Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: nemophoto on October 30, 2015, 04:45:19 pm
-
I posted how LR 2015 has been regularly crashing my system. But it's really worse than that. It constantly uses about 13-14% of CPU time just sitting there. I experimented. I opened an LR database and left my computer. Two hours later, it's still cranking through CPU cycles. You try to do ANYTHING and it's lagging by a couple of seconds. What a turd. How could Adobe release something this crapped up?
Nemo
-
Hi,
You have my sympathy, but I have no such problems.
Best regards
Erik
-
I've had stand-alone LR 6.00 running on my system (Win7 64) for several days now, sporadically doing little bits of work with it in between using a half dozen other programs. So I just checked Windows Task Manager and LR is using 0% of my CPU time.
So maybe LR 2015 (CC) is as evil as you say, but stand-alone LR 6.0 certainly isn't.
-
I've had stand-alone LR 6.00 running on my system (Win7 64) for several days now, sporadically doing little bits of work with it in between using a half dozen other programs. So I just checked Windows Task Manager and LR is using 0% of my CPU time.
Same here.
-
I'm also running v6 stand-alone with no problems. I built my system going on 2 years ago:
Intel i7 4770, 3.4 GHz
nVidia GTX 970
16 GB RAM
500 GB SSD
Win10 x64
-
No problem for me either.
You haven't got facial indexing on, have you? If you hit the wrong option when first offered facial recognition, that puts you in a very bad place. Mouse over the logo, top left of the screen, there's a drop down on that, make sure Face Detection is paused.
-
No problems here either. LR CC
-
Even though I have a love/hate relationship with LR there is way more love. LR 2015 CC runs fine on both my PC and Mac. I know, little satisfaction to hear if you are having problems.
-
Even though I have a love/hate relationship with LR
Likewise.. although of late its starting to lean toward hate quite a bit more. LR at its core foundation is a great product. But its full of bloat in my view that makes it less than optimal (even though it remains my no.1 choice for working with images because of its cataloguing capability).
Photo Mechanic at the end of a shoot is much better (light years faster) for editing and selects. And I am finding this a better initial solution to LR. Sad, but true.
Im not seeing the CPU issues of the OP - but I am seeing occasional crashes requiring a force quit. Thats frustrating and annoying. And we all know what an abortion the new import dialogue is. But.. hopefully this gets resolved very shortly in the next update.
If Adobe can go back to the core idea of LR and focus on cataloguing, speed, rendering quality and ditch fluffy ideas like MAP, BOOK, SLIDESHOW, WEB (leave those to dedicated programs that do them just A LOT better) I think the program would be a much better user experience.
-
Some people like the bloat and are constantly wanting even more of it. You can't please all of the people all of the time. I agree with Josh.
-
ditch fluffy ideas like MAP, BOOK, SLIDESHOW, WEB (leave those to dedicated programs that do them just A LOT better) I think the program would be a much better user experience.
I don't know why some people are so against these modules. They don't have to impact on the 'user experience' or performance at all, you just ignore them.
For one I think the map module is a useful addition to the DAM capabilities of LR and haven't come across any other program that does it as well, but more importantly it's integration makes it easy and useful to use.
Both book and web work well enough for 'quick and simple' applications, but ought to be more fully specified as we've requested since their introduction. By integrating them they should deliver a better result in theory as LR ought to be able to deliver correctly optimised images for the specific sizes at end use. Trying to do this with external applications becomes a complex workflow that could be avoided by using a fully integrated package.
Slideshow ? Looked at it once and never bothered since, but some folk think it's useful. It has no impact on my use of LR by being there.
-
Hi,
I agree…
I would add that it makes a lot of sense to integrate functions like those in LR and I don't think they have a negative impact on performance.
On the other hand I think Adobe should focus it efforts on quality of raw conversion and performance.
I would suggest that the basic concept of Lightroom is an issue when culling pictures. The processing pipeline is quite complex. That means that it takes a lot of calculations to present an image. A simplified pipeline would be needed for efficient culling, I guess.
Best regards
Erik
I don't know why some people are so against these modules. They don't have to