Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: smahn on May 03, 2015, 02:29:13 pm
-
1. Live view tethering, so I don't have to use 3rd party offerings and watched folders.
2. Do for focus stacking what you've done for HDR and Panos.
3. Creative Sharpening, or whatever you want to call it. Programs like C1 and Photo Ninja offer much better micro contrast, structure and detail enhancement without introducing nearly as much Detail grunge as LR. Even with additional USM and Smart Sharpening in PS I can't match what these programs do at the raw stage.
4. The modular nature of LR is a real boondoggle for keystroke users, esp between the library and develop module. For instance, to have to return to the library module to open a stack in Develop, and then return to the develop module (3 keystrokes rather than 1) is just absurd and indefensible. The engineers may like it, for reasons I can't imagine, but please let the users override their logic with custom assigned keystrokes than transcend modules.
I'll probably have moved to C1 by the time any of these are implemented, but that's not saying I wont come back.
-
Feel free to add on your own.
-
All sound good to me.
Even simple stuff; Print to TIFF from Print Module. Export CMYK.
Better soft proofing (make OOG overlay work for the 21st century).
This time, faster in Library. Try FastRawViewer then Library grid in LR. Painful.
-
Content aware brush, a feature request since 2011 ( http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_more_photoshop_like_clone_healing_brushes_in_lightroom ).
The develop module in LR6 got exactly 1 (one) new feature - brush editing radial/graduated filter.
-
3. Creative Sharpening, or whatever you want to call it. [...] better micro contrast, structure and detail enhancement
+1
It may be picky, but, as someone suggested in this forum, a "masking" slider in the Noise reduction area would be welcome.
-
Library module
Allow larger number of keywords in sets.
Have a 'single click' method to apply a set of keywords
Develop
Full range of options in brush adjustments (HSL, blacks etc).
3 way colour balance control (like Capture One, but based on colour temperature)
User definable overlay colours for masks ( as in ACR)
Book
Fully customisable layouts for both photos and text boxes (Blurb's free Book Smart software manages this, why can't LR ?)
User definable page sizes to allow DIY book printing
Print
The ability to place a text box anywhere on the page with any text in it.
Import
Ability to access keyword sets and application actions as requested above.
Global history/log
A log of what actions are taken across all modules with undo options where possible.
-
The develop module in LR6 got exactly 1 (one) new feature - brush editing radial/graduated filter.
I regard the two photomerge features, panoramas and HDR to be develop module settings even if they can be implemented from the Library. They are Photoshop style image processing features, so more applicable to Dev module than any other in view of what they do. Quite a few other Dev module abilities can be implemented in Library module too.
-
I like the new HDR and Pano features, but was somewhat disappointed that there seems to be no relationship maintained in the catalog for which files are merged into either a HDR or Pano.
-
The full set of basic (global) sliders available in the adjustment brushes/gradients.
An "invert" mask feature for adjustment brushes (like they have in the circular gradient tool).
-
Book
Fully customisable layouts for both photos and text boxes (Blurb's free Book Smart software manages this, why can't LR ?)
User definable page sizes to allow DIY book printing
Unfortunately, this shouldn't be a feature request for v7 ... it should have been Priority No. 1 before development of the Book module ever began.
This has been one of the top requests since the Book module was introduced in v4. I first made such a request after waiting, waiting and waiting some more for a promised workaround ... that was then deemed too difficult to share. The obvious solution is it should have been implemented from the beginning and not treated as an afterthought and continually ignored.
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/hey_kevin_t_where_is_the_ability_to_create_custom_page_sizes_for_lr_book_module (http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/hey_kevin_t_where_is_the_ability_to_create_custom_page_sizes_for_lr_book_module)
To my knowledge, The Book module is the single software solution in the Adobe Realm that still will not allow the end user to establish custom document dimensions. Also, I am not aware of any other Adobe offering that is tied so tightly to a single third party vendor. The whole situation lacks logic and severely restricts the end result. It should have never been implemented in this manner. Adobe's refusal to address this thus far is completely and utterly irresponsible and their continued lack of attention to address this issue garners little to any confidence that they will ever offer an answer.
-
All good suggestions.
I''ll add the use of tokens in metadata, both during and after importing. Look e.g. at Photo Mechanic to see how it's done.
-
Keyword editing with much more flexibility: Ability to edit a keyword structure outside of LR and import the modified structure without having duplicates then.
Kind regrards
Thomas
-
Blurb have printed excellent results for me but the secret to getting the best quality from their service is NOT to use the consumer-level sRGB module in Lr.
If you go directly to Blurb's own web site, you can download InDesign templates for any of their products.
Then use InDesign to create any layout you like (using any fonts that you wish to); convert your RGB files to CMYK tiffs; and upload the entire book as a single PDF file directly to Blurb's server (with a second PDF file for the book's cover.)
The first time that I used them, I got them to print a single copy with the minimum page count but on the premium stock which I intended to use for the final production. I used that as a Press Colour Proof.
From the results, I could see that their printers lay down a heavy level of Black ink and dot-gain causes the shadows to block-up. I therefore created a correcting-curve which I use when making the CMYK separations so that the final printed books now closely match what I see on my monitor.
Working this way, you will not be disappointed with the results.
Unfortunately, the books that I have seen that were created through the simplified Consumer-level method with sRGB jpegs (the method used by Lr) have been less than stellar.
-
Blurb have printed excellent results for me but the secret to getting the best quality from their service is NOT to use the consumer-level sRGB module in Lr.
Personally I have no issue with Blurb or the products they produce. They simply do not offer books with cover options/materials or page dimensions I prefer to offer my clients.
I do not wish to conform my workflow to Blurb in any software option ... I want Lr (Adobe) to allow me to fit my traditional vendors into the paradigm. It was a conscious decision to restrict the Book module to a Blurb only option. Something Adobe never did in the past. My vendors should not have to go to Adobe and request admission, Adobe should allow users to create custom page sizes ... Period!
Would InDesign ever have sold so well if output was restricted to a single vendor? Would Photoshop be the world's top graphics solution if it too were so restricted? Think also if the Develop module would only process NEF and not Cr2 ... if the Print Module would only work with HP printers and not Epson? ... or if the Web module would only export galleries that would work with IE and not Safari, Chrome or Firefox? See what I mean?
I have been creating books/albums in InDesign since long before Lr was ever developed. (Page Maker and Quark Xpress before that) I work with five different printers/binders that offer the cover materials, paper options and finished results that separate my efforts form my competition. I see no reason to conform to another single vendor and sacrifice my standards just to fit in with Adobe's idea of how the world should be. Whether I use Lr or ID ... if we all order our books from Blurb ... what good is it?
The main reason I would prefer to utilize album/book making in Lightroom ... is it offers a much more streamlined workflow in that users don't have to create all those exported derivative files to use in ID or elsewhere ... much less housecleaning involved to keep track of images used. Eventually, I will not be able to use Aperture for such tasks and don't want to return to all that duplication of effort in exporting a mountain of files each month to layout a book. Anyone who has done this in Aperture vs InDesign can tell you how much easier it is and how much less work it involves. (Before you ask ... there are several plugins for Aperture that you can export/order a book from some of the top wedding/portrait album printer/binders from around the world ... as well as export pages/spreads as tiff, jpeg or pdf using fully custom layouts with fully custom page sizes, margins and bleeds that could be used by nearly any vendor you choose as long as you set these variables to the proper requirements. Apple offered this without request from the start. No begging, pleading or excuses.)
I pay multiple licensing fees for Lr (both CC and perpetual) I don't think it's too much to ask, as long as I am making a contribution to the cause and Adobe is going to include a Book module, that they take into consideration how restrictive their design is for the Book module is and address this discrepancy appropriately.
-
The full set of basic (global) sliders available in the adjustment brushes/gradients.
An "invert" mask feature for adjustment brushes (like they have in the circular gradient tool).
These features seem to me to be very useful; and I think they were covered in the previous thread on the LR6 Wish List. And the first was brought up by many users (including me).
