a lot of wasted screen space, especially on large screens.
I'd like to see the option to have much larger panels of suggested keywords, and larger keyword sets.
The suggested list could be configurable like the number of recent files list in PS (and other apps).
Changing the size of keyword sets could have difficulties, but maybe the option to one more than one at the same time would be useful.
In Windows, it can now only display those programs that you use often, unless you click on something special and then they all appear.
Would something similar for keywording be useful, where it only showed you keywords that have been used in the last 12 months or whatever?
-
Would something similar for keywording be useful, where it only showed you keywords that have been used in the last 12 months or whatever?
Not for me, but YMMW, so add it to the request list ;-)
Given just how crucial to the overall long term workflow keywording is, I'm surprised that this aspect of LR hasn't received more enhancement and refinement over the versions.
-
In Windows, it can now only display those programs that you use often, unless you click on something special and then they all appear.
Would something similar for keywording be useful, where it only showed you keywords that have been used in the last 12 months or whatever?
In the keywording panel you have the set Recent Keywords but also Keywording Suggestions which is a bit cleverer than it appears. It suggests keywords by looking at previous images, so for instance if I keyword an image with "Borrowdale" it will find that when that I previously used that keyword I also used "Cumbria", "dry stone walls" etc and suggests those.
But I agree with the last few comments about keywords. Maybe one of the reasons it has received so little attention is that not enough people are really interested in it, and those who are serious about it use Photo Mechanic? That was the conclusion I drew when I demoed a keywording plugin (http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/jb-keyword-tools-test-version/) and got so little feedback I've more or less put it on ice.
John
-
Maybe one of the reasons it has received so little attention is that not enough people are really interested in it, and those who are serious about it use Photo Mechanic?
Or maybe it just isn't easy enough to use ?
From what I've read PM is very much a bit of specialised software for press use and is all about getting metadata onto the files when first ingested from camera.
Maybe my use is atypical, but I add generalised keywords when importing, but still need to go in and add individual keywords to images after import. Often these can be very varied, especially with travel photography, so the suggested keywords are often way off.
That was the conclusion I drew when I demoed a keywording plugin (http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/jb-keyword-tools-test-version/) and got so little feedback I've more or less put it on ice.
I just looked at this and it's not very clear what it does or how to use it. It also seem to rely on hierarchical keywording sets and/or controlled vocabularies, neither of which, I think, have much take up outside of the professional market.
The key to improving this aspect of LR is making it more convenient to use. The existing system works well, but could be better by adding more options. For example having a set of buttons that can apply a whole keyword set in one click. Maybe being able to create a keyword set via drag 'n drop. There's room for improvement here.
Maybe as people have greater commitment to LR as their collections grow, we'll see more interest in the DAM aspects of LR.
-
But I agree with the last few comments about keywords. Maybe one of the reasons it has received so little attention is that not enough people are really interested in it, and those who are serious about it use Photo Mechanic? That was the conclusion I drew when I demoed a keywording plugin (http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/jb-keyword-tools-test-version/) and got so little feedback I've more or less put it on ice.
John
People should be obliged to watch the Seth Resnick WAM%P video!
-
Not having seen that, Jeremy, I don't get what you mean.
@Rhossydd Thanks for the feedback. I have since made some changes which do try to simplify things, but I still think there's some way to go.
John
-
Not having seen that, Jeremy, I don't get what you mean.
Sorry if that was cryptic :-) - I just meant that Seth makes a good case for keywording for everyday photographers, and not just professionals, and has some concrete examples of how to put it into practice. He makes the point that keywording is part of the workflow, and not just a "nice to have". If more people had taken that on board then there would be more interest in your contribution and in the LR functionality.
-
Gotcha.
-
I should point out I don't even recall seeing this particular tool on your sites John.
One of the problems with websites in general is that there are so many millions of interesting websites out there, that keeping up with them is a full time job in itself. And it is so very easy to miss useful info. With the immediacy of online content news tends to happen in real time, so if you do not look at all the sites on a daily basis [or even hourly basis with some] you can easily miss even important stuff, as it's already been replaced by the next news item.
-
CMYK output would be nice. Also, would like to be able create presets for multiple exports (that is, to export at various predetermined sizes, file types, kinds of sharpening, etc., with one click).
-
I could do with a possibility to alter a graduated filter mask a bit further.
What I mean by that is the ability to "paint" away the effect of a graduated filter from taller trees for example. Or when you have a clear horizon, but 1/3rd of the photo is land etc.
+1 !!!!!!! A graduated filter "eraser" would be a valuable tool for eliminating the filter from foreground elements, etc.
