The great news...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Lightroom Classic now has two great features, called range mask.

It is described here:
Range Mask

Range Mask works within the structure of the existing local adjustment tools to give you more precision with your local adjustments. One way to think of it is that Range Mask is a modifier that can be applied to a local adjustment, allowing you to create more precise selections with less hassle.  Range Mask is designed to be easy to use, and the resulting mask can be further refined by nudging the sliders.

Range Mask has two different modes to address two different types of color/tone-based masks: Color Range Mask and Luminance Range Mask.

Usage Instructions:

Open an image into the Camera Raw plugin
Select one of the local adjustment tools (Local Adjustment Brush, Graduated Filter, Radial Filter) and make an initial mask of your intended selection area.
From the Range Mask option, select either Color or Luminance.
Color: Use the Eyedropper to select the colors you’d like to include in your selection.  You can select up to 5 different colors using the Shift + click method with the eyedropper.  Alternatively, you can sample a range of colors, even completely different colors, by dragging out an area with the eyedropper. Once selected, you can further refine your selection using the Amount slider.
Luminance: Use the Range and Smoothness sliders to adjust your mask and fine tune.
Use the local adjustment sliders to make the desired edits to your images.

It is described here, for ACR engine, but we have the same tool in Lightroom.

Best regards
Erik

[Schewe]

Try using Option/Alt when using the sliders to adjust parameters...

[David Mantripp]

Try using Option/Alt when using the sliders to adjust parameters...

I'm really impressed with this new feature.  It's a pity it has got so buried under the rest of the carnage.  I'm sure the engineers who created this must be a bit depressed that it is getting so little notice.

[Hoggy]

I'm really impressed with this new feature.  It's a pity it has got so buried under the rest of the carnage.  I'm sure the engineers who created this must be a bit depressed that it is getting so little notice.

Probably also because C1 has had such a feature, and much more, available for local adjustments for at least a good while.  Though I'm not exactly sure how long because I currently 'use' LR (with some AMD issues aside, lately).  LR is finally beginning to catch up in some small way with the local adjustments aspect.

[Mark D Segal]

I'm really impressed with this new feature.  It's a pity it has got so buried under the rest of the carnage.  I'm sure the engineers who created this must be a bit depressed that it is getting so little notice.

Count me in as one who noticed. The first thing I did was to look for what are the new photo editing features and this one struck me as particularly valuable. I look forward to working with it once I download Classic 7, which I won't be doing just yet, but have no doubt that I shall enjoy this new version a lot. I think some people are making a big mistake conflating the engineering side with the marketing side of this application. Each needs to be viewed on its own merits, and notwithstanding several glitches a long the way, the overall story of Lightroom has been one of continued growth and improvement on the engineering side with every new release.

[jrsforums]

I noticed one thing about auto masking last night and am not sure if it is new or if I had not noticed it....maybe you guys can help.

I was going to play with the ‘range’ function.  In the image, I had a logo which had a solid color, separated by a band of white, which had narrow black strikes on each side, then had the solid color on the other side.

I selected a wide brunch with -exposure, and auto mask on.  I brush to solid color, being careful to keep the ‘+’ in the color.  The brush did extend across the white/black boarder into the solid color on the other side. 

I had thought that the auto mask would repeat the white/black edge.  What I found was that it did not.

Is this new, or is it just my error in past observation?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Range mask is the first feature that finally tempts me to give up on LR6 "perpetual" and consider joining the "Ransomware" parade.

[Mark D Segal]

Range mask is the first feature that finally tempts me to give up on LR6 "perpetual" and consider joining the "Ransomware" parade.