I realize that HDR and Pano features can be very useful for some - my guess these were added in LR6 because Adobe thought they could keep people from buying software/plugins that are specific to these uses and thereby add to the revenue stream (there's nothing wrong with improving the bottom line, but when you start to appear arrogant, trouble is not far away).
It's as though they didn't listen to users, but went for some gimmicks that would attract buyers (like the auto companies do - a feature that warns you when you're too close to the car ahead - driving for dummies).
This is the first time that Adobe has annoyed me (can't use the term I'd like to), so I won't be "upgrading". I didn't think I was a pessimistic person by nature, but Adobe seems to be working on it for me.
-
- Continue to put significant resources to improve performance in Lr - don't limit it to the Develop Module
- provide for backup of presets, configurations, etc. outside of the catalog - c'mon Adobe what's wrong with really taking advantage CC "Files"
- using the backup of presets, configurations, etc to CC Files make it easy to share them across computers
-
Blurb have printed excellent results for me but the secret to getting the best quality from their service is NOT to use the consumer-level sRGB module in Lr.
My point was it COULD/SHOULD be.
Yes, you can get great results using InDesign as part of a book creation workflow, but you'll still need a raw conversion programme at the very least to produce photo books. The trouble is whilst completely versatile, ID is fearsomely complex to understand and start using, plus getting the best photo results takes a huge amount of care and effort.
If the LR book module was as good as it should be, it could provide a simple route to perfectly resized, sharpened and proofed images for the content.
And why is it still tied to just one supplier ? (who provides a more versatile software package for free).
It remains a seriously under developed part of the program.
-
Ability to add captions/plates to print output which have more flexible layout options and the ability to use multiple fonts.
-
Improved demosaicing for Fujifilm X-Trans files (at least get rid of the high-contrast boundary haloing).
Reduce artifacting at high contrast boundaries at high amounts of shadows slider plus adjustments (all sensors).
-
I'd like to be able to transition seemlessly LR between my desktop & laptop.
So, when I am leaving home, be able to sync all my LR settings to the cloud, and while on the road, be able to "download" all those settings to my laptop.
And by "settings" I mean presets, printer settings, export presets, everything ! Perhaps even the catalogue (with only smart previous of course).
I would have thought this is the obvious thing to do in a cloud oriented application. But no. Really missing that feature...
-
All the features from PScs6.
-
Improved demosaicing for Fujifilm X-Trans files (at least get rid of the high-contrast boundary haloing).
I was hoping this would happen in the LR 6 release. I wonder whether there is something fundamental to the current LR processing pipeline that limits what it can do with data from sensors that don't have a traditional Bayer pattern.
What really would be helpful would be for Adobe to address this publicly and let Fuji shooters know what, if any, prospect there is for improving X-Trans processing—and, if there is work on doing so currently in progress, when we might expect to see the results (e.g., LRCC feature addition, LR 7 full release, etc.).
-
Improved demosaicing for Fujifilm X-Trans files (at least get rid of the high-contrast boundary haloing).
Reduce artifacting at high contrast boundaries at high amounts of shadows slider plus adjustments (all sensors).
+1
That's my wish as well.
-
I do sometimes wish Lightroom had a 'save for web' feature like Photoshop has. I like being able to see two to four jpeg images, the quality of them, and weight, so I can shave down those kb's without too much image degradation.
-
2. Do for focus stacking what you've done for HDR and Panos.
And also for Noise reduction stacking.
BTW: it seems HDR can be started by selecting a folded stack. As the autostacking feature works well with photos you take at the rate of a bracket, that already is very nice. Another nice-to-have would be the possibility to select stacks and have each of them used to create HDR's. If you have a lot of them that require the same deghosting level that would make for a nice background task.
It is a bit strange that the created file is not added at the top of the stack from which it stems. For me not a problem, but I think that is what Hans Kruse was asking.
-
Is anyone even sure there will be a Lr7?
There are comments floating around the web that Lr6 will be the last non-CC version of Lr and as we all know, this time around Adobe have made it hard to get the non-CC version of Lr and easy to get the CC version.
-
Anything that makes it easier test printing, like printing a gradient of brightness/contrat/sharpening at the real output size of the image, would be more than welcome!
-
I think a lot of people are forgetting that LR is primarily a cataloguing program and Raw converter?
-
I think a lot of people are forgetting that LR is primarily a cataloguing program and Raw converter?
It feels like Adobe has forgotten too. Not much love for the library module and image previewing at import basically still sucks. Performance improvements to develop but not any new capabilities between Lr5 and Lr6. I'm not counting the photomerge stuff, which is outside the "primarily a cataloguing program and Raw converter".
-
I think a lot of people are forgetting that LR is primarily a cataloguing program and Raw converter?
Not at all ... from the very first public unveiling before the very first public beta, Lr included much more than cataloging and RAW image conversion. No one forced Adobe to include such items. Yet they are included and for a great many users (not all) these ancillary items are of great importance. We all pay for the license to utilize Lr, we ALL should be heard when it comes to our individual desires for future development.
That said, it was always my expectation in the early days that if Adobe truly desired Lr to be a "modular" offering, they would eventually open up the SDK further and focus solely on Library, Develop and Print and let the free market third party developers offer solutions to additional modules ... that way the market would dictate the amount and pace of further development for options like slideshows, books and web. Unfortunately Adobe doesn't think that is the way forward. Therefore, we all should be considerate of our fellow users and understanding of their desires as much as we support our personal wish list.
-
I think a lot of people are forgetting that LR is primarily a cataloguing program and Raw converter?
Nope. It's a content mgmt system for sure but it's also trying to serve photographers needs beyond the CMS and RAW converter. No reasonable person expects it to supplant the all the features of PS that serve photographers but there are features that would make photons lives easier/better.
-
Beyond LR's DAM capabilities, LR is pretty much just a repackaged Adobe Raw Converter. As a LR user, I would appreciate Adobe adding some features not included in ARC. Basically, treat LR as a truly separate program. Good starting point would be a complete rework of the adjustment brush that would increase selective capabilities. Maybe include a selective color tool along the lines of Capture One Pro.
-
Beyond LR's DAM capabilities, LR is pretty much just a repackaged Adobe Raw Converter. As a LR user, I would appreciate Adobe adding some features not included in ARC. Basically, treat LR as a truly separate program. Good starting point would be a complete rework of the adjustment brush that would increase selective capabilities. Maybe include a selective color tool along the lines of Capture One Pro.
Except the develop module is ACR. Not to mention there is zero benefit to losing parity of features between the two as it can makes for a seamless workflow between LR, PS and Br.
-
Except the develop module is ACR. Not to mention there is zero benefit to losing parity of features between the two as it can makes for a seamless workflow between LR, PS and Br.
Obviously we disagree. I don't want to lose parity with ACR, I want LR to offer more than just ACR so I can make fewer round-trips to PS. I don't see how this would effect the seamless workflow between Adobe products.
-
Obviously we disagree. I don't want to lose parity with ACR, I want LR to offer more than just ACR so I can make fewer round-trips to PS. I don't see how this would effect the seamless workflow between Adobe products.
You obviously need to learn to use them better then! :P
Different features in LR dev module will break parity with ACR or vice versa. So a backwards feature request in my view and very unlikely to happen.
LR not having parity with ACR will break smart objects for example, which is by far the best way to use LR with PS. Smart Objects mean I can do PS type things to my LR files which can stay raw. Most powerful feature in PS in my view.
-
You obviously need to learn to use them better then! :P
Different features in LR dev module will break parity with ACR or vice versa. So a backwards feature request in my view and very unlikely to happen.
LR not having parity with ACR will break smart objects for example, which is by far the best way to use LR with PS. Smart Objects mean I can do PS type things to my LR files which can stay raw. Most powerful feature in PS in my view.
Thanks for the advice on increasing my PS and LR skills--not sure what emoji to use for sarcasm. ;)
Now for the issue at hand. I use Smart Objects. I'm not aware that adding a non-ACR function would prevent the use of Smart Objects; but I'm not a programmer. I know as much about your programming skills as you know about my PS/LR skills. However, if what you said is true, it would be nice for Adobe, at some point, establish that LR is limited to ACR.
