Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: afx on January 20, 2013, 07:23:26 am
-
Hi,
warning, long frustrated rant follows....
I have been using Bibble and then AfterShot since 2005 and have been one of the core beta testers. It was the oldest independent raw converter and the first to show a decent work-flow concept.
Previous incantations of Lightroom never held my interest as they did not deliver any significant advance in image quality and the UI was always unappealing.
But now Corel is successfully turning AfterShot into a Zombie (no camera updates since the fired the original developers last summer) and the image quality of LR 4 has made a huge leap to the front.
I sometimes prefer the Capture One colors, but functionality wise, LR has more to offer.
So I started to look at LR again.
After a few weeks with Lightroom, I wonder how one can design such a counter-productive UI.
Looking at LR from a work-flow perspective, it is full of inconsistencies and deficiencies.
If it where not for the quality of the raw conversion and tonal control (which finally with v4 got to a very good state), I really would not want to deal with this showpiece of UI torture.
Looking at a standard work-flow starting with downloading from the CF card, there is already the first issue. Why does LR impose a policy on naming the directories? Why can't I have a decent structure with job names in the directory names instead of just an anonymous date?
So I either need to use another application for downloading or go through manual renaming to get to my usual structure (which has been working fine for me for a decade now):
/YYYY/MM/YYYY-MM-DD-JobName/JobName-YYYY-MM-DD-###.ext
Looks like Adobe thinks everyone still sits at an old 4:3 screen instead of the currently commonplace wide formats. Or why I can't I have a vertical thumb strip instead of wasting precious vertical screen height?
Next is going through the images for first culling. While I do like the SHIFT-X functionality, the use of P and X - which are wide apart on the keyboard - for Pick and Reject makes it impossible to work efficiently with the keyboard. Pick and reject keys should be next to each other so that one does not need to move the hand.
Speaking of hotkeys, they are generally quite inconsistent, and references to them in menus are sometimes shown and sometimes not. If there is a hotkey for a menu item it should always be shown in the menu. No matter whether that function is reached by a context popup in any of the modules or via the top menu bar. (for example the rotate function CTRL-[ and CTRL-], which do not even work on my German keyboard...)
And why do we have to endure a fixed keyboard layout instead of user definable hotkeys to fit the users needs? Especially as this is linked to a US keyboard layout which only a subset of users have anyway.
The keys do not follow any discernible logical scheme, so they have to be memorized explicitly.
Give the user a choice to set them up according the user's needs...
So Adobe thinks it is good to force everyone to use a library. Wouldn't be so bad if the library where functional complete.
But selections seem to miss simple things like NOT (ever tried to select a monstrous list and then exclude one entry, not really efficient).
How can I find all shots of Lions that where made neither in Tanzania nor Namibia?
Or things like scripting to automate tasks and a private metadata name space for metadata that is for internal use in contrast to the exported meta information (See iMatch hierarchical categories for example).
And why do we have the module switching on an extra wasteful bar at the top instead of in the top menu bar. Even folded away, it takes up valuable pixels of screen estate for no real gain.
The copy previous is quite useful as well as the sync functions, but why is there no simple copy&paste of image settings, only selective copy?
Yet another additional mouse movement and click or a move to the enter key.
And why do I have to press the shift key to paste image settings?
When adjusting sliders, why do I have to click on a slider to enable the mouse wheel? Just hovering should be enough. Yet another useless interaction requirement that slows the user down (if you do not hit the slider control precisely but somewhere on the slider, the setting jumps there, so the mouse needs to be positioned quite precisely, before the mouse wheel can be used)
And where are the thresholds for the auto functions defined?
Most of the time this function gives me extremes on the bright or contrasty side.
And if one follows the recommendation to work the sliders from top to bottom any clarity adjustment after auto will usually result in clipped blacks (D700 NEFs)
This whole artificial separation of Library and Develop module seems to serve only one purpose, to annoy the user.
Thumbs have different information and buttons depending on the mode instead of
being consistently configurable according to the users needs.
Of course, the actions that work on thumbs are also not consistent. Why?!
The left-hand panel should be consistent across all modules and the metadata management is just additional tools for the right hand panel.
Then the whole confusion would be gone.
When looking at things like the compare view it becomes even more ridiculous. Why can I look at two images in comparison, but there is now way to edit one of them? (unless I have a second monitor which hopefully close enough in color to the prime screen to make comparisons meaningful)
Why is the image name only shown when the thumb strip is active?
How about using the window title bar? It already displays the module name, why not the image name?
After having read Jeff Schewe's book (highly recommended!!) it looks like I have to blame him for the crop panning madness ;-)
Why break existing UI paradigms for a crop tool? For people who routinely use a wide range of applications, this is an extreme slowdown as one constantly has to mentally switch the tool behavior.
And why is there no hotkey to directly activate the straightening tool?
Why no auto correct after a straighten adjustment? The auto adjustment of the crop works at the first use of the straighten tool, why not when one adjusts it?
ALT-Space N is disabled, so what is the alternative under Windows to iconify the app quickly?
Why can't regional adjustments be toggled on or off?
And why do I still need to branch out to an external editor when I want to clone out parts. Currently the clone facility is not even sufficient to effectively correct some of the more extreme sensor dust-bunnies that refuse to be contained in small spots let alone serious cloning out of distractions.
While some of the dual-screen functions are useful, being able to move all panels over as needed would help quite a bit to make it more efficient.
The setup of Capture One work-spaces is a much better example on structuring UI parts for multiple screens.
And when I finally want to generate output, why do I have to go through a hierarchy of menus instead of just hitting a hotkey for my desired output target?
And why do I have to buy a plug-in to generate output on a mirror path?
How hard is it to have some path name variables for the output definition?
Or when I prepare for print, why can't I soft-proof to CMYK? Which also brings up the question about the Blurb book module. Why is this castrated to sRGB? After all, Blurb does support proper PDFs with CMYK images.
