Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: jjj on October 13, 2015, 03:09:22 pm
-
Someone decided to see how quickly various programmes took to import and preview a bunch of images. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=w04dhhgf0uE)
LR was not just slower than the other software, but dismally so. :-\
Sadly , I can't say my own experiences do anything to contradict this informal test re LR's lack of speed.
-
Lightroom is pitifully slow with Fuji's RAF files. I usually don't format the card until it's 75% full (I like to keep few extra backups! :), and somehow Lightroom gets slower and slower when the amount of photos increases on the card. Even if I select only few images on the card, the import dialog seems to go through all the photos, presumably trying to render the thumbnails(?)
I could also replicate this on SSD, so it's not really about card speed or anything. And it does not happen with other types of files.
-
The fact that Lr importation speed is slow has never been a secret.
-
This comparison is like asking who is faster over 50m: a typical house cat or Usain Bolt (answer - the cat, of course). I use Photo Mechanic and it's good at what it does. But it doesn't do a tenth of what LR does, which is why it's so much faster. It has no database to update. It has no previews to render (it just extracts the embedded jpegs).
And as an aside, given all the praise Photo Mechanic has received in these forums recently, I don't recall anyone criticising Camera Bits for utterly failing to launch their next big project, or the times when Photo Mechanic has been crash prone.
-
This comparison is like asking who is faster over 50m: a typical house cat or Usain Bolt (answer - the cat, of course). I use Photo Mechanic and it's good at what it does. But it doesn't do a tenth of what LR does, which is why it's so much faster. It has no database to update. It has no previews to render (it just extracts the embedded jpegs).
The fact that the other programmes do different things is not really relevant. The basic import speed of LR is simply very slow [as are many other things about LR], not just the previews and kind of points to the fact that LR is failing where it really shouldn't.
It's so bad I'm finding that I simply don't enjoy using it anymore. :-\
And as an aside, given all the praise Photo Mechanic has received in these forums recently, I don't recall anyone criticising Camera Bits for utterly failing to launch their next big project, or the times when Photo Mechanic has been crash prone.
I used to use PM years back. Never looked at it again after LR appeared and don't think it's changed very much since then either. It's good for jpeg shooters or those who have large numbers of shoots to cull and a very tight deadline, so news/sports photographers.
-
The fact that Lr importation speed is slow has never been a secret.
Showing how painfully slow it is in comparison to others is illuminating though.
-
I use Photo Mechanic and it's good at what it does. But it doesn't do a tenth of what LR does, which is why it's so much faster. It has no database to update. It has no previews to render (it just extracts the embedded jpegs).
That too is not a secret. It is the same way Aperture could handle imports as well.
In fact, way back about version the v2 public beta, more than a few sports, photojournalists and even a few wedding shooters, requested the option be added to turn of the building of previews until a later point in the process so as to allow those of us who must work with larger volumes of images to temporarily delay that speed bump just to get to the relatively fewer images we need our further attention when working on critical deadline. Working with the in-camera jpeg is quite efficient to pare down the selection.
We also asked that the feature be added for a setting to import only those images tagged in-camera selects so as to avoid the all-or-nothing approach.
Unfortunately, both requests fell on deaf ears ... though PM and Aperture could both handle those situations with ease if the user so desired.
-
Adobe's Bridge got the option to use the inbuilt JPEG previews a long time back after getting requests for the same reasons.
Why LR held out...
-
Another observation on Bridge. When it generated previews [as jpegs] which it then cached, it would also build previews for jpeg files which could actually be bigger than the original files. Plus there were several sized variations of each file too for speed. ::)
-
Adobe's Bridge got the option to use the inbuilt JPEG previews a long time back after getting requests for the same reasons.
Why LR held out...
That's only a consolation if the Lr user happens to also use another Adobe App like Ps, ID or Il ... what about those folks who only use Lr?
Also ... Bridge is one of the few areas where I almost completely agree with Kelby ... There's a reason Bridge is free (or included at no additional cost) ... :)
-
Adobe's Bridge got the option to use the inbuilt JPEG previews a long time back after getting requests for the same reasons.
Why LR held out...
I had hopes when they added GPU acceleration. Still, I suspect it'll arrive a lot sooner than Camera Bits finish the catalogue version that's supposedly under "active development" - for the last few years.
-
The fact that the other programmes do different things is not really relevant.
Except if you want features like being able to render from RAW or store the files in a database, then it is highly relevant, and you have no choice but to accept it will inevitably be slower. Even if Adobe do things like leverage the GPU to speed up the preview rendering, it will always be slower. Such is life.