-
Thanks for the advice on increasing my PS and LR skills--not sure what emoji to use for sarcasm. ;)
Now for the issue at hand. I use Smart Objects. I'm not aware that adding a non-ACR function would prevent the use of Smart Objects; but I'm not a programmer. I know as much about your programming skills as you know about my PS/LR skills. However, if what you said is true, it would be nice for Adobe, at some point, establish that LR is limited to ACR.
Lr is not limited to ACR ... but ... the Lr Develop modue IS ACR ... with a differnt UI.
I know it's picking on semantical differences, but there is a diffrerence.
Lr has been so much more than ACR, however, as I understand it, ACR is the lead dog in the pack. Features for RAW image processing happen there first, then the Lr team puts it in a different wrapper for what we know as the Develop module.
I may not be describing the inner workings of what the two teams perform in their daily tasks, but I doubt we will ever see the day when the Develop module has and significant feature that isn't part of ACR ... for comparable versions of course. I don't see Adobe adding additional manpower to create a duplication of effort.
-
Now for the issue at hand. I use Smart Objects. I'm not aware that adding a non-ACR function would prevent the use of Smart Objects; ...
It's not about conventional smart objects, but embedded raw smart objects -- the kind that are made when you send a raw from LR to PS as a smart object. When you double-click/open that embedded raw in PS it launches ACR for readjustment. It would be counter productive if you were then unable to make alter in ACR the adjustments you made in LR. The raw SO would no longer be "live"; the effects would be burnt in, which isn't what one wants in an embedded raw.
-
Lr has been so much more than ACR, however, as I understand it, ACR is the lead dog in the pack. Features for RAW image processing happen there first, then the Lr team puts it in a different wrapper for what we know as the Develop module.
Correct, it's a top down (from Thomas Knoll, Eric and the other ACR engineers) migration from ACR to LR. However, it's not like LR didn't make a big difference to ACR in the beginning. When LR was first being developed, Mark Hamburg added a lot new functionality in the Shadowland LR precursor. Things like HSL, B&W, Parametric Curves first showed up in Shadowland before being adopted by ACR. However, that was back in 2005/6. At this point Thomas now "owns" the ACR processing pipeline. So, things won't migrate from LR>ACR.
However, there will always be UI and usability differences between ACR & LR. For some things, I really prefer ACR to LR, but for other things, LR beats ACR. It's not at all unusual that I'll choose Show in Finder and open an image in ACR to work on it then back in LR I make sure to read metadata from file so I can get the changes back in LR.
The new HDR & Pano came from the ACR team...pretty sure it was engineer Josh Bury that did the heavy lifting.
-
One thing I'd really like to see is more powerful way to "grade" a picture than what we have today, more in line with what is available in video processing tools.
Today we basically have Temperature and Tint as global effects, and if we want to grade Shadow and Highlights separately, we can go to "DuoTone", or use the brush to alter part of the image.
Most video tools, Premiere first among them (no pun intended), allow you to grade separately shadows, mid-tones and highlights. Pro video editors can't live without that feature - it defines the mood, feeling and identity of a sequence (watch carefully any modern tv serie to get convinced!).
So, I dream of a drop down next to the two color balance sliders that would read "Entire image/Shadows/Midtones/Highlights", where the boundary between the three tones are the ones defined in the curves module.
-
Pro video editors can't live without that feature - it defines the mood, feeling and identity of a sequence (watch carefully any modern tv serie to get convinced!).
Is it a situation that Lr lacks the tools for "grading" or more so, a lack of familiarity with a toolset that that is utilized in the video editing realm?
I have observed that when video editors enter the digital imaging realm, the first thing they look for is color wheels ... conversely, when still photographers first enter the video realm, the first thing they look for is color channel curves. These two tools are not universal to both types of editing.
Can you not achieve the same end result of color grading by utilizing color channel curves and/or some minor tweaks with the shadows adjustment in the Camera Calibration tab of the Develop module? Both tools allow for the type of adjustments that result in "grading" ... IMHO.
-
Can you not achieve the same end result of color grading by utilizing color channel curves
Probably, but it takes a LOT more effort and expertise compared to just having a CT slider for shadow & highlight and a threshold setting.
and/or some minor tweaks with the shadows adjustment in the Camera Calibration tab of the Develop module?
No, that only swings from G - M I think most people would prefer a control that allows control of colour temperature.
Capture One 8.2 added a 'three wheel' colour balance option. I've found it rather a clumsy tool and would prefer a more refined tool built around shifts in colour temperature, rather than the major hue shifts of the '3 wheel grading' style option.
-
One thing I'd really like to see is more powerful way to "grade" a picture than what we have today, more in line with what is available in video processing tools.
We just need LR to support LUTs which I'd think wouldn't be too big a deal engineering wise.
FWIW, super useful and cool tool for creating LUTs:
http://3dlutcreator.com
IF LR supported LUTs from such a product, I'd probably buy it, very powerful and a nice UI.
-
We just need LR to support LUTs which I'd think wouldn't be too big a deal engineering wise.
I don't think that's much of advantage over the existing system of having camera calibration profiles and presets that can be defined and applied.
-
I don't think that's much of advantage over the existing system of having camera calibration profiles and presets that can be defined and applied.
I think I may be confused. Adding your request for 'grading" is not a duplication of effort ... but adding support for 3D LUT would be a duplication of effort?
I'm not saying you are wrong or I disagree on merit ... but I am confused as to how you determine such differences. Care to elaborate?
-
Supporting LUTs, as Photoshop does, would be the way to implement grading (if you want to call it that) into LR.
Check out some of the English video tutorials on creating or editing LUTs from http://3dlutcreator.com, pretty cool.
-
I think I may be confused. Adding your request for 'grading" is not a duplication of effort ... but adding support for 3D LUT would be a duplication of effort?
I'm not saying you are wrong or I disagree on merit ... but I am confused as to how you determine such differences. Care to elaborate?
Firstly I'm not asking for 'grading' that's Stephane's request.
All I want is an easy way to adjust colour temperature within tonal ranges, eg warming up shadow areas. or cooling highlights.
LUTs are usually used to adjust a set of images or section of video to get a predetermined 'look' across many shots or sequences. That functionality is very close to what presets and calibration profiles can do now. Adding LUT support would only complicate those options even further for little general benefit.
-
I agree they are ways to achieve similar effects in LR... I tend to shy away from the camera calibration module. So far, I often go to the duotone module to approximate the effect I want. Still, WB conditioned on tonality would be the most straightforward way.
Thanks for the tip on LUT creator, I've downloaded the demo.
-
Adding LUT support would only complicate those options even further for little general benefit.
Couldn't that philosophy be applied to just about any tool that exists in Lr/ACR now? A tool, any tool, is only as good as the craftsman utilizing it. If we were to avoid all the tools some perceive as "complicated" ... just what tools would we have to work with? One user's must-have-can't-live-without-it solution is another user's total PITA. Furthermore ... who would get the privilege of making the final decision where that dividing line would fall?
I think the idea of having a 3D LUT capability in Lr/ACR warrants further exploration and study before we users deem it unworthy of inclusion. After using LUTs in FCP X with Color Finale, I think it could offer some interesting possibilities, if it can fit within the constraints of a RAW image workflow.
-
Couldn't that philosophy be applied to just about any tool that exists in Lr/ACR now?
My point was that using LUTs just gets the same end result as other existing systems in LR, it adds little more.
I think the idea of having a 3D LUT capability in Lr/ACR warrants further exploration and study before we users deem it unworthy of inclusion.
It's not an issue of 'unworthyness', but an issue of priorities.
There have been many good requests here that deserve consideration and would add significant new unique features or opportunities that couldn't be achieved in the existing program. Letting concentrate on those before asking for multiple ways of getting the same result.
-
It's not an issue of 'unworthyness', but an issue of priorities.