Or the DPI settings for the printers, those are easily calculated values for the printers, that have been discussed on LuLa often enough, why not default to the appropriate values, after all, LR thinks it already knows how to sharpen appropriately with the available settings?
cheers
afx
-
Personally I'm very comfortable with the Lightroom UI, but these three points I happen to agree with:
(...) why I can't I have a vertical thumb strip instead of wasting precious vertical screen height?
(...) why do we have to endure a fixed keyboard layout instead of user definable hotkeys to fit the users needs? Especially as this is linked to a US keyboard layout
(...) when I prepare for print, why can't I soft-proof to CMYK?
Those three are daily annoyances. The others either don't bother me, or there are ways around them. Like module switching, which you just do with G and D shortcuts (couldn't be faster than that).
-
After a few weeks with Lightroom, I wonder how one can design such a counter-productive UI.
Hum...a "few weeks" of use? And you want to completely change the nature of the application...Really?
I would suggest learning how to actually USE Lightroom before wanting it completely redesigned...you may actually find that the current UI and usability are actually rather robust and efficient–once you learn hot to use it and quit fighting the current set of behaviors.
For example, your first usability complaint regarding import indicates you don't know how to configure Import to accomplish what you want to do. You can either have new imports from a card go into folders named by date or into a single folder that you can name anything you want. It all depends on how you set up your Destination panel.
I'm really not terribly interested and reading you laundry list...way too long and not in a form that makes it easy to answer. I understand you are frustrated because you have a workflow that was dependent on an application you can no longer use. Life's a bitch and then you die...move on, learn how to use LR and be prepared to adapt your workflow to your new application...or not and keep being frustrated–your choice, no skin off my nose :~)
If you have specific questions (instead of long winded rants) come back and ask them, again, your choice.
-
...you may actually find that the current UI and usability are actually rather robust and efficient–once you learn hot to use it and quit fighting the current set of behaviors.
Jumping to conclusions based on limited experience is a common human tendency. I have noticed this tendency with experienced PS users that try LR for a few days.
One of them (a moderator somewhere else) said: "having separate XMP files is dangerous because they could get lost".
My response - "I've never lost an XMP in six years of use - it could only happen on purpose".
Glenn
-
Hum...a "few weeks" of use? And you want to completely change the nature of the application...Really?
Been in IT long enough to identify usability issues quite quickly. ;-)
Used to sell my own UI libraries as a student quite successfully.
I would suggest learning how to actually USE Lightroom before wanting it completely redesigned...you may actually find that the current UI and usability are actually rather robust and efficient–once you learn hot to use it and quit fighting the current set of behaviors.
Why adjust to one single application that has behavior that is different from all others that are I use.
This takes a lot of mental resources to switch to the mindset to a specific application when it breaks standard UI concepts. Breaking established concepts should only be done if there is a significant gain, which I fail to see here.
For example, your first usability complaint regarding import indicates you don't know how to configure Import to accomplish what you want to do. You can either have new imports from a card go into folders named by date or into a single folder that you can name anything you want. It all depends on how you set up your Destination panel.
That still does not allow me to automatically import into the structure I use without entering more than just the job name. I have to do it all manually. After all the job name is the only thing the computer can not find out automatically, the rest is the job a computer should do (may I remind you of the last paragraph of page 254 of your digital negative book?).
I understand you are frustrated because you have a workflow that was dependent on an application you can no longer use.
Actually, the base workflow translates nicely into others like CaptureOne (apart form pick reject, as C1 does not support this).
And apart from the import/export, my issues are not workflow but usability of controls related.
If you have specific questions (instead of long winded rants) come back and ask them, again, your choice.
Let's just put it that way. I have been searching the docs and the net for solutions.
None of the issues I point out seem to have any.
It is just deficiencies that people who are totally tuned to the app probably no longer realize, but which are obvious to those that are used to work with a wider range of applications.
This "my way or the highway" attitude of Adobe is definitely the most irritating part.
cheers
afx
-
Anxiously awaiting a Lightroom competitor, designed by afx, with a perfect UI (perfect for afx, that is).
-
I would suggest learning how to actually USE Lightroom
Obviously, but in all fairness: the three points I quoted have nothing to do with Lightroom skill or experience:
1. Thumbnail strip locked to the bottom: With today's wide aspect monitors there is always too much space horizontally and never enough vertically. Even more so if you have dual monitors.
2. Fixed shortcuts: The point of customizing shortcuts is not to change them all. 98% of them are fine as they are. The remaining 2% is where individual workflow would be more effective if you could change them to your specific needs.
3. Soft proofing to CMYK: Blurb is one thing. But when I prepare for print, it's for offset and ISO Coated (eci) 300% or something similar. It would save me much time if I didn't have to take the files an extra round into Photoshop. Deadlines are tight enough as they are.
Other than that, I fully see Schewe's point.
-
Perhaps this is all on a no sh!t Sherlock basis but:
1. It is easy enough to minimize the filmstrip and the bar at the top to maximise screen real estate.
2. Shortcuts - issues accepted.
3. Try ColormatchRGB - it has a gamut very very close to CMYK.
Tony Jay
-
Anxiously awaiting a Lightroom competitor, designed by afx, with a perfect UI (perfect for afx, that is).
Then someone will post a rant that states they don't like the UI and why didn't they create one that suits them? Adobe created a UI that is being used by tens of thousands of photographers, everyone an individual that has an opinion. Impossible to please everyone that uses it. Personally I am very happy with the UI but I don't have a technical background in commercial photography, and that is the point. Sometimes a product is that good that the competitors are jealous of the accomplishment but instead of praising it then condemns it. :(
-
Quote afx
When adjusting sliders, why do I have to click on a slider to enable the mouse wheel? Just hovering should be enough. Yet another useless interaction requirement that slows the user down (if you do not hit the slider control precisely but somewhere on the slider, the setting jumps there, so the mouse needs to be positioned quite precisely, before the mouse wheel can be used)
Unquote.
Obviously hasn't learnt to use the sliders properly.
>Just hovering should be enough.<
Hovering is enough if you hover and use the up and down arrows on the keyboard to make fine adjustments. Even finer adjustments can be made using the keyboard if desired. I think user ignorance springs to mind?