I also note that no one talks about Aftershot/Bibble. It's always been much faster than LR/ACR on preview generation and image export. Their coders did a really fantastic job utilising multi-core systems, and they had GPU support earlier too. Of course no one here talks about it because the image quality is rubbish in comparison with LR/ACR!
-
That's only a consolation if the Lr user happens to also use another Adobe App like Ps, ID or Il ... what about those folks who only use Lr?
Also ... Bridge is one of the few areas where I almost completely agree with Kelby ... There's a reason Bridge is free (or included at no additional cost) ... :)
Kelby can be a complete doofus on occasions and his smug attitude to Bridge is one of them. Bridge is actually a very good and capable programme as basically it's a file browser programme that does most things that people use LR for. Yes it could be made a lot better, but heck so could LR.
Adobe seem to have given up on it and never marketed it properly or took advantage of what they could have done with it.
It's also not crippled like LR is with regard to file types. LR would a truly great DAM, if it could view all files you needed/used. A digital asset manager that can't manage all your files files is not so much of an asset as it could be. It doesn't have to be able to edit all files just know where they are and allow you to open them in the appropriate editor. Just as you do with PSDs currently. Having to use other software to manage your files makes LR seem pointless [as a DAM] at times
-
Except if you want features like being able to render from RAW or store the files in a database, then it is highly relevant, and you have no choice but to accept it will inevitably be slower. Even if Adobe do things like leverage the GPU to speed up the preview rendering, it will always be slower. Such is life.
The basic import itself is slow see times in bold below. Nothing to do with rendering of anything.
I recall testing Bridge's ability to copy/move files years back to using the OS instead. Bridge like LR was glacial in comparison. Not sure what Adobe do to files when moving stuff.
Apple Photos was by far the fastest: the full import took just 9 seconds.
Photo Mechanic wasn’t far behind, clocking in at 12 seconds.
Capture One was slower, taking 27 seconds to bring in the photos and 114 seconds to build full previews.
Finally, Lightroom took 190 seconds just to bring in the photos, and a whopping 685 seconds to build full previews.
-
Kelby can be a complete doofus on occasions and his smug attitude to Bridge is one of them. Bridge is actually a very good and capable programme as basically it's a file browser programme that does most things that people use LR for. Yes it could be made a lot better, but heck so could LR.
Adobe seem to have given up on it and never marketed it properly or took advantage of what they could have done with it.
It's also not crippled like LR is with regard to file types. LR would a truly great DAM, if it could view all files you needed/used. A digital asset manager that can't manage all your files files is not so much of an asset as it could be. It doesn't have to be able to edit all files just know where they are and allow you to open them in the appropriate editor. Just as you do with PSDs currently. Having to use other software to manage your files makes LR seem pointless [as a DAM] at times
Sure, Bridge may not be 'crippled' like Lr is ... as I pointed out, not all Lr users have Bridge available. Bridge is a poor substitute for browsing images on deadline when it is not installed on your computer. I think the point is, so many folks should not have to employ multiple apps for such a simple task.
The sad fact is, these are minor features that have existed in other options for years that Adobe could have implemented long ago. If they were available, the suggested tools would likely garner wide use. Though, I'm quite sure Camerabits appreciates all the sales of PM to Lr users that need a faster front end performance boost. Too bad Adobe doesn't recognize that value.
-
Quote "That's only a consolation if the Lr user happens to also use another Adobe App like Ps, ID or Il ... what about those folks who only use Lr?
Lightroom is a stand alone application and does not require the use of PS and /or Bridge. To wit Lightroom is not Photoshop and does not function like Photoshop.
-
Quote "That's only a consolation if the Lr user happens to also use another Adobe App like Ps, ID or Il ... what about those folks who only use Lr?
Lightroom is a stand alone application and does not require the use of PS and /or Bridge. To wit Lightroom is not Photoshop and does not function like Photoshop.
When did I ever state otherwise? .... I know exactly what Lr, Ps and Bridge are .... been using Ps since 1992, been using Bridge since it's inception (thinking that was CS?) been using Lr since the very first day of the very first public beta for pre-v1 in 2006 ...
I have no confusion between the apps.
I was responding to jjj's suggestion that Bridge would be an option that allows for quicker viewing/culling of images ... I was merely pointing out Bridges is not an option for users who don't have Bridge available ...
-
I was only focusing on "what about those folks who use only Lr" ignore the other applications.
