Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Simon J.A. Simpson on October 06, 2015, 03:59:02 am
-
From the Lightroom Queen’s post:
“You will need to be aware of some Import features that are no longer available. They are:
• Move is gone. You can only Add the photos at their existing location or Copy the photos to a new location.
• Eject After Import is gone. You must now remember to eject memory cards using the operating system (although this will hopefully return in a future update).
• Duplicate photos can’t be imported (without workarounds).
• Zoom is gone from the Import Loupe view.
• Filename is now hidden under a tooltip.
• Destination panel folders preview is gone, including the italic preview showing your chosen folder structure, the checkmarks to their right, and the volume information showing how much space was available on each drive.
• Thumbnail filtering by Destination folder is gone.
• Total file size is gone from the bottom left corner.
• The filename preview (when renaming) is gone.
If you feel strongly about any of these missing features, the best place to request their reinstatement is the Official Feature Request/Bug Report Forum at http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family, explaining clearly how it will impact your workflow.”
Since I do in fact use several of these facilities this seems somewhat of a backward step to me and so I won’t be ‘upgrading’ in the foreseeable future; or at least until Adobe puts these facilities back. I’m puzzled as to why Adobe would take them out in the first pace ? Simplification, perhaps ? Odd.
-
Why? OK, it's gone too far in some ways, but the underlying goals were to:
1. Assist early users by streamlining the dialog. I can see how Duplicate, Move, DNG confuse many users.
2. Discourage use of the Import dialog as a culling tool. Get the pictures in Library and use its better review and metadata tools.
-
1. Assist early users by streamlining the dialog.
And it has taken them to version 6.2 to do it !
But to be fair, concentrating resources on processing / develop module features was more important in earlier versions.
-
Why? OK, it's gone too far in some ways, but the underlying goals were to:
1. Assist early users
If you want to help people use LR why cripple it ? It would be better to supply better tutorial advice for new users as they're going to be faced with the full interface in the next step anyway.
2. Discourage use of the Import dialog as a culling tool.
Why ? If it works for some people why impose changes to their workflow ?
What next ? Those develop controls too complex for phone users ? lets just hide those and leave the auto button because we know what's best.
-
People can make any old method work, but that doesn't mean you have to treat those methods as equally worthy of preservation. Quite the opposite when they have overloaded the import step with functions duplicating those well-implemented elsewhere. And does the world need any more tutorials?
-
And does the world need any more tutorials?
It does now because Adobe have changed the program!
A new user will still need to understand all the options that have now become harder to use. By making unnecessary change it not only annoys existing users, but it also makes all older tutorial material redundant, so making the transition potentially harder, totally daft.
Which is cheaper and more reliable ? Making a good transition tutorial or rewriting lots of code ?
There's lots of protest about the change on the Adobe forums, so far I haven't read anything in favour of it.
-
If you want to help people use LR why cripple it ? It would be better to supply better tutorial advice for new users as they're going to be faced with the full interface in the next step anyway.Why ? If it works for some people why impose changes to their workflow ?
As an application matures (and its developers and existing users comprehension does), it is quite possible that one finds new, "better" ways of doing things. Better as in 1) Takes less manual effort, 2) Can be more easily understood by new users without consulting a tutorial 3) Is more consistent with how the applications generally behaves and how other applications on that/other OS behaves.
I for one find that after using every release of Lightroom, there are still sections of the program that feels "clumsy". I.e. I have to spend more time figuring out how to get the job done than I feel I should have to.
The "danger" of having a 20 year old program with a million features and a million (expert) users around the world is that it often becomes very hard to maintain the code base, to deliver new features, to streamline the user interface, to adapt to new platforms and formats without alienating the fan-base.
I like "boring" programs. I.e. programs that does not try to reinvent the wheel, but rather present the options that one would expect to see at a given place and time given our individual but still highly correlated experience with software products.
-h
-
I for one find that after using every release of Lightroom, there are still sections of the program that feels "clumsy". I.e. I have to spend more time figuring out how to get the job done than I feel I should have to.
Really ?? I've always found one of the key advantages of Lightroom is the ease and intuitive nature of the interface. As features have been added they've been easy to understand and quick to learn.
-
I personally don't mind the changes, while agree that the changes have been radical.
I see is as a move to get rid of folder-tree-structure way of thinking and just use the Database with the superior available tools. There is nothing that can be done with a folder structure that cannot be done better using the database tools.
Why would you want to import a duplicate image? It is better to keep the database without duplicates always.
Move: While it might be convenient, it is a higher risk operation that copy. Better to format the card in the camera
Eject card after import: agree, but I see it as a minor anoyance
Rename: chose "Edit" and you will see a sample of how the new names will look like
I agree with John, don't use the import dialogue for doing what it is best done with other tools.
P.D. If you want to review and pre-select your images before importing them to LR, consider FastRawViewer, a fast and excellent tool built for that purpose.
-
There's lots of protest about the change on the Adobe forums, so far I haven't read anything in favour of it.
Well, complaints are always much louder than praise, and there's not much else to talk about in the Desktop update, is there?
I think you've got to take each individual removal on its own merits. One that no-one even mentions is having someone else's photo as Import's background - I hate that and have looked hard for a way to change it. But the removal of others can be defended, and the real problem is they aren't available elsewhere, in the right place in Lightroom. Move for instance is mainly used as a workaround for the lack of a Reorganise Masters command in Library itself, and the same applies to Duplicates too.
-
Move: While it might be convenient, it is a higher risk operation that copy. Better to format the card in the camera
Move could never be used to do that, Franco, despite lots of complaints from people who wanted to do so (aargh!). It's more useful to reorganise photos that are already on a hard drive such as when you're migrating from a legacy folder structure. So it has value, just in Library as a generic Reorganise Masters tool.
If you want to review and pre-select your images before importing them to LR, consider FastRawViewer, a fast and excellent tool built for that purpose.
One day we'll have GPU-accelerated review of embedded previews in Lr. Dream on, John.....
-
There is nothing that can be done with a folder structure that cannot be done better using the database tools.
A folder structure makes back up and archiving easier for me. It also allows easier use of other programs that work on the images.
-
One that no-one even mentions is having someone else's photo as Import's background - I hate that
I have mentioned it and hate it too. What really annoys me about it is the underlying 'our photos are better than yours' message it sends, insulting.
-
Why would you want to import a duplicate image? It is better to keep the database without duplicates always.
Perhaps you need to import a duplicate of an image to another location on your hard drive.
Move: While it might be convenient, it is a higher risk operation that copy. Better to format the card in the camera
Perhaps you might want to move an image from one folder to another on your hard disk using some of the import dialogue options.
Eject card after import: agree, but I see it as a minor anoyance
Unless you have a lot of cards to import from.
We know there are other ways of doing things in Lightroom but I believe these facilities also give us the option to dig ourselves out of a hole when we've screwed-up. And we all do that from time to time, yes ?
-
I have mentioned it and hate it too. What really annoys me about it is the underlying 'our photos are better than yours' message it sends, insulting.
Sorry, I hadn't noticed it. I'm not sure it sends out that message, more like you're only renting so you don't choose the wallpaper ;)
-
you're only renting so you don't choose the wallpaper ;)
I'm not renting and changes like this reinforce that choice even more.
-
Have I missed something ?
It appears in the release note on Lightroom Journal that the redesigned import experience is also in the standalone 6.2 version but I thought these dot release updates would only include new camera / lens support / bug fixes
-
Have I missed something ?
It appears in the release note on Lightroom Journal that the redesigned import experience is also in the standalone 6.2 version but I thought these dot release updates would only include new camera / lens support / bug fixes
It's a change to an existing feature, not a new feature which might conflict with their accounting policies.
-
1. Assist early users by streamlining the dialog. I can see how Duplicate, Move, DNG confuse many users.
Why? Was the Import Dialog so intimidating that Adobe was losing sales of subscriptions to newbies? Really?
2. Discourage use of the Import dialog as a culling tool. Get the pictures in Library and use its better review and metadata tools.
Why? Was this perceived abuse of the Import Dialog causing undue harm or inflicting hardship upon Adobe, the executives in charge, the product manager, the engineers or fellow users of Lightroom?
This is a classic example of one of the extreme flaws of the subscription model. All Adobe employees from the CEO, who hauls in nearly $18M annually, to the newest member of the janitorial staff receiving a minimum wage, will receive the exact same amount of compensation no matter what code is updated, changed or created.
We, the end users can no longer influence the outcome as we are a captive audience. If we want new camera support and other features that are acceptable, we must take it in an all or nothing scenario ... or use the older version and incur the same exact cost if we adopted the new software. We can no longer speak with our wallets to influence the direction of development.
Everyone is left to the whim of a small group of people that simply believe they know what is best for us ... and demand equal and consistent payment regardless of our opinion of their efforts.
-
Ever heard of companies testing to see what problems users may be having? And despite being strung out on subscription income, they decide they need to revisit an existing tool/ in other words, it has f all to do with subscription models.
-
Ever heard of companies testing to see what problems users may be having? And despite being strung out on subscription income, they decide they need to revisit an existing tool/ in other words, it has f all to do with subscription models.
Ever heard of a customer having a choice not to compensate a developer for an update or upgrade the end user doesn't find beneficial or advantageous or otherwise unworthy of adoption?
Under CC, the end user has absolutely no influence over what is released. They must continue to pay for whatever is released, regardless if they find it useful or beneficial.
Under the perpetual license model, a user could skip a release and not incur any additional cost, unless or until the developer would release a version the end user does see merit in adopting. That is the difference between the licensing models.
You can choose to ignore the difference if you wish. That doesn't nullify my premise.
-
That doesn't nullify my premise.
I don't doubt the premise as a generalisation, just its applicability to this case.
-
I see is as a move to get rid of folder-tree-structure way of thinking and just use the Database with the superior available tools. There is nothing that can be done with a folder structure that cannot be done better using the database tools.
You can't browse folders for a start.
You can't find things whose names you've forgotten, but can easily find when you glance through your folders.
You cannot use any software other than the database organiser [LR] to find stuff, in a database so no using a file browser like Bridge/Explorer/Finder to access any of your work.
Keywording your work so that is easily found is an awful lot of hard work.
Too many false positives with database collection searches in my experience make it unusable at times. Evernote is painful like that and LR can be too at times when items than have apparently zero relation to search appear.
Too many results for regularly photographed items can overwhelm simple keyword searching.
Files have to go in folders anyway, so why not do it neatly, it takes so very little effort, particularly compared to keywording files. I can find my work using any OS or any browser as well as via LR. Often faster via folders. Not to mention folder naming can be an excellent form of keywording in itself.
Using both well organised date/description folders allied with keywording is far superior to using either system on its own.
-
Ever heard of companies testing to see what problems users may be having?
Maybe more importantly they should look at what their customers like and don't want changing.
Fixing 'problems' of novice understanding by changing the UI and functionality seems backwards to me.
Was the import dialogue really such a barrier to the adoption of Lightroom ?
-
I for one find that after using every release of Lightroom, there are still sections of the program that feels "clumsy". I.e. I have to spend more time figuring out how to get the job done than I feel I should have to.
Really ?? I've always found one of the key advantages of Lightroom is the ease and intuitive nature of the interface. As features have been added they've been easy to understand and quick to learn.
hjulenissen has a history of complaining that PS and LR are too difficult for him to understand. He also claimed to be a software engineer or similar at one point, which seemed remarkably at odds with his ongoing difficulties in learning basic software tools.
The "danger" of having a 20 year old program with a million features and a million (expert) users around the world is that it often becomes very hard to maintain the code base, to deliver new features, to streamline the user interface, to adapt to new platforms and formats without alienating the fan-base.
Apple do just that at times as it happens. And Adobe did that in one sense by introducing Photoshop Lightroom [its full name] as Photoshop simply didn't really work so well for photographers in the new age of digital shooting. A new and much better paradigm for a new way of working.
As an application matures (and its developers and existing users comprehension does), it is quite possible that one finds new, "better" ways of doing things. Better as in 1) Takes less manual effort, 2) Can be more easily understood by new users without consulting a tutorial 3) Is more consistent with how the applications generally behaves and how other applications on that/other OS behaves.
I like "boring" programs. I.e. programs that does not try to reinvent the wheel, but rather present the options that one would expect to see at a given place and time given our individual but still highly correlated experience with software products.