-
Stamper,
What a great tip on the hover/up-down idea. For whatever reason I have had trouble grabbing the slider with my Wacom tablet and adjusting the slider. I tried your tip about hover/up-down and it worked great. I use an Intuos 5 and with the hand gesture it is real easy to hover over the tab and then use the up/down keys to move in 5 step increments. Thanks,
Mike
-
If you are using Windows then press Alt and the up & down arrows for even finer control.
-
Hi,
warning, long frustrated rant follows....
cheers
afx
Hi afx
I didn't bother to read your whole list - I just have too much else to do (not a personal thing aimed at you). I get the general gist of your dissatisfaction though and can see that some of the points have foundation, but others are obviously unfounded (such as the ability to hide the menu bar) and are because you do not know the software well enough yet. You say "after a few weeks with LR......", and that sums it up for me. LR is not a direct replacement for your previous applications and you have only scratched the surface. It's not like jumping into a different car and picking up the new controls in a few miles. Yes, software should be intuitive - but you can't make such a complicated application all intuitive.
Surely we can all agree that no software will be perfect, and even less likely to suit every user perfectly. Therefore we all have to benefit/suffer what the designer has provided. I've used Lightroom since version 1 and I think it rocks. It has gradually been improved and added to and each version seems to build in some way on the last. Being a busy photographer I also struggle to find the time to learn new software and LR was no exception - in fact I am still learning it after several years. Would you have it re-designed? If so, I think many photographers will be seriously pissed off at having to re-learn it all. No matter what the designers do, somebody will not be happy.
Perhaps it would be better to cast your previous experience aside and view it as an amazing and new application, that has it's flaws, and just use it for a few months. In any case it would be better to send your list of flaws directly to Adobe so they can work to improve LR.
Starting a long post full of 'Rants' just doesn't make sense with such a successful piece of software.
Jim
-
Long-standing users might not take the OP's "glass half empty" line, but are we as satisfied with the UI as we should expect?
Just take one common UI feature - lasso selection. Why isn't it anywhere in LR? Why can't you select multiple images / folders / keywords / adjustment points by lassoing them?
John
-
John, unless I am misunderstanding you, cannot you just use the shift or Command keys (on a Mac) to achieve this?
Jim
-
John it is very difficult, or more likely impossible to cater for everybody's wishes when it comes to including features. They have to make "balanced" decisions between features and a speed, or lack of it when they decide what to include AND how much does someone want to pay extra for? I actually thought of starting a thread about what features should be stripped out of LR to make it more user friendly such as video. Then again I have a perverse nature. ;D
-
John, unless I am misunderstanding you, cannot you just use the shift or Command keys (on a Mac) to achieve this?
You do understand me, Jim, but my beef is that we are forced to switch to the keyboard because of the absence of such a very well-established way of making selections.
A similar "elephant" is the lack of inline editing of folder and collection names, keywords too. Don't we just get so used to such UI weaknesses that our expectations are reduced?
John
-
Obviously, but in all fairness: the three points I quoted have nothing to do with Lightroom skill or experience:
1. Thumbnail strip locked to the bottom: With today's wide aspect monitors there is always too much space horizontally and never enough vertically. Even more so if you have dual monitors.
2. Fixed shortcuts: The point of customizing shortcuts is not to change them all. 98% of them are fine as they are. The remaining 2% is where individual workflow would be more effective if you could change them to your specific needs.
3. Soft proofing to CMYK: Blurb is one thing. But when I prepare for print, it's for offset and ISO Coated (eci) 300% or something similar. It would save me much time if I didn't have to take the files an extra round into Photoshop. Deadlines are tight enough as they are.
Other than that, I fully see Schewe's point.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that LR will ever evolve into a single, complete solution for professional photographers/printers. I think Adobe enjoys the revenue generated by selling multiple products/packages. I would personally like to see a way to do mirror wraps in LR. If that feature existed I would never have to go to PS for routine, day-to-day client printing. Currently I just accept the workflow that starts in LR for Library and Developing, then in to PS for adding the wrap then back to LR for printing. - Jim
-
I actually thought of starting a thread about what features should be stripped out of LR to make it more user friendly such as video.
Go for it!
I'd be very happy to see video support dropped.
-
Don't hold your breath....
-
3. Try ColormatchRGB - it has a gamut very very close to CMYK.
Tony Jay
Just a minor point, but - which CMYK? ISO Coated is very different from, say, Web Coated SWOP. If I had to pick a "close" RGB space for that, it would have to be Adobe RGB.
-
Obviously hasn't learnt to use the sliders properly.
...
Hovering is enough if you hover and use the up and down arrows on the keyboard to make fine adjustments.
Not on my keyboard. I still need to click somewhere on the slider first.
If I do not click, the exposure value is changed by default
And why should I use +/- when I want to use the mouse wheel? After all, the mouse is already there, using +/- would require me to use the other hand that might be hovering over the ALT key for hopefully obvious reasons.
cheers
afx
-
Don't we just get so used to such UI weaknesses that our expectations are reduced?
That is exactly the point.
Once you are attuned to a piece of software, you are just so accustomed to work around flaws that it becomes second nature.
cheers
afx
-
Once you are attuned to a piece of software, you are just so accustomed to work around flaws that it becomes second nature.
As, I imagine, you did in the past with Bibble and AfterShot and may do in the future with LR, or Capture, or Bridge, or whatever you end up using. Life's like that.
Jeremy
-
That is exactly the point.
Once you are attuned to a piece of software, you are just so accustomed to work around flaws that it becomes second nature.
Equally, I agree with most of what has been said against your initial post!
-
This "my way or the highway" attitude of Adobe is definitely the most irritating part.
I guess you don't know much about the genesis of Lightroom huh? If you did you would realize the engineers and the UI designer were predisposed to doing things in completely different ways that previous conventions...that's actually been a strength of Lightroom development from the beginning even though it rubs some people the wrong way. Just understand that the views of some will do nothing to alter the way Lightroom is developed (unless you happen to be influential).
