LightRoom6 Must have!

[Tony Jay]

...I use both book and map modules, so I'd be very unhappy to see those left out...

I think we are pretty safe from having the book and map modules removed (!) - and even safer from having the catalog removed from Lightroom (!!?!).

Tony Jay

[Rhossydd]

I think we are pretty safe from having the book and map modules removed (!)

One would hope so, but other people want modular software. Who knows how Adobe might market it in future ? One develop and library package and all the modules separately purchasable (rentable ? <spit>)

Sometimes you can't rely on what might seem the obvious choice for development

[hjulenissen]

For a smaller installer? How about users like myself that use those modules, screw us?

If there ever is a conflict of interest between me and you, I would go for what benefits me, even if it means the opposite for you. I expect you to do the same? The entire philosophy of Lightroom seems to be (to a degree) "screwing" the Photoshop concept/users in order to make a leaner, more photographer-oriented package. To do so, some tools (and legacy usage habits) had to go.

This is a lot like the DNG or Gay Marriage 'debate'.

I have no/very few opinions on how citizens live their life as long as it does not significantly affect me or society. Thus they may choose any way of organizing their familiy that please them, as long as it is based on consenting adults.

Now, a private company that have accepted my money in the past and wants my money in the future, I do offer opinions on how I would like them to proceed.

If you don't like those modules, don't use them. I'd be super pissed off if the some of those modules were gone, I use them. I also don't suggest the Photoshop team remove all the 3D functionality because I don't use them.

I think it is perfectly okay to ask for removal of functionality. There is even a software term for the problem: feature creep. Every function added to the software adds some cost. You need to QA the software prior to every release, you need to allocate limited developer resources to maintain and improve the functionality, it makes it harder to refactor the software, it clutters the user interface/overview, you need more bandwidth to ship the executable/updates etc.

Now, the real discussion is, perhaps, if those modules really should be removed. I don't know. Users tends to be "super pissed off" when features are removed, so it might not be a smart move by Adobe. Rather, you want to be very conscious about what features are allowed into the product at any time (Apple seems to be good at this, and their share-holders should be happy about that).

I think it was a bad choice of Adobe to "let in" modules of such poor design in the first place. Now that they did, the best they can do is try to improve them.

-h

[Rhossydd]

it clutters the user interface/overview, you need more bandwidth to ship the executable/updates etc.

Absolutely non-issues.
One gem of UI for LR is the way the different modules are selected, they don't interfere with each other and you can hide the switching panel easily off the screen entirely and work with simple keyboard short cuts to switch modules. You could add another three modules and it would make precious little difference to the use of the program.
As previously pointed out; Modules had very little to the overall program download size. If Adobe cared even slightly about this they'd separate the 64 & 32 bit versions to different packages. Does increasing the size of the download really matter much when you only have to download once or twice a year ?

[mattbr]

I've got a "simple" one, that'd work for both LR and ACR : the alt-preset-batshit-insane-quality export option.

Jim Christian of PictureCode mentioned that if he had 100x the processing power at his disposal, he'd try different approaches to demosaïcing and noise reduction. If there was a way to implement that in practice, in any raw converter, it'd be something that I'd really like to see.

(and yes, I know - DxO 9 does it, and, in a way, so does RawTherapee)

[hjulenissen]

I've got a "simple" one, that'd work for both LR and ACR : the alt-preset-batshit-insane-quality export option.

Lightroom CC will feature a cloud-based export option like you are describing, spreading out across computing resources around the world, benefitting from a high computation complexity (the equivalent of 1 gazillion calculators), relatively low bandwidth (20MB per image) and very low computation duty cycle (1 print per week, finished in 20 seconds).

The deluxe version will do 100 alternate renderings, automatically post them on photography forums all over the world, and based on user feedback will pick the "best".

Non-CC customers will be left off. :-)

-h

[digitaldog]

If there ever is a conflict of interest between me and you, I would go for what benefits me, even if it means the opposite for you. I expect you to do the same?

I don't expect the same (I said otherwise but you must have missed that). Good thing that you're not in the software or service business with that attitude.

I have no/very few opinions on how citizens live their life as long as it does not significantly affect me or society.

So should a camera natively by option save a DNG, should my Neighbors who are gay wish to marry, or should your lack of use of certain LR modules at the expense of a larger installer fall into that category?

