Suggestions for Improving Lightroom's Usability

[Bill Wisser]

Wonderful as Lightroom is in many respects, I find its user interface clunky, illogical, unnecessarily complex, and astonishingly user-unfriendly.
 
In response to a survery that Adobe sent me asking for feedback about its products, I wrote a detailed critique about Lightroom's user interface and how I think it can be improved.
 
It's too long to post here -- and I'm sure some fellow Lightroom users will find my analysis very controversial -- but you can read it as an Open Letter to Adobe at http://billwisserphoto.com/Lightroom-how2improve.html
 
Mine may not be the conventional wisdom, and it's certainly not what many Lightroom gurus teach or what the numerous Adobe evangelists preach, but in my view, Lightroom's most miserable conceptual failing is its horribly rigid and artificial separation of the Library and Develop modules.
 
It's a workflow thing -- and many, though not all, of us have greatly different workflows than what Lightroom's designers apparently thought was logical.
 
But that's just the beginning: there are plenty of other aspects of Lightroom's approach and its design that I have focused on in my Open Letter.
 
So, please check out my critique at http://billwisserphoto.com/Lightroom-how2improve.html
 
I welcome feedback and discussion, which I hope will not only increase my understanding, but also help make a good product even better.
 
Thanks!

[Schewe]

Wonderful as Lightroom is in many respects, I find its user interface clunky, illogical, unnecessarily complex, and astonishingly user-unfriendly.

Yeah, ya know if ya wanna apply for the job of paid consultant for Adobe (as you indicate in your diatribe) I wouldn't be holding out too much hope for ya bud.

Seriously, quit using Lightroom. It's clear you don't like it, understand it nor know how to use it. Life is too short to bang your head against the wall each day–all you're gonna give yourself is a head ache....

The bottom line is you don't "get it" and that's ok. Lightroom was not made for everybody...some people do get it and like it pretty much the way it is know (with more features and better performance thrown in). Personally, I would fight you tooth and nail about 80-90% of your rants because, well guess what, Lightroom kinda ended up the way it is because some people had a certain degree of influence over the developers.

Actually, I was seriously chuckling over most of your rants because it sounded like some of the long-winded rants on the old Lightroom Beta Forums from what, 3 years ago? I guess you don't work with a lot of software developers huh? 2006 would have been a real good time to give Adobe an earful regarding the structure and concept of Lightroom. 2009 is kinda late to be complaining about Library and Develop, ya know? Seriously, you really should stick with Photoshop, Camera Raw and Bridge...

[Bo Koue Callesen]

I must admit normally I do not comment (at least public) when someone smacks LR for one reason or another, but in this case I think you have completely misunderstand the purpose of LR. LR is about work flow, from ingestion to output and storage, LR is tying all this together and doing this absolutely correct!
 
Yes LR do have some quirks, speed issues and lack of a few tools (like soft proofing), but the work flow is exactly as it has to be and in my opinion this is the core of LR.
 
Br,
Bo

[BFoto]

Bill

I think you about 3 yrs too late man. The ship sailed - oh wait that was the secret splash of 1.0 - you might have missed it.


"With its blazingly fast processing speed" uuhhmmmm, not. This is actually one of the problems with LR.

"is horrible compared to Photoshop, ACR, and Bridge" actually, it's kinda like the last 2 rolled into one interface with some extra modules. It has some work to be done, but thats the point, we are onyl at 2.3. Oh, and LR is not PS.

"its tendency to do just about everything differently than Photoshop and Bridge" Precisely, it's not PS, why do you not get that. This is a RAW workflow. If you want PS and Bridge buy CS4. If LR gets anything like the usability of PS i'll quit it and go elsewhere. When are old school PS users gong to realise that the PS interface is one of the worst designs in software history. why do you think PS CS4 is starting to look more like LR!

"Why should users have to learn two different sets of keystrokes for the same or similar tools in both programs" they are not the same....again!

"separation of the "Library" and "Develop" " and that is how any different to PS and bridge...mmmm?

"you can only delete one image at a time in the Develop module" why don;t you simply mark the images you want to delete with the delete flag you have. then after you have finshed your time in develop and you return to library, all the images marked for deletion will be greyed out. Filter for these and hit ctl delete.

practice...grasshopper

[BFoto]

Bill

I think you about 3 yrs too late man. The ship sailed - oh wait that was the secret splash of 1.0 - you might have missed it.