To get a better understanding oh how and why Lightroom was developed you might want to read this article...THE SHADOWLAND/LIGHTROOM DEVELOPMENT STORY (http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/). You'll see that given a choice of doing something in a conventional manner vs a new and unique manner, new always won.
Whether you like it or not doesn't really matter...it is what it is and you'll need to either adapt and adopt the "Lightroom Way" or move on to a different application. And...I gotta say, by and large, the way LR was developed and has evolved has been very successful...hard to argue with success.
-
Hum...a "few weeks" of use? And you want to completely change the nature of the application...Really?
I would suggest learning how to actually USE Lightroom before wanting it completely redesigned...you may actually find that the current UI and usability are actually rather robust and efficient–once you learn hot to use it and quit fighting the current set of behaviors.
I think both Jeff and afx are correct. On the one hand, one needs to know application pretty well in order to be able to make suggestions, one of Jeff's points. On the other hand, once one has become acculturated, it can be difficult to make an effective assessment. Because afx has not yet become acculturated, he can more easily see problems others cannot.
Anthropology has decades of experience with this dilemma. When you first enter a foreign culture, you can develop remarkable insights because everything is new and sometimes deeply surprising. Often you can see things that local people cannot, precisely because they are so unfamiliar to you and so mundane to locals. However, at this early stage you also risk really screwing things up because there is so much you don't yet understand. To do truly effective anthropological work in a foreign culture can take many years of hard work until you develop sufficient understanding.
Like afx I am stunned that I cannot assign a hotkey to assign images to a particular publishing output, whether hard drive or an online service or whatever. It seems ridiculous to me that I have to select images and drag them to an exact place in a left hand column that can contain a long list of different outputs. I too came to use Lightroom only with version 4. If someone can show me how I can do this with one keystroke I would be most happy!
-
Anthropology has decades of experience with this dilemma. When you first enter a foreign culture, you can develop remarkable insights because everything is new and sometimes deeply surprising. Often you can see things that local people cannot, precisely because they are so unfamiliar to you and so mundane to locals. However, at this early stage you also risk really screwing things up because there is so much you don't yet understand. To do truly effective anthropological work in a foreign culture can take many years of hard work until you develop sufficient understanding.
Interesting perspective...and it may have a certain application toward Lightroom except for one thing. In the case of software, you aren't necessarily looking for specific feedback regarding how to change a culture. That's kinda where the analogy falls down.
Lightroom has been a success in spite (or some might say because of) of an abnormal UI and usability. Adobe knows the shortcomings of the LR UI but the way the application has been developed has set a trend and dictates how the application will evolve. Don't expect a lot of major philosophical changes–ain't gonna happen. The die has been cast.
Could LR add customizable command keys like Photoshop? For sure...but so far the use case for that has not risen to the level of "just do it". Could LR change the modularity of the task based functionality LR is designed to address? For sure..but, again, the use case has not been made so the odds of that happening are just about nil.
Again, I'll point out that much of the non-standard UI and usability has been seen by Adobe as a net plus. So, one would need to defeat or change inertia to have any potential massive change in behavior and philosophy incorporated into LR 5. Sorry to say, the current thread not withstanding, there simply isn't enough incentive to the current dev team to make massive changes ain't there.
One might hope to make a small step in certain directions but massive changes ain't gonna happen because some guys posts an overlong diatribe against LR's break from conventional wisdom. Again, ya gotta remember, LR's success is due in part because LR is "different". Another factor in favor of LR 5 moving in the same general direction that inertia dictates...
Sorry, but the case for massive changes in the next version of LR has not been made by agx.
So, the choice is, either learn to use the workflow LR offers, or not. If not, good luck trying to find an alternative. Ain't something I'm gonna worry about :~) I'm kinda locked into the Lightroom Way and kinda like it...
-
Not on my keyboard. I still need to click somewhere on the slider first.
If I do not click, the exposure value is changed by default
And why should I use +/- when I want to use the mouse wheel? After all, the mouse is already there, using +/- would require me to use the other hand that might be hovering over the ALT key for hopefully obvious reasons.
cheers
afx
If there is something wrong with your keyboard you can't blame Adobe. You should complain to the keyboard manufacturer but if you do so with the attitude that you used towards Adobe then I fear you won't be successful. When you hover and use the +/- you only use the one hand to carry out the operation. You hover and as long as the cursor is pointed at the particular operation and remains highlighted your other hand can do what it wishes. It looks as if you haven't done it properly or you think success might spoil your rant. ;) :)
-
After a few weeks with Lightroom, I wonder how one can design such a counter-productive UI.
Not everyone thinks that way. I've always found LR, since the first beta, to be a brilliant design concept that's easy and fast to use. Sure there are plenty of ways it can be improved, but the core ideas work very well for me.
Reading through your 'rant' a very large amount is tiny nit picking based on your own ingrained work practices. Saying "The keys do not follow any discernible logical scheme, so they have to be memorized explicitly. " Well sorry, but that's been the way since day one with computers, why is Ctrl-V paste ? or Ctrl-Z undo ? Whereas the most common short cuts I use in Lightroom are G=grid, E=expand, D=develop seem pretty logical to me, but I speak English. If the localisation of Lightroom doesn't work for you, that's another issue.
There are so many functions in modern programs it's inevitable that some short cuts won't be perfectly intuitive, but ultimately that's why we use Graphical UIs, not CLI now.
Why does LR impose a policy on naming the directories? Why can't I have a decent structure with job names in the directory names instead of just an anonymous date?
This doesn't make sense. You can put your files anywhere you want, in any directory you want. Yes, the ability to create a hierarchy of folders from within LR beyond the simple subfolder option might be beneficial, but it doesn't impose any particular name or structure on you.
So Adobe thinks it is good to force everyone to use a library. Wouldn't be so bad if the library where functional complete.
But selections seem to miss simple things like NOT (ever tried to select a monstrous list and then exclude one entry, not really efficient).How can I find all shots of Lions that where made neither in Tanzania nor Namibia?
Just hover over the selection box and you get a tooltip that says "Enter text search here. Add"!" to the front of a word to exclude it"
(See iMatch hierarchical categories for example).
iMatch is about as intuitive and user friendly as plumbing a nuclear reactor. NOT a good example.