-
The only efficient and speedy way to use Lightroom, in my experience, is to download the files to whichever HD you choose through Bridge and then do all Star Rating and RAW Processing in ACR 9.2 itself. I also do all key-wording in ACR instead of Lr and that stays in the metadata when I import into Lr.
Only after doing that, would I Import files into Lr if I have need for one of its special features.
If you use the same Camera Profile that you used to edit in ACR as a Preset when you import into Lr.
your Lr Files can be made to open with Smart Previews already in place.
Frankly, I have no use for Lightroom's very limited ability to catalogue files of different kinds; and I prefer to print from either Photoshop or from Indesign so would never use Lr for that purpose.
I don't store files on DVDs but use multiple multi-TB external HDs (labelled by the Year of creation or by the name of the Client).
I just pop the required HD into a USB or Firewire-connected HD Dock as I need them and find that Bridge and Apple's Spotlight Search can immediately find anything either by file-number or if my search-word is embedded in the metadata as a description or a Keyword.
I can also find files through Bridge's Collections (which, contrary to what Lr protagonists would have you believe, DOES remember which HD and Directory holds the saved file (even when that HD is off-line!) when a particular file was added to the Collection).
I normally add ALL the files (of all kinds and formats) which I might need for a particular project into a Bridge Collection. Lr cannot do that.
Everyone who has a Photographers' subscription to the CC can install Bridge as part of their package.
-
The only efficient and speedy way to use Lightroom, in my experience, is to download the files to whichever HD you choose through Bridge and then do all Star Rating and RAW Processing in ACR 9.2 itself. I also do all key-wording in ACR instead of Lr and that stays in the metadata when I import into Lr.
Actually, the main hurdle to speedy imports into Lr is the time the app takes to build previews. Remove that task from the calculations and the rest of the work to process an assignment is a draw. Copying the files from card to HD, star rating, color labeling, keywording, captioning etc. moves just as quickly in Lightroom as in any other app I have ever used that is capable of those tasks ... including Bridge, PM, C1, Aperture, Media Pro, etc. It's the preview creation that is the bottle neck.
-
If Smart Previews satisfy your needs, I think that you will find that doing the RAW editing in ACR and then hitting Done to save those edits and the Preview in the metadata will speed up your Importation and Preview-building in Lr.
I certainly find the Bridge/ACR method a lot faster and more controllable than using the Lr Import directly from the camera cards — and especially so if the diabolical changes to Import in Lr 6.2.1 are to remain in subsequent versions.
If you absolutely need 1:1 Previews in Lr, the Bridge/ACR route may not help you so much.
-
If Smart Previews satisfy your needs, I think that you will find that doing the RAW editing in ACR and then hitting Done to save those edits and the Preview in the metadata will speed up your Importation and Preview-building in Lr.
I certainly find the Bridge/ACR method a lot faster and more controllable than using the Lr Import directly from the camera cards — and especially so if the diabolical changes to Import in Lr 6.2.1 are to remain in subsequent versions.
If you absolutely need 1:1 Previews in Lr, the Bridge/ACR route may not help you so much.
I absolutely hate working in Bridge/ACR. I did that for quite some time before Lr came along and it really always felt like going around the block just to get across the street by comparison ... Once I get images into Lr, for a high volume workflow, it's quite nice.
I don't think the changes to import are staying ... at least not without an option to go to the legacy functions .... Fogarty said there would be an update later this week.
-
The basic import itself is slow see times in bold below. Nothing to do with rendering of anything.
I don't know about your system & workflow, but i seem to recall that LR on my system starts generating previews well before the file import process has completed. In other words, you with LR you cannot separate "bringing in the photos" and "preview generation", because they happen in parallel (at least on my system). I don't know if the video mentions that -- I haven't watched it as Youtube is censored where I'm at.
-
I don't know about your system & workflow, but i seem to recall that LR on my system starts generating previews well before the file import process has completed. In other words, you with LR you cannot separate "bringing in the photos" and "preview generation", because they happen in parallel (at least on my system). I don't know if the video mentions that -- I haven't watched it as Youtube is censored where I'm at.
Interesting, I have never seen the behaviour you describe. In my case preview generation starts after the import process has completed.
-
Beyond the applications mentioned in the video and in this forum, QImage has a pretty fast RAW import algorithm and the new On1 Photo 10 browser coming out later this month is supposed to be significantly improved over the already fast On1 9.5 browser!
Either of these programs can be used to cull through the total import very rapidly after which the "selects" (keepers & maybe's) only need be imported into the LR database much as PM can be used. This way LR is not wasting large amounts of time dealing with "non-selects" (aka rejects).