So basically you want programmes to never change paradigms or try to improve on decades old ways of working. Despite the fact you that these established things in themselves were supplanted previous ways of working and quite revolutionary in their own right.
What really needs to happen is people like yourself have to realise is that progress is only made by moving on from the antiquated way of doing things.
Also needing to use a tutorial/guide to have new much better ways of doing things is far better and easier than staying with old but rather crap ways of working. Afterall you only need to look at guide once, whereas you are stuck with the old slow way for ever.
Intuitive when used about software is mostly nonsense, because people almost always mean it's just like like something I used before.
-
Maybe more importantly they should look at what their customers like and don't want changing.
Fixing 'problems' of novice understanding by changing the UI and functionality seems backwards to me.
Was the import dialogue really such a barrier to the adoption of Lightroom ?
So I hear. Existing users will adapt, and no doubt some stuff will come back.
-
2. Discourage use of the Import dialog as a culling tool. Get the pictures in Library and use its better review and metadata tools.
For a lot of volume shooters this was one of the main purposes of the import module. Why would you want to take the time to import, build 1:1 previews, review and delete (a process that can take a long time) when you can simply pick the likely keepers and import. I use PhotoMechanic and FastRawViewer, but I would have preferred to use Lightroom. The only problem with was that Lightroom was a titch slow at displaying the embedded jpeg previews. Wish they would focus on substance, like improving performance.
-
Also worth noting is the Victoria Bampton/Lightroom Queen on her blog post where she lists the changes in OP, she unusually recommends not upgrading to 6.2. Because it feels like a rushed release.
-
For a lot of volume shooters this was one of the main purposes of the import module. Why would you want to take the time to import, build 1:1 previews, review and delete (a process that can take a long time) when you can simply pick the likely keepers and import. I use PhotoMechanic and FastRawViewer, but I would have preferred to use Lightroom. The only problem with was that Lightroom was a titch slow at displaying the embedded jpeg previews. Wish they would focus on substance, like improving performance.
Agreed ... if Adobe really, truly wished to offer improvements and enhancements to the import process ... they should have offered a method to cut down the time it takes to import a batch of photos. If I were Adobe, I would strive to develop my software so as to allow users to avoid the option of purchasing competing options like Photo Mechanic in order to meet strict deadlines .... eventually, the grass may indeed be greener on the opposite side of the fence and result in a costly (to Adobe) migration if PM would ever improve upon it's feature set to make it a more fully capable option to Lr.
Like offering the option to forego the creation of previews until a later point in the process by utilizing the embedded jpegs in the interim. Or the option to only import "tagged" images so as to better meet deadlines.
This is how PM, Aperture and several other options have been able to much more quickly import images. And something I recall that was requested on the Adobe Labs forum as far back as the Lr 2 public beta ... and many, many times since ... alas the request has fallen upon deaf ears as once Again, Adobe knows better than we users what is important to our workflow.
-
You have that quick preview option in Bridge as it happens. Been there a very long time now.
-
You have that quick preview option in Bridge as it happens. Been there a very long time now.
Which is even more disconcerting as to why the capability is not available in Lr.
-
Indeed.
But don't assume those working on different parts of CC have anything to do with each other.
-
Indeed.
But don't assume those working on different parts of CC have anything to do with each other.
But also don't assume that every Lr user also has Bridge/ACR available.
-
For a lot of volume shooters this was one of the main purposes of the import module. Why would you want to take the time to import, build 1:1 previews, review and delete (a process that can take a long time) when you can simply pick the likely keepers and import. I use PhotoMechanic and FastRawViewer, but I would have preferred to use Lightroom. The only problem with was that Lightroom was a titch slow at displaying the embedded jpeg previews. Wish they would focus on substance, like improving performance.
Yes, I know, but even then Import remains a pretty crap place to review and compare images - eg where's a side by side comparison like in Library, how do you add a flag to one and not the other etc? Essentially this issue, and others like Move, are a case of Import being asked to be a workaround for failings elsewhere such as the lack of GPU-accelerated review of embedded previews in Library.
-
Yes, I know, but even then Import remains a pretty crap place to review and compare images - eg where's a side by side comparison like in Library, how do you add a flag to one and not the other etc? Essentially this issue, and others like Move, are a case of Import being asked to be a workaround for failings elsewhere such as the lack of GPU-accelerated review of embedded previews in Library.
I agree about the import module short comings you mention, but the premise that this should be done in the library is flawed: it is dumb to copy 1000 raw files to a hard disk when you only want the 50 that are in perfect focus. One of the strengths of Lightroom is it's focus on intelligent and efficient workflows. Whoever worked on the import module obviously did not get that memo.
-
I agree about the import module short comings you mention, but the premise that this should be done in the library is flawed: it is dumb to copy 1000 raw files to a hard disk when you only want the 50 that are in perfect focus. One of the strengths of Lightroom is it's focus on intelligent and efficient workflows. Whoever worked on the import module obviously did not get that memo.
I'd say that while the 1000 are being copied to the hard disk (and backed up) in the background, in that same time you can be finding the 50 using the better review and comparison tools available in Library. You're also tending to assume exposures permit decisions to be made in Import. Yes for some high volume shooters, no for others. But there will always come a point where the user's needs for fast turnaround outweigh the advantages of better review/comparison tools and the ability to tweak exposures.
-
In principle I agree with all the grumbles about things being removed. It's very irritating when a feature I remove disappears, or is made more difficult to use.
However, there are sometimes features that really are bad practice, and I'd support their removal even though lots of people swear on their sainted grandmother's grave how useful it is. Sometimes such features just increase the risk of errors for everyone (including those that use them by mistake or ignorance).
An example in Photoshop is the many obscure colour management choices that might have had some historical use before colour management was fully implemented but are now a constant source of exotic and mysterious error. You've only to browse forums to see the problems people get into with Photoshop colour management. Lightroom has no options for colour management, and you can't get it wrong.
In Lightroom I think Move during import can be dangerous. Import can be a confusing and error-prone process. By normal data management principles, one should assume that data is extremely fragile until there are at least two copies. Best practice is not to mix importing with culling. Cull on the camera, or import and then cull. And unless you're the sort that likes Russian Roulette (or really doesn't care if photos disappear) I'd recommend not deleting from memory cards until the data is loaded onto a PC and backed up. At the risk of upsetting people, and setting sainted grandmothers spinning in their graves, God rest their souls, I'm happy to see the back of Move in import.
Now ducking for cover.
-
Lightroom has no options for colour management, and you can't get it wrong.
It has loads of CM options in various places and, yes, people do get it wrong.
-
It has loads of CM options in various places and, yes, people do get it wrong.
Hmm... well, in the Print Module you can choose print profile and rendering intent I suppose. Can't think of any other. However, I'm sure you're not going to say it has anything like as many CM options as Photoshop.
-
But also don't assume that every Lr user also has Bridge/ACR available.
Well don't assume that I was, because I wasn't. :P
I was just pointing out the fact that Adobe does what people ask for in another bit of software. So are perfectly capable of doing what people are requesting.
-
I agree about the import module short comings you mention, but the premise that this should be done in the library is flawed: it is dumb to copy 1000 raw files to a hard disk when you only want the 50 that are in perfect focus. One of the strengths of Lightroom is it's focus on intelligent and efficient workflows. Whoever worked on the import module obviously did not get that memo.
I'd say that premise of culling raw files that are undeveloped is the flawed workflow.
As is culling without 100% previews, as how can tell if something is properly sharp or not?
Copying files to disk does not take that long these days and if you are in that much of a hurry you'd be shooting JPEG and using photo mechanic instead.
I always copy my images to the hard disk before importing to LR anyway to make sure all data is intact. LR then simply moves them on same HD to the correct folders on import, whilst applying a basic develop preset to the shots.
-
Hmm... well, in the Print Module you can choose print profile and rendering intent I suppose. Can't think of any other.
Have a look at the export dialogue. You can export images with many inappropriate profiles which opens the door for all sorts of errors. Similarly you can soft proof with the wrong profile.
There's certainly room for error for those without enough CM knowledge.
-
Hmm... well, in the Print Module you can choose print profile and rendering intent I suppose. Can't think of any other. However, I'm sure you're not going to say it has anything like as many CM options as Photoshop.
LR has no options as to the colour space it works it, as it always uses Melissa. After that, when you export to file/print you can choose the appropriate colour setting.
-
Yes, I know, but even then Import remains a pretty crap place to review and compare images - eg where's a side by side comparison like in Library, how do you add a flag to one and not the other etc? Essentially this issue, and others like Move, are a case of Import being asked to be a workaround for failings elsewhere such as the lack of GPU-accelerated review of embedded previews in Library.
John, you misunderstand ... The reason I used quotations ... was for in-camera "flagged" or "locked" images. Many PJ's and sports shooters cull and pick out potential premium images chimping the camera's LCD during breaks in the shoot. Of course this not ideal in the truest sense ... but better to only take the time to import the images most desired, rather than all.
Personally, I never cull in the import dialog ... but if Lightroom had the ability to choose to only import those camera selects like can be done in PM and Aperture ... I would't have to either.
-
Having had a chance to check out the changes, I will be skipping this "update." It's great to have a "simple" interface for new users, and even have that interface be the default, but I don't see any reason to remove advanced options that some people (including me) rely on for their workflow.
-
Agreed ... if Adobe really, truly wished to offer improvements and enhancements to the import process ... they should have offered a method to cut down the time it takes to import a batch of photos. If I were Adobe, I would strive to develop my software so as to allow users to avoid the option of purchasing competing options like Photo Mechanic in order to meet strict deadlines .... eventually, the grass may indeed be greener on the opposite side of the fence and result in a costly (to Adobe) migration if PM would ever improve upon it's feature set to make it a more fully capable option to Lr.
Like offering the option to forego the creation of previews until a later point in the process by utilizing the embedded jpegs in the interim. Or the option to only import "tagged" images so as to better meet deadlines.
This is how PM, Aperture and several other options have been able to much more quickly import images. And something I recall that was requested on the Adobe Labs forum as far back as the Lr 2 public beta ... and many, many times since ... alas the request has fallen upon deaf ears as once Again, Adobe knows better than we users what is important to our workflow.
Butch, don't say OUR when you do not represent everyone...not me for sure.
-
Butch, don't say OUR when you do not represent everyone...not me for sure.
If you don't feel included at least make an effort to explain why you would not benefit from speedier more efficient time saving imports of images into Lr.
-
hjulenissen has a history of complaining that PS and LR are too difficult for him to understand.
I find it increasingly difficult to keep my normally polite tone when I see your posts.
He also claimed to be a software engineer or similar at one point, which seemed remarkably at odds with his ongoing difficulties in learning basic software tools.
If you want to call me a liar, then please do so up front. The kind of tools I use for my work tend to be made by and for software people, (generally) mathematically minded people who appreciate structure and order (well, perhaps the gcc options are not). Something that can be compactly described but has deep implications is a lot more rewarding (to me) to study than some random collection of man-made rules that come and pass at the blink of an eye. I am sceptical about UI and user-interaction, whether it is more like science (converging to some, hopefully optimal philosophy), or if is more like fashion (cycling between whatever is deemed fashionable at the time by some guru). The debate on "skeumorphism" makes me even more sceptical
Apple do just that at times as it happens.
Yes and I generally applaud them for that, even if it can be painful.
What really needs to happen is people like yourself have to realise is that progress is only made by moving on from the antiquated way of doing things.
What really needs to happen is for people like yourself to realise that your own preferences and experiences does not make you an expert on other peoples preferences. In fact, your condescending view on what everyone else "should" do is quite tiresome. It is ok for you to offer opinions on what goes into Lightroom, but they are just that, opinions (just like mine).
I am all for new ways of doing things, but I am opposed to "newness for its own sake". Restricting possibilities in Lightroom vs Photoshop was a good (new) thing. Doing the non-destructive/parametric/database thingy was a good (new) thing. Reinventing UI paradigms is seldom a good thing, and one should have _very_ good reasons to do so.
Also needing to use a tutorial/guide to have new much better ways of doing things is far better and easier than staying with old but rather crap ways of working.
But needing a tutorial to have a new crap way of working is not any better than staying with the old crap way of working. In fact, it is considerably worse.
Intuitive when used about software is mostly nonsense, because people almost always mean it's just like like something I used before.