And why do we have the module switching on an extra wasteful bar at the top instead of in the top menu bar. Even folded away, it takes up valuable pixels of screen estate for no real gain.
It hardly takes up much room, but provides the visual cue to activate it.
When adjusting sliders, why do I have to click on a slider to enable the mouse wheel? Just hovering should be enough.
Which wouldn't be very helpful behaviour if you want to scroll up and down the panel with the mouse wheel. Click to engage a control makes perfect sense to me.
Why can't regional adjustments be toggled on or off?
Switch bottom left of the panel.
And why do I still need to branch out to an external editor when I want to clone out parts.
Because its not designed to do everything. Already the range of options is intimidating some users, but still many of us want/expect greater functionality.
How hard is it to have some path name variables for the output definition?
Adding scripting options looks to be very far away in the developers minds and with good reason. Very, very few users want to get involved with scripting in any application.
The bottom line is Lightroom is different and most people find that distinction to be part of it's appeal.
-
I'm reading this thread, and I'm feeling quite dismayed... I also do know about GUI design, and I find the UI in LR especially friendly and consistent - global/contextual settings on the left pane, local actions on the right pane... it works well and it is very efficient. It certainly doesn't deserve the rant of the initial post - or else just shom me the application that it is so much better and that you would recommend ???
One peeve though: Keyboard assignments are efficient on the US layout - and when you move to a different one, it seems you actually lose many features. I especuially miss what the "\" does in library and develop mode, and I'm not seeing equivalents for the french layout in the on-screen help.
-
Compared to the other stalwart in the stable - Photoshop - learning the layout and interface of Lightroom was a breeze.
Without knowing a lot about Photoshop I was able to quickly get down to business with Lightroom when I first acquired it (Lr2).
It is true that there are an enormous number of possible approaches to workflow in Lightroom and so not everybody needs to pull and push all the levers (the Book module is still only of esoteric interest to me personally but is a key module for some). Even in the Library and Develop modules I am still finding new ways to do things after several years of fairly intense usage. Interestingly I do not use a lot of shortcuts - I find getting around using the mouse very adequate.
Overall, I find the layout, and the workflow arising as a result, actually rather logical and intuitive.
Is the GUI different, yes! so what! It certainly does not mean it is wrong.
My $0.02 worth.
Tony Jay
-
See http://vimeo.com/1286064 for a bit more about the thinking behind the UI.
-
See http://vimeo.com/1286064 for a bit more about the thinking behind the UI.
If you watched that without knowing what LR looked like, I'd expect you'd get a surprise given the UI examples shown of Bryce and KPS being influential and talk of clean sheets for design and different approaches.
Maybe the key influence from those two was "Don't make it look like this"
Looking from outside the organisation, LR doesn't exactly break many conventions of GUI design. A cynic could just describe it as a combination of existing options from Adobe with a couple of ideas taken from elsewhere.
Which of course is actually a VERY GOOD thing and made it easy to get on with.
-
I'm not sure I would agree with you there. Granted, they looked very juvenile but I recall using one of their apps called Kai's Power Goo (?) and could see the influence of its way of working through "rooms" on LR's left-to-right workspaces. You always know where you are in Lightroom.
-
I'm reading this thread, and I'm feeling quite dismayed... I also do know about GUI design, and I find the UI in LR especially friendly and consistent - global/contextual settings on the left pane, local actions on the right pane... it works well and it is very efficient. It certainly doesn't deserve the rant of the initial post - or else just shom me the application that it is so much better and that you would recommend ???
+1 ... as someone who tries to solve UI/Workflow problems on a regular basis, I give the LR team the highest marks.
-
And another +1 to the LR approval.
I started using LR at about the same time as Photoshop (LR2 and CS3 as I recall). I find LR intuitive, and Photoshop quirky, idiosyncratic and inconsistent. To me: LR feels like something benefiting from several decades of UI design, Photoshop feels like the 23-year-old program that it is. When I learn how to do something in LR, it usually sticks. When I learn something in Photoshop, next time I need to do the same thing I find I often have to look it up again. With PS, it feels as though rather than learning things, I follow complex cookbook recipes (e.g. from Kelby worked examples) to solve particular problems.
Each to his own, I guess.
-
If there is something wrong with your keyboard you can't blame Adobe.
There is nothing wrong with my standard German keyboard. Noting special here.
Hovering alone does not activate a slider. They always need a click (tried it on various different Windows machines).
And plenty of keys do not work, as Adobe in their wisdom has plenty of hotkeys that do not work on a non US keybord like CTRL-/, CTRL-[, CTRL-] ....
See screenshot. This is what I see when hovering over highlights. Exposure gets adjusted...
cheers
afx
-
Sure there are plenty of ways it can be improved, but the core ideas work very well for me.
I don't doubt they work well for quite a few people, doesn't mean they are flexible enough to accommodate a wider range.
Saying "The keys do not follow any discernible logical scheme, so they have to be memorized explicitly. " Well sorry, but that's been the way since day one with computers, why is Ctrl-V paste ? or Ctrl-Z undo ? Whereas the most common short cuts I use in Lightroom are G=grid, E=expand, D=develop seem pretty logical to me, but I speak English. If the localisation of Lightroom doesn't work for you, that's another issue.
So why is crop R and not C?
Why is B add to quick collection and not Brush?
Why do I need to press SHIFT-CTRL-V and not just CTRL-V to paste?
The point is, there is a limited amount of keys on a keyboard. Having them fixed and on top of that bound to the US keyboard layout (which removes them for use on non US keyboards), is an impediment for the user. Most other apps let the user adjust they keys to the users needs to allow the user to have a consistent use across multiple apps.
You can put your files anywhere you want, in any directory you want.
Only with repetitive manual work entering directory names.
Weren't computers introduced to reduce that?
Again, that functionality is provided by plenty of other imaging apps that offer download/import.
And this is not rocket science to implement....