-
I might have got it wrong, but in the spanish edition of Scott Kelby´s "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3" on the page 108, under "creation and use of various catalogs" it goes:
"LR has been designed to administrate a library of, literally, tnths of thousands of images and I know about photographers that have 50.000 or 60.000 images in their catalogs and, even though, LR is able to work with them. Anyway, once your catalog is getting so big, LR will start to work slower. Thankfully tou can create more catalogs ..."
The translation is as close to the spanish version I have as I´m able to produce.
I read this same thing in other places, probably deriving from this same sentence?
Thanks a lot for your advise, I feel much more confident now with bigger catalogs, wich suites me much better in my workflow.
-
Glad to hear it. While SK may have a successful business model, people don't buy his books for advice on digital asset management.
-
- 'print size' added to the default FIT, FILL, 1:1, etc.
-
- 'print size' added to the default FIT, FILL, 1:1, etc.
Remo
Unlike Photoshop, there is no concept of print size in Lightroom except in the Print module; so I see no way this would be possible. This independence from print size is an advantage of Lightroom since different sizes, with appropriate output sharpening, can easily be created in the Print Module.
Regards
Nigel
-
- 'print size' added to the default FIT, FILL, 1:1, etc.
Good point, can sometimes be useful to view the output on screen at the print size, especially when this is smaller than your monitor. Would that be in the print module
-
Try it! You'll see that although LR does show a facsimile of the print, it is at a standard size in relation to your monitor and the preview panel size - not the actual size of the print. Toggling on "Page Bleed" in the Guides palette will show you the whole page and not just the print area.
-
Another thing missing;
Why aren't the keywording tools, ie the same panels as in library module, available in the import dialogue ?
-
Because the import dialog doesn't - and shouldn't - attempt to duplicate every aspect of Library. Import is for getting your pictures into the library, so its keywording box is just for keywords common to all the files you're importing.
-
...shouldn't - attempt to duplicate every aspect of Library.... Import is for getting your pictures into the library, so its keywording box is just for keywords common to all the files you're importing.
There's a lot of wasted space on the import dialogue panel on most modern systems. If they're going to put the keyword input option there, why not make it as useful as possible ?
-
A "test strip" facility in the Print module. You would set page size as usual and, separately, set print size. LR would render the as much of the image. at the print size, using the print resolution, if selected, into to page size. There should be the ability to drag the print to show the desired portion of the image.
Alan
-
There's a lot of wasted space on the import dialogue panel on most modern systems. If they're going to put the keyword input option there, why not make it as useful as possible ?
Because there's no point creating a duplicate place to do serious keywording. Granted, there's often wasted space, and you might make a similar argument for using the space for a Metadata panel or even Quick Develop. But this is always assuming the Import dialog is for something other than moving pictures off cameras and ensuring you have two copies. That is its core role, and the reason it has that keywording box is so people can efficiently slap on a few keywords that happen to be common to the shoot.
-
Why argue not to add a feature that wouldn't significantly compromise the existing workflow ?
...and the reason it has that keywording box is so people can efficiently slap on a few keywords that happen to be common to the shoot.
So why shouldn't that be easier ?
One of LR's key feature's it's it's DAM capability. The easier that is to use, the more useful the program becomes.
-
In the map module;
A finer scale of time offset from a preloaded track.
This needs to be down to individual minutes, not hours to correct differences between cameras & GPS loggers.
-
"Why argue not to add a feature that wouldn't significantly compromise the existing workflow ?" etc
Because a duplicated feature does come at a cost - the development time which would be better spent on other DAM features. Simply in the area of keywording, sets could be made bigger and the clever keyword suggestion idea could be expanded. Reorganising keywords is a pain, and multilingual keywording is difficult. The Do Not Export flag is right for some people, wrong for others, and needs revisiting. There's also a bug affecting Windows users with large numbers of keywords.
I don't say that the DAM features shouldn't receive more attention - I am disappointed they don't - but Import's for the physical aspects of DAM, not for serious kewording.
-
the development time which would be better spent on other DAM features. Simply in the area of keywording, sets could be made bigger and the clever keyword suggestion idea could be expanded.
Couldn't agree more and I've sent feature requests for this to Adobe since v1.
I don't say that the DAM features shouldn't receive more attention - I am disappointed they don't - but Import's for the physical aspects of DAM, not for serious kewording.
There we'll have to differ;
I reckon there'll be a commonality in most imports that makes it the perfect time to apply generalised keywording (from a pre-defined set would be ideal). Then do additional individual image keywording in the library module, as at present.
I think Photo Mechanic's popularity amongst Pros suggests the efficacy of this approach.
All I'm suggesting is improvements to what's already possible, just making it easier=more efficient.