Jpegman
-
Interesting, I have never seen the behaviour you describe. In my case preview generation starts after the import process has completed.
Same here. I don't even see any thumbnails until after import has finished. Only then does the 'building standard previews' countdown at top left start.
Took just over a minute to import 306 images.
-
As an aside I cull very few images. So see no point in culling before a tedious import.
-
As an aside I cull very few images. So see no point in culling before a tedious import.
For me, it is not necessarily a 'culling' task because I'm not going to likely ultimately delete or eventually not import most of the images from a shoot ... it's more like choosing to import only the premium, primary select images I need to process for immediate delivery ... then re-visit the remainder of the batch after deadline obligations have been met.
Aperture 3 accomplished this with aplomb. It could import your select images (tagged in camera during the shoot) and also had an option for revisiting the import process and skip previously imported images. Very functional and customizable feature set as well as time saving effort.
-
Same here. I don't even see any thumbnails until after import has finished. Only then does the 'building standard previews' countdown at top left start.
Took just over a minute to import 306 images.
This is my experience and I think this is the capacity of my 16GB CF card. I don't mind this speed at all as I'm usually doing other things during the download.
-
Oh yes, my mistake -- it doesn't start building the previews until it's done the import. I guess my memory of how it works was confused by the fact I sometimes import several folders in a row, one after the other, in which case it will be building previews for an earlier folder as it imports a later folder. That's obviously not germane to our discussion. Apologies for the confusion.
-
Those who think that they hate working through Bridge-hosted ACR 9.2 might want to take another look at it. Most of those who dislike Bridge, don't seem to realise that all the Panels can be rearranged, re-sized or grouped in one Panel/Window in Tabs.
I use the whole middle column (spread-out to fill about 3/4 of my screen) for Thumbnails and don't make space for a Preview Panel at all because I can use the Space bar to go instantly into full-screen Previews.
The ACR 9.2 Interface is so much less cluttered than is the one in Lr; and the way in which ACR handles multiple files and Batch synchronization is far faster and easier than Lr.
For me, Bridge and ACR are the perfect gateway to the Import routine for Lightroom should I need or want to use Lr for anything.
-
Those who think that they hate working through Bridge-hosted ACR 9.2 might want to Take another look at it. Most of those who dislike bridge, don't seem to realise that all the Panels can be rearranged, re-sized or grouped in one Panel/Window in Tabs.
Some people don't 'think' they dislike working with Bridge ... they 'know' because they use it often for tasks to work with other apps like using it to 'bridge' workflow between Photoshop and InDesign ... as the utility was intended.
When comparing the ease of progressing from capture to delivery strictly working with RAW camera image files, Lr is just as capable ... especially utilizing Develop, Print and Export presets ... not to mention the benefits of live Auto-sync in the Develop module for batch processing, Collections, Smart Collections for Publishing services ... some may also 'think' they don't like Lightroom because they have not delved deeply enough into these aspects to see the value. Tis view is not mutually exclusive.
The preference of one solution is not any better than the other ... it's purely a matter of subjective preference ... not inherit superiority of choice.
-
Those who think that they hate working through Bridge-hosted ACR 9.2 might want to take another look at it. Most of those who dislike Bridge, don't seem to realise that all the Panels can be rearranged, re-sized or grouped in one Panel/Window in Tabs.
I use the whole middle column (spread-out to fill about 3/4 of my screen) for Thumbnails and don't make space for a Preview Panel at all because I can use the Space bar to go instantly into full-screen Previews.
The ACR 9.2 Interface is so much less cluttered than is the one in Lr; and the way in which ACR handles multiple files and Batch synchronization is far faster and easier than Lr.
For me, Bridge and ACR are the perfect gateway to the Import routine for Lightroom should I need or want to use Lr for anything.
When I used to be an Adobe beta tester, one of the things I tried to suggest regarding Bridge was that the default layout was a major part of why Bridge had a low uptake.
That and the archaic, modal and very clunky ACR interface didn't endear people to the software.
This is how I used Bridge on a single or double monitor setup.
-
Some people don't 'think' they dislike working with Bridge ... they 'know' because they use it often for tasks to work with other apps like using it to 'bridge' workflow between Photoshop and InDesign ... as the utility was intended.
When comparing the ease of progressing from capture to delivery strictly working with RAW camera image files, Lr is just as capable ... especially utilizing Develop, Print and Export presets ... not to mention the benefits of live Auto-sync in the Develop module for batch processing, Collections, Smart Collections for Publishing services ... some may also 'think' they don't like Lightroom because they have not delved deeply enough into these aspects to see the value. Tis view is not mutually exclusive.