Just hover over the selection box and you get a tooltip that says "Enter text search here. Add"!" to the front of a word to exclude it"
Yup, but how to I qualify which files to search in? That text search field is all or nothing.
iMatch is about as intuitive and user friendly as plumbing a nuclear reactor. NOT a good example.
Not a good example for an intuitive UI, yes, but still a good way to show how a secondary, private name space is used.
Which wouldn't be very helpful behaviour if you want to scroll up and down the panel with the mouse wheel. Click to engage a control makes perfect sense to me.
But it is slow.
Click to focus is what is the most annoying misfeature of Windows and MacOS. Way too many clicks...
Swich bottom left of the panel.
That switches all regional adjustments, not single adjustments, sorry, should have been more clear.
The bottom line is Lightroom is different and most people find that distinction to be part of it's appeal.
And then there is plenty who will not use it because of its UI...
cheers
afx
-
And then there is plenty who will not use it because of its UI...
Mh... I'm not sure "plenty" is the correct word. From what I can see LR is actually a true steamroller in the field of DAM + photo retouching, even displacing Aperture on Mac by a factor of 10. "plenty" ARE using it.
Even specialists tend to put it at the center of their workflow, supplementing it with packages that would otherwise be very happy to take over the whole workflow. For example, sports and media shooters use photo mechanic for quick photo selection, and advanced retouchers rely on Photoshop or some specific, preferred Raw editors (DXO, Bibble, NX2, C1...) - but I get the feeling that the common denominator to bring the workflow together is VERY often LR4 and, most importantly, that there is no other viable candidate on the market.
It's especially telling that the design team at Apple wasn't able to crack that particular nut.
-
See http://vimeo.com/1286064 for a bit more about the thinking behind the UI.
That's pretty cool. I remember watching that when it first came out (shortly after LR 2 I think) and it's interesting to go back and look at it and listen to Phil now that LR 4 has come out. However, I do think the goal of having "less UI" hasn't been met :~)
-
However, I do think the goal of having "less UI" hasn't been met :~)
With touch becoming ubiquitous, it might become a worthy goal for LR7 or 8? I'm impressed with the way Snapseed is leveraging touch on tablets.
-
Most other apps let the user adjust they keys
Most ? more like some.
Only with repetitive manual work entering directory names.
Weren't computers introduced to reduce that?
Many of us like that degree of control. Having computers making their own decisions about where to put things is many people's pet hate.
The alternative is to have complex scripting that needs to be set up by the user and as I've already pointed out most users don't want to get involved in that sort of complication.
Yup, but how to I qualify which files to search in? That text search field is all or nothing.
No, the search works on the range of photos in the library grid. You could search through everything in the library or just a specific folder, collection or smart collection. Simple, but powerful once you understand the possibilities.
Click to focus is what is the most annoying misfeature of Windows and MacOS. Way too many clicks...
Just hovering over things requires precision and carries a risk of accidental actions. Clicking to make something happen or active is an absolutely fundamental part of how modern UIs work, if you can't cope with that idea you're against almost everyone else.
And then there is plenty who will not use it because of its UI...
Really ? I've yet to read of anyone not using LR because of it's interface, other reasons, yes, but not it UI.
-
Having computers making their own decisions about where to put things is many people's pet hate.
The decision is mine. But I need to be able to tell the machine what to do...
Currently I can't tell the box to do the work, instead I have to do it all manually.
The alternative is to have complex scripting that needs to be set up by the user and as I've already pointed out most users don't want to get involved in that sort of complication.
Nonsense. No scripting involved at all. Just extend the current directory patterns to also use the job name.
No, the search works on the range of photos in the library grid. You could search through everything in the library or just a specific folder, collection or smart collection. Simple, but powerful once you understand the possibilities.
That is not what I was asking. I was asking in which fields to search.
You currently can not generate a search like
keyword (lion) and not location(namibia or botswana) because the search filed has no provisions to limit the search to specific metadata. So if namibia also shows up elsewhere, the search string would match that too.
When trying to combine that with the selection lists to limit the search, it really starts to get messy.
Just hovering over things requires precision and carries a risk of accidental actions. Clicking to make something happen or active is an absolutely fundamental part of how modern UIs work, if you can't cope with that idea you're against almost everyone else.
Why limit a system just because the average user lacks control? Make the behavior optional.
Really ? I've yet to read of anyone not using LR because of it's interface, other reasons, yes, but not it UI.
That is one of the key reasons that I get to hear outside the Adobe fan club.
cheers
afx
-
and the image quality of LR 4 has made a huge leap to the front
So, bottom line . . . is the image quality worth your frustrations over the UI? Will you trade a favored UI & work flow, for lesser image quality? Seems to me like that is the bottom line, regardless of the pros and cons of how LR works or doesn't work. Other than, of course, the theraputic venting of one's spleen. ;D
I'd use a sledge hammer and chisel if it got me better image quality. I'm just glad to have LR and glad that the folk making it are continually moving forward with amazing improvements that greatly increase image quality. With Lightroom 3.6 onward it is like someone bought me new cameras for the price of the upgrade. (And a new computer I had to build, powerful enough to run it fast! LOL )
Best regards,
Rand
-
So, Lightroom is not perfect.
Lightroom fails to satisfy everyone's laundry list of personal preferences.
Hmmm... what else is wrong with the world? Do tell us, Mr. afx.
-
I'm just glad to have LR and glad that the folk making it are continually moving forward with amazing improvements that greatly increase image quality. With Lightroom 3.6 onward it is like someone bought me new cameras for the price of the upgrade. (And a new computer I had to build, powerful enough to run it fast! LOL )
Best regards,
Rand
Rand:
I agree on all counts.
Recently I had a bit of a "discussion" on another forum wherein I was called down by a mod; I suggested that losing all the edits in a LR disaster wouldn't be much of a problem for me because I'm doing all my past six years of edits all over (in LR). His reply; "Surely you jest with us. For many users the edits contained in the database would represent hundreds or even thousands of hours of work."
Call me guilty - I just don't have enough time to acquire enough images that would require thousands of hours of work - should I get out and start shooting like crazy?
OTOH, I'm having too much fun reading interesting posts like the first one here (and the subsequent replies).