Yes, priorities are importnant. But who gets to chose which item deserves a higher prioity? You? Me? Is your concern more valid than mine or vice versa? Is there anyone on this forum who is actually entrusted with the final decision on this matter? (Maybe, Eric)
It's possible that 3D LUT may be low hanging fruit and relatively easy to implement. I'm no engineer, but discussing the possibility should not in any way be detrimental to your concerns.
-
Thanks for the advice on increasing my PS and LR skills--not sure what emoji to use for sarcasm. ;)
Now for the issue at hand. I use Smart Objects. I'm not aware that adding a non-ACR function would prevent the use of Smart Objects; but I'm not a programmer. I know as much about your programming skills as you know about my PS/LR skills. However, if what you said is true, it would be nice for Adobe, at some point, establish that LR is limited to ACR.
As others have already mentioned, opening raw files into PS working on them there and maintaining raw edibility is where smart objects really shine. Now because PS uses ACR to handle raw files, that is why parity needs to be maintained. No programming ability is needed to understand this and by making your request, it shows that it's not a workflow you use.
I highly recommend trying this workflow as you can work completely parametrically on your raw files in PS, for a large amount of non-LR style work.
-
One thing I'd really like to see is more powerful way to "grade" a picture than what we have today, more in line with what is available in video processing tools.
Today we basically have Temperature and Tint as global effects, and if we want to grade Shadow and Highlights separately, we can go to "DuoTone", or use the brush to alter part of the image.
Most video tools, Premiere first among them (no pun intended), allow you to grade separately shadows, mid-tones and highlights. Pro video editors can't live without that feature - it defines the mood, feeling and identity of a sequence (watch carefully any modern tv serie to get convinced!).
So, I dream of a drop down next to the two color balance sliders that would read "Entire image/Shadows/Midtones/Highlights", where the boundary between the three tones are the ones defined in the curves module.
I've always found grading in Premiere clunky and horrible. Being able to grade video in LR has been something I've requested for years.
So that would be my No. 1 request, video properly handled by LR dev module. Rather than the faffy and incomplete system of the present.
And being able to hand it off seamlessly to Premiere etc as smart objects like you can with PS. Though that would require ACR in Premiere.
-
However, there will always be UI and usability differences between ACR & LR. For some things, I really prefer ACR to LR, but for other things, LR beats ACR. It's not at all unusual that I'll choose Show in Finder and open an image in ACR to work on it then back in LR I make sure to read metadata from file so I can get the changes back in LR.
That's very interesting, Jeff. What do you prefer about ACR, and why? Perhaps that's something you could discuss in the new LR video.
Jeremy
-
That's very interesting, Jeff. What do you prefer about ACR, and why? Perhaps that's something you could discuss in the new LR video.
Jeremy
Hi Jeff,
+1 on this! Will you cover LR AND key parts of PS in the new video ? With the "photographer" CC subscription, I assume most of your viewers will have the two packages ?
-
As others have already mentioned, opening raw files into PS working on them there and maintaining raw edibility is where smart objects really shine. Now because PS uses ACR to handle raw files, that is why parity needs to be maintained.
You tried linked smart objects? The linked smart object in the TIF is linked to a raw file or DNG, which can be in LR, which you can use for further raw adjustments. The SO updates when you open the TIF again, or if the TIF is open in PS you can make an adjustment to the raw/DNG is LR and tab over to PS and watch the SO update. It's slightly clunky to set up, but I think it would interest you. You then wouldn't need to see ACR.
I think you've got to separate conversion parity from having the same UI. For instance, until LR6, LR had no UI for brushing the grad and radial filters, but it could use brush modifications which had been done in ACR/CC. Going forward, I get no value from Adobe putting resources into giving the ACR dialog features that are in LR. SOs are almost the only time I use it, so I'd be happy if they froze ACR's UI and didn't add before/after and panorama or HDR features. In fact, I wouldn't be at all concerned if they simply abandoned ACR in favour of LR.
-
As others have already mentioned, opening raw files into PS working on them there and maintaining raw edibility is where smart objects really shine. Now because PS uses ACR to handle raw files, that is why parity needs to be maintained. No programming ability is needed to understand this and by making your request, it shows that it's not a workflow you use.
I highly recommend trying this workflow as you can work completely parametrically on your raw files in PS, for a large amount of non-LR style work.
I agree with everything you said and no it is not a workflow I use. My request was to add more value to LR through adding other feature that are not part of ACR. I mentioned adding a color tool, similar to Capture One Pro's tool; or maybe a modified layers capability , again similar to C1's. As I said, I'm looking to reduce round-trip to PS.
-
You tried linked smart objects? The linked smart object in the TIF is linked to a raw file or DNG, which can be in LR, which you can use for further raw adjustments. The SO updates when you open the TIF again, or if the TIF is open in PS you can make an adjustment to the raw/DNG is LR and tab over to PS and watch the SO update. It's slightly clunky to set up, but I think it would interest you. You then wouldn't need to see ACR.
A lot of the time I do not see ACR anyway as I usually open SO from LR, work on them in PS and close file. THough when I do have to use it, it's like going back in time to 2004 and not in a good way.
What I sometimes do is make a virtual copy of the PSD that I then apply a look to, so when I re-edit the PSD, the VC updates with the changes. Applying LR development to a PSD of an already developed raw file can get a different look from simply tweaking a raw file.
Going forward, I get no value from Adobe putting resources into giving the ACR dialog features that are in LR. SOs are almost the only time I use it, so I'd be happy if they froze ACR's UI and didn't add before/after and panorama or HDR features. In fact, I wouldn't be at all concerned if they simply abandoned ACR in favour of LR.
I tried arguing in favour of modernising ACR antiquated UI some years back when beta testing PS, but there was no chance of that for historical reasons.
-
That's very interesting, Jeff. What do you prefer about ACR, and why? Perhaps that's something you could discuss in the new LR video.
Having used both extensively, I'm struggling to think of a single positive thing about ACR over LR.
-
Having used both extensively, I'm struggling to think of a single positive thing about ACR over LR.
That makes Jeff's view more interesting.
Jeremy
-
My request was to add more value to LR through adding other feature that are not part of ACR.
This a "relative" issue. Adding extra functionality outside of the Develop module in Lr isn't an issue. Since ACR is the Develop module, you are going to have a severe uphill battle lobbying for features to appear in Lr/Develop module that are not in ACR. Not necessarily for a lack of support for such an idea ... but that Mr. Noll or the ACR team would be unlikely to provide such, because as mentioned earlier, it is ACR development that is then ported/rewrapped in a different UI for Lightroom. ACR and the Develop module are not really separate entities in the truest sense. They are exactly the same toolset in a different visual presentation. Identical twins with a different fashion sense, if you will ... splitting up this family is not going to be open for discussion, nor is it likely a sensible option at this point in time.
I find it curious why one would want to add features to Lr, yet not desire to see those features in ACR. From a purely functionality aspect of course. I don't see how having identical capabilities for RAW development in ACR and the Lr Develop module would be a problem.
-
Having used both extensively, I'm struggling to think of a single positive thing about ACR over LR.
One feature of ACR that is better than LR is when using the ruler to straghten an image. In LR the image is zoomed out to fit into the work area. This is often not useful when trying to use the ruler as you can't see the edge you want to use so easily. In ACR you can be zoomed in and use the straighten ruler making it a lot easier to use the tool.
I really wish LR would get this feature. Often when trying to straighten an image I have to zoom in to see how far off it is, change the rotation angle a bit, zoom in again to see if it is now straight or not and repeat until I am happy. In ACR this would be a quick one step operation.
-
I find it curious why one would want to add features to Lr, yet not desire to see those features in ACR. From a purely functionality aspect of course. I don't see how having identical capabilities for RAW development in ACR and the Lr Develop module would be a problem.
Because the LR user gets little value from every Develop feature being duplicated in ACR, and would gain more benefit if Adobe's efforts were redirected from feature parity. I'm being slightly provocative, because Adobe no doubt believes that enough people do use Bridge/Finder/Explorer as the jumping off point for raw conversion, but a good example is HDR/panorama. If I do those merges in LR, I just don't need that functionality to be in ACR too. And if I don't use LR for merges, I'm using PS's existing HDR/panorama features or a 3rd party tool - would I want ACR to do it too? In a CC world, shouldn't the ACR dialog be allowed to fade away?