The preference of one solution is not any better than the other ... it's purely a matter of subjective preference ... not inherit superiority of choice.
Pretty sure all the bolded is also in ACR/Bridge. Maybe you haven't delved deeply enough. ;)
Bridge also has something that I find frustrating that LR doesn't and that is being able to run actions on a bunch of images images in PS. So easy in Bridge.
Sadly Adobe gave up on progressing Bridge several PS iterations ago and barely bothered to work on improving ACR's clumsy interface from the original version and just keep bolting things onto it. No to mention the fact that it's modal means many people don't even realise it's there or what it does.
-
one of the things I tried to suggest regarding Bridge was that the default layout was a major part of why Bridge had a low uptake.
I am convinced of it: the Default Layout in Bridge is abysmal and many people never dig deeper.
I have heard that a new team is working on Bridge so perhaps we will see good things evolve before too long.
But, for me, the ACR 9.2 panel runs rings around the Lr tools: spacious, clean, clear, fast and incredibly efficient. Multiple-selecting a swathe of images in Bridge and hitting Cmd R to open the whole lot in Slide-mode, I can access and work on several hundred images simultaneously. With the KBSCs and Synchronising, I can process over 1000 RAW images a day in ACR.
I open the entire shoot in Bridge-hosted ACR and do a preliminary previewing of each frame in the ACR Panel (zooming as needed) and rate and discard files from there. A second run of the high-star files through ACR then provides more-refined and polished edits for archiving.
I find that I can only do one tenth of that number in Lr because of its excruciatingly slow Previewing and Processing and the cramped way in which the Develop Module has been designed. This cramping is exacerbated when I am working on my small MBPr.
To me, the only way to make Lr bearable, is to Rate and pre-process all of my RAW files in ACR before I import them into Lr!
-
I am convinced of it: the Default Layout in Bridge is abysmal and many people never dig deeper.
I have heard that a new team is working on Bridge so perhaps we will see good things evolve before too long.
Long overdue. They dropped beta testing of Bridge years back.
But, for me, the ACR 9.2 panel runs rings around the Lr tools: spacious, clean, clear, fast and incredibly efficient.
Old fashioned and clunky is how I would describe it. Poor layout, mouse dependent, terrible preset workings and not being able to quickly reset local tools are some of the things I find frustrating with the antiquated programme. Br/ACR/PS used to be my workflow for a long time but LR improved on it so much. I gave up on Br.
The current abysmally slow previewing in LR however is well abyssmal. But Br hasn't changed at all since it was last part of my workflow and that was 4 versions of LR back. But it's previewing is certainly way faster than LR on a quick test. But it still seems to have a bug I reported years back with 100% previews sometimes not quite rendering. :-\
-
Mouse-dependent?
Only for moving the Sliders or selecting one of my pre-saved Presets from the list (same as in Lr!). I never need to Mouse-around (or Wacom-Stylus around!) for anything else
I select each Tool and change between the different Panels by using KBSCs.
Part of the problem is that I don't think anyone has ever publicized that Cmd Option 1 (through 9) will open each of the Task Panels (Cmd Option 1 opens "Basic");
that Cmd Shift S will save A Snapshot (an Instance) of any current Edit;
and Cmd Option S syncs any (or all) of your pre-selected Settings to the currently first-chosen image in the group;
and that multi-selected images will self-sync simultaneously to a particular setting if you move an editing slider.
I find these short-cuts are pretty easy to remember and they very quickly become second nature.
-
Sadly Adobe ... barely bothered to work on improving Lightrooms's clumsy interface from the original version and just keep bolting things onto it.
There, fixed that for you ;). But, frankly, bolting stuff on and plugging stuff in has been Adobe's modus operandi for a very, very, very long time (actually since they absorbed Macromedia's DNA). They really don't excel in UI / usability (e.g LR's new HDR and Pano tools - direct from butt-ugly engineering proof of concept to production release). Functionality, yes, but (good) user experience seems to be a very low priority, Fireworks being probably the nadir. Ironic, really, as UX designers tend to work a lot with Adobe tools.
-
Those who think that they hate working through Bridge-hosted ACR 9.2 might want to take another look at it. Most of those who dislike Bridge, don't seem to realise that all the Panels can be rearranged, re-sized or grouped in one Panel/Window in Tabs.
I use the whole middle column (spread-out to fill about 3/4 of my screen) for Thumbnails and don't make space for a Preview Panel at all because I can use the Space bar to go instantly into full-screen Previews.