Glenn
-
"Surely you jest with us. For many users the edits contained in the database would represent hundreds or even thousands of hours of work."
Strange how folk sometimes parse what's important / critical. I might suggest that anyone with "thousands" of editing hours and no robust back-up scheme is a bit goofy. ;D
Rand
-
Strange how folk sometimes parse what's important / critical. I might suggest that anyone with "thousands" of editing hours and no robust back-up scheme is a bit goofy. ;D
Rand
This guy has used PS for quite a while - last September he "tried" LR for the trial period. It seems that he keeps looking for something wrong with it, and then tries everything to prove he's right. Every chance he gets, he rags on Lightroom - and believe it or not he is the so-called site Administrator.
He suggests that if the catalogue in LR corrupts, we're doomed.
What's notable is looking at the LULA forums; the number of threads and posts for LR compared to the others. LR is gaining ground and fast.
Glenn
-
Nonsense. No scripting involved at all.
It's not nonsense at all. You're expecting the computer to automatically put your data in a user defined folder. You've decided on a specific formula for your own folder structure, how do you expect the computer to work out that formula ? You have to give it a set of rules to work it out, ie a script.
That is not what I was asking. I was asking in which fields to search.
You didn't say that.
Why limit a system just because the average user lacks control?
You can't build in everything. The writers have to make decisions about what to include and exclude and that means they'll usually add features the average user wants and leave out the obscurities that have less appeal. Basic good business.
If you read the volume of complaints here about LR, you'll know it's not an "Adobe fan club". What you do get is a lot of experienced users that will offer help and solutions. If you find the IQ of LR's output to be worthwhile it might be worth listening to other users experience to help you understand LR better and you might find that adapting to LR's workflow might help you become more efficient.
-
Rand:
I agree on all counts.
Recently I had a bit of a "discussion" on another forum wherein I was called down by a mod; I suggested that losing all the edits in a LR disaster wouldn't be much of a problem for me because I'm doing all my past six years of edits all over (in LR). His reply; "Surely you jest with us. For many users the edits contained in the database would represent hundreds or even thousands of hours of work."
Call me guilty - I just don't have enough time to acquire enough images that would require thousands of hours of work - should I get out and start shooting like crazy?
OTOH, I'm having too much fun reading interesting posts like the first one here (and the subsequent replies).
Glenn
Many photographers shoot hundreds (or even thousands) of shots a day, a typical wedding photographer might shoot anything from 500-3000 at a wedding, times that 50 weddings a year and it soon adds up.
I know photographers with 100.000+ images catalogued in Lightroom, it would take a long time to re-edit that many I suspect.
-
I might suggest that anyone with "thousands" of editing hours and no robust back-up scheme is a bit goofy. ;D
"a bit goofy". You're a master of understatement!
Jeremy
-
This guy has used PS for quite a while - last September he "tried" LR for the trial period. It seems that he keeps looking for something wrong with it, and then tries everything to prove he's right. Every chance he gets, he rags on Lightroom - and believe it or not he is the so-called site Administrator.
He suggests that if the catalogue in LR corrupts, we're doomed.
What's notable is looking at the LULA forums; the number of threads and posts for LR compared to the others. LR is gaining ground and fast.
Glenn
Glen
My main catalogue has 175,000 images in and yet the actual Lightroom Catalogue file is only 2.2Gb. The answer is just to back that up and your risk is minimised. The Preview data file for the same catalogue is 82Gb - which I also back-up, but it is not a critical loss if that goes. The Catalogue can rebuild the preview data if necessary.
Jim
-
You've decided on a specific formula for your own folder structure, how do you expect the computer to work out that formula ? You have to give it a set of rules to work it out, ie a script.
I don't know why you believe it must be a script. There are standalone programs that allow you to rename photographs as you download them, including using job codes in subfolder and file names. These don't require any special scripts on behalf of the user.
Personally I never use job codes. And I note these guidelines (http://www.dpbestflow.org/file-management/file-naming) recommend against them, at least with respect to filenames.
-
So, bottom line . . . is the image quality worth your frustrations over the UI? Will you trade a favored UI & work flow, for lesser image quality?
Yup, there is always something that is not perfect, the question is though, what do you do to change it?
So I will have to join the ranks of those who are annoyed with Adobe but still use there products for one reason or another.
I guess I was lucky to be able to avoid this so far.
What I find puzzling is the apologetic comments in this thread and this "it works for me so everything is perfect" attitude.
Or RTFM pointers that just confirm the issues I wrote about.
cheers
afx
-
It's not nonsense at all. You're expecting the computer to automatically put your data in a user defined folder. You've decided on a specific formula for your own folder structure, how do you expect the computer to work out that formula ? You have to give it a set of rules to work it out, ie a script.
A script is just one potential way to do it, but definitely not needed.
According to your logic, the date structure offered by the Lightroom popup would be a script...
Far from it..
(I am proficient in at least half a dozen scripting languages, so pleas do not tell me that a simple specification of a file placement is a script).
If you read the volume of complaints here about LR, you'll know it's not an "Adobe fan club". What you do get is a lot of experienced users that will offer help and solutions. If you find the IQ of LR's output to be worthwhile it might be worth listening to other users experience to help you understand LR better and you might find that adapting to LR's workflow might help you become more efficient.
Sure, I might pick up something, that is sort of inevitable.
That still does not solve the basic efficiency issues or Adobes refusal to even supply working shortcuts for non US keyboards.
cheers
afx
cheers
afx
-
Personally I never use job codes. And I note these guidelines (http://www.dpbestflow.org/file-management/file-naming) recommend against them, at least with respect to filenames.
Well, that guidance is partly incomplete.
If overly long file names are a problem then your IT is stone age.
And if you have only a job code and no date info, then yes, I think this falls short, but why would any sane person do that?
As wrote previously, that structure has served me well for a decade and I do tend to have quite a bit of repetitive Job names. Still the file names are easily distinguishable and unique.
Without the Job code and needs an image browser or DB for even the simplest identification.
cheers
afx
-
Rand: +1
Glenn: I've been there too!