I think it is perfectly okay to ask for removal of functionality. There is even a software term for the problem: feature creep

How you connected those two dots is a mystery. It is OK for your software company, assuming you have one, to remove functionality. How your customers may feel is another story. Feature creep, the term you apply is subjective. One man's feature creep is anothers must have tool. As I pointed out, I don't use any 3D functionality in Photoshop. Others do and I don't consider that feature creep nor if I had the power would I remove those features. As someone who is a partner in a software company, I have some experience in deciding what can and cannot be done in our product and how it affects our customers satisfaction.

The removal of two modules I and other's use, to make a smaller installer is just ridiculous. Thankfully that's not going to happen.

[lelouarn]

Hi,

I would really love LR to recognize the "star" rating that I give to my pictures on the Phase One IQ160 digital back. It's potentially pretty useful, for example, I'd like to use that to code the lens I am using, because it doesn't support EXIF - 1 star is the 50mm, 2 stars is the 80mm and so on.

Sounds like a JDI to me, but maybe it's P1 proprietary...

[john beardsworth]

Hi,

I would really love LR to recognize the "star" rating that I give to my pictures on the Phase One IQ160 digital back. It's potentially pretty useful, for example, I'd like to use that to code the lens I am using, because it doesn't support EXIF - 1 star is the 50mm, 2 stars is the 80mm and so on.

Sounds like a JDI to me, but maybe it's P1 proprietary...

Doesn't P1 put that into the EXIF comment field? I think that does shows up in LR but LR wouldn't have an automatic way to match that to the IPTC rating. If you want to send me a file (eg by Dropbox) I'll take a look and report back.

John

[hjulenissen]

If there ever is a conflict of interest between me and you, I would go for what benefits me, even if it means the opposite for you. I expect you to do the same?

I don't expect the same (I said otherwise but you must have missed that). Good thing that you're not in the software or service business with that attitude.

You are saying that if you must choose between my house burning and yours, you will choose your own? That is very altruistic of you.

Feature creep, the term you apply is subjective. One man's feature creep is anothers must have tool. As I pointed out, I don't use any 3D functionality in Photoshop. Others do and I don't consider that feature creep nor if I had the power would I remove those features.

Of course feature creep is subjective. In software, any tool can be made into any other tool (given enough blood, sweat and tears). Thus, we may assume that different leadership, developers and customers have very different expectations about what a software product should be (or not be).

The point I hope that we can agree on is that feature creep can be (and often is) a problem. Did you notice the stock prices of a certain fruity company that famously removes features and limits the number of things that their products can do? Imagine the meetings at Nokia headquarters back in 2007? "What? A Cell-phone without MMS? <laughter>"

The removal of two modules I and other's use, to make a smaller installer is just ridiculous.

If you think that two extra modules just affect the installer size, then we are back to square one in terms of agreeing on this matter.

-h

[digitaldog]

You are saying that if you must choose between my house burning and yours, you will choose your own?

Not only am I not saying that, it's time to get back to the realm of reality and I gave you two, real world examples based on software products defining what I mean!

As part of my day job, I'm a partner in a software company that produces solutions for this very audience. Been doing that for over a decade too. Removing features that customers use is a piss poor idea, cost engineering money, upsets the customer base, ruin's legacy workflows and more. I'm not sure what your day job is as your user info here is as anonymous for whatever reason. IF it involves the production of software, please let us know what that produce may be. I want to keep that product on my radar for what I think is obvious reasons. Bottom line is removing features customers use is a bad idea. If 98% of my customer base don't use a feature, it's going to stay in there for the 2%, the other's don't lose out in any way. Don't understand or like the feature, don't use it there are others who do.

Can you provide an example of a feature in LR or Photoshop that is ignored by even 90% of the installed base?

Look at Adobe and how they dealt with the much maligned Contrast/Brightness command. Not removed, improved. BUT, legacy behavior remains an option because removing it would be really stupid to do for a number of reasons expressed above.  

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am quite happy with Lightroom as it is now. There may be some wishes I have.

1) I would like to have the option to apply sharpening with different radius, amount and detail. I would like to be able to enhance both low and high frequency detail simultaneously both globally and locally.

2) It would be nice to have more control on tonal mapping on highlights/shawdows.

3) I would rather seen plugins that don't go over TIFF but are applied parametrically.

4) Histograms showing raw data. I often go RawDigger to find out the raw histograms. The histograms shown in LR are usable but don't show if the raw data is clipped or not.