"With its blazingly fast processing speed" uuhhmmmm, not. This is actually one of the problems with LR.

"is horrible compared to Photoshop, ACR, and Bridge" actually, it's kinda like the last 2 rolled into one interface with some extra modules. It has some work to be done, but thats the point, we are onyl at 2.3. Oh, and LR is not PS.

"its tendency to do just about everything differently than Photoshop and Bridge" Precisely, it's not PS, why do you not get that. This is a RAW workflow. If you want PS and Bridge buy CS4. If LR gets anything like the usability of PS i'll quit it and go elsewhere. When are old school PS users gong to realise that the PS interface is one of the worst designs in software history. why do you think PS CS4 is starting to look more like LR!

"Why should users have to learn two different sets of keystrokes for the same or similar tools in both programs" they are not the same....again!

"separation of the "Library" and "Develop" " and that is how any different to PS and bridge...mmmm?

"you can only delete one image at a time in the Develop module" why don;t you simply mark the images you want to delete with the delete flag you have. then after you have finshed your time in develop and you return to library, all the images marked for deletion will be greyed out. Filter for these and hit ctl delete.

practice...grasshopper

If you need some help may i suggest

www.lightroomforums.net

oh, and please come in with a nice tone

[Bill Wisser]

Well, thanks for all the feedback, guys! Despite the heat, I really do appreciate it.

Of course, I'm too late to influence the early product planning that Jeff Shewe, who I highly esteem,  participated in,  but I think I may have hit a sore spot now -- because the emotional and super-defensive sort of "Lightroom -- Love It or Leave It," and dismissive "you just don't understand it" and  sarcastic "you might have missed the secret splash" reactions aren't really helpful, thoughtful, or substantive.

I've been using various versions of Lightroom for a couple of years, and I really like Lightroom in at least one big way -- it's non-destructive development engine is far faster than ACR and Photoshop. And that's why I use it for ingesting hundreds of images and doing preliminary processing and some targeted adjustments relatively quickly.

As cameras progress and keep producing ever-larger files, ACR becomes way too slow for ingesting and batch processing, and so I find myself using Lightroom more and more. It's my primary photo program.

But Lightroom's user interface and ease of use aren't perfect -- at least in my opinion.  One thing I prefer in the ACR-Bridge-Photoshop set-up is that I can in essence have the equivalent of the Library grid and Develop loupe view visible on my screen at the same time, and, most importantly, I can also click and move much quicker between Bridge, ACR, and Photoshop than between the two Lightroom modules.  

My suggestions about improving Lightroom's user interface aren't a criticism about its basic non-destructive RAW workflow or the speed of its development engine.

I think it's fascinating that there's such a strong difference of opinion about the fairly rigid, linear progression between the first two Lightroom modules. Some folks really like the separate boxes, while other folks including myself find that model constricting and bothersome, and would like to see some options to open it up more and combine some of their functions, letting the workflow to be more freeform.

I don't see any fundamental nondestructive RAW workflow reason that the tools in those two those two modules have to be kept so separate.

Why, for instance, can't it be possible to simply select and delete multiple images in the Develop module? Why should there be all the complicated rigmarole of "mark(ing) the images you want to delete with the delete flag you have. then after you have finshed your time in develop and you return to library, all the images marked for deletion will be greyed out. Filter for these and hit ctl delete." And then go back to the Develop module.

Now, how precisely would being able to just delete them quickly in Develop compromise Lightroom's essential goodness?

And since Adobe expects photographers to sometimes move between Lightroom and Photoshop for final adjustments, why exactly should the two programs have a different set of keyboard shortcuts?  What's the logic in that?  BFoto offers a tautology: they are different, he writes, because "they are not the same . . . again." Yeah, but why? Does it make it easier for photographers to move seamlessly between the programs? Is there some good reason for the difference?

There are so many little details in Lightroom's execution that could be improved -- like adding the Photoshops very useful point curve and its traditional cloning tool to the somewhat different, but also very useful parametric curve and spot removing tools that Lightroom already has.

I see no reason why good features of one program cannot be shared with the other.

But I agree with BFoto that all these brilliant programs are works in progress, and that we are only at Lightroom 2.3.

All Best Regards!

 

[Schewe]

But Lightroom's user interface and ease of use aren't perfect -- at least in my opinion.  One thing I prefer in the ACR-Bridge-Photoshop set-up is that I can in essence have the equivalent of the Library grid and Develop loupe view visible on my screen at the same time, and, most importantly, I can also click and move much quicker between Bridge, ACR, and Photoshop than between the two Lightroom modules.