And what is the problem? Without knowing, there is a bunch of things that we take for granted with our computers (like the mouse pointer moving right when we move the mouse to the left). Apple flipped the direction of scrolling in some OSX version and it created a lot of noise. In the end, I don't think that that particular change made me any more efficient. Some parts of the world insist on putting the steering wheel on the wrong side of the car. The point is, by re-using established conventions (from a particular OS, from a particular field/culture, etc), people are able to use the tool for something useful with less effort.
I am annoyed at the people living in my house before me, putting light switches at variable heights so that when I enter a dark room, I have to feel my way along the wall until I can find a switch. There is simply (for, say, 99% of the cases) no good reason to break with those conventions, but some (small) penalty for breaking with it. Sure I can live quite well with this particular flaw (I bought the house after-all).
-h
-
I really appreciate how you spend the time to take something I say and then twist it to mean something different. That is when you aren't simply avoiding the point being made.
-
I'd say that while the 1000 are being copied to the hard disk (and backed up) in the background, in that same time you can be finding the 50 using the better review and comparison tools available in Library.
I do hope you are joking. Until 1:1 previews are generated the performance in the Lightroom library is painfully slow, even using the latest and greatest hardware.
The obvious workflow is to filter out images as early as possible in the process. When in doubt include for later review. I'll just keep using Photo Mechanic. At least they understand the needs of high volume shooters. When I look at the ergonomics and speed of Photo Mechanic, and the speed and promise of FastRawViewer, I wonder why a company with the resources Adobe has cannot compete.
-
I'd say that premise of culling raw files that are undeveloped is the flawed workflow.
As is culling without 100% previews, as how can tell if something is properly sharp or not?
Well, almost all sports and most wildlife photographers are using a flawed workflow then.
The embedded jpegs are just fine for evaluating focus. You just need a tool that allows 1:1 viewing and fast rendering. I'm not talking landscapes, but sports and wildlife photography, where you want to nail the eyes, and the way to do this is to take a lot of shots and then quickly pick the ones that worked. When FastRawViewer has another couple of features, likely in the next release, we will have the best of both worlds: lightning fast rendering and evaluation using the raw file.
-
I really appreciate how you spend the time to take something I say and then twist it to mean something different. That is when you aren't simply avoiding the point being made.
My point is simple: please go somewhere else. Find someone else to play with.
-h
-
The obvious workflow is to filter out images as early as possible in the process. When in doubt include for later review. I'll just keep using Photo Mechanic. At least they understand the needs of high volume shooters.
Well, their market is those high volume shooters who need immediate turnaround. That's far from all high volume shooters, or a big enough segment to justify Adobe making the Import dialog any more than a poor culling tool.
-
The embedded jpegs are just fine for evaluating focus. You just need a tool that allows 1:1 viewing and fast rendering.
Embedded jpegs do not allow 100% viewing though. They are usually much lower res than raw file, so are more like viewing a full screen image in LR than a 100%.
So not quite good enough to judge true sharpness.
-
Embedded jpegs do not allow 100% viewing though. They are usually much lower res than raw file, so are more like viewing a full screen image in LR than a 100%.
So not quite good enough to judge true sharpness.
Hmmm. I'm shooting with a D810 and a 7DII. I'm pretty sure they generate full size embedded jpegs. Is this not the case?
Anyway it works for a lot of folks.
-
Embedded jpegs do not allow 100% viewing though. They are usually much lower res than raw file, so are more like viewing a full screen image in LR than a 100%.
So not quite good enough to judge true sharpness.
Baloney. Photographers do so utilizing other software options each and every day. Successfully so.
I base that assertion on over 40 years of shooting action sports as a full time working professional. Endorsed my first check for images published in Feb. 1975 and have been shooting high school, college and pro sports ever since. I am not guessing at my assertions. I live it and practice daily.
Can you get more detail from viewing a 100% RAW render vs the embedded jpeg? Absolutely. Does that equate that an experienced eye can't discern with enough accuracy to narrow down to the few selects to invest their time in importing for further processing ... vs importing the entire shoot? No.
While I would not recommend the workflow for all genres of photography ... there is no flaw in the process I and others have described. Is it ideal for all users? Of course not. Is it doable for high volume shooters? Without question. Do I ever discover that I made a wrong choice by making estimations based upon embedded jpegs? ... Almost never.
The bottom line is: Adobe should be offering broader options and improved efficiency for importing images into Lightroom ... not narrowing the options. I, for one, do not pay them to place more limitations upon my workflow. When other much more meager developers have offered such capabilities for years and years ... why is it wrong to request such capabilities from a software developer that measures it's revenues in the billions?
-
Embedded jpegs do not allow 100% viewing though. They are usually much lower res than raw file, so are more like viewing a full screen image in LR than a 100%.
So not quite good enough to judge true sharpness.
That's totally wrong, as this sample from an EOS-1D X illustrates:
$ exiv2 -p p pr /data/Photos/processing/2015/20150926/20150926-1900-199-iso5000-f5.6-11mm-40.cr2
Preview 1: image/jpeg, 160x120 pixels, 17786 bytes
Preview 2: image/tiff, 668x448 pixels, 1795584 bytes
Preview 3: image/jpeg, 5184x3456 pixels, 3253382 bytes
-
I'm not talking landscapes, but sports and wildlife photography, where you want to nail the eyes, and the way to do this is to take a lot of shots and then quickly pick the ones that worked.
Beats me why no one has published an importing program (or improved an existing one) that automatically detects the eyes and flags which of a group are in best focus. Can't be too difficult these days, given advances in image recognition and machine learning. It might be computationally expensive though. It would be great if the fast raw viewer folks are planning on doing that.
-
...
The bottom line is: Adobe should be offering broader options and improved efficiency for importing images into Lightroom ... not narrowing the options. I, for one, do not pay them to place more limitations upon my workflow. When other much more meager developers have offered such capabilities for years and years ... why is it wrong to request such capabilities from a software developer that measures it's revenues in the billions?
I don't think that it is ever "wrong" to make a request.
It may or might not make any sense though. Adobe makes some product for some target audience spending some available resources. Based on (I would think) some judgement about where they are likely to get a good return on their investement. If they reason that they can gain 1000 paying "soccer mums" by screwing over 3 professional sports photographers, should they not do it?`
I tend to see Lightroom as a balancing act between narrowing in (certain) possibilities, "dumbing it down" (so to speak) in order to (ideally) make a leaner, faster and more user-friendly application than e.g. Photoshop (and perhaps DXO and rawtherapee?). In some cases I very much agree with their choices (largely the develop module) in other cases I think that they must be insane (anything that involves selecting from a list of umpteen preset sizes instead of just giving me the freedom to place an image somewhere at some size).
I do understand that Lightroom is used by both professionals with high demands in certain aspects and amateurs (like myself) who perhaps value ease-of-use higher.
Personally, I never liked the Import functionality, so I am positive to a change. I did not try the new one yet, so I am preserving the right to dislike it as well :-)
-h
-
Personally, I never liked the Import functionality, so I am positive to a change. I did not try the new one yet, so I am preserving the right to dislike it as well :-)
-h
I am not opposed to change ... just needless change for the sake of change alone.
I'm all for simplification and streamlining the import process ... but on this attempt .... I am not convinced Adobe put forth their best effort ... yet I and those 1,000 soccer mums are required to reward all those at Adobe responsible for the effort regardless if that effort actually enhances MY bottom line.
-
Baloney. Photographers do so utilizing other software options each and every day. Successfully so.
I base that assertion on over 40 years of shooting action sports as a full time working professional. Endorsed my first check for images published in Feb. 1975 and have been shooting high school, college and pro sports ever since. I am not guessing at my assertions. I live it and practice daily.
Can you get more detail from viewing a 100% RAW render vs the embedded jpeg? Absolutely. Does that equate that an experienced eye can't discern with enough accuracy to narrow down to the few selects to invest their time in importing for further processing ... vs importing the entire shoot? No.
While I would not recommend the workflow for all genres of photography ... there is no flaw in the process I and others have described. Is it ideal for all users? Of course not. Is it doable for high volume shooters? Without question. Do I ever discover that I made a wrong choice by making estimations based upon embedded jpegs? ... Almost never.
The bottom line is: Adobe should be offering broader options and improved efficiency for importing images into Lightroom ... not narrowing the options. I, for one, do not pay them to place more limitations upon my workflow. When other much more meager developers have offered such capabilities for years and years ... why is it wrong to request such capabilities from a software developer that measures it's revenues in the billions?
You need the culling feature at import..I don't. By catering to every specific need, the application will soon balloon into an umanagable piece of shite. I'd rather Adobe move towards a simple paradigm where certain functions are done in logical places rather than making an interface that caters to a small niche market.
-
You need the culling feature at import..I don't. By catering to every specific need, the application will soon balloon into an umanagable piece of shite. I'd rather Adobe move towards a simple paradigm where certain functions are done in logical places rather than making an interface that caters to a small niche market.
You don't need the feature ... so no one should have it. ... Plus I didn't ask for 'culling" ... I asked for the ability to import only tagged images, not the entire card ... please actually read what I offered before you become hell bent on opposing what I suggest.
You miss the whole point .... the import dialog and UI for other apps that offer these capabilities is not cluttered, complicated or bloated (in fact both PM and Aperture take up a considerably smaller footprint than does Lr) ... Please tell me why if Adobe implemented such usefulness, how it would it impair your workflow? Are the folks who crunch the code for Adobe somehow less talented than their competitors?
Seems you can't really resist the temptation to be oil to my water ... not matter the topic.
-
I'd say that premise of culling raw files that are undeveloped is the flawed workflow.
I would agree for many, but sort of depends on your workflow and what you shoot. My typical shoot is less than 100 images, and about 10 or so of those are shot simply to nail exposure. I always check them off in the Lightroom import dialog because I don't need or want them. Very easy and quick, much more efficient than importing the large files then deleting them later.(and doesn't write a copy to the second location which is typically my startup drive).
Personally I"m surprised Adobe made such changes, since I think the established base of users is pretty large and most had managed just fine since LR has been introduced. Sort of a "if it ain't broke, why fix it" kind of thing to me. At least have an "advanced" toggle so the old interface is available for those that prefer it.
-
Personally I"m surprised Adobe made such changes, since I think the established base of users is pretty large and most had managed just fine since LR has been introduced. Sort of a "if it ain't broke, why fix it" kind of thing to me. At least have an "advanced" toggle so the old interface is available for those that prefer it.
Sounds very sensible to me.
-
Hmmm. I'm shooting with a D810 and a 7DII. I'm pretty sure they generate full size embedded jpegs. Is this not the case?
Anyway it works for a lot of folks.
It wasn't the case for me last time I looked at them. Significantly smaller as far as I recall and why I found them less useful than others seem to.
Did some looking around for size info on them and came across this...
"Also note that not all cameras embed a full-sized JPEG in the raw file. Canon models up to the 1D Mark III embedded either a one-fourth or half-sized JPEG preview; more recent cameras embed a full size.'
Which seemed to tally with my experience last time I looked at embedded jpegs. They may also be more heavily compressed.
That's totally wrong, as this sample from an EOS-1D X illustrates:
That camera is not all cameras, so only proves a point for that particular camera. Anyway see quote above.
-
When I import the default seems to be all images n the folder selected are ticked and on the top right is a button indicating the number of images selected for import. All well and good but when I press the import button at that point I am taken back to the library module and a warning comes up telling me no photographed were able to be imported.
The way I have found around this is too deselect all images, no ticks on any thumbnails, and then select all again. After this little run around the import progresses as per normal.
A bit irritating as it took me a little while to work it out.
Otherwise no big deal. I did prefer seeing the folder structure I was importing into as with my commercial work it's all job number and folder based. Glad the move is gone. Never liked that.
I teach LR about once a month and the import is the place my students have the biggest trouble. I'm curious to see if this change helps. It could be my weak teaching of course.
-
That camera is not all cameras, so only proves a point for that particular camera.
Sorry, i didn't realize you had only 8 year old cameras in mind. These days cameras of the kind Photo Mechanic users use all have full-size embedded JPEGs so they can display the zoomed-in image on the back of their camera's high-resolution LCD.
-
Sorry, i didn't realize you had only 8 year old cameras in mind.
I didn't. I was just showing that it isn't automatically the case that all cameras have full sized jpegs.
Don't extrapolate my comments to mean something else. It get tedious.