I also suspect that in software development terms using the same structure and code between Library and import would be feasible and efficient too, as well as being more intuitive for the users.
-
Among other things PM's popularity (not all pros, but press guys certainly) is because it's very efficient at entering metadata with tools like code substitution, and is blazing fast thanks to GPU acceleration to read the embedded JPEGs. Its qualities are completely unrelated to making an Import dialog a place for serious keywording. As it is, you can already do generalised keywording there, and your duplicated keywording features would be useless as soon as you need to ingest more than one card from a single shoot. That's why it's better to keep Import focussed on its own role, and beef up Library's DAM features.
-
Among other things PM's popularity (not all pros, but press guys certainly) is because it's very efficient at entering metadata with tools like code substitution, and is blazing fast thanks to GPU acceleration to read the embedded JPEGs.
Dare we ask why such a small operation as can incorporate efficiencies such as GPU utilisation when a big corporate like Adobe haven't done that with LR yet ? maybe best to leave that ;-)
Its qualities are completely unrelated to making an Import dialog a place for serious keywording.
No, it's all about workflow. The press guys use it because it's fast and efficient. Good metadata is vital for them and the speed of getting images out of the camera, metadata'd and sent through to the picture desk make the difference between a sale or not. That efficiency should be welcome for all photographers really.
"serious keywording" I'm guessing by your use of this phrase that it's one you've picked up from your connection with Adobe.
It seems sad that so often people try to get involved with discussion about Adobe products with their connections/parters/employees/consultants only to hit brick walls of 'why do you need that?', 'you don't need that', 'it's too difficult', 'it can't be done' (OK you've got to tread the party line, but...) often followed at the next version with 'wow look at this awesome new feature'
As it is, you can already do generalised keywording there, and your duplicated keywording features would be useless as soon as you need to ingest more than one card from a single shoot. That's why it's better to keep Import focussed on its own role, and beef up Library's DAM features.
Actually being able to easily use the same keywords as the previous import might be a significant time saver if importing multiple cards from the same shoot into LR.
The whole ask here is to improve the ease of improving that generalised keywording feature.
-
Don't read anything into my use of "serious". It's simply a positive word I chose to describe your duplication of Library's keywording panels in the Import dialog and doing a lot more keywording in it than is currently possible. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered!
-
The press guys use it because it's fast and efficient. Good metadata is vital for them and the speed of getting images out of the camera, metadata'd and sent through to the picture desk make the difference between a sale or not. That efficiency should be welcome for all photographers really.
I'd hazard a guess it's more to do with the fact that many years back PhotoMechanic was much faster than other offerings and LR + Br didn't even exist. And even after they did the initial versions were not as fast as PM. But times change and people rarely do.
I remember doing some research into why people used or didn't use certain programmes [like PM, Br etc] and the responses I got back would have been relevant 3 or 4 years previously, but bore little resemblance to the current software. One of the main reasons PM was faster was simply because it did less. I used to use PM myself, but eventually found myself using Br + LR instead as overall they were faster.
-
Loving the new develop module :)
A few things I was hoping to see in LR4:
1.) synchronize collections (i.e. similar to syncing metadata). For users with 'serious' collection-based organizing strategies, this would be very helpful. Currently no way to 'share' all/part of one image's assigned collections with another.
2.) tethered support for MF cameras (Hasselblad H3D/H4D)
3.) +1 for relative develop adjustments mentioned earlier on this thread. Been hoping to see this for a long while...
4.) 'text template editor' available for captioning/watermarking in image export & PDF export (i.e. place the filename in a watermark). Currently only available as 3rd party plugin.
5.) book module is great...but half-baked. Hoping the full versions has custom page sizes, and PDF export settings - including the ability to export spreads as spreads. Also, better caption editing (see #2)
6.) LOVE LOVE LOVE the new curve editor w/color channels, although the composite of all curves needs to be visible from the default view (like in PS where the RGB curves are visible 'behind' the main tone curve. Also, need the option for a full curve reset (all channels).
-
One thing I'd really like to see... Color balance against a variety of skintones? That would make my life so much easier, to give me a starting point when doing portraits! I'm actually surprised I haven't seen utilities that provide that - am I missing something ?
Best,
Stephane
Click on a flat/neutral patch of skin using the WB dropper (in "skin" mode). Adjust WB to some "mean skin tone" as a starting-point for further manual WB. When there are no obvious white patches in the image, or if those patches are clipped, or if the color temperature of the face is very different from the background.
This is such an obviously useful feature that I guess that its abscence is an indicator that it is hard to make such a thing.