Guess you don't use Lightroom's dual display support where you can have Develop on one display and a grid of images on the other? Shame, makes working much quicker.

I don't see any fundamental nondestructive RAW workflow reason that the tools in those two those two modules have to be kept so separate.

Guess you don't understand that Library is optimized for viewing many images while Develop is optimized for loading and working with a single image. I guess the fact that Quick Develop, which you seem to laugh at, is a "relative adjustment" tool designed for several to hundreds of images getting adjusted by the same relative amount while in Develop, the tools set is optimized and designed to fine tune a single image...that's what Quick Develop is designed for plus the ability to add relative adjustments to both raw, JPEG and TIFF files...ever notice that syncing between raw and JPEGs kinda doesn't work? DOH...

And since Adobe expects photographers to sometimes move between Lightroom and Photoshop for final adjustments, why exactly should the two programs have a different set of keyboard shortcuts?  What's the logic in that?

Hum...pretty sure the keyboard commands are very similar between Lightroom and Camera Raw. I don't know, could it be that since the actual functionality of Lightroom and Photoshop are so fundamentally different (parametric vs pixel editing) that the Lightroom developers didn't think that keyboard commands mattered? Besides, what would the Photoshop keyboard command for Slide Show or Web Photo Gallery be? Ohhh, yeah Photoshop don't do that...(although Bridge can).

Of course, I'm too late to influence the early product planning that Jeff Shewe, who I highly esteem, participated in, but I think I may have hit a sore spot now -- because the emotional and super-defensive sort of "Lightroom -- Love It or Leave It," and dismissive "you just don't understand it" and sarcastic "you might have missed the secret splash" reactions aren't really helpful, thoughtful, or substantive.

Uh huh. . .well, I guess that somebody who with his what, 7th post after joining in only April of 2009 coming in to announce to the forum membership that _YOU_ have written an extended (and I mean really, really long) critique about what _YOU_ think Adobe should do about Lightroom and have the unmitigated gaul to state on your blog that you would encourage Adobe to contact you about being a consultant for Lightroom might not get that fact that you've kinda rubbed some people (me especially) the wrong friggin' way?

No dooode, you don't "get it" on so many levels, ya know? Super-defensive? I don't think so bud...expressing a degree of irritation is not intended to be "helpful, thoughtful, or substantive" they are intended to alter your behavior in the forums...

Oh, BTW...making a post in the forums for the purpose of promoting something you may have written and posted elsewhere (such as you own blog) might also be considered a bit off putting ya know? You might actually consider making forum posts and other contributions before touting your own writing elsewhere...course, that might just be me (and the fact you've already earned a spot on my list of irritants). Maybe it won't piss off Michael who owns the place.

[Bill Wisser]

Hi Jeff --

The reason I didn't post my hugely long critique on this forum is simply because the piece was so goshdarn long. I thought I would just include a link to it for anyone who might be interested enough to read it. I was not aware that was improper protocol in some way, but if it is, I apologize. I'm not trying to promote anything except a discussion on how to make what I believe is a very useful program even better, and easier to use.

I also didn't know that you have some kind of personal requirement that I post x number of comments on this forum before I have the standing to make any comments about Lightroom.

It seems to me that my observations might be entirely valid, or completely worthless, or maybe somewhere in between, but exactly when I signed up to make comments, as opposed to merely reading this forum, is surely irrelevant to that.

And OK, for the record, I was being way too sarcastic and too cute when I joked that Adobe should hire me as a paid consultant; and OK I can see why that ticked you off. So, I do apologize for that, Jeff.

Now, briefly, on to the substance of some of your remarks about Lightroom:

Regarding dual monitors: Yeah, that might be great. Currently I'm using a 30" Apple Cinema display, which I like, and I'm not planning on buying an additional monitor, or maybe a better one, in the immediate future. So, where does that leave me and presumably millions of other Lightroom users?  Is it really Adobe's or your personal position that you simply have to have dual monitors hooked up?
 
Regarding Quick Develop and Develop: Some interesting stuff there that I didn't know. But the Develop Module prominently includes the functionality to copy and paste settings and adjustments over multiple images, and I use that all the time. Is that somewhow wrong?

My gripe with Quick Develop is not its underlying engine, but its interface. I find it less easy to make quick and accurate adjustments with its limited controls, than with the fuller set of controls in the Develop module. Maybe that's just a personal preference -- different strokes for different folks.