Yes, well I've been a hostage of the "ransomware" option since the Photography bundle subscription started and I haven't regretted it. Each new release brings new and very useful goodies, as if the captors really did want to keep their hostages from rebelling and bolting! :-)

I think it may be worthwhile mentioning that there over 170 people (engineering and various other professions) engaged with supporting this application world-wide, a great many of whom would be obviously well paid people plus the cost of the overheads and other employer contributions that support them. This has to run into many millions of dollars per year. This is largely what our ransom payments are recovering, plus of course a rate of return to the shareholders who need some interest to keep the company capitalized, and I won't get into debates about how much is enough because that's only revealed in the capital markets. So yes, the model does make some sense. Recurrent revenues are being earned to support recurrent costs. One joins the "ransomware parade" if one wants the new features and has confidence that there will be more in the future. Adobe's own interest in this, combined with competitive forces I think provide a better than even chance that it's worthwhile in this context.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I think it may be worthwhile mentioning that there over 170 people (engineering and various other professions) engaged with supporting this application world-wide, a great many of whom would be obviously well paid people plus the cost of the overheads and other employer contributions that support them. This has to run into many millions of dollars per year. This is largely what our ransom payments are recovering, plus of course a rate of return to the shareholders who need some interest to keep the company capitalized, and I won't get into debates about how much is enough because that's only revealed in the capital markets. So yes, the model does make some sense. Recurrent revenues are being earned to support recurrent costs. One joins the "ransomware parade" if one wants the new features and has confidence that there will be more in the future. Adobe's own interest in this, combined with competitive forces I think provide a better than even chance that it's worthwhile in this context.

That is not a lot of individuals working on a software program.  My daughter's boyfriend is an algorithm developer for Pandora, an Internet radio application, and they have way more software engineers working there than the 170 at Adobe who focus on LR.  Remember that LR is right now a mature application and things can be added without the extra developmental cost that was present at the start up.  LR is not keeping Adobe afloat in terms of market capitalization, it is the use of all the CS programs of which LR is a niche player (though not for members of LuLa).

[hogloff]

That is not a lot of individuals working on a software program.  My daughter's boyfriend is an algorithm developer for Pandora, an Internet radio application, and they have way more software engineers working there than the 170 at Adobe who focus on LR.  Remember that LR is right now a mature application and things can be added without the extra developmental cost that was present at the start up.  LR is not keeping Adobe afloat in terms of market capitalization, it is the use of all the CS programs of which LR is a niche player (though not for members of LuLa).

From my experience in the software field...since the early 80's...it actually costs more to maintain a software product than to originally create the product. Once a product is in the field...hardware / software compatibility in the ever changing world chews up an awful lot of resources without adding any new functionality. New processors, new graphics cards, new printers etc....

[Rajan Parrikar]

It is a good addition to ACR/LR. However, it is nowhere as powerful as the V5/V6 panel developed by Tony Kuyper for Photoshop.

[Alan Goldhammer]

From my experience in the software field...since the early 80's...it actually costs more to maintain a software product than to originally create the product. Once a product is in the field...hardware / software compatibility in the ever changing world chews up an awful lot of resources without adding any new functionality. New processors, new graphics cards, new printers etc....

Some of what you mention are functions of the OS and of course we know of the problems that have occurred when MacOS is updated. Those are all ongoing costs which are incurred irrespective of the addition of new features which I was focusing on.  We also know that LR still cannot take advantage of the dramatic advances in GPU power (perhaps these new releases will finally harness that power) or for that matter CPU.  Intel now has released Coffee Lake which might offer terrific potential but who knows when Adobe will get around to that.

[hogloff]

Some of what you mention are functions of the OS and of course we know of the problems that have occurred when MacOS is updated. Those are all ongoing costs which are incurred irrespective of the addition of new features which I was focusing on.  We also know that LR still cannot take advantage of the dramatic advances in GPU power (perhaps these new releases will finally harness that power) or for that matter CPU.  Intel now has released Coffee Lake which might offer terrific potential but who knows when Adobe will get around to that.