-
In a CC world, shouldn't the ACR dialog be allowed to fade away?
While I personally see no issue with this viewpoint in a theorhetical sense ... it overlooks two important factors.
1. Even in a CC world, not all the inhabitants actually utilize Lr CC. They consider Lr a necessary evil to get Ps for $9.99 a month. Taking away ACR from that segment will not be a battle easily won.
2. Convincing Mr. Knoll your idea has merit. Not saying he wouldn't consider it plausible, but whether he and his team would consider it praftical at this point in time.
-
Having used both extensively, I'm struggling to think of a single positive thing about ACR over LR.
Don't struggle - there isn't one ... ;D
But on a more serious note - there used to be a limitation on file size in Lr which was not the case in ACR. That was some time ago - just wondering if that limitation still exists ?
Because the LR user gets little value from every Develop feature being duplicated in ACR, and would gain more benefit if Adobe's efforts were redirected from feature parity.
Very much so. I can't think of any reason why Lr-Ps combo shouldn't replace ACR other than legacy requirements and those are fading as we move into a CC world, and anyway legacy Photoshop CSx is no longer affording compatibility other than with DNG so again that's hardly a reason not to move on.
Perpetual licence merchants get Lr, subscription gets Photoshop with Lr thrown in for free.
Other than the potential file size limitation is there another ?
-
While I personally see no issue with this viewpoint in a theorhetical sense ... it overlooks two important factors.
1. Even in a CC world, not all the inhabitants actually utilize Lr CC. They consider Lr a necessary evil to get Ps for $9.99 a month. Taking away ACR from that segment will not be a battle easily won.
2. Convincing Mr. Knoll your idea has merit. Not saying he wouldn't consider it plausible, but whether he and his team would consider it praftical at this point in time.
It deliberately does ignore those points. But since Adobe hasn't been afraid to inflict that "necessary evil", would they really worry about making people launch Lr instead of the ACR dialog?
-
It deliberately does ignore those points. But since Adobe hasn't been afraid to inflict that "necessary evil", would they really worry about making people launch Lr instead of the ACR dialog?
Hey ... It matters little what I think ... you (and Adobe) have to convince the very vocal group of loyal ACR users that are dead set against using Lr ... I guarantee if Adobe would actually flip such a switch any time soon ... there will be a more than exuberant outcry ... there are some very staunch and steadfast users of ACR that will not disappear quietly or without making themselves heard.
For myself ... I can't remember the last time I actually opened ACR on purpose ... except to help someone else work through a problem or try to replicate a problem other users are experiencing. I rarely if every utilize ACR in my daily tasks.
-
If nothing else, ACR is nice for those wishing to work on files without cataloging them.
-
I would like to see a feature that prevents people from asking for new features for at least a month after the software is released.
-
Hey ... It matters little what I think ... you (and Adobe) have to convince the very vocal group of loyal ACR users that are dead set against using Lr ... I guarantee if Adobe would actually flip such a switch any time soon ... there will be a more than exuberant outcry ... there are some very staunch and steadfast users of ACR that will not disappear quietly or without making themselves heard.
For myself ... I can't remember the last time I actually opened ACR on purpose ... except to help someone else work through a problem or try to replicate a problem other users are experiencing. I rarely if every utilize ACR in my daily tasks.
Agreed, I have not used ACR since version 2.4!
I have always been of the opinion that with the advent of Lightroom, Adobe should have provided purchasers of Photoshop CS with a free license of Lightroom and put Bridge/ACR to pasture. However the staunch hard core of Photoshop would have none of it. Now they are supplying Lightroom free with the Creative Cloud Photographers Package.
-
One feature of ACR that is better than LR is when using the ruler to straghten an image. In LR the image is zoomed out to fit into the work area. This is often not useful when trying to use the ruler as you can't see the edge you want to use so easily. In ACR you can be zoomed in and use the straighten ruler making it a lot easier to use the tool.
I really wish LR would get this feature. Often when trying to straighten an image I have to zoom in to see how far off it is, change the rotation angle a bit, zoom in again to see if it is now straight or not and repeat until I am happy. In ACR this would be a quick one step operation.
Being able to zoom in for that would indeed be handy. It's frustrated me on a number of occasions.
So that's one uptick for ACR. Any more?
-
Agreed, I have not used ACR since version 2.4!
I have always been of the opinion that with the advent of Lightroom, Adobe should have provided purchasers of Photoshop CS with a free license of Lightroom and put Bridge/ACR to pasture. However the staunch hard core of Photoshop would have none of it. Now they are supplying Lightroom free with the Creative Cloud Photographers Package.
You do realise photographers are in a very small minority of PS users. It was less than 10% some years back before LR/ACR updates made PS even less necessary.
However making LR a proper DAM app rather than the half baked solution it currently is would be necessary to replace Bridge, as Bridge because an asset manager for all kinds of files that get opened in a variety of programmes.
-
If nothing else, ACR is nice for those wishing to work on files without cataloging them.
Except you won't know where they are to open. :P
-
Add Photoshop's focus stacking functionality to Photo|Merge
-
You do realise photographers are in a very small minority of PS users. It was less than 10% some years back before LR/ACR updates made PS even less necessary.
However making LR a proper DAM app rather than the half baked solution it currently is would be necessary to replace Bridge, as Bridge because an asset manager for all kinds of files that get opened in a variety of programmes.
Yes. Lightroom is great for photographic work but Bridge is what you need if you have a project which involves Illustrator / Indesign files & none photographic PS work.
Graeme
-
And
Yes. Lightroom is great for photographic work but Bridge is what you need if you have a project which involves Illustrator / Indesign files & none photographic PS work.
And that's always been one of my top LR requests - let me catalogue whatever types of files I want.
-
Yes. Lightroom is great for photographic work but Bridge is what you need if you have a project which involves Illustrator / Indesign files & none photographic PS work.
Graeme
Bridge may work well with all types of files, but it is only a browser ... not a DAM solution bay any stretch of the imagination.
When it comes to Bridge, it is the one item I can agree with Kelby on 100%, there is a reason it is free. ;)
-
And
And that's always been one of my top LR requests - let me catalogue whatever types of files I want.
Well, we see just how much influence you have. ;D ... they did open up Library and allow us the priveledge to catalog .png files, finally. Is that a sign they are "listening"? ...
-
Add Photoshop's focus stacking functionality to Photo|Merge
Hi Peter,
I thought focus-stacking was already implemented in Photoshop's Photomerge since quite a while. Is it missing in LR6?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Preference option - leave keyword order as imported - don't reorganise into alphabetical order.
-
Well, we see just how much influence you have. ;D ... they did open up Library and allow us the priveledge to catalog .png files, finally. Is that a sign they are "listening"? ...
Sadly not, it's more a response to photographic devices capturing PNGs, just like video was added after it became common on cameras. I can claim credit for something else though ;)
-
Bridge may work well with all types of files, but it is only a browser ... not a DAM solution bay any stretch of the imagination.
Neither is LR as LR can't even see a large percentage of my digital assets, which is a major fail. Besides the only real difference is that one is a database and one a file browser, otherwise pretty similar in what they can do organisationally with the main differences being down to Browser/database attributes.
When it comes to Bridge, it is the one item I can agree with Kelby on 100%, there is a reason it is free. ;)
LR comes free with PS now too, so your point is..?
Bridge has never actually been free just like ACR has never been free, it's a fairly ignorant statement of Kelby's. It was originally inside of PS and then made separate to work be able better with other Creative Suites.
-
And that's always been one of my top LR requests - let me catalogue whatever types of files I want.
Mine too. It's hobbled as a DAM because of that. Files that are important to a photographic job are not limited to a subset of still image files.
-
Neither is LR as LR can't even see a large percentage of my digital assets, which is a major fail. Besides the only real difference is that one is a database and one a file browser, otherwise pretty similar in what they can do organisationally with the main differences being down to Browser/database attributes.