Best regards
Erik

[Denis de Gannes]

Hi,

I am quite happy with Lightroom as it is now. There may be some wishes I have.

1) I would like to have the option to apply sharpening with different radius, amount and detail. I would like to be able to enhance both low and high frequency detail simultaneously both globally and locally.

This is available now in the develop module and also with selective editing. See the screen shot below.


2) It would be nice to have more control on tonal mapping on highlights/shawdows.

3) I would rather seen plugins that don't go over TIFF but are applied parametrically.

I think this would require Lightroom to pass RAW data to the Plugin which is written by another party that has no access to Lightroom's raw processing features.

4) Histograms showing raw data. I often go RawDigger to find out the raw histograms. The histograms shown in LR are usable but don't show if the raw data is clipped or not.

Best regards
Erik

[Glenn NK]

Hi,

I am quite happy with Lightroom as it is now. There may be some wishes I have.

1) I would like to have the option to apply sharpening with different radius, amount and detail. I would like to be able to enhance both low and high frequency detail simultaneously both globally and locally.

2) It would be nice to have more control on tonal mapping on highlights/shawdows.

3) I would rather seen plugins that don't go over TIFF but are applied parametrically.

4) Histograms showing raw data. I often go RawDigger to find out the raw histograms. The histograms shown in LR are usable but don't show if the raw data is clipped or not.

Best regards
Erik

You have my vote for those too.

I'd also like to see full set of Develop tools in the adjustment brush, but this might really bog things down.   Not a programmer so don't really know, but my quad core sure gets bunged up with a large area that is brushed with a lot of detail.

Cheers,

Glenn

[john beardsworth]

Hi,

I would really love LR to recognize the "star" rating that I give to my pictures on the Phase One IQ160 digital back. It's potentially pretty useful, for example, I'd like to use that to code the lens I am using, because it doesn't support EXIF - 1 star is the 50mm, 2 stars is the 80mm and so on.

Sounds like a JDI to me, but maybe it's P1 proprietary...

OK, I can't see the rating in various Adobe apps or PhotoMechanic, so it looks to me as if it is initially being written to the EXIF MakerNote and not in a place that LR would read.

However, I did see it in C1 and it's not too difficult to get into LR if you have C1 (does it come with the back?). In C1's Preferences > Image > Metadata, I have Auto sync sidecar xmp set to Full Sync, and merely opening the file once in C1 creates a sidecar xmp file which does have the rating in its normal place. I can then import the file into LR or use Metadata > Read metadata and get the rating.

John

[lelouarn]

OK, I can't see the rating in various Adobe apps or PhotoMechanic, so it looks to me as if it is initially being written to the EXIF MakerNote and not in a place that LR would read.

However, I did see it in C1 and it's not too difficult to get into LR if you have C1 (does it come with the back?). In C1's Preferences > Image > Metadata, I have Auto sync sidecar xmp set to Full Sync, and merely opening the file once in C1 creates a sidecar xmp file which does have the rating in its normal place. I can then import the file into LR or use Metadata > Read metadata and get the rating.

Interesting. I want to avoid using C1 for as long as I can :-) Do you think LR could (in a future version) do this automagically ? That would be very convenient...
Thanks for looking at the problem !

[john beardsworth]

Assuming I'm right about it being in the MakerNote, my guess is you'll be waiting a long time before LR reads it...

Exiftools is a bit geeky, but conceivably it could extract the data to a sidecar file.

[rogan]

The ability to use more of apple's cpu/gpu power to process. LR doesn't tax the cpu hardly at all in batching and is much slower than c1 for batching jpegs.(and as I have said before, would be great to have a count down timer so when exporting 3000 jpegs from a job I have an idea when that will be done)

[dreed]

As per the latest feature delivered in Adobe Photoshop CC.

[dreed]

Features:
* Use levelling tool when zoom'd in

* Use rotation tool when zoom'd in

* Let me select a "line" in a photograph rather than draw one for
- use in levelling
- use selecting edges to be used in perspective correction

e.g. if I have a curvedhorizontal line (sea/sky boundary is good) due to lens imperfections after applying the lens profile to the image, let me select the "line" that the edge between those two makes and "straighten" it.

And for doing perspective correction, rather than use "boxes", let me:
- select vertical and/or horizontal "lines" (boundaries) that are distributed throughout the image and click on a button that says "Make 'em straight!"