Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: What's still missing from LR4?  (Read 36183 times)

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2012, 07:14:26 pm »

I would really like to see something similar to Capture's LCC correction.

+1.  I was really hoping to see this in LR4.  It would be very useful for both MFDB and rangefinder-lenses-on-NEX users.
Logged

bdp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.bendearnleyphotography.com
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2012, 10:05:44 pm »

Live Video Image from DSLRs for composing shots when shooting tethered. Like the Canon software can do.
Logged

BernieKohl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #42 on: January 15, 2012, 05:39:07 am »

LCC is essentially a flat field adjustment to fix shading (wavelength-dependent, spatially varying light response).  ACR and LR actually support the technology (since version 5.4/2.4) but it's not currently exposed in the user interface.
+1.  I was really hoping to see this in LR4.  It would be very useful for both MFDB and rangefinder-lenses-on-NEX users.
Lightroom is obviously developing into a standalone application, which I do not agree with. To me it is the application I manage my entire image library with and prepare the files for further editing in Photoshop. Unfortunately LCC is extremely difficult to achieve in Photoshop, so it should be part of the RAW workflow. I dream of being able to embed LCC profiles in a DNG file (similar to Capture's EIP), so that they won't be lost during system migration etc.
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2012, 01:49:08 pm »

Lightroom is obviously developing into a standalone application, which I do not agree with. To me it is the application I manage my entire image library with and prepare the files for further editing in Photoshop. Unfortunately LCC is extremely difficult to achieve in Photoshop, so it should be part of the RAW workflow. I dream of being able to embed LCC profiles in a DNG file (similar to Capture's EIP), so that they won't be lost during system migration etc.
LR has always been a "standalone application". From the outset, you have been able to import, adjust, and print. Each iteration has made it better at doing all three. Many people (me included, FWIW) find that a substantial majority of photos can be processed to completion in LR without any need for PS, and view this as a Good Thing. I'm not clear what aspect of that you "do not agree with".

Whether a particular adjustment becomes incorporated into LR is a matter for Adobe, who are not wholly unresponsive to their customers' requests. The history of the program shows that new corrections are added: for example, IIRC, lens corrections and distortion were new in v3. Make the argument to the designers; maybe they'll respond.

Jeremy
Logged

Janne Aavasalo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2012, 07:40:04 am »

I could do with a possibility to alter a graduated filter mask a bit further.

What I mean by that is the ability to "paint" away the effect of a graduated filter from taller trees for example. Or when you have a clear horizon, but 1/3rd of the photo is land etc.
Logged

Wills

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Wills
    • Wills Wilson commercial photographer
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #45 on: January 16, 2012, 09:32:57 am »

I would like a mask feature on each adjustment tool highlights, mid-tones and shadows
Logged
Wills
Wil

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #46 on: January 16, 2012, 12:52:26 pm »

I could do with a possibility to alter a graduated filter mask a bit further.

What I mean by that is the ability to "paint" away the effect of a graduated filter from taller trees for example. Or when you have a clear horizon, but 1/3rd of the photo is land etc.
That would be nice, yes. However, you can use an adjustment brush with settings which reverse those of the graduated filter to achieve pretty much that effect already. The brushed area won't move if you then move the filter, of course, but if you finalise the filter settings before starting with the brush, it's a usable approach.

Jeremy
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 12:54:35 pm by kikashi »
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #47 on: January 16, 2012, 03:24:43 pm »

One very obvious niggle is a lack of amber/blue WB adjustment. Sometimes I find the green/magenta not sufficient to get the WB that I want.
I don't want to use the word "major oversight" but it's quite a simple one IMO
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2798
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #48 on: January 16, 2012, 03:51:05 pm »

That would be nice, yes. However, you can use an adjustment brush with settings which reverse those of the graduated filter to achieve pretty much that effect already.

True - you mentioned a workaround that many of us use. However I must agree with JanneAavasalo about how useful it would be to "paint" away the graduated filter. If the grad filter was improved so that it became a true mask, varying in intensity from 0 to 100, then we could turn on and off its overlay and paint it away where necessary.

Also, William Wilson raises a great point about being able to "paint" away basic sliders. I believe this can be done in Aperture.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2798
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #49 on: January 16, 2012, 09:13:35 pm »

I've been thinking more and more about a comment I made at the beginning of this post regarding the weakness of the Slideshow module in Lightroom as well as some of the comments about the inflexibility of the Book module (despite the myriad templates provided) and I started thinking more about PDFs.

Slideshow allows for some flexibility in layout and design that Print and Book does not. As well, Slideshow allows you to publish to PDF. While the PDFs can be exported to custom sizes (in the Export to PDF dialogue box), there is no provision for output sharpening.