The ACR 9.2 Interface is so much less cluttered than is the one in Lr; and the way in which ACR handles multiple files and Batch synchronization is far faster and easier than Lr.
For me, Bridge and ACR are the perfect gateway to the Import routine for Lightroom should I need or want to use Lr for anything.
I used Bridge/ ACR for about 7 years but I now prefer Lightroom for photo import,organising, processing, export & printing ( esp printing ). I just wish it's performance was better. & yes I know you can reorganise the Bridge interface - I'm not a total idiot.
-
Bridge also has something that I find frustrating that LR doesn't and that is being able to run actions on a bunch of images images in PS.
Now that would be useful.
-
Now that would be useful.
Save the actions as droplets. You can then add the droplet as an external editor in Lightroom or in the Export dialog's post processing step. See this post (http://lightroomsolutions.com/running-a-droplet/).
-
Pretty sure all the bolded is also in ACR/Bridge. Maybe you haven't delved deeply enough. ;)
Sure ... except for one glaring exclusion on your part ... Bridge can only see and reference the images that are actively accessible. In the Lightroom Library, once images have been imported, I can edit/add metadata, keywording, labels and ratings even though the images may be offline. THAT is where the database comes into play and a shortcoming of Bridge in this respect.
Once again, neither option is superior to the other. It is purely a matter of subjective personal preference.
I don't think Bridge is valueless. I think it is an awesome digital asset browser ... for my tastes, it doesn't even come close to matching the workflow efficiency if have refined over the years.
You also bolded Export presets ... When did Bridge get an FTP plugin where you can send files directly from the app to the client server without first exporting a derivative file and then invoking an FTP client app or browser? Likewise, when did bridge get a Blog/Wordpress plugin that allows you to send images directly to an online blog database ... again without first generating a jpeg derivative file that must be uploaded using yet another application.
It's these little nuances that keep me in the Lr fold, otherwise, I'd have left Adobe's solutions long ago.
-
Save the actions as droplets. You can then add the droplet as an external editor in Lightroom or in the Export dialog's post processing step. See this post (http://lightroomsolutions.com/running-a-droplet/).
Agreed, I use droplets invoked by Lightroom nearly every day/work session for some clients.
-
Save the actions as droplets. You can then add the droplet as an external editor in Lightroom or in the Export dialog's post processing step. See this post (http://lightroomsolutions.com/running-a-droplet/).
Bleh! I recall seeing a Julianne Kost video many years back explaining how to use droplets with LR, it took 20 mins to explain what takes me a few seconds to do in Br and about two minutes for me to explain to someone else. Droplets always seemed like a faffy way of doing something very simple. A kludgy workaround and I hate workarounds.
-
I used Bridge/ ACR for about 7 years but I now prefer Lightroom for photo import,organising, processing, export & printing ( esp printing ). I just wish it's performance was better. & yes I know you can reorganise the Bridge interface - I'm not a total idiot.
In my experience, it never occurs to most people.
Just like most people use LR in its default setup.
-
Bleh! I recall seeing a Julianne Kost video many years back explaining how to use droplets with LR, it took 20 mins to explain what takes me a few seconds to do in Br and about two minutes for me to explain to someone else. Droplets always seemed like a faffy way of doing something very simple. A kludgy workaround and I hate workarounds.
Wow ... So factually incorrect I don't know where to start ... if you have the Action already to your liking (you must if you utilize same in via Bridge) ... it takes only mere few seconds to save it as a Droplet then add it to an Export preset in Lightroom.
-
There, fixed that for you ;).
Nope, you didn't as Lightroom has a vastly better interface and workflow than anything else I've used to do such work. And that's despite Capture One's ability to let you rejig panel layout which should give it a big edge.
It was transformative in improving ease of the modern digital workflow.
Could it be improved? Certainly. Never used any software that couldn't be.
But seeing in your view all of Adobe's programmes are terrible, who do you think does good UIs?
Or how would you improve LR?
-
Wow ... So factually incorrect I don't know where to start ... if you have the Action already to your liking (you must if you utilize same in via Bridge) ... it takes only mere few seconds to save it as a Droplet then add it to an Export preset in Lightroom.
Well go tell Ms Kost she's clueless then.
-
Save the actions as droplets. You can then add the droplet as an external editor in Lightroom or in the Export dialog's post processing step. See this post (http://lightroomsolutions.com/running-a-droplet/).
Thanks John
I'll try that.
-
In my experience, it never occurs to most people.
Just like most people use LR in its default setup.