Of course, my suggestion is not for Lightroom to completely abandon the separate modules, especially considering that many people really like them, and they are fully baked into the app.

My suggestion in this area only is that there be preference options for users to, if they wish, add tools and capabilities from the Library Module to the Develop Module, so the less module-oriented user doesn't have to keep switching back and forth between those two modules to accomplish many tasks. I would just like to see some changes to allow a kind of alternative tool set to be available in the Develop Module.

Thanks!

[Schewe]

Regarding dual monitors: Yeah, that might be great. Currently I'm using a 30" Apple Cinema display, which I like, and I'm not planning on buying an additional monitor, or maybe a better one, in the immediate future. So, where does that leave me and presumably millions of other Lightroom users?  Is it really Adobe's or your personal position that you simply have to have dual monitors hooked up?

It may not be Adobe's position because they didn't include multi-display in version 1 but it is my position that if a pro wants to be time efficient they would be more efficient with multiple displays. Heck I work with dual 30" and a 26" on my main system and I rarely have enough real estate...I couldn't image being able to work efficiently with a single 30". On the road however where one is going mobile, I've found Lightroom to still fit in and allow importing, selection editing and keywording although I would never even try to do final Develop editing on a laptop. That's where Quick Develop and Presets come in handy.

My suggestion in this area only is that there be preference options for users to, if they wish, add tools and capabilities from the Library Module to the Develop Module, so the less module-oriented user doesn't have to keep switching back and forth between those two modules to accomplish many tasks. I would just like to see some changes to allow a kind of alternative tool set to be available in the Develop Module.

Well, that shows how little grasp of application development (and how Lightroom works under the hood) you have. Putting anything into the Develop module that doesn't have a direct impact on single image adjustment would be a waste of development time and resources (of which Adobe has a limited amount so they have to expend it wisely). Allowing users the "flexibility" to mix and match toolsets across modules may sound like a nice touch but the amount of coding required for that becomes monumental. "Preference options" is a code word for code it two (or more ways) and let the user decide–all very well and good until you realize that in order to do so you need more than 2x the time and programing to have the ability to do one thing two ways. Add another thing and the difficulty grows exponentially.

You can hold your breath and pound on tables all ya want but the basic design and concept of Lightroom is set. We can ask for more features and functionality but asking for a major change to its underlying design and concept is silly cause it simply ain't gonna happen. You would be far better off learning how to be efficient and productive inside Lightroom's working environment instead of constantly fighting it. Otherwise you should seriously consider just using Photoshop, Camera Raw and Bridge as your raw workflow pipeline.


And finally....

The reason I didn't post my hugely long critique on this forum is simply because the piece was so goshdarn long.

Uh huh. . .and maybe that should have told you something? The forum is a place to discuss things in a relatively short and brief discourse. If ya can't say it in a few paragraphs then it prolly isn't worth saying it. But hey, you're new around here (which was the point of my pointing out your post count) so maybe you should have tried to blend in a while and develop a feel for the place before stepping on your "member" so early in your forum experience...just saying ya know?

[TimG]

You would be far better off learning how to be efficient and productive inside Lightroom's working environment instead of constantly fighting it. Otherwise you should seriously consider just using Photoshop, Camera Raw and Bridge as your raw workflow pipeline.

This is pure gold, Jeff.  I wish I had a nickel (I'd say a dollar but we're in a down economy) for every photographer I've met who attempts to do just this (fight it).  

Now if I could only get some of these guys to realize they don't necessarily need to use Lightroom instead of Photoshop+ACR+Bridge - it doesn't have to be either/or, it could be both, right?

[Schewe]

Now if I could only get some of these guys to realize they don't necessarily need to use Lightroom instead of Photoshop+ACR+Bridge - it doesn't have to be either/or, it could be both, right?

Of course...which is where I find myself all the time. I am very supportive of the Lightroom concept (I was  kinda involved from the very beginning) but I also write a darn book on Camera Raw, Bridge and Photoshop. So of course, I gotta use Camera Raw, Bridge and Photoshop (otherwise it's really hard to write about). But I also like and use Lightroom.

When do I use what?