LR comes free with PS now too, so your point is..?
Bridge has never actually been free just like ACR has never been free, it's a fairly ignorant statement of Kelby's. It was originally inside of PS and then made separate to work be able better with other Creative Suites.
Seriously? Pick any real nits lately?
Have you ever considered that maybe it is Ps that come free with Lr? ;D
-
Seriously? Pick any real nits lately?
Pointing out your 'facts' are anything but is hardly nit picking.
-
Pointing out your 'facts' are anything but is hardly nit picking.
Perhaps you could point out where I directly made statements of fact? You seem to always fall victim to your propensity to tilt each and every wind mill you encounter. You participate in each and every discussion as though it is a contest where your personal valor is at stake. You need to lighten up a bit and not take each and every comment made as though it is a wrong that needs righted or a personal affront ... often folks offer comments that are a bit sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek or rhetorical in aspect. I don't care if you disagree with me, in fact I encourage everyone to form their own opinions and share them. Though to take such inconsequential comments and believe their existence in this discussion is of such importance that requires your attention to "correct" them for the good of the order is a bit absurd.
Sure, Lr is in no way a complete, all encompassing DAM in the truest sense of the definition (I don't recall stating it was ... I do recall saying Bridge was not a DAM at all)
... and ... of course Bridge is not truly "free" ... however, I think most of us don't need that spelled out as common sense would dictate the terms usage in this respect was intended as a relative concept, not a statement of fact.
Now it is your turn to correct all my mistakes, right all the wrongs I have committed so you can feel superior in intellect and feel the world will be a safer place in which to live because you stepped in to protect everyone from my attempts to harm the balance of the universe.
-
Bridge may work well with all types of files, but it is only a browser ... not a DAM solution bay any stretch of the imagination.
When it comes to Bridge, it is the one item I can agree with Kelby on 100%, there is a reason it is free. ;)
Whatever. It works fine for me.
-
Whatever. It works fine for me.
Don't get me wrong, Bridge is not without it's merits and benefits. Like you say, when working beween other Adobe CS/CC apps, it mostly lives up to it's moniker .... however, my experience with it over the years has been less that what I had hoped for with all the bugs and inopportune tempromental behavior. It's definitely one of Adobe's offerings that I think would have difficulty faring well in the marketplace if it were sold separately. While Bridge can be helpful, I don't think Bridge has received the attention to detail it deserves for being the actual centerpiece of an Adobe centric workflow ... IMHO of course.
-
Perhaps you could point out where I directly made statements of fact? You seem to always fall victim to your propensity to tilt each and every wind mill you encounter. You participate in each and every discussion as though it is a contest where your personal valor is at stake. You need to lighten up a bit and not take each and every comment made as though it is a wrong that needs righted or a personal affront ... often folks offer comments that are a bit sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek or rhetorical in aspect. I don't care if you disagree with me, in fact I encourage everyone to form their own opinions and share them. Though to take such inconsequential comments and believe their existence in this discussion is of such importance that requires your attention to "correct" them for the good of the order is a bit absurd.
So you are happy for others to share their opinions, but take me to task when I do just that. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect there.
Not to mention assuming that I'm really all that bothered about your or others posts is a bit foolish. People posts things, I may or may not agree. I may offer another view or in this case correct some spurious comments. It a forum, people post things and others reply. I'm actually very neutral and non-partisan about most things, people stupidly assume I'm not however and get their knickers in a twist. You do seem to get wound up though when people correct your errors for example.
Sure, Lr is in no way a complete, all encompassing DAM in the truest sense of the definition (I don't recall stating it was ... I do recall saying Bridge was not a DAM at all)
Now that's a great example of one of your 'facts'. Of course Bridge can be a DAM. More so than LR in many ways, LR being what this discussion is about.
... and ... of course Bridge is not truly "free" ... however, I think most of us don't need that spelled out as common sense would dictate the terms usage in this respect was intended as a relative concept, not a statement of fact.
Well in context of this being a LR discussion, pointing out that LR is equally free is a fair rebuttal to Kelby's stupid comment. Oh wait, you don't think I should contribute my opinion, if it runs counter to yours it seems.
-
Don't get me wrong, Bridge is not without it's merits and benefits. Like you say, when working beween other Adobe CS/CC apps, it mostly lives up to it's moniker .... however, my experience with it over the years has been less that what I had hoped for with all the bugs and inopportune tempromental behavior. It's definitely one of Adobe's offerings that I think would have difficulty faring well in the marketplace if it were sold separately. While Bridge can be helpful, I don't think Bridge has received the attention to detail it deserves for being the actual centerpiece of an Adobe centric workflow ... IMHO of course.
I think Bridge would appeal to those who dislike/do not understand database programmes like LR, Aperture etc.
If Bridge/ACR was sold as a non DB version of LR [which fundamentally is what it is] and remove the modal nature of ACR and update it's antique UI, lots of people would use it. A lot of people do not like or understand the LR/database paradigm
Bridge has been very poorly marketed and seriously under-developed since LR2. Which is when I all but stopped using it for photographic work.
-
So you are happy for others to share their opinions, but take me to task when I do just that. There seems to be a bit of a disconnect there.
Not to mention assuming that I'm really all that bothered about your or others posts is a bit foolish. People posts things, I may or may not agree. I may offer another view or in this case correct some spurious comments. It a forum, people post things and others reply. I'm actually very neutral and non-partisan about most things, people stupidly assume I'm not however and get their knickers in a twist. You do seem to get wound up though when people correct your errors for example.
Now that's a great example of one of your 'facts'. Of course Bridge can be a DAM. More so than LR in many ways, LR being what this discussion is about.
Well in context of this being a LR discussion, pointing out that LR is equally free is a fair rebuttal to Kelby's stupid comment. Oh wait, you don't think I should contribute my opinion, if it runs counter to yours it seems.
My offerings are incorrect facts or spurious comments and you only contribute innocuous opinion??? That's classic :D
Your opinions don't bother me ... never an issue. Your compulsion to be the self appointed arbitor of determinging what I offer is incorrect "facts" is becoming an endless source of amusement.
-
How about a feature that prevents people from requesting new features until the software has been out for 60 days?
-
How about a feature that prevents people from requesting new features until the software has been out for 60 days?
That or a board feature that bans people for 60 days for complaining about threads they need not read.
-
That or a board feature that bans people for 60 days for complaining about threads they need not read.
+1 ... any discomfort experienced as a result of voluntarily reading such threads is purely self inflicted.
-
The point is not that I do not want to read these posts (which I do not) - the point is that people should not write them. Sheesh, go take a photo!
-
Stop being a little kid, and stay off the lawn.
-
The point is not that I do not want to read these posts (which I do not) - the point is that people should not write them. Sheesh, go take a photo!
Ironic that we should "go take a photo" ... yet you find the time to participate by posting multiple comments in a discussion you do not want to read?
The phrase , "Physician heal thyself," comes to mind ...
-
The point is not that I do not want to read these posts (which I do not)
If you don't want to read them, don't. Just go to another topic and ignore this one.
the point is that people should not write them.
Absolutely WRONG. The whole point of a forum is to discuss things and this is a technical sub-forum discussing software.
Sheesh, go take a photo!
I wish YOU would and stop trolling the technical sections of this site.
-
Enough already! - or the topic will be locked
-
There were quite a few good requests in the LR6 wish list thread. AFAIK, pretty well none of them were implemented.
Are we spinning our wheels? Just wondering (and not going to repeat the same requests).
-
There were quite a few good requests in the LR6 wish list thread.
That's why it is important to create a wish list early as poosible ... the longer we delay expressing our desires, the longer it takes to convince the powers that be the features we would like to see developed are worthy of effort and inclusion.
Observing a grace period after a new release (that we know already doesn't offer the features we'd like to see included) only sets back the effort longer ... as it is quite likely the goals, priorities and desired schedule for completion for the team's work on Lr 7 were at least partially to mostly set before Lr 6 was released. They look forward. Shouldn't we?