I spent a bit of time setting up a couple of custom workspaces in Bridge. It was well worth the effort.
-
Well go tell Ms Kost she's clueless then.
Sure ...as soon as you link the tutorial in question that illustrates Droplets are as intricate and complicated as you perceive them to be. I seriously doubt your assertion in this aspect. It's something I use every day.
While it's possible you saw a tutorial by Kost covering the wide array of aspects and options that can be invoked using automation shortcuts for 'Edit in' and Export presets ... I am quite sure utilizing Ps Droplets as part of an Export preset are quite simple to create and set up and result in massive savings in time and effort ... even if they did take 20 minutes.
-
They are not that intricate or complicated as such. Pointless and faffy most certainly.
It's just a backwards way of doing things that predates easier solutions. If I want to utilise an action in PS from Bridge it's Tools/PS/Batch and choose the action. And that's it. Job done.
In Lr it should equally simple, Right Click/Edit In and in addition to open as smart object, merge to layers etc 'batch' should be an option. Why would you want to go to the export dialogue to edit an image anyway?
Having to create droplets to duplicate your actions to then do what already can be done much more easily in other ways always struck me a tedious waste of time. A method of working that preceded more advanced organisational tools like Bridge and LR Vs Finder/Explorer.
-
They are not that intricate or complicated as such. Pointless and faffy most certainly.
It's just a backwards way of doing things that predates easier solutions. If I want to utilise an action in PS from Bridge it's Tools/PS/Batch and choose the action. And that's it. Job done.
In Lr it should equally simple, Right Click/Edit In and in addition to open as smart object, merge to layers etc 'batch' should be an option. Why would you want to go to the export dialogue to edit an image anyway?
Having to create droplets to duplicate your actions to then do what already can be done much more easily in other ways always struck me a tedious waste of time. A method of working that preceded more advanced organisational tools like Bridge and LR Vs Finder/Explorer.
Ooops ... sorry I doubted you vastly superior experience you have achieved working with Droplets and Lightroom. I will dump Lr immediately and adopt your Bridge/ACR/Ps as soon as I complete typing this response. Who wants to be pointless and faff? ;)
-
Well this thread has prompted me to revisit Bridge.
Personally I have been using Photo Mechanic for sorting and keywording, then importing into LR and after that I'll go into C1 Catalog and sync.
I like having multiple tools as each raw convertor has its strengths and weaknesses.
But the Bridge/ACR method shows promise. I'm gonna study up on it as there are a few things I'm having trouble with. But thats part of the fun.
-
I know that Bridge could do with a big Update (and hopefully we will see one before too long) but even in it's current state, and particularly because of the excellence of ACR 9.2, it is the one program that is running on my machines 24/365.
Once you dig deeply into Bridge's full capabilities, and re-install the Adobe Output Module (which no longer installs automatically) I think that you may find it as useful (possibly even as essential?) as I do.
I do all my file-management (moving, copying & deleting) from within Bridge so Bridge + Spotlight can always find any file (not only images) instantly. I also find keywording and adding descriptions is very easy and quick to do in Bridge — and I add these to nearly all of my image files.
Just be aware that there seem to be a few incompatibilities when running Bridge on El Capitan or Windows 10.
-
I know that Bridge could do with a big Update (and hopefully we will see one before too long) but even in it's current state, and particularly because of the excellence of ACR 9.2, it is the one program that is running on my machines 24/365.
I used to be a beta tester for Bridge [and also PS]. They dropped the Br beta test programme a long time back and basically gave up on developing it.
The irony of the recent debacle being is that those who struggle with import in LR would be at home with Bridge. Just recalled that I suggested this years back, now I've been reminded of it. Br could be a great alternative to LR, that is only if they changed the default UI and made ACR a panel and not a wretched modal dialogue [which is so very early 1990s].
Once you dig deeply into Bridge's full capabilities, and re-install the Adobe Output Module (which no longer installs automatically) I think that you may find it as useful (possibly even as essential?) as I do.
Br/ACR used to be absolutely central to my workflow, but once you dig deeper into LR's more modern way of working you'll find it a big improvement. :P
I do all my file-management (moving, copying & deleting) from within Bridge so Bridge + Spotlight can always find any file (not only images) instantly. I also find keywording and adding descriptions is very easy and quick to do in Bridge — and I add these to nearly all of my image files.
LR does all that too you know and actually once you grok the different way a database works, you'll find you do a lot less, possibly no moving of files once stuff is imported into LR.