Perhaps what LR needs is - no, not another module - but a smarter module that would allow Slideshow and PDF creation that has:
  • output size as an initial set-up (e.g. for book page templates);
  • page templates to introduce text to PDFs or at least the ability to add a text box beyond ID plate and basic Text Overlays;
  • design features to allow free-form layout design including rotating images (what can be done to create high quality PDFs in e.g. iWork Pages is amazing!)
  • output sharpening parameters similar to the Print module but for halftone printing as well;
  • transitions like those found in Acrobat;
  • some of the wonderful capabilities of LR/Mogrify;
to name a few.

I know, I've just turned LR into InDesign or Acrobat but that trend has already begun. Maybe this new and improved module could be called "Publishing" or "Design Sandbox". This is, after all, Adobe's forté - it would be great to see more of it built into LR.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #50 on: January 16, 2012, 09:31:31 pm »

How many users actually want that level of production capacity and how much more are you willing to pay to have it within LR?
Logged
Phil Brown

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #51 on: January 16, 2012, 09:35:59 pm »

Agreed - I, too use it for galleries. What miffs me is that if you add one photo, the whole gallery needs to be republished. This is not an efficient use of the power of computers.
The way to best use the web module is to have enough images in a collection to use for designing the gallery/site and once you are happy with it save a template [and also save design as you go along]. Simply add the photos you want to use when design is finished.
With the solution I currently use [LR, SlideshowPro + Director - as does John B.], I simply create gallery in LR, export the design online and then add images by exporting the photos directly to Director from LR. Director is then used to populate the galleries of the numerous websites that use the template I originally designed in LR.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #52 on: January 16, 2012, 09:42:31 pm »

How many users actually want that level of production capacity and how much more are you willing to pay to have it within LR?
The thing you need to bear in mind is that different users need different parts of any software's toolset. Just because there's a part of say Photoshop that doesn't interest me, for example like 3D, doesn't mean there is a huge demand for it. Same goes for LR.
All those suggestions fall within what many photographers would use and as LR is for photographers....
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2012, 11:51:25 pm »

True, but if you want to get a feature added then if you can answer the questions that I asked, you have a much better chance (particularly the second one - if you can commit to a company that it adds economic value that you will lay down cash for, they'll see the return).
Logged
Phil Brown

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #54 on: January 17, 2012, 01:45:59 am »

How many users actually want that level of production capacity and how much more are you willing to pay to have it within LR?
I think Terry's idea is excellent and shouldn't really add much, if anything to the cost.
All it requires is pulling together different features that already exist within the program into one module.
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #55 on: January 17, 2012, 04:57:40 am »

Not cost much?  You realise that sometimes just changing a small UI component can be a major issue, right?

Adding an entire new module isn't a small exercise, and even if it doesn't cost much in cash it costs in terms of development time and resources working toward other things.

That's all fine, if there are actually enough users who are willing to pay for those features.  As it stands, the attitude seems to be "oh, this should be easy, let's just incorporate design features from ID and Acrobat Pro and mesh them into LR and, yeah, don't charge me any more for it."

That's *not* going to excite Adobe to rush to add this feature :-)
Logged
Phil Brown

rdegaris

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2012, 10:37:45 am »

This is perhaps a little trivial, compared to some posts, but unless I'm missing something I still can't switch off the color management chain if I want to import and print out a standard target for calibration purposes - it's the only reason I keep an old copy of Photoshop.
Logged

Anthony.Ralph

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2012, 10:54:59 am »

This is perhaps a little trivial, compared to some posts, but unless I'm missing something I still can't switch off the color management chain if I want to import and print out a standard target for calibration purposes - it's the only reason I keep an old copy of Photoshop.

I suppose Adobe feels that as they created the Colour Print Utility for this purpose, there was no longer any need for such an ability in Lightroom (or Photoshop).

Anthony.
Logged

cunim

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #58 on: January 19, 2012, 11:05:16 am »

#1. LCC correction, preferably model-based in which something like the lensprofile creator takes images with varying apertures, and degrees of shift and tilt, and constructs a shading model for the lens.  Ease of use will sell better than technical perfection as blending will take care of edge effects during pano construction.  Add a "strength" slider to allow easy balancing of correction accuracy against visual naturalness in skies and the like.
#2.  Take a close look at Alpa Lens Corrector.  Do that, with a nice UI.
Logged

rdegaris

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: What's still missing from LR4?
« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2012, 11:07:07 am »

Good Lord, I wasn't aware such a utility existed.  Feeling a bit silly about my observation now.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up