-
Not a fan of the new import process. 1. visually, it isn't consistent with LR's look and feel 2. not understanding a separate page used to locate files for import 3. prefer changes that are additive--increased culling capabilities, not less.
But, that is me. In my perfect world, Adobe would buy out Photo Mechanic and make that the import mod.
-
A performance hit is mentioned here (https://youtu.be/q4tq7aDr_1w?t=9m11s) with regard to the new import dialogue. And how to turn it off.
-
A performe hit is mentioned here (https://youtu.be/q4tq7aDr_1w?t=9m11s) with regard to the new import dialogue. And how to turn it off.
Interesting ... if you watch the entire video, Laura's list of what's been removed seems considerably longer than what's been added to the new Import dialog ....
I don't understand why a UI update must equate with the loss of functionality.
Unless of course the project is only half-baked and they had to rush it out prematurely in order to have something pretty to show off at Adobe Max reveal ...
Either way, I still think they screwed the pooch on this one ...
-
I far better realised after watching the video I linked to above the ramifications of the new import dialogue.
I always use move on import as I copy files [from possibly several sources] to same HD as where LR photos are stored, check everything has imported properly and then import to LR. LR then just moves items to correct folder on same HD. This was because LR didn't and still doesn't always copy all files off the disk/phone and data can get left behind. I also seem to recall on testing such things a while back that Adobe software was slower at copying than using a file browser to move the same data.
Now I have to copy off HD/phone, copy into LR and then delete from two locations rather than just off the card to be safe.
So more chances of mistakes and at least doubling time to import data.
Also removing by feedback about what is going to be done such as with file renaming and file destinations, this is only going to increase mistakes on import.
LR seems to have gone down the simplistic route rather than a simpler route. I seen no benefit to removing these features as they will only increase the chance of errors, so anything but novice friendly - the supposed justification.
-
Interesting ... if you watch the entire video, Laura's list of what's been removed seems considerably longer than what's been added to the new Import dialog ....
I don't understand why a UI update must equate with the loss of functionality.
Adobe [well photoshop] used to be good at not doing that. A shame John Nack is not still at Adobe.
Unless of course the project is only half-baked and they had to rush it out prematurely in order to have something pretty to show off at Adobe Max reveal ...
Either way, I still think they screwed the pooch on this one ...
Lightroom Queen website advised against the update whilst musing much the same thing, i.e. rushed out to hit the show.
-
... LR didn't and still doesn't always copy all files off the disk/phone and data can get left behind. ...
I have been using Lr since V1.0. and I never found a single instance where image files were left behind or copied incorrectly. I copy (not move) files from flash cards to the HD. No sense in moving (i.e., deleting source files) as it is better (for technical reasons) to simply format cards in-camera.
-
I made a caustic reply in the rapidly growing thread on Adobe's feedback forum about the import module debacle http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/new-update-6-2. I received a very interesting like (see below). Perhaps the natives are rising...
(http://roryhill.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v52/p1534110511.png)
-
I have been using Lr since V1.0. and I never found a single instance where image files were left behind or copied incorrectly. I copy (not move) files from flash cards to the HD. No sense in moving (i.e., deleting source files) as it is better (for technical reasons) to simply format cards in-camera.
Lightroom has never permitted the "move " option from cards, this is still the case today.
-
I made a caustic reply in the rapidly growing thread on Adobe's feedback forum about the import module debacle http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/new-update-6-2. I received a very interesting like (see below). Perhaps the natives are rising...
Is Chris no longer working for Adobe then?
EDIT - He also liked my post describing how the new interface would only increase errors. Interesting.
-
I have been using Lr since V1.0. and I never found a single instance where image files were left behind or copied incorrectly. I copy (not move) files from flash cards to the HD. No sense in moving (i.e., deleting source files) as it is better (for technical reasons) to simply format cards in-camera.
Just because you have not experienced something, does not mean that particular something does not happen.
Any file types that LR does not acknowledge will be left on card. Movie files were an issue until LR relented and half heartedly accepted their existence. I nearly deleted some after testing LRs copy from card and discovering that it was potentially disastrous.
Also other very knowledgeable people have argued very cogently that formatting in camera is in fact a waste of time/not good practice. Not to mention that I've been caught out by using a card that was not emptied by computer, which I forgot to format before use and ended up running out of space. Having to individually delete images when working is not good. Far safer to delete properly off card straight after emptying, less chance of operator error that way I find. Having to reformat a stack of cards from several cameras at end of a long day is simply not worth the faff.
-
Is Chris no longer working for Adobe then?
Maybe he likes my looking for an alternative 😝
-
Lightroom is doing Windows 8. Let's hope there is a Windows 10 trick coming.
-
Lightroom is doing Windows 8. Let's hope there is a Windows 10 trick coming.
You mean a partial, grudging retreat, but still leaving a UI that's a hotch potch of old and new (with different UI paradigms), and start menu back, but messed with because no way are they going to admit they were wrong?
-
You mean a partial, grudging retreat, but still leaving a UI that's a hotch potch of old and new (with different UI paradigms), and start menu back, but messed with because no way are they going to admit they were wrong?
Well that would at least be better than the current mess.
-
Lightroom has never permitted the "move " option from cards, this is still the case today.
Good to know, however, the point of my post was to state my experience in not missing source files on an import. I never checked if a move option was even available, a bad thing in any case.
It would be helpful if there were other reports of missing files on a flash card data transfer in Lr...
-
I've had files not copy from cards whilst using LR.
Anything it won't recognise in the Library gets ignored, leading to potential data loss as I mentioned above.
-
I've had files not copy from cards whilst using LR.
Anything it won't recognise in the Library gets ignored, leading to potential data loss as I mentioned above.
What does that mean? For example... if a card contains RAW images will some of those files be skipped? If a card contains both RAW images and JPEGS, will there be missing files of either kind?
-
No, it means what I said above. Twice.
Anything it won't recognise in the Library gets ignored, leading to potential data loss.
-
No, it means what I said above. Twice.
Anything it won't recognise in the Library gets ignored, leading to potential data loss.
What is there to be recognized (and copied from a flash card) other than image files (RAW, JPEG)?
-
I think everyone should take a look here to see how the new Import UI is faring with users:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/new-update-6-2?page=1
Ian
-
I think everyone should take a look here to see how the new Import UI is faring with users:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/new-update-6-2?page=1
Ian
Yes, and you can read here just how concerned and understanding the Lightroom manager is with all this 'feedback' ...
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html)
I would love to see just how large the pool of new users where Adobe reps actually did visit new users in their homes to determine their choice to revamp the Import dialog. I'd be curious just how many instances it took to initiate the action for this move.
Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to updates and/or streamlining the process ... but those concerns should not supersede established and existing capabilities without justifying the process. The replacement/improvement should hold value for all users, not a select few that have yet to invested anything in the process.
Based upon the participation and content of the feedback forum, it really indicates that Adobe management is tone deaf and out of touch with a pretty significant cross-section of their existing user base.
-
Best thing to do seems to be to not install this update.
-
What is there to be recognized (and copied from a flash card) other than image files (RAW, JPEG)?
Well there are many kinds of movie files for a start. You could be importing from a phone and LR doesn't like the screen capture image file format and so on.
-
Yes, and you can read here just how concerned and understanding the Lightroom manager is with all this 'feedback' ...
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html)
I commented on that yesterday it's still awaiting moderation. Not alone there going by some posts in the LR forum.
The thing I think the 'research' missed is that is was the concept of importing that is what confuses newbie LR users, not the import dialogue itself.
-
The thing I think the 'research' missed is that is was the concept of importing that is what confuses newbie LR users, not the import dialogue itself.
Not necessarily. Speaking as the author of a program that imports photos & videos to the computer, my experience of supporting photographers of varying levels of experience leads me to realize that what seems obvious to you and me might be bewildering or even totally unknown to others.
Personally I have a lot of empathy for the Lightroom team in this instance, because there clearly was a problem for new users with the original import process that needed to be fixed. The status quo was untenable. Hopefully they'll get their revisions right in the fullness of time, satisfying as many people as possible.
Meanwhile power users might like to investigate using photo & video importing tools that run independently of LR, leaving LR with only the final step and most basic step of importing the files into the catalogue.
-
Damon, jjj,
You're probably both right. I've also had to design UIs for inexperienced users. For complex tasks, there needs to be some way to deal with all types of user. A well-designed UI is intuitive and not baffling to newcomers, but provides the additional functionality that more experienced users want. Adobe seem to be saying that the previous interface pleased the second group but not the first. Now they have something that (perhaps) pleases the first group but frustrates the second. Neither can be counted on as a success.
The new UI is pretty dire. Just compare the look of the old and new at http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html). You can't see images that you're importing properly: even selected images are greyed out and there's the huge check mark over them. Many previous advanced options are hidden or missing.
It looks like a early prototype design of a UI for newcomers to computing. I'm quite sure they can do better.
-
Not necessarily. Speaking as the author of a program that imports photos & videos to the computer, my experience of supporting photographers of varying levels of experience leads me to realize that what seems obvious to you and me might be bewildering or even totally unknown to others.
Not sure why you assumed that. But I said the concept of importing was the problem not the dialogue, because when teaching people LR the database nature of the programme is the stumbling block for many. Not the import mechanism but the idea behind it. Which has nothing to do with how easy or hard I found something.
Personally I have a lot of empathy for the Lightroom team in this instance, because there clearly was a problem for new users with the original import process that needed to be fixed. The status quo was untenable. Hopefully they'll get their revisions right in the fullness of time, satisfying as many people as possible.
Maybe the correct way to fix that problem is to direct such users to Bridge/ACR as that has basically the same tools but without any importing needed, because Bridge isn't a database. Or have a little tutorial [as many programmes do] on how/why to import when first using LR.
-
You're probably both right. I've also had to design UIs for inexperienced users. For complex tasks, there needs to be some way to deal with all types of user. A well-designed UI is intuitive and not baffling to newcomers, but provides the additional functionality that more experienced users want.
It's tricky to design an intuitive UI for an unfamiliar process. Why? 'Intuitive' in reality is almost always used incorrectly as a synonym for 'familiar' rather than its true sense of easy to understand/work out. LR is based on a different way of working to one which most people are familiar with and that is what throws them.
Not saying the import dialogue couldn't have been improved by the way.
Adobe seem to be saying that the previous interface pleased the second group but not the first. Now they have something that (perhaps) pleases the first group but frustrates the second. Neither can be counted on as a success.
The new dialogue is full of issues which will lead to an increase in mistakes and errors for both old and new users. The new users won't realise the problems with dialogue rejig as they are well new, so may be fooled into thinking it works for them
-
... because there clearly was a problem for new users with the original import process that needed to be fixed.
That's all well and good ... I don't think anyone would deny that making improvements and/or simplifying and streamlining the process of importing files is a unwise move on Adobe's part. Though the removal of capabilities that even Adobe once thought valuable (or why were they ever included previously?) should be troubling to everyone. More importantly, these were capabilities that many current users have come to rely upon in their daily tasks ... and indeed they PAID for the capabilities. The arbitrary unannounced removal of these capabilities is purely incredulous and illustrates just how out of touch some of these decision makers really are with many of their customers.
-
I don't see why they couldn't simply have a Basic and Advanced tab/button to satisfy both sets of users.
-
I don't see why they couldn't simply have a Basic and Advanced tab/button to satisfy both sets of users.
Another item I find curious, in the early tutorial videos from Julianne Kost and Laura Shoe, they both go over the nuts and bolts of the how-to of the new Import dialog .... and the list of what is gone ... seems to be longer than the list of what remains. I also find it curious that neither of these reputable, established instructors really didn't step up and extol the virtues of this new dialog as compared to the previous ... both of whom have a historical record of pointing out such value previously.
-
Who is the final decision maker at Adobe for Lightroom? From what I have seen in the past it is not the product manager, but rather a key, influential engineer. We all know who calls the shots for ACR.
-
Another new upgrade released today. Promises to fix crashing and performance issues.
-
Who is the final decision maker at Adobe for Lightroom? From what I have seen in the past it is not the product manager, but rather a key, influential engineer. We all know who calls the shots for ACR.
Whilst what you say is/maybe true, the changes to the import section isn't anything to do with the develop module (aka ACR in different clothing).
Anthony.