Anything truely new requested now will not likely be considered for the next iteration. Hoding back ideas, suggestions and "wishes" ... would just further delay the possibility of inclusion.
Which is why I find it curious that some users seem to experience discomfort with the conversation or how they would benefit from our silence on the matter.
-
That's why it is important to create a wish list early as poosible ... the longer we delay expressing our desires, the longer it takes to convince the powers that be the features we would like to see developed are worthy of effort and inclusion.
I seriously doubt we are doing anything of the kind. The Adobe teams know what they will implement based on all kinds of data points important to them to hopefully sell more product. Much of the seriously cool features of LR were developed from ideas inside, not outside Adobe.
-
Much of the seriously cool features of LR were developed from ideas inside, not outside Adobe.
For example...
-
Hi Peter,
I thought focus-stacking was already implemented in Photoshop's Photomerge since quite a while. Is it missing in LR6?
Cheers,
Bart
I don't see it. The only photo merge options are for the stitching geometry. It's still in Photoshop, just not in LR6, unless I'm missing something.
-
I seriously doubt we are doing anything of the kind. The Adobe teams know what they will implement based on all kinds of data points important to them to hopefully sell more product.
Really? ... Then Tranberry's time and effort at the feedback forum is a total sleight of hand operation, as far as future development is concerned? If so, what a waste of time and resources.
I would hope at least a very small portion of the "data points" considered are actual feedback from end users. If not, that confirms that many opinions on Adobe's corporate attitude really isn't FUD after all.
Much of the seriously cool features of LR were developed from ideas inside, not outside Adobe.
Unless you consider it took 5 years to once again make it possible to add more than one audio track to a slideshow and 8 years to finally add a rudimentary pan and zoom option (even though there is still only one transition style to choose from and no timeline control whatsoever ... heck, there are a number of $1.99 iPad apps that offer more features and creativity) ... or ... that after three full version cycles, we still can't create custom page sizes in the book module. I guess my "cool" meter measures differently.
Yes, the team did a good job initially ... though, there has been considerably less in the "cool" column of late. Especially considering much of the "new" features in Lr is almost always a carbon copy of what is new in Ps (ACR) ... in fact ... go back and compare Terry White's Top 5 favorite new features in Ps CC (2013) and his Top 5 Favorite new Features in Lr 5 ... the lists were nearly identical.
I realize that the lion's share of development in Lr take place in the Develop module ... I would like to see the same level of attention and refinement take place in the other modules ... certainly the team is aware that those areas deserve some coolness applied to those modules. If they are not aware ... then they are certainly paying too much attention to their own thoughts and indeed are ignoring the folks that support them financially.
-
For example...
Histogram update of tones while moving sliders, scrubby sliders (from PS), interactive HSL by sliding, various clipping overlays and masks for sharpening with option key.
-
Histogram update of tones while moving sliders, scrubby sliders (from PS), interactive HSL by sliding, various clipping overlays and masks for sharpening with option key.
Ah, those are good ones. I think what draws me to adobe software is the general attention to detail on the UI and performance/stability.
I think if I could choose only one feature request it would be to create a comprehensive SDK, including ability to add to the rendering pipeline. I find Adobe's pace of feature development somewhat glacial. OTOH they don't have a very good rep for SDK maintenance.
-
There were quite a few good requests in the LR6 wish list thread. AFAIK, pretty well none of them were implemented.
Are we spinning our wheels? Just wondering (and not going to repeat the same requests).
Two of the headline features, face recognition and GPU acceleration, were among the top most requested features on Adobe's feature request forum.
-
Two of the headline features, face recognition and GPU acceleration, were among the top most requested features on Adobe's feature request forum.
Agreed ... though it should be pointed out, facial recognition, GPU and multiprocessor requests officially began on that site over four years ago ... these items were not added to the fray instantaneously upon request ... hence my point of it takes time to get such items on the team's To Do list.
Simply requesting an item for the very next iteration doesn't mean that it has been researched, approved and budgeted for the next scheduled release. Which confirms my estimation ... it's never too early to make such requests.
-
My offerings are incorrect facts or spurious comments and you only contribute innocuous opinion??? That's classic :D
Impressive misreading. Maybe that's how you come by your 'facts'.
Your opinions don't bother me ... never an issue. Your compulsion to be the self appointed arbitor of determinging what I offer is incorrect "facts" is becoming an endless source of amusement.
No compulsion, no arbitration, however a lot of paranoia on your part though it seems. ::) Heck don't recall that I'd even interacted with you on LuLa before.
Here's a thought, why not debate the points being discussed instead of resorting to personal attacks?
-
Histogram update of tones while moving sliders, scrubby sliders (from PS), interactive HSL by sliding, various clipping overlays and masks for sharpening with option key.
+1 - esp. the masks for sharpening
+ ability to 'nudge' cells in custom print layout
-
Two of the headline features, face recognition and GPU acceleration, were among the top most requested features on Adobe's feature request forum.
Seems Adobe got both pretty wrong in this release. You can't go back and revisit to continue face detection after the first pass. WTF we're they thinking? GPU is just filled with bugs! Many, myself included find the product faster with GPU off. Then there's the severe issue with RGB numbers being just flat out wrong between 5.7 and 6 and color issues with GPU when on in terms of 1:1 develop updating. A real mess.
-
At present my wishlist for Lr7 is simple:
* make all of the new features in Lr6 work properly.
-
At present my wishlist for Lr7 is simple:
* make all of the new features in Lr6 work properly.
For every single person who uses the program? Never going to happen - and why try?
-
For every single person who uses the program? Never going to happen - and why try?
Because they take pride in their work?
Then again if Adobe just creates new features, tosses it out there and goes on to the next shiny, well...
What good is a feature if it only works "some of the time"?
If I can't rely on feature X to consistently work, why would I buy a new version of it in the future? Just to get more buggy features that only work some of the time?
-
Because they take pride in their work?
Then again if Adobe just creates new features, tosses it out there and goes on to the next shiny, well...
What good is a feature if it only works "some of the time"?
If I can't rely on feature X to consistently work, why would I buy a new version of it in the future? Just to get more buggy features that only work some of the time?
So you don't think they have pride in their work, or want to get new features right? Sure, there are things that could be more polished, details that are better-realised, but in general new features do work consistently and are only buggy in a small minority of cases. Yeah, yeah, I can Google and find loads of people on the interwebs have problem X, and yeah I too can extrapolate that into some existential crisis...
-
The Adobe people knows what makes sense to improve from the standpoint of inside knowledge. Knowing that the image processing pipeline works this way or another, a certain feature might be trivial to implement or near impossible to implement (well). They also have general knowledge from knowing image processing, cpu architectures etc (that they to some degree share with their competitors, but not necessarily with most of their customers).
The Lightroom customers knows what makes sense to them individually. Collectively, they make up a far larger group of Lightroom users than there are developers or beta testers inside Adobe. Thus, one might expect them to be a better estimate of "what annoys current Lightroom users", "what lacking features make them launch external editors" etc. There are some issues with estimating the true collective sentiment (as opposed to only the most vocal forum users).
UI/conceptually, I think that the new HDR/pano feature is somewhat clunky for a non-destructive editor. I would prefer grouping a number of source images (manually and/or automagically based on EXIF), then going directly into "develop" to do tonemapping etc (perhaps add a little grouping-dependent fane in develop for how multiple images are dynamically combined). If (at any point) I chose to add or remove images from the stack, the view in the develop module would simply update. I am sure that there are technical reasons why they do it this way, but hey, I am not paid to write their code :-). Being able to do any mix of HDR/pano/focus stacking in one take would also be sweet.
-h
-
A simple one. Relatively speaking as I believe it's basically a macro tweak.
When opening into photoshop being able to open as Smart Objects into Layers would be really handy. Currently one can do one or the other, but not both, so now if I want several images placed into separate layers in a file as smart objects I have to open them all as SOs and then manually place them in one file.
-
So you don't think they have pride in their work, or want to get new features right? Sure, there are things that could be more polished, details that are better-realised, but in general new features do work consistently and are only buggy in a small minority of cases. Yeah, yeah, I can Google and find loads of people on the interwebs have problem X, and yeah I too can extrapolate that into some existential crisis...