Of course there are features we would like in a perfect version of Lightroom: I for one, would like a kind of Boolean search function such as afx is looking for. I'm optimistic it'll turn up in the on-going evolution.
Till then, LR eats most s/w I've used for usability and functionality. (Despite the protestations of the other forum's moderator!)
Tim
-
If overly long file names are a problem then your IT is stone age.
The issue would not be one's own OS.
Many servers around the world are running exactly those legacy OS's that do limit file name lengths and will also behave unpredictably to special characters.
If one's images need to be ported across these sorts of systems then stick to the lowest common denominator.
Tony Jay
-
Glen
My main catalogue has 175,000 images in and yet the actual Lightroom Catalogue file is only 2.2Gb. The answer is just to back that up and your risk is minimised. The Preview data file for the same catalogue is 82Gb - which I also back-up, but it is not a critical loss if that goes. The Catalogue can rebuild the preview data if necessary.
Jim
Just to make sure everyone understands:
I have no problem with LR at all - I'm fine with it just the way it is. No product of any kind is perfect (in spite of the over use of the word perfect, but that's a whole different subject not related to photography). Anyone expecting perfection is bordering on insanity - and I'm not saying which side.
The problem with the (vain) attempt to make LR satisfy everyone is that it starts to look like the racehorse designed by a committee. What's worse is that with software it soon becomes bloatware and effectively executes itself (as in dead).
There is a simple solution for anyone that doesn't like the features in a product and isn't complaining.
The person on the other forum that suggested that it could take thousands of hours of work to redo lost edits may have a point - or perhaps his collection could use a bit of thinning down. However most of us are reluctant to throw anything away - we humans do collect a certain amount of junk. I've decided to get rid of the chaff - a few months ago I had about 40,000 images - I'm down to about 23,000 now and there will be more "reassessment".
I'm wondering out loud because I simply don't know: If a wedding photog takes a few thousand images for one wedding, and the couple gets say, the best five hundred, what happens to the out-takes? Do you keep them? If the people that buy the good ones don't get the bad ones, why keep them? Can you use them for someone else? ;) ;D
Glenn
-
The issue would not be one's own OS.
Many servers around the world are running exactly those legacy OS's that do limit file name lengths
Why would anyone want to deal with a service that can only handle 8.3 names which where obsolete 20 years ago already?
What current systems still have that limitation?
and will also behave unpredictably to special characters.
That is a different issue and much more prevalent with the US centricity of software developers.
cheers
afx
-
I'm wondering out loud because I simply don't know: If a wedding photog takes a few thousand images for one wedding, and the couple gets say, the best five hundred, what happens to the out-takes? Do you keep them? If the people that buy the good ones don't get the bad ones, why keep them? Can you use them for someone else? ;) ;D
Even if only 500 are kept per wedding that quickly piles up...
Say two weddings per week and 40 weekends: 80*500=40000 in a year.
cheers
afx
-
You're guarding against the potential for such trouble. Screw around with such well-established practice, and sooner or later there's a good chance that you'll get bitten. But you seem to know it all so why should one need to tell you this?
-
Even if only 500 are kept per wedding that quickly piles up...
Say two weddings per week and 40 weekends: 80*500=40000 in a year.
cheers
afx
What if the photog knows that the couple split? Do you still keep them? :D Sorry I couldn't resist.
It's just that weddings so quickly become a thing of the past (especially so considering how short some marriages last these days), that I wonder how much value there is in keeping the original digital images beyond a few years? When the photographers retires or "moves on", what becomes of the images? Aren't much use in the afterlife.
OTOH, a good landscape image has a bit more lasting value it would seem.
Glenn
-
Why would anyone want to deal with a service that can only handle 8.3 names which where obsolete 20 years ago already?
What current systems still have that limitation?
Do you have any idea through which servers your emails or images go when you send them across the internet?
I would suggest not.
Even sending seperate files to the same place from the same source may get routed differently.
Tony Jay
-
Do you have any idea through which servers your emails or images go when you send them across the internet?
I would suggest not.[/quoe]
No and I don't care (but I could look it up easily, after all, received lines in mail headers are easy to read).
But I definitely know the details of the protocols involved and I can tell you, the file names of any attached images are completely irrelevant for the process (I ran quite a few mail servers in the past...).
Even sending seperate files to the same place from the same source may get routed differently.
Not likely. It is just your MUA to your configured MTA and then straight to the receiving MTA with maybe an anti-spam and virus checking appliance in-between. The packets at a lower level might get routed differently, but at that level, the content of the packets is totally irrelevant.
cheers
afx
-
...
It's just that weddings so quickly become a thing of the past (especially so considering how short some marriages last these days), that I wonder how much value there is in keeping the original digital images beyond a few years? When the photographers retires or "moves on", what becomes of the images?...
Not a lawyer but in keeping with other business record retention requirements such as tax information I would suggest that they be kept by the photographer or his estate for a minimum of seven years.
-
Not a lawyer but in keeping with other business record retention requirements such as tax information I would suggest that they be kept by the photographer or his estate for a minimum of seven years.
It may be better to start a different thread for this wedding photography stuff - it rather obscures afx's wisdom.
But... wedding photographers often learn by bitter experience to keep all their out-takes, even if only on an archive drive and not in Lightroom. You never know when the picture that you erased will turn out to be the only one showing a certain friend / family member / colleague, the last picture before he / she passed away etc - and the bride or groom remember you did take a picture with them in it. Rejects can also be handy if you simply need material for emergency head swapping in a group photo.
-
It may be better to start a different thread for this wedding photography stuff - it rather obscures afx's wisdom.
But... wedding photographers often learn by bitter experience to keep all their out-takes, even if only on an archive drive and not in Lightroom. You never know when the picture that you erased will turn out to be the only one showing a certain friend / family member / colleague, the last picture before he / she passed away etc - and the bride or groom remember you did take a picture with them in it. Rejects can also be handy if you simply need material for emergency head swapping in a group photo.
Never wiser words said - we now keep ours for at least a few months after the couple have their pictures.
Jim