-
Whilst what you say is/maybe true, the changes to the import section isn't anything to do with the develop module (aka ACR in different clothing).
Anthony.
I did not mean to suggest that.
-
I don't see why they couldn't simply have a Basic and Advanced tab/button to satisfy both sets of users.
+1
-
I did not mean to suggest that.
Ahh... sorry I misunderstood.
Anthony.
-
You're probably both right. I've also had to design UIs for inexperienced users. For complex tasks, there needs to be some way to deal with all types of user. A well-designed UI is intuitive and not baffling to newcomers, but provides the additional functionality that more experienced users want.
I friend of mine taught Java 101 for computer BSc students. This friend was shocked at the inability of 20-year olds (who had chosen an education in computers) to navigate the file system and find the files that contained this weeks assignements, let alone actually solving those assignements.
I don't know how to present files in a sensible way to experts and novices alike. As a relative newcomer to OSX, I don't find that system to be the end-all perfect system that one might expect from those who have "seen the light".
Presenting things that are conceptually "complex" to novice users seems like a very hard task. Thankfully, not all things needs that complexity. Some tasks are just simple, and should be presented as such to the users.
-h
-
I friend of mine taught Java 101 for computer BSc students. This friend was shocked at the inability of 20-year olds (who had chosen an education in computers) to navigate the file system and find the files that contained this weeks assignements, let alone actually solving those assignements.
I don't know how to present files in a sensible way to experts and novices alike. As a relative newcomer to OSX, I don't find that system to be the end-all perfect system that one might expect from those who have "seen the light".
Presenting things that are conceptually "complex" to novice users seems like a very hard task. Thankfully, not all things needs that complexity. Some tasks are just simple, and should be presented as such to the users.
-h
This is very interesting. Many years ago, when I first came to using computers, I chose an Apple Mac over a PC because I found the navigation of the file system easier to understand and navigate. I prefer graphical representations of things rather than text so the Apple system, which was then quite straight forward, was easy for me to grasp. The system is simply hierarchical; a folder can contain anything, including files and other folders. However, as time went on complexity has been aded to the GUI and it has, in my view, been partly deprecated by a policy of trying bring about harmonisation with the IOS system used on iPhones and iPads. The philosophy behind IOS seems to be to hide the inner workings from the user so the filing system is not easily accessible. IMO this has, to a degree, deprecated the transparency of the Apple Mac filing system which was one of its greatest strengths.
The unsimplified Import dialogue for Lightroom had the benefit transparency, of showing you exactly what you were doing; but it made for a complicated window with many choices which, when you are learning to use the application, is necessary to take some time to look at, absorb, and understand. Now that I have grasped how it works I find it logical and helpful in importing images, whether RAW files/JPGs from a camera card, or existing PSD's from a hard disk, or whatever. It also had the benefit of some redundancy (alternatives and options for importing), allowing the possibility of digging yourself out of a hole if you had screwed-up !
-
This is very interesting. Many years ago, when I first came to using computers, I chose an Apple Mac over a PC because I found the navigation of the file system easier to understand and navigate. I prefer graphical representations of things rather than text so the Apple system, which was then quite straight forward, was easy for me to grasp.
Was this pre-Windows then?
-
As a relative newcomer to OSX, I don't find that system to be the end-all perfect system that one might expect from those who have "seen the light".
Good old MS Dos was the best, even earlier windows - just simple and obvious.
Mac is a nightmare, as are the later versions of Windows where it seems a complete lottery as to where some files turn up - documents, app data, local/roaming ... etc.
-
As a relative newcomer to OSX, I don't find that system to be the end-all perfect system that one might expect from those who have "seen the light".
That's due to choice supportive bias which gets even stronger as the price of the purchase goes up. Hence the rabid nature of Apple fanbois.
OSX has plenty of problems and issues just like Windows. Data management of large amounts of data can be particularly painful. I highly recommend installing Pathfinder (http://www.cocoatech.com/pathfinder/) so you can bypass the execrable Finder as much as possible.
Presenting things that are conceptually "complex" to novice users seems like a very hard task. Thankfully, not all things needs that complexity. Some tasks are just simple, and should be presented as such to the users.
Apple can make very simple things dreadfully complex to do by removing buttons and or basic features in a wrongheaded attempt to make things easier. It makes their software simplistic and hard to use instead.
-
Good old MS Dos was the best, even earlier windows - just simple and obvious.
Mac is a nightmare, as are the later versions of Windows where it seems a complete lottery as to where some files turn up - documents, app data, local/roaming ... etc.
I think that file navigation in Windows 95 or so was quite intuitive (although stability might not have been quite there). You had a set of "drives", and any file would be in a folder of your choice. Amazingly simple concept, amazingly efficient at (manually) finding stuff. When saving a file, it was relatively easy to actually specify where you wanted in (using whatever system made sense to you), and finding it at the exact same spot later.
Granted, many users simply saved _all_ of their files on their desktop. So some "auto-organization" (be it searches, default destinations or whatever) was probably sensible.
-h
-
Everything they pared, I completely understand if the target audience is the twice a month hobbyist. I've worked with a lot of them in photography workshops, and these folks are going to love the changes.
However, they screwed up the options choices that someone who makes a living on what they shoot depend on. I'm still trying to figure out how to do something I did ALL THE TIME when importing.
Here's the thing they didn't think about. Guys like me, and my friends, who teach workshops, are now going to change from guiding newbies through the complexity to speaking ill of Lightroom.
It's bad. I just got off of a call with several photographers and we've agreed to angel fund a startup in asset management and first level processing. Dear Adobe - read a little history.... Wang. Digital Equipment. Owned their domains, disrespected their core in search of innovation that those outside their core didn't care about at all.
-
I think that file navigation in Windows 95 or so was quite intuitive (although stability might not have been quite there). You had a set of "drives", ...
The same file structure (you refer too in old OSs) is on Windows 10 and OS X El Capitan. Nothing changed.
-
The same file structure (you refer too in old OSs) is on Windows 10 and OS X El Capitan. Nothing changed.
(I have no experience with older macs)
While the basic file systems may have been similar, the way that the OS _presents_ the file system certainly have changed. That is what I was referring to with "file navigation".
I would love for OSX to present my iPhone as a "removable drive" that I could simply move files into and out of. In the folder structure that makes sense to me. 3rd party applications might be able to do this, and terminal window gurus might be able to do similar things, but both of those come with certain drawbacks.
Both Microsoft and Apple seems to want to "abstract away" the fact that there is a file system at the bottom of their OS/application stacks. This may well benefit many users (shepard them away from doing bad choices), but it does cause loss of control with what is going on. Things just "magically happen".
This is why I am storing my images in a file structure that I own and maintain. Lightroom (or any better competitor I might choose at one time) may peek and look and render and search among those files as they see fit, but I am the boss when it comes to placing raw files in that structure.
-h
-
I find it strange that Adobe assume new users to be less computer literate that the earlier LR users, we were all new users at some point, yet it never seemed to be a problem figuring out the import part of LR before. Yet now is a world were every youngster spends hours a day on computers we seem to have to dumb things down for todays new users.
I suppose the question is how far do they go, what other parts of LR are too complicated for modern users, I really don't see a happy ending.
-
I find it strange that Adobe assume new users to be less computer literate that the earlier LR users, we were all new users at some point, yet it never seemed to be a problem figuring out the import part of LR before. Yet now is a world were every youngster spends hours a day on computers we seem to have to dumb things down for todays new users.
I suppose the question is how far do they go, what other parts of LR are too complicated for modern users, I really don't see a happy ending.
They don't assume that. They've done "extensive studies" "over the years" that demonstrated Import was putting off people who might have been Lightroom users. See here (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html)
Lightroom has always hidden complexity that users don't need to understand - eg colour management.
-
I just got off of a call with several photographers and we've agreed to angel fund a startup in asset management and first level processing.
What is your vision and what are your goals?
-
They don't assume that. They've done "extensive studies" "over the years" that demonstrated Import was putting off people who might have been Lightroom users. See here (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html)
From Adobe:
Customers were universally unable to decipher the Import dialog without getting frustrated. Some people pushed forward, bolstered by spending time searching the web for help. They might have been successful in importing files, but they didn’t feel successful. Others gave up, deciding that Lightroom might not be the right product for them.
If this is the case why not include a video help of how to import into LR. Is this thought just too revolutionary for Adobe? Wouldn't this solve the issues they are talking about very efficiently?
If a one man band like Qimage Ultimate can provide training videos with their software why can't Adobe?
Ian
(LR user since V1)
-
From Adobe:
Customers were universally unable to decipher the Import dialog without getting frustrated. Some people pushed forward, bolstered by spending time searching the web for help. They might have been successful in importing files, but they didn’t feel successful. Others gave up, deciding that Lightroom might not be the right product for them.
If this is the case why not include a video help of how to import into LR. Is this thought just too revolutionary for Adobe? Wouldn't this solve the issues they are talking about very efficiently?
Clearly not, Ian. The world isn't short of tutorial material, is it?
-
Clearly not, Ian. The world isn't short of tutorial material, is it?
Quite so. Providing tutorials and instructions is a good idea, but many people won't use them. Saying "well, if they can't be bothered to read the instructions or watch the videos, then it's their own fault" might be true, but it doesn't help sell product. Clearly it's a bad idea to annoy existing users with a botched attempt to make it easier for new users, but a UI that Adobe has found to be offputting for new users is also a pretty bad idea. Let's hope the next attempt is rather better.
Over the years I've watched on forums the reactions expressed by newcomers to LR (including people that don't use LR because they know - they just know - how awful it is, and how it forces an alien file structure and takes over your computer). There seem to be two unfamiliar concepts to grasp:
- The function of the catalogue
- The nature of parametric non-destructive editing
If you haven't got your head around the catalogue - what it is, why it's used and its involvement in parametric editing - then the import process is going to seem positively bizarre. In practice, importing usually involves two quite distinct functions: copying images from memory card to the hard drive (possibly renaming them on the way) and importing into the catalogue. To me it's no wonder that people not familiar with all this can get confused.
I can well understand why Adobe want to make the default import process very, very simple, and hide most of the options well out of view. Many of those options are likely to confuse new users and lead them into bad choices, and might be better hidden in an "Advanced Mode" or some such, possibly with "there be dragons, don't go that place" warnings for new users.
But don't remove those tricky options (unless there really is no sensible use for them), just hide them from default view.
-
I can well understand why Adobe want to make the default import process very, very simple, and hide most of the options well out of view. Many of those options are likely to confuse new users and lead them into bad choices, and might be better hidden in an "Advanced Mode" or some such, possibly with "there be dragons, don't go that place" warnings for new users.
Indeed, how hard could it be to add an 'advanced' user checkbox, which is off by default on first use???
Cheers,
Bart
-
They don't assume that. They've done "extensive studies" "over the years" that demonstrated Import was putting off people who might have been Lightroom users. See here (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html)
Lightroom has always hidden complexity that users don't need to understand - eg colour management.
I suspect removing items from a mature product may put off more users than they gain. Especially as we don't know how far it's going to go in the future.
-
In practice, importing usually involves two quite distinct functions: copying images from memory card to the hard drive (possibly renaming them on the way) and importing into the catalogue. To me it's no wonder that people not familiar with all this can get confused.
Too true. If they hadn't bundled the two together and called it "Import", there would be a lot less confusion for newcomers. Maybe "Copy" and "Register", or whatever makes most sense to most people.
Dave
-
They don't assume that. They've done "extensive studies" "over the years" that demonstrated Import was putting off people who might have been Lightroom users. See here (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html)
Lightroom has always hidden complexity that users don't need to understand - eg colour management.
1. I am well aware that Mr. Mangalick stated they performed 'extensive studies' ... but how many home visits were actually made? What number equates with 'extensive'? Whatever the number was, clearly it was not enough to supplant the previous version of the Import dialog in order to achieve that end. The results of what has transpired seem to indicate they were basing their decisions on either incomplete and/or inaccurate data points. How is it that potential market can take their photography seriously enough to learn the complexities to shoot and process RAW images, yet they hit the wall at the Import dialog in Lightroom? Sorry, I fail to see the wisdom that attracting those users to the fold is going to enhance Adobe's bottom line in a significant fashion over the long term ... especially when doing so ended up eroding their established customer satisfaction exponentially.