"Only buggy in a small minority of cases"? Where do you pull that from?
In HDR merge, there is a complete lack of ability to deal with a bright shiney thing (such as a moon or sun) moving. Is it rare to want to take a HDR shot with either the sun or moon in frame?
In panorama mode, standing close to something that goes away from you in a straight line (such as a jetty) seems to throw off merging. If you have waves then Lr can't deal with that at all. These aren't minority cases - well they may seem to be if you live in a land locked city but on the coast, no.
-
"Working properly" isn't usually a simple binary thing and you're only pointing to specific cases where you have hit limitations. I'd almost dismiss your HDR comment as a case of the photographer not working properly, but because of your other comment I just tested a 13 frame panorama with waves and was surprised by how little correction it needed. Blanket statements like "If you have waves then Lr can't deal with that at all." are just hype, simply misleading.
While I take issue with your "working properly", I think there is a case for wanting the emphasis of future versions to be on making existing features work better and not wanting new ones, but that's never going to happen either.
-
"Working properly" isn't usually a simple binary thing and you're only pointing to specific cases where you have hit limitations. I'd almost dismiss your HDR comment as a case of the photographer not working properly, but because of your other comment I just tested a 13 frame panorama with waves and was surprised by how little correction it needed. Blanket statements like "If you have waves then Lr can't deal with that at all." are just hype, simply misleading.
Ah huh. Just hype and misleading. I wish that were true and its ability to stitch panoramas didn't fail.
But faced with a very simple skyline to stitch (dark outline of boats, piers, buildings) against a bright sky, both Lr and ACR fail to stitch it up correctly. So either the skyline is too difficult for Lr/ACR or it cannot handle the waves. As it has worked in one instance with long exposures that negate wave movement my conclusion is that waves disrupt its matching algorithm.
If PTGui can match up the shots, why can't Lr/ACR?
-
Seems Adobe got both pretty wrong in this release. You can't go back and revisit to continue face detection after the first pass. WTF we're they thinking? GPU is just filled with bugs! Many, myself included find the product faster with GPU off. Then there's the severe issue with RGB numbers being just flat out wrong between 5.7 and 6 and color issues with GPU when on in terms of 1:1 develop updating. A real mess.
Amen, Andrew.
The GPU anti performance switch was useful. Absolutely necessary for me to turn it off as well. I'm just glad it was easy to find.
Wish list:
- Performance
- Performance
- Performance
Building Standard Previews on my machine is painfully slow with Lr CC.
-
Ah huh. Just hype and misleading. I wish that were true and its ability to stitch panoramas didn't fail.
But faced with a very simple skyline to stitch (dark outline of boats, piers, buildings) against a bright sky, both Lr and ACR fail to stitch it up correctly. So either the skyline is too difficult for Lr/ACR or it cannot handle the waves. As it has worked in one instance with long exposures that negate wave movement my conclusion is that waves disrupt its matching algorithm.
If PTGui can match up the shots, why can't Lr/ACR?
I'd criticise other aspects of Merge - how it fails to transfer dust spot corrections to the merged image, the failure to provide searchable metadata more robust than the file name, for instance.
Who knows why PTGui does a better job with some of your pictures? I've thrown at Lr a lot of difficult panoramas, some where I've used a wider lens or overlapped less conservatively than normal, some with buildings, inside and out, trees sticking up and diagonally, waves and clouds. Yes, I have odd ones that disappoint, but Lr's merging performance seems about on par with other apps and roughly in line with expectations. So misleading hype does seem a fair way to describe your statements.
-
...
Who knows why PTGui does a better job with some of your pictures?
PTGui gives you visibility into how it joins images so it is possible to influence how it joins and what it uses to join photos. Lr and ACR, no. When I look at the images that Lr fails to join I'm left scratching my head thinking "WTF was so hard about that?!" Of course there are those where PTGui fails and so too does Lr (just try to build a panorama where the join is out at sea with no landmarks - colored clouds do not help there!) I'd put my hit rate at maybe 25%.
I've thrown at Lr a lot of difficult panoramas, some where I've used a wider lens or overlapped less conservatively than normal, some with buildings, inside and out, trees sticking up and diagonally, waves and clouds. Yes, I have odd ones that disappoint, but Lr's merging performance seems about on par with other apps and roughly in line with expectations.
I'm happy for you that you are satisfied with Lr and that your hit rate with panoramas is high.
-
I'm happy for you that you are satisfied with Lr and that your hit rate with panoramas is high.
Not high, just normal. If you were representative of people's experience, wouldn't there be waves of complaints about the feature?
-
Not high, just normal. If you were representative of people's experience, wouldn't there be waves of complaints about the feature?
If it were so good then why isn't this forum filled with praise and joy for it? You yourself have even mentioned that it is not trouble free.
-
If it were so good then why isn't this forum filled with praise and joy for it? You yourself have even mentioned that it is not trouble free.
Simply, as with many things, those who are upset will make by far the most noise. But I am a bit surprised others haven't made the same complaint about dust spots - my point about metadata/searchability was something most people just never consider (though Hans did say something similar).
John
-
Wish list:
- Performance
- Performance
- Performance
Building Standard Previews on my machine is painfully slow with Lr CC.
LR has been slow for me since LR4.
Shame there isn't a decent alternative.
-
Simply, as with many things, those who are upset will make by far the most noise.
For better or worse, when I enter "lr6 panorama merge" into Google, an issue with Leica images is #1 search result.
Simply, as with many things, those who are upset will make by far the most noise. But I am a bit surprised others haven't made the same complaint about dust spots
You're expecting the wrong output.
The merge in Lr6 is no more capable than that in ACR and the merge in ACR only supports basic image changes, lens profile, etc.
-
Simply, as with many things, those who are upset will make by far the most noise.
Hi John,
I hope you are not suggesting that they do not have any valid issue/issues to complain about.
But I am a bit surprised others haven't made the same complaint about dust spots
Which is another valid issue. I believe (frankly I'm losing track a bit, so correct me if I'm wrong) the Chromatic aberration correction issue in Panoramas (the individual tiles are not corrected, making it impossible to do in the stitched result) was already mentioned. There is a Defringe, but no CA correction implemented.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'd criticise other aspects of Merge - how it fails to transfer dust spot corrections to the merged image, the failure to provide searchable metadata more robust than the file name, for instance.
Engineering's comments on the subject: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom-6-photo-merge-doesnt-take-into-account-all-settings-applied-to-nef-files
-
For better or worse, when I enter "lr6 panorama merge" into Google, an issue with Leica images is #1 search result.
You're expecting the wrong output.
The merge in Lr6 is no more capable than that in ACR and the merge in ACR only supports basic image changes, lens profile, etc.
Yeah, Google just confirms what I said earlier - "Yeah, yeah, I can Google and find loads of people on the interwebs have problem X, and yeah I too can extrapolate that into some existential crisis..."
As for dust spots, I don't define the right output as being results from LR that are no better than ACR. AutoSync makes it much more efficient to correct identical spots on multiple frames before merger than afterwards when you'll have to correct the same spots each time they appear again on the merged image.
-
I hope you are not suggesting that they do not have any valid issue/issues to complain about.
No, but that's the nature of these things, isn't it? What have the Romans ever done for us, apart from...
-
As for dust spots, I don't define the right output as being results from LR that are no better than ACR. AutoSync makes it much more efficient to correct identical spots on multiple frames before merger than afterwards when you'll have to correct the same spots each time they appear again on the merged image.
Kevin and I interviewed Eric via Skype today. With regards to not including healing spots in Pano Merge, he said it was an oversight...it sounds like it's something they will address in the future :~)
-
Kevin and I interviewed Eric via Skype today. With regards to not including healing spots in Pano Merge, he said it was an oversight...it sounds like it's something they will address in the future :~)
Thanks, that is interesting news, Jeff. Let's hope they do so.
-
Allow any collection - Smart or otherwise - to be sync'd to LR Mobile.