I was just pointing out that many of those 170 resources ( I'm sure there are a lot more than that ) are not adding any new features...just keeping the existing software afloat in the constant changing hardware / software world. Typically a very small set of resources are devoted to new features.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I was just pointing out that many of those 170 resources ( I'm sure there are a lot more than that ) are not adding any new features...just keeping the existing software afloat in the constant changing hardware / software world. Typically a very small set of resources are devoted to new features.

Yes, that's right.  I agree!

[Hoggy]

Yes, well I've been a hostage of the "ransomware" option since the Photography bundle subscription started and I haven't regretted it. Each new release brings new and very useful goodies, as if the captors really did want to keep their hostages from rebelling and bolting! :-)

Although to be fair here, it didn't become true ransomware until just now when all options to retain a recent/current fully-functional program 'snapshot' have currently been taken off the table.  Even after say, x amount of years of subscribing.  LR 6 would be a relatively recent snapshot, but that will get outdated quickly, if not already considered such.  But at least that has been the best option to get out for the short term - which is why it was comforting to have available.  It may still not be regretted - at least not until you come across an unfortunate situation where you may not be able to afford it any longer..  AKA: sh*t happens - often when least expected.  But I digress...   

[Mark D Segal]

Although to be fair here, it didn't become true ransomware until just now when all options to retain a recent/current fully-functional program 'snapshot' have currently been taken off the table.  Even after say, x amount of years of subscribing.  LR 6 would be a relatively recent snapshot, but that will get outdated quickly, if not already considered such.  But at least that has been the best option to get out for the short term - which is why it was comforting to have available.  It may still not be regretted - at least not until you come across an unfortunate situation where you may not be able to afford it any longer..  AKA: sh*t happens - often when least expected.  But I digress...   

Unless I misunderstood something, I don't think that's true. I believe users of perpetually licensed LR6.x continue to have full functionality of the current version for as long as they want, but yes, it will become dated.

[Hoggy]

Unless I misunderstood something, I don't think that's true. I believe users of perpetually licensed LR6.x continue to have full functionality of the current version for as long as they want, but yes, it will become dated.

Yep, that's what I was kind of trying to say, but I've been up since yesterday so it may not have come out right - I'm losing coherence at this point.   I kind of think it already is dated - especially with the range mask and guided upright (and kind of dehaze, but that's possible via presets or plugin).  But, that is the last we'll be able to go back to for the indefinite future - and only as long as one doesn't convert their catalog to PV4, so it actually stops being an option right before the Classic version.

[davidgp]

Unless I misunderstood something, I don't think that's true. I believe users of perpetually licensed LR6.x continue to have full functionality of the current version for as long as they want, but yes, it will become dated.

Not exactly... it will take many years, but at some point, a Windows or Mac OS update will make LR6 not to work... and you will have to balance between keeping an not updated unsecure OS or migrate your Lightroom catalogue to other app



http://dgpfotografia.com

[Farmer]

Not exactly... it will take many years, but at some point, a Windows or Mac OS update will make LR6 not to work... and you will have to balance between keeping an not updated unsecure OS or migrate your Lightroom catalogue to other app

More likely under MacOS.  Win 10 still runs 32bit XP apps without issue (stubborn ones can be run in compatibility mode).

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

If you need upgrades, that comes with an attached cost.

In the computing business we used to have maintenance contracts that mostly included both major and minor upgrades. So you pay a fee and get upgrades free. You opt out and you have a fully functional product, but no support and no upgrades.

It could be argued that is the way Lightroom should work. But very clearly, there are no licences that are perpetual in the real world. Microsoft works a bit in that way, programs written ten years ago may still work on that system. With MacOS that is not the case.

In a way, maintenance contracts were pretty sane. It yields income for the vendor to spend on development and relaxes the pressure to rush out new releases, just to sell. So, it will lead to a more mature product. It may also slow down on innovation.

Best regards
Erik

Not exactly... it will take many years, but at some point, a Windows or Mac OS update will make LR6 not to work... and you will have to balance between keeping an not updated unsecure OS or migrate your Lightroom catalogue to other app



http://dgpfotografia.com