2. The traditional, established user base is not a collection of Rhodes Scholars with vastly superior mental capacity. (I include myself in that group as I know I am not eligible for Mensa membership and not afraid to admit it.) The current, average Lr user is not an advanced scholar that grasped the nuances and complexities of Lr upon first glance ... We all had to learn about that process. The difference was we had a desire to do so. I'm not sure you can code to achieve human desire to learn.
I have no issue with Adobe desiring to reach such goals, I do take exception to the manner and timing they employed to achieve that goal. It's been quite apparent I am not alone in that sentiment.
-
For a lot of volume shooters this was one of the main purposes of the import module. Why would you want to take the time to import, build 1:1 previews, review and delete (a process that can take a long time) when you can simply pick the likely keepers and import.
Probably I entirely missed the point, but can you not still do this, uncheck all the images and check on the ones you want?
-
Probably I entirely missed the point, but can you not still do this, uncheck all the images and check on the ones you want?
Jeremy, there was a 1:1 zoom, so some people sought to use Import to evaluate images. Library is designed for that task (eg side by side, quick develop etc).
-
The current, average Lr user is not an advanced scholar that grasped the nuances and complexities of Lr upon first glance ... We all had to learn about that process. The difference was we had a desire to do so.
Those of us who grew up with Lightroom may have a tendency to fail to appreciate how "difficult" it appears to someone coming to it fresh today.
When giving tuition to new Lightroom users, the Import procedure is what causes the most difficulty. I would say that, on average, nine out of ten new users have decided to only use the bare bones of the system. Whereas you and I plug in our memory card and let Lightroom copy the files to a hard disc, import them into the LR catalogue, apply our choice of default presets, etc., etc., etc. (wonderful system for you and me), new users tend to have given up on that. They will copy their Raw files to their PC using Explorer, do all of the sorting and pruning in Windows and then import only the files that they intend to work on immediately in LR.
Maybe Adobe's customer research showed a similar state.
-
Jeremy, there was a 1:1 zoom, so some people sought to use Import to evaluate images. Library is designed for that task (eg side by side, quick develop etc).
Aah - I see, thanks. Also it occurs that maybe the "tick" obscures the image.
-
" but how many home visits were actually made "
I am in the UK and Adobe certainly did not come knocking on my front door for an home visit.
-
Jeremy, there was a 1:1 zoom, so some people sought to use Import to evaluate images. Library is designed for that task (eg side by side, quick develop etc).
Library is designed for that task indeed ... but if we users were never to utilize the 1:1 zoom in the import process, why ddi Adobe ever include it in the first place? Why was it only now that Adobe discovered the error of their ways and removed the capability? Surely the capability offered value to some from the inception of including the feature. I also fail to see how the optional ability to view an image at 1:1 in the import dialog actually hindered or intimidated a new user.
-
Library is designed for that task indeed ... but if we users were never to utilize the 1:1 zoom in the import process, why ddi Adobe ever include it in the first place? Why was it only now that Adobe discovered the error of their ways and removed the capability? Surely the capability offered value to some from the inception of including the feature. I also fail to see how the optional ability to view an image at 1:1 in the import dialog actually hindered or intimidated a new user.
They gave way to demand to use the import stage to review/cull and perform other tasks like applying keywords, metadata presets, develop presets. After all, there is a superficial attraction to taking advantage of a bottleneck that every photo has to pass through. As you know, they then did extensive studies and built the thing up again. They thought some things made sense to implement again, others not.
-
As you know, they then did extensive studies and built the thing up again.
No, I don't know that they conducted extensive studies. Yes, Mangalick did mention they visited a few users homes and Hogarty did mention they used some monitoring metrics ... that it seems quite a few users opt out of for privacy concerns ... though neither ever further shared the quantity or quality of the empirical data to back up their assertions. I'm sorry, but if you are going to cite such data as the prima facia factor to support your decisions and then fail to back it up with at least some cursory numbers or even percentages to support the outcome ... I can't blindly accept the premise purely on face value.
The feedback that Adobe has received since v6.2/2015.2 would seem to prove that the data points they based their decisions upon were either incomplete or inaccurate or a little of both. I think by Hogrty's apology and update to the apology, he even agrees they were wrong in thinking that their study was indicative of the actual usage metrics of Lightroom.
-
Whatever....
-
Latest info from Tom Hogarty:
"We can now confirm that, in our next dot release, we will restore the previous import experience. We are still working on details and timing. In the meantime, if you need to restore previous import functionality prior to the next update, please refer to this document on how to roll back to Lightroom 6.1.1 (https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/roll-back-to-prior-update.html)."
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/lightroom-62-import-update.html
-
They gave way to demand to use the import stage to review/cull and perform other tasks like applying keywords, metadata presets, develop presets. After all, there is a superficial attraction to taking advantage of a bottleneck that every photo has to pass through.
Thanks a lot John. Why don't you take a hit for the team and lay off on your denigrating this feature, which is essential to any volume shooter, as evidenced by the success of photomechanic.
-
Thanks a lot John. Why don't you take a hit for the team and lay off on your denigrating this feature, which is essential to any volume shooter, as evidenced by the success of photomechanic.
If Adobe would have taken the time to listen to at least a few of us who requested as far back as Lr v2 public beta ... to include the option to only import tagged (i.e. locked in-camera) images, rather than EVERY image on the card ... those of us that shoot action sports and news coverage on tight deadlines wouldn't have to cull as part of the import process just to get to the relatively few images we need to deliver under tight time restraints.
I think it would be in Adobe's best interests to offer such an option so as to avoid valued users to seek out other options to meet their needs ... wouldn't Adobe rather have that $150 that some users spent on Photo Mechanic in order to fill that gap?
If I had all day to wait for Lightroom to churn out the unnecessary previews and other ancillary tasks for batches of images I don't need to deliver right this minute ... sure, I'd be all for Adobe paring down the functions of the Import dialog. But alas ... I live in the real world and have actual short term deadlines to meet.
-
Thanks a lot John. Why don't you take a hit for the team and lay off on your denigrating this feature, which is essential to any volume shooter, as evidenced by the success of photomechanic.
Rory, why don't you cease questioning my honesty and focus on criticising my arguments? It is not "essential to any volume shooter", just to those volume shooters with certain time pressures, as evidenced by the success of PhotoMechanic (which I sometimes use) and by its niche market presence.
-
If Adobe would have taken the time to listen to at least a few of us who requested as far back as Lr v2 public beta ... to include the option to only import tagged (i.e. locked in-camera) images, rather than EVERY image on the card ... those of us that shoot action sports and news coverage on tight deadlines wouldn't have to cull as part of the import process just to get to the relatively few images we need to deliver under tight time restraints.
I think it would be in Adobe's best interests to offer such an option so as to avoid valued users to seek out other options to meet their needs ... wouldn't Adobe rather have that $150 that some users spent on Photo Mechanic in order to fill that gap?
If I had all day to wait for Lightroom to churn out the unnecessary previews and other ancillary tasks for batches of images I don't need to deliver right this minute ... sure, I'd be all for Adobe paring down the functions of the Import dialog. But alas ... I live in the real world and have actual short term deadlines to meet.
Small gap. PM is a very good program with a strong focus on its small segment of the market. If Adobe did choose to go for that group, just how many features would they need to copy (stationery?) and how many loyal PM users would they gain? Would these be incremental users to Lr? Worthwhie?
There are a couple of different issues in what you say. Your tagged images requirement could be handled by a script. Have you tried writing or sourcing one? If not, why not, and what does that say about the wider need? Maybe I'll look again at my Locktastic plugin (http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/jbeardsworth/locktastic/) - I know I could now get it to import only those read only files, at least from the hard drive.
Update: I just looked at Locktastic again, and I had forgotten that the plugin does already import files marked as read-only, if that's how your camera tags pictures. So you can copy using the OS from the card to the hard drive, then use the plugin to pull those images into Lightroom. I've not tested it on a card, and think there would be a problem there, but I may be able to modify it to do so. You could then import from the card later, and bring in all its contents - Lr's duplicates control should kick in too. /Update
The other requirement is culling during Import. I have plenty of sympathy with high volume needs, experiencing them myself for periods and working closely with people who do so, though it tends to be in fields where PM is useless because of its inability to adjust (so much for Rory speaking for "any volume shooter") and where deadlines aren't too tight for Lightroom. I've said more than once that I would love a GPU-powered review of embedded previews, but in Library.
-
I revisited Bridge over last few days and boy is it fast compared to LR with regard to previews and being able to cull images. Only underlines how painfully slow LR has become whilst BR has barelyt changed at all since I last used it for work around LR 2.3. When at that time LR was the much faster tool and why LR became my main workflow.
I can import to my dated folders using LR as before and whilst LR is taking forever to build standard previews, I can go through the pics and rate any I want to work on. Then update folder in LR to pick up the new metadata and filter down to those few. LR still takes an age to do 100% previews and reload them after being built.
-
Small gap. PM is a very good program with a strong focus on its small segment of the market. If Adobe did choose to go for that group, just how many features would they need to copy (stationery?) and how many loyal PM users would they gain? Would these be incremental users to Lr? Worthwhie?
There are a couple of different issues in what you say. Your tagged images requirement could be handled by a script. Have you tried writing or sourcing one? If not, why not, and what does that say about the wider need? Maybe I'll look again at my Locktastic plugin (http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/jbeardsworth/locktastic/) - I know I could now get it to import only those read only files, at least from the hard drive.
Update: I just looked at Locktastic again, and I had forgotten that the plugin does already import files marked as read-only, if that's how your camera tags pictures. So you can copy using the OS from the card to the hard drive, then use the plugin to pull those images into Lightroom. I've not tested it on a card, and think there would be a problem there, but I may be able to modify it to do so. You could then import from the card later, and bring in all its contents - Lr's duplicates control should kick in too. /Update
The other requirement is culling during Import. I have plenty of sympathy with high volume needs, experiencing them myself for periods and working closely with people who do so, though it tends to be in fields where PM is useless because of its inability to adjust (so much for Rory speaking for "any volume shooter") and where deadlines aren't too tight for Lightroom. I've said more than once that I would love a GPU-powered review of embedded previews, but in Library.
Locktastic is an option except for one small problem ... you have to use another option (workaround) to get there. Workarounds really aren't solutions ... just more work. Not to mention, it does not remove the task of getting the image onto the HD so the plugin can see them.
I pay Adobe to furnish me with software solutions to ease my daily tasks ... and they actually want to receive a monetary reward for what they provide to me for as long as I breath air (and longer if I should expire before my annual agreement does) ...
I continue to pay for PV2012 ... which I already paid for ... in 2012. I have paid for a Book module I can't use because I use vendors that have different page sizes, margins and bleeds than does Blurb and Adobe in all their wisdom doesn't think I am worth the effort to allow customization of same.
I also pay for a Maps module I do not need or use. I have paid for a facial recognition module I don't really need and I have been paying for a nearly useless Web module since it's inception.
Not once have I ever complained about the creation of. or the continued development of these modules (expect for my well documented complaints about hamstringing the Book module) or lobbied against their development or inclusion as I know there are many other users who do find value in them.
Why is it too much to ask for a few lines of code to assist me, and while a niche group, more than a few other like-minded Lr users, to have the ability to import only locked images? How many lines of code and how many years would it take Adobe to develop the feature? Heck, I was able to do this 5 years ago in Aperture without issue? If Apple could accomplish the task, how difficult must it be to offer? Why is it too complicated or unreasonable to ask my software provider of choice to serve my needs?
Sure I can see Adobe telling me I'm not worth the effort ... in fact not only are they going to ignore my request ... they would like to enhance my workflow further by stripping even more functionality I paid for without notice as a bonus. Just to please an unproven market segment that has yet to invest one single dime into Adobe's efforts. What I don't understand is my fellow user(s) lobbying against my idea and spend so much time trying to convince me how insignificant my concerns are?
-
Rory, why don't you cease questioning my honesty and focus on criticising my arguments? It is not "essential to any volume shooter", just to those volume shooters with certain time pressures, as evidenced by the success of PhotoMechanic (which I sometimes use) and by its niche market presence.
LR was meeting my needs before v6.2 except I would have preferred it to be faster displaying the jpeg previews. All I wanted was for LR import previewing to be as fast as pretty near any other image viewer on the market. I want to see the preview and zoom to 100%. I want to minimize the number of images I push through the "bottleneck", as I often only want to import about 5% of the images. I do not want to wait almost two hours for LR to generate 1:1 previews to adobe's specs when they already exist. I do not want to add 40GB of files to my SSD, only to turn around and delete 38GB a few hours later. I guess I'm just superficial enough to be attracted to the opportunity to eliminate all this extra, unnecessary activity.