Well, if I have a card of a couple hundred images I just shot that I gotta pick through and select the top 10-20, I would do a Finder copy and open the folder of raw images in Bridge to look through. If you set Bridge to use the imbedded previews (EXIF Jpegs) it can browse images very fast. As long as I copy the image folder to my ~Digital-Captures root folder on my main internal array, I can keep working in Bridge and Camera Raw if I need to do tweaks and view images at 1:1 or above. I may pop some images into Photoshop to look at closer–or not.

At some point however, I'm gonna want to import those images into Lightroom. If I have copied a variety of new image folders into my main root level digital captures folder I can just point Lightroom at the root level folder and hit sync to add any newly copied images into my main Lightroom database. That is currently at just over 110,000.

If I want to find an image, I use Lightroom cause that's a lot easier...if I want to make a print I use Lightroom cause it's a lot easier. Whether I use Lightroom or Camera Raw depends on whether or not I need to do any pixel level editing (I always will when I do final fine art prints cause I need to soft proof–which Lightroom can't do yet). If an image needs pixel level editing, I open from Lightroom into Photoshop–often using Smart Objects. When I'm done pixel editing I save the image as a tiff which then adds the rendered tiff back into Lightroom.

I generally DON'T convert to DNG upon import because I want to go through the basic rounds of image and metadata edits before committing to DNG. As a result I only have to back up the sidecar files that are there with raw originals. I do not run Lightroom to automatically write to .XMP files–I would rather decide that on a folder by folder basis and just save those out when needed. If I pop any images open into Camera Raw I'll see in Lightroom that the metadata has been updated outside of Lightroom then I have to decide whether or not to read the new metadata from the file into the Lightroom database. Generally I ALWAYS want to do that (but that's just the way I set up my workflow as it relates to metadata).

I really don't care if I work in Lightroom or Camera Raw when it comes to raw image editing parametrically. Some aspects of Lightroom I prefer over Camera Raw and visa versa...but I certainly do get into a hissy fit about it. Fortunately most all of Camera Raw and Lightroom keyboard shortcuts are the same. I can even cheat and have an images in Lightroom, select "Show Original" which goes to the folder and highlights the file and do a command 'O' to open in Camera Raw...that's how I use Camera Raw's point curve editor in Lightroom. I just make the changes in Camera Raw hit done then import th metadata from the file to add the newly modified Camera Raw edits into Lightroom–INCLUDING ANY POINT CURVE EDITS I MADE IN CAMERA RAW!

Yeah, it take time and experience and training to use multiple apps for my workflow. I recently had to add Capture One into the workflow because I got a P-65+ back and C1 does better lens corrections. So, I process the images out of C1 as linear DNG then use Camera Raw or Lightroom (or both) to get what I need...

Seriously, Lightroom has a dictated workflow, by design. The op (in a different thread on the Lightroom forums where he also posted the same opening message–poor form that) expressed the opinion that Lightroom must not have done any market research and talked to real photographers about workflow. Point of fact, they did...a LOT of photographers whose workflows were all over the place and ranged from relatively efficient to completely screwed up. That's why Lightroom has a task based workflow imposed by design. You are forced to use the Library for those things the Library was designed for and you must use Develop for fine tuning individual images. The modular based design is in fact far more efficient than using Bridge, Camera Raw and Photoshop if you give in to the philosophy and adopt and adapt it. If you fight it, you're gonna get frustrated because you can't win. You either use Lightroom as it was designed to be used or you use something else such as Camera Raw, Bridge and Photoshop (or other 3rd party apps). And that is by design and done on purpose...

So, either love it or leave it cause Lightroom's basic philosophy ain't gonna change (myself and some others wouldn't allow it).

:~)

[DaveCurtis]

I'm sorry Bill, i will have to disagree with you. i think the Lightroom GUI is great and the work flow (for me at least) is wonderful. It seems to make sense to me ... Import, develop then print. To me that's what a photographer does. I think you have to accept that Photoshop is Photoshop and Lightroom is Lightroom.

I have been a software developer for 15 years and to me the GUI is very Cool.

[W.T. Jones]

I dunno Bill, From the very first time I used lightroom I found it to be very intuitive. Infinitely more so than the Bridge, ACR , Photoshop routine IMHO. Once I got done looking at Jeff & Mike's video tutorial, Lightroom really came to life. I am still fairly new to all this "digital darkroom" business, but from where I sit, if there is a better way than Lightroom for day to day routine photo work It would have to be magic  

BTW Jeff, your segment on recovering over blown highlights in the LR tutorial was worth the price of the tutorial alone. Thanks, it has saved my butt a couple of times now.