LR can also find stuff far better than the near useless Spotlight, even stuff on hard drives that are not attached to your computer. It is however more limited in file types it accepts into the library.
-
I HAVE dug very deeply into Lr but unfortunately its ultra-lugubrious slowness and cramped UI make it my tool-of-last-resort and only usable AFTER I have made all edits in ACR and if I want to use one of its special services such as Mobile.
Unfortunately Lr's cataloguing is of little practical value to me because it only handles Image files and my work involves a lot more than photography. (I wear many different hats!)
Modal Panels in ACR don't faze me one iota (because KBSCs deal with them instantly) and I LOVE the uncluttered spacious working space of full-screen in pure ACR.
Horses for Courses perhaps — but I haven't the patience to deal with the snail's-pace crawl of Lr compared to a swift gallop through ACR!
:D
-
Lightroom for all intents and purposes has always been an alternative to Bridge/ ACR with additional management and sharing options. When Lightroom was introduced in 2007 Adobe made it clear to their Photoshop CS users that the option to use Bridge / ACR or adopt Lightroom was a choice the user had to make. Both applications share basic core functions which are to manage, develop and share raw files produced by digital cameras.
They can also work with other image files like jpeg and tiff files. Which works best for your workflow is your choice as the user.
-
I HAVE dug very deeply into Lr but unfortunately its ultra-lugubrious slowness and cramped UI
Cramped UI!?! Only if not set up + used correctly ;)
Mind you every tutorial online demonstrates using LR set up in the default everything visible setup.
I use LR full screen and with two monitors, can't do that with ACR :P
Definitely sluggish of late though, pity I can't bear using ACR though as it's like going back to the nineties UI wise.
-
Mouse-dependent?
Only for moving the Sliders or selecting one of my pre-saved Presets from the list (same as in Lr!). I never need to Mouse-around (or Wacom-Stylus around!) for anything else
I select each Tool and change between the different Panels by using KBSCs.
Part of the problem is that I don't think anyone has ever publicized that Cmd Option 1 (through 9) will open each of the Task Panels (Cmd Option 1 opens "Basic");
that Cmd Shift S will save A Snapshot (an Instance) of any current Edit;
and Cmd Option S syncs any (or all) of your pre-selected Settings to the currently first-chosen image in the group;
Thanks for these ACR shortcuts. 'Cmd Option 1-9' is particularly useful.
I'm not sure if I've understood what 'Cmd Option S' is supposed to do. I was expecting it to sync settings from the first selected image to the rest - but instead it saves the selected files.
As for 'moving the sliders', I rarely use the mouse. Instead I tab through the sliders, making adjustments with the up and down arrow keys, adding 'shift' for larger increments. That way I can keep my eyes on the image.
Are there keyboard shortcuts to move through the tabs that exist in some of the panels - e.g. 'Profile' 'Color' and 'Manual' in the 'Lens Corrections' panel?
-
I am so sorry: that was a Typo.
It is just plain "Option S" which opens the Sync Panel: all currently-selected files will then take their cue from the First-selected image. Only the settings which you check will be applied.
Also a very nice feature in ACR, is that if you multi-select several images in Film-strip view, and then move one of the editing sliders, you can change that slider-setting in all of the currently selected images simultaneously.
You also have multiple Undo and Re-do (with Cmd Z, Cmd Option Z and Cmd Shift Z).
Regarding keyboard shortcuts to move through the tabs that exist in some of the panels - e.g. 'Profile' 'Color' and 'Manual' in the 'Lens Corrections' panel: The TAB key cycles from line to line in most panels but I don't know of a way to flip between tabbed items in a panel such as Lens Corrections.
Within a Tabbed Panel, Tab takes you to the first item in a section then if you enter a new value there, it advances to the next line. If you don't change the first item, Tab takes you to the next section.
Also check on the microscopic flippy arrows in the top corners of the Film-strip column and also in the main Sliders column for Drop-down menus to useful shortcuts and links to other functions.
-
Thanks for the tips.
In spite of its prehistoric look, I'm a fan of ACR.
I've tried Lightroom 3 times, but I could never get my head around it.
When I last tried Bridge, many years ago, it was slow (on my computer) and images never seemed sharp at 100%. I switched to Photo Mechanic and never looked back.
-
It does depend on how you use the settings. (I never use any software's Defaults for anything!)
I also have made Custom Camera profiles (with the x-Rite ColorChecker Passport) for my cameras under various different lighting conditions and starting from these makes a huge difference to both my speed of working and the quality of the final results.
For sharpness, you will need to understand how the Details Panel settings work but I find them to be very effective