-
What I don't understand is my fellow user(s) lobbying against my idea and spend so much time trying to convince me how insignificant my concerns are?
Which fellow user(s) is/are lobbying against that idea? Can someone not say they doubt the need is widespread enough? What idiot would try to convince you of anything?
-
What should happen to Lightroom is that (a) there should be a big heave on removing the well-known long-standing bugs that pervade it, and (b) it should be properly performance tuned. It is, after all, supposed to be a professional tool, even if Adobe think, mistakenly, that its appeal can be broadened.
The incentives on Adobe to do that are small, as this won't attract new users (unless it gains a reputation for speed, which seems unlikely to happen).
Instagram has several orders of magnitude more pictures on it than the main stock libraries, for example, so you can see the attraction, for Adobe of going after a broader audience.
But if you wanted to attract casual users, you wouldn't start from Lightroom. It is not designed to do the job that the masses want to achieve: getting pics up on the net painlessly. Indeed understanding the options for getting pictures out of it is even trickier than for those for getting them in.
The other pressure that will lead to further stagnation is that the main develop process seems to be being reused in the new video / special effects applications that Adobe sells. This means that changing the code base is a bigger deal than it would have been if it was used only in ACR / Lightroom.
Instagram has several orders of magnitude more pictures on it than the main stock libraries, for example, so you can see the attraction, for Adobe of going after a broader audience.
-
But if you wanted to attract casual users, you wouldn't start from Lightroom. It is not designed to do the job that the masses want to achieve: getting pics up on the net painlessly.
You "wouldn't start from Lightroom Desktop", perhaps. Have you even looked at Lightroom Mobile which went "freemium" last week?
You also need to note what Adobe say (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html) are the people they are aiming to attract with the recent changes to Lightroom Desktop: "....people passionate about photography and who use their cameras as a creative outlet. In short, their motivations share the same motivations as people who already love Lightroom."
-
Like Butch, I don't use LR Book, Map, and Web mods; and don't turn the on. Complaining about LR it not worth the time, since it is Adobe's vision and C1Pro is a viable option. I do think it is time for Adobe to examine its UI. It is dated, rather clunky, and slow.
C1Pro is designed for fit a photographer's workflow, where LR locks the workflow by grouping tools in subsets (such as Basic). IMO, it would be nice if Adobe would allow the photographer to setup the Library and Develop modules in a way that fits their workflow. Also, Adobe has floating tools in PS, why not LR.
LR is still a decent program, but it can be better with a little TLC. BTW, I doubt any of my wishes will ever see the light of day.
-
I continue to pay for PV2012 ... which I already paid for ... in 2012. I have paid for a Book module I can't use because I use vendors that have different page sizes, margins and bleeds than does Blurb and Adobe in all their wisdom doesn't think I am worth the effort to allow customization of same.
I also pay for a Maps module I do not need or use. I have paid for a facial recognition module I don't really need and I have been paying for a nearly useless Web module since it's inception.
That's the way of it, I'm afraid. Every software package I use has featues I don't want, but it's unrealistic to expect that vendors will provide a sort of deli approach to package only those features one wants - and it certainly wouldn't be cheaper.
Not once have I ever complained about the creation of. or the continued development of these modules (expect for my well documented complaints about hamstringing the Book module) or lobbied against their development or inclusion as I know there are many other users who do find value in them.
Quite right not to complain, as it's actually reducing the price of the package for you by widening the appeal of it (or at least, that's what Adobe will be planning; whether they achieve it is another matter).
Why is it too much to ask for a few lines of code to assist me, and while a niche group, more than a few other like-minded Lr users, to have the ability to import only locked images? How many lines of code and how many years would it take Adobe to develop the feature? Heck, I was able to do this 5 years ago in Aperture without issue? If Apple could accomplish the task, how difficult must it be to offer? Why is it too complicated or unreasonable to ask my software provider of choice to serve my needs?
Perhaps you're not a software developer? Those "few lines of code" are probably much more than you think. More to the point, every additional "few lines of code", every extra option is an additional ongoing maintenance load. Every feature has the potential to interact with every other feature, requires checking for every new release and is a potential source of future bugs. With good design that feature interaction shouldn't happen, but it's surprising how often it does.
More than that: it's a source of confusion for users. It's another way for users to screw up. I'm not defending Adobe for their botched attempt at what they intended to be a simplified UI, but I can understand their objective. The various forums are full of comments from users that have tied themselves in knots by selecting the wrong option somewhere, and possibly clicking the "don't warn me again" option when LR asks "are you sure you want to do this?".
A common example: when ACR is out of step with Lightroom, you chose "Edit in Photoshop", LR warns you, and if you choose "Open anyway" (usually a bad choice) and "don't warn me again" you have a mysterious source of inexplicable errors some time in the future. I've lost count of the number of forum posts by people tripped up by that.
Edited to add: Clearly extra features are good as they may attract more users, and bad as they increase ongoing maintenance costs and risk confusing users. I wasn't criticisting ButchM's choice of features, only pointing out that there's always a hard balance to be struck by a software provider.
-
C1Pro is designed for fit a photographer's workflow
So is Lr's. It just takes the view that it's important that tools are in a known location.
-
You mean Lightroom Desktop. Have you even looked at Lightroom Mobile which went "freemium" last week?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Then look at it again.
-
So is Lr's. It just takes the view that it's important that tools are in a known location.
Known location is fine; however, that "known location" may not be the best fit for all photographers. I prefer to create customizable workspaces; float the histogram; improved color control tools (along the line of C1Pro); implement a version of layers; maybe allow for quick crops during the Library culling process; just to name a few things.
I get a sense that Adobe has decide that the LR UI doesn't need improvement. To me, that attitude stifles creativity.
-
I get a sense that Adobe has decide that the LR UI doesn't need improvement.
You say that after the last week? ;)
-
I continue to pay for PV2012 ... which I already paid for ... in 2012. I have paid for a Book module I can't use because I use vendors that have different page sizes, margins and bleeds than does Blurb and Adobe in all their wisdom doesn't think I am worth the effort to allow customization of same.
I also pay for a Maps module I do not need or use. I have paid for a facial recognition module I don't really need and I have been paying for a nearly useless Web module since it's inception.
Not once have I ever complained about the creation of. or the continued development of these modules (expect for my well documented complaints about hamstringing the Book module) or lobbied against their development or inclusion as I know there are many other users who do find value in them.
Shame more people don't realise that what is not important to them, may be important or even essential to others. Nice to see someone having a wider perspective than the usual whinging about feature bloat. i.e. things I don't need
The book module is indeed pants. Rather useless for pro work and it seems to be aimed at those who don't really care too much how things are laid out or who prints it. Maybe a forerunner of the recent import module now with hindsight.
-
Which fellow user(s) is/are lobbying against that idea? Can someone not say they doubt the need is widespread enough?
What is the doubt based upon? More conjectured and faulty data points misread by the powers that be at Adobe. Indeed the past couple of weeks have been enlightening in that respect.
I can concur that the group of folks who would embrace and utilize the capability I suggest ... but it should be pointed out when I share media rooms with 100-150 fellow shooters at major college and pro sporting events ... they all, without question are always seeking more efficient methods to accomplish more in less time. And there are hundreds of such events just in the U.S. on any given Saturday ... let alone the rest of the week.
Now if anyone thinks Adobe is not up to that task or incapable of seeing the potential ... fine I stand corrected and really should be looking for another solution for my niche interest.
What idiot would try to convince you of anything?
That sir is a two-way street ... ;)
-
So is Lr's. It just takes the view that it's important that tools are in a known location.
Actually it was laid out the way it is to try and get people to work in a certain order. However seeing as Calibrate is at bottom of Develop panels not the top, they mucked that bit up.
Not to mention creative types work far more randomly than logical engineering/programming types.
Also if you customise a programme yourself, then the same applies regarding consistent location. Because you aren't going to rejig the layout every time you open it. I completely customise PS and Premier for example and it's much easier using them, because it's my layout suitable for my needs.
Programmes that allow customisability allow people to work in the way that suits their particular needs and as all needs are different fixed layout can cause issues. No idea why programme makers are so arrogant to assume their fixed way of working will suit millions of different customer's needs. Not to mention they get rid of a whole heap of complaints about the UI.
One of the very first programmes I ever used was Corel Draw back in the early 90s and I've yet to use another programme as good as that with regard to being able to customise the workspace to suit your own needs. A vastly underrated programme because of snobbery - it was found on PCs and not Macs therefore must be rubbish. Many of those Corel UI ideas I feature requested a lot over the years for PS With time, most of them have been implemented. One of the final ones is coming in a forthcoming version of PS - about 20 years later.
LR gets away with the lack of customisation to an extent as the default layout is so much better than many other programmes. However if it had a default layout done as poorly as Bridge, then LR would be far, far less popular than it is now. Bridge's dreadful and ugly default UI is a mjo part of why people do not use or like it. But at least you can alter Br to something very useful, but even then some fixed UI elements are in somewhat useless locations.
-
Then look at it [Lightroom Mobile] again.
Is it still as lame as Adobe's usual mobile offerings?
I tried it a while back and meh!
I just had a look at Photoshop Fix. Starts by playing a video very loudly and then wants to you to sign in before you can even try things out. Dear me, not a good way to start.
Native Instruments who are about as monolithic and sluggish as Adobe when it comes to improving their desktop product, when they did a mobile version of Traktor it was a complete revelation.
They fully embraced the new platform and started completely from scratch. The Ui for Traktor on iOS is be a textbook example of how to adapt to new paradigms. Rather than being a weak version of the desktop programme, it's possibly even better. Particularly impressive considering the much smaller real estate on a phone/tablet.
-
Perhaps you're not a software developer?
Of course I am not a software developer. That is what I have been paying Adobe for for well over 22 years. I take photos and deliver them to clients. Adobe develops software I can use to simplify and enhance that task. That is the partnership we have developed over the past couple of decades.
Those "few lines of code" are probably much more than you think. More to the point, every additional "few lines of code", every extra option is an additional ongoing maintenance load. Every feature has the potential to interact with every other feature, requires checking for every new release and is a potential source of future bugs. With good design that feature interaction shouldn't happen, but it's surprising how often it does.
Poppycock. Pure and simple.
If the feature had never, nor does not now exist elsewhere in complex environments ... sure I might buy your theory that it's just too difficult for Adobe to accomplish. Too bad you place such strict limitations on the abilities of a multi-billion dollar enterprise that hires some of the brightest minds in the industry today. Too bad they have such limited resources and personnel incapable of handling such challenges or complicated tasks.
Frankly, I'm tired of hearing excuses why something can't be done. I've been self employed for over 40 years. If I offered similar line of lame excuses to my clients every time they came to me for a solution ... I'd have folded and failed miserably long ago. It's every business' responsibility to solve problems for their clients.
Plus ... I'm not asking Adobe to do something gratis for me ... I'm more than willing to pay for my tools. I have never expected something for nothing.
Matter of fact, I suggested several times in the early going that if they wished to design Lr in a modular fashion ... they should offer the base Lightroom starter - Library, Develop and Print ... then the other modules could be add-on supplements (in-app purchases if you will) ... even open the SDK to third party modules for genre specific needs that users seek options for that Adobe may not wish to pursue. That way, Adobe can keep Lr the focal point for more users ... and users don't have to hit up options like PM for certain uses.
That way, the user metric that means the most .... actual sales figures for the add-on modules would dictate more accurately the market share level of investment for further development of those offerings ... then there would be little doubt where to apply resources instead of shoving a one-size-fits-all swiss army knife monstrosity down every users throat insisting that is what they need and deserve.
-
You say that after the last week? ;)
John,
I was offering my opinion, which i've held since v5. I don't think I was being confrontational, just partaking in a conversation. BTW, the latest upgrade, at best, just reaffirmed my position.
-
Poppycock. Pure and simple.
If you had been a software developer, you certainly wouldn't say that.
Adding stuff to older software can be difficult at times, even if it may seem incredibly simple.