-h
-
Two things I would like to see in LR4:
1) Ability to choose 3 external editors. I have one set for CS6, and one for Topaz Fusion, which allows me access to my Topaz filters. (NIK, fortunately, installs itself as available as Edit In, but Topaz doesn't.) I also like to print from Qimage, and by choosing Qimage as an external editor I can send a softproofed version of a file to Qimage. However, I have to go into LR4 Preferences and change to 2nd external editor choice to do this.
2) When softproofing in CS5 or CS6, I frequently use the Color Balance adjustment layer, which gives me precise and repeatable adjustments in numeric form. The closest I can come to this when softproofing in LR4 is to use individual color curves (R, G, or B), which can produce the same effect. However, I wish their was a numerical readout along with this. (If I missed it, I'd appreciate being directed to it.)
-
1) Ability to choose 3 external editors. I have one set for CS6, and one for Topaz Fusion, which allows me access to my Topaz filters. (NIK, fortunately, installs itself as available as Edit In, but Topaz doesn't.) I also like to print from Qimage, and by choosing Qimage as an external editor I can send a softproofed version of a file to Qimage. However, I have to go into LR4 Preferences and change to 2nd external editor choice to do this.
You need to learn how to make a custom Edit In preset and add it to the drop down Edit In menu. Go to Preferences, External Editing and click on Choose and go to the app you want to show up as an option. In the Preset drop down menu scroll down to Save Current Settings as New Preset. Once saved your additional external will show as an option in the main Photo>Edit In menu...
Don't know why you never tried to make your own presets...Lightroom has a saved preset for just about everything...
-
Go to Preferences, External Editing and click on Choose and go to the app you want to show up as an option. In the Preset drop down menu scroll down to Save Current Settings as New Preset. Once saved your additional external will show as an option in the main Photo>Edit In menu...
Don't know why you never tried to make your own presets...Lightroom has a saved preset for just about everything...
The main and only reason was because I didn't know how. Now, thanks to your reply, I do. Muchas Gracias!
-
1. An overlay function like every medium format capture software has, so that magazine layouts can be placed over images during a shoot using tethered capture.
Whats the point? You can't even see PDF's let alone InDesign files
All I was hoping to see is a Tab along in Library mode to have an Explorer or Folders show what you ACTUALLY HAVE in them.
That way we are not blind to what exisits vs whats in the library, and still able to launch that file in the chosen app, as we can Edit out in Photoshop etc...Export into an app maybe?
Otherwise, all I can ask for is to help ACameraRaw GUI work more like the Develop window so we can rely on a separate proper DAM/Library manager to manage our image content. This way we can see PDF, InDesign, Illus, PNG, etc.
-
Feel free to rant, and I agree with you about LR registering all types of file, but you still haven't answered my question about whether that AnyFile plugin for LR meets your needs.
The point of the overlay is to provide a similar ability to C1, which I don't think can see InDesign layouts either. In any case, a page or cover template is often put together before the InDesign layout. LR's lack of the overlay was a deal breaker for some shooters and I was delighted it was added in LR4.
-
Thanks John for asking,
I tried it and it didn't work on the PDF's as I thought it would. Most didn't show up, and the steps involved to reimport are OK at best, if the PDF's would show
I would have a catalog open, then go to the plugin and have it Choose folders to import and it found 2 out of 10+...Perhaps it didn't do subfolders, and it defaulted to use Filter values and other files didn't show(no biggy).
So I went to the actual folder, and asked to import that, and found 10 or so more.
It was able to make a preview thumbnail (perhaps using Explorer) for 1 of the files out of the bunch. The rest were showing a spread layout(line halving the page(which showed promise), but just blank page with AF on all of them.
Oddly now, I have Explorer showing AF on my thumbnails!! rather odd
I see how it snapshoots a jpeg of the file and makes a new file/thumbnail.
ACDSee uses GhostScript. I see ALL PDF's without the hassle of import or any extra steps and such, PLUS can flip through the pages within a PDF!! And ACDSee is not even an Adobe product. :-\
I say replace the IMPORT button of the GUI Library to BROWSE...that way we get a browser to see WHAT in Files name we are importing!
-
Include the old fill light slider with the tone panel. For flesh tones, it usually worked for me as it was titled. I have been using the tone curves, or substituting the darks slider in curves, which seems very similar, but not quite the same.
-
When you edit to PS using LR settings, It would be logical to give the "Option to Render in PSD format. When in PS, you are likely going to do a few things, and usually layers is huge and slow for a TIF format.
I rather save it in PSD, which I do, but then left with an "extra" LR rendered TIF file, which is the same as the RAW(with recipe). Makes for better house keeping.
There are time you want to use the healing brush or some tool without layers in PS, so having the option to "Use as Default" when making the selection would be handy.
Unless there is a better way of working, I think this makes good sense.