If the feature had never, nor does not now exist elsewhere in complex environments ... sure I might buy your theory that it's just too difficult for Adobe to accomplish. Too bad you place such strict limitations on the abilities of a multi-billion dollar enterprise that hires some of the brightest minds in the industry today. Too bad they have such limited resources and personnel incapable of handling such challenges or complicated tasks.
Whether others have implemented such a feature is almost immaterial. Could these other engineers introduce it to say LR7 of top of the current legacy code is the more pertinent comparison.
One thing thing that software should do is take a lead from web design which when done properly content is entirely independent of layout, i.e. the UI
So for software, they should separate features from the UI code wise. As I have come across when beta testing, some interface updates that are very difficult to do because of how it impacts on other aspects of how the software operates. Which always struck me a poor way of doing things. But some programmes have origins a long way back when people were still trying to work out how to do all this new stuff.
I seem to recall aspects of LR's UI are 'compromised' because of how it was initially conceived and without a complete rewrite cannot be changed.
-
One thing thing that software should do is take a lead from web design which when done properly content is entirely independent of layout, i.e. the UI
So for software, they should separate features from the UI code wise. As I have come across when beta testing, some interface updates that are very difficult to do because of how it impacts on other aspects of how the software operates. Which always struck me a poor way of doing things. But some programmes have origins a long way back when people were still trying to work out how to do all this new stuff.
I seem to recall aspects of LR's UI are 'compromised' because of how it was initially conceived and without a complete rewrite cannot be changed.
Lightroom UI is Lua based for this very reason.
-
You say:
Of course I am not a software developer.
But when I explain the problems that unintended feature interaction can cause software developers, and the ongoing cost that even trivial (to the user) new features can cause, you say:
Poppycock. Pure and simple.
I strongly recommend that you don't ever learn more about software development, lest you should be embarrassed by that comment! ;)
-
You say:
But when I explain the problems that unintended feature interaction can cause software developers, and the ongoing cost that even trivial (to the user) new features can cause, you say:
I strongly recommend that you don't ever learn more about software development, lest you should be embarrassed by that comment! ;)
If you had been a software developer, you certainly wouldn't say that.
Once again I fully admit I am not now, nor have I ever been a software developer. If I were, why would I need Adobe or why would I waste my time and effort lobbying for what I would like from them to fulfill my needs? If I were a software developer of any reasonable level of accomplishment, I would be listening intently to ideas such as this and offering competing options and solutions. Rather than dismissing such ideas without definitive knowledge if the idea is just too difficult to accomplish ... or if it purely a lack of incentive.
If all I had to offer was excuses to my customers when they come to me asking me to match something a competitor already can accomplish, yes, that would be embarrassing ... and how long would I keep that customer if I failed to be industrious enough to retain them? If Bill can meet their needs today ... without making excuses ... why would they want to keep Butch around if all he brings to the table is reasons why he can't meet expectations? If you don't think I haven't had to mold, adjust, alter, expand and adjust my business model some more since 1975 to remain successful ... instead to telling my customers ... "No, your request is too problematic and you should be embarrassed that you have no clue of the difficulties I would face in finding a solution to your idea. "
Sure, there are pitfalls to any endeavor and you fellows may be more privy to the complications of software development than I ... but, you fellows have no better direct knowledge than I, if the absence of my request is indeed a result of such a complication or purely a lack of initiative. That fact is not embarrassing to me.
Yes, you can pan my ideas and belabor that I don't possess the 'insider knowledge' of software development if you feel that gives you a superior position in the discussion. However, I don't pay Adobe, or any other software developer I support for making excuses. I pay them for solutions.
-
I don't think I was being confrontational, just partaking in a conversation. BTW, the latest upgrade, at best, just reaffirmed my position.
I didn't think you were, James, and neither was I. I know you really meant the core modules' left and right panels, but it just seemed amusing that after all the fuss over the latest upgrade's changes to the Import UI you would say "I get a sense that Adobe has decide that the LR UI doesn't need improvement."
-
ButchM,
I doubt I have any disagreement with you in practice, so silly to argue with you. I wasn't trying to brow-beat you with specialist knowledge, but was making the general point that extra features have a cost both for software developers and users, and there's a balance to be struck. Clearly Adobe didn't get that balance right with this latest release.
To cater for experienced users while making it a relatively painless learning process for new users they've clearly got some work to do.
-
ButchM,
I doubt I have any disagreement with you in practice, so silly to argue with you. I wasn't trying to brow-beat you with specialist knowledge, but was making the general point that extra features have a cost both for software developers and users, and there's a balance to be struck. Clearly Adobe didn't get that balance right with this latest release.
To cater for experienced users while making it a relatively painless learning process for new users they've clearly got some work to do.
And might I add, catering to such different users in one software package is a very complex problem to solve. Many Sunday armchair quarterbacks here who truly don't understand the complexities of software development and management.
-
Many Sunday armchair quarterbacks here who truly don't understand the complexities of software development and management.
Many armchair quarterbacks also don't understand the complexities of cameras, lenses, tripods, flash units, CF/SD cards, cable releases, wireless remotes, auxiliary power sources, etc., etc., etc. Yet this armchair quarterbacks seek new features, innovations and improvements from the folks that provide those products each and every day.
Because customers may not be up to speed with all the nuances and fully comprehend these intricacies, they should not make requests for solutions we would find valuable? ... Especially when those exact features have existed elsewhere ... for years?
And might I add, catering to such different users in one software package is a very complex problem to solve.
No problem ... if the task is too difficult, perhaps the developer is in the wrong line of work and should move on to another endeavor. I surely wouldn't desire for anyone suffer because the task I present to them is far too difficult to consider.
In my mind, a true entrepreneurial attitude would be to seek out such tasks as a challenge to serve an end resulting in a higher level of customer satisfaction and loyalty to the brand I produce ... not an opportunity to list a litany of excuses as to why it can't be done without even trying.
-
Many armchair quarterbacks also don't understand the complexities of cameras, lenses, tripods, flash units, CF/SD cards, cable releases, wireless remotes, auxiliary power sources, etc., etc., etc. Yet this armchair quarterbacks seek new features, innovations and improvements from the folks that provide those products each and every day.
Because customers may not be up to speed with all the nuances and fully comprehend these intricacies, they should not make requests for solutions we would find valuable? ... Especially when those exact features have existed elsewhere ... for years?
No problem ... if the task is too difficult, perhaps the developer is in the wrong line of work and should move on to another endeavor. I surely wouldn't desire for anyone suffer because the task I present to them is far too difficult to consider.
In my mind, a true entrepreneurial attitude would be to seek out such tasks as a challenge to serve an end resulting in a higher level of customer satisfaction and loyalty to the brand I produce ... not an opportunity to list a litany of excuses as to why it can't be done without even trying.
So take your own advice...rather than constantly complain about LR...why not just take the challenge using it to "serve an end resulting in a higher level of customer satisfaction" for your customers.
So naive thinking when you don't understand the complexity of software development.
-
So take your own advice...rather than constantly complain about LR...why not just take the challenge using it to "serve an end resulting in a higher level of customer satisfaction" for your customers.
So naive thinking when you don't understand the complexity of software development.
Wow ... using your analogy ... if I, personally am unaware to the intricacies of auto mechanics ... I should expect a long list of excuses when I expect the repair shop to fix my transmission? If I understand all that detail myself ... who needs a repair shop?
Where do you think I came up with the idea of serving customers as best as I can policy? ... it certainly entered my wheel house long before Adobe, or even you came on the scene.
I have admitted fully on multiple occasions, in this very thread, that I don't understand the 'complexities of software development' ... but then I don't need to ... that is why I pay Adobe ... to offer software solutions. I don't recall requiring or requesting your appraisal on the matter. My naiveté is irrelevant to the discussion.
You seem all too eager to give Adobe a pass on this matter without any direct knowledge that your assertion is correct. You also seem to have much less confidence in their resources and capabilities to offer such a solution. I, on the other hand, think they are more than qualified and capable of addressing my concerns.
Too bad you don't have any faith Adobe can rise to the occasion. I was once under the impression you thought Adobe was pure perfection and could do no wrong. What changed your mind? My lack of insider knowledge of software development? ;D
-
Wow ... using your analogy ... if I, personally am unaware to the intricacies of auto mechanics ... I should expect a long list of excuses when I expect the repair shop to fix my transmission? If I understand all that detail myself ... who needs a repair shop?
Fix...no...but you are asking your mechanic to make your 4 speed into a 5 speed and when he says it's not easy to do...you riddle him with remarks like he is not up to the challenge. That Butch with your not understanding anything about software development or it's complexities is what you are asking.
You throw around phrases such as
" If I were a software developer of any reasonable level of accomplishment, I would be listening intently to ideas such as this and offering competing options and solutions. Rather than dismissing such ideas without definitive knowledge if the idea is just too difficult to accomplish ... or if it purely a lack of incentive"
"However, I don't pay Adobe, or any other software developer I support for making excuses. I pay them for solutions."
"Poppycock. Pure and simple."
"Too bad they have such limited resources and personnel incapable of handling such challenges or complicated tasks"
You make it sound like Adobe engineers are stupid...not motivated and maybe just lazy...not up to the great challenges you lay before them. You speak with such conviction, authoritatively...yet out of ignorance.
Take this for example. If a potential client comes to you wanting a shot of a hummingbird in flight catching a mosquito in the tip of it's beak...you'd be up for the challenge, right. Or would you start back peddling with excuses that it's too difficult...not motivated, not up to the challenge and obviously not an elite photographer as there are photographers out there that can accomplish this.
Butch...good thing you are so ignorant on the details of software development...or you'd be embarrassed by your comments.
-
Fix...no...but you are asking your mechanic to make your 4 speed into a 5 speed and when he says it's not easy to do...you riddle him with remarks like he is not up to the challenge. That Butch with your not understanding anything about software development or it's complexities is what you are asking.
I'm not asking Adobe to make a 5 speed out of a 4 speed, I'm asking for a more efficient manner to get from low gear to overdrive ... I'm not asking them to make anything that has not been done before.
You make it sound like Adobe engineers are stupid...not motivated and maybe just lazy...not up to the great challenges you lay before them. You speak with such conviction, authoritatively...yet out of ignorance.
No, it is you my friend, that possesses too little confidence in Adobe's abilities. Adobe hasn't offered any feedback whatsoever on the matter of my feature request ... so you are no more an 'expert' on the matter than anyone else and are just as 'ignorant' on the details if Adobe could handle my request for Lightroom or not. Matter of fact. You and others seem to wish to speak for them and are convinced I can't have my request because it is too difficult. I, OTOH am convinced they are equal to the task. Why so little faith, chez? ... Secondly, exactly what feature/function is it I am seeking? Do you know? Or are you ignorant of that pesky detail?
Take this for example. If a potential client comes to you wanting a shot of a hummingbird in flight catching a mosquito in the tip of it's beak...you'd be up for the challenge, right. Or would you start back peddling with excuses that it's too difficult...not motivated, not up to the challenge and obviously not an elite photographer as there are photographers out there that can accomplish this.
I'm asked quite often to venture forth in new aspects of my business. Forty years ago when I started out, I exposed film and sent it to a lab, then delivered the prints to my clients when they retuned. That is a far cry from the products and services I now offer now or what I offered when I owned my own custom color photo lab for over 18 years. I didn't get here by ignoring my clients and their concerns, ideas and needs.
My initial response to new requests is never to point out my customers ignorance of the difficulties of my trade. They simply don't care. If what I do was that easy, they's take up the task themselves or seek out someone who could dress their needs. I also don't pan a new idea or request until I've had a chance to examine it further ... I also don't rely upon the unsolicited support from strangers to speak for me on such matters ... as they too, are quite ignorant about how I may address such special requests.
Butch...good thing you are so ignorant on the details of software development...or you'd be embarrassed by your comments.
I am allowed to be ignorant about software development. I am not embarrassed at all about acknowledging that fact. I am not a software developer so why should I need to know such things? I've pointed that out to you at least twice now. I also do not require your approval or consent to have an opinion on such matters.
(By the way ... Are you sure it is I that should be embarrassed? ... or is it your lack of original thought that could cause your face to appear flush? Have you actually read this thread? ... Can you come up with something fresh? ... or are you simply trying to be the oil to my water again and disagree with my point of view at any cost?)
-
Friends, I believe we have probably exhausted this topic now; so I am locking this thread. Thank you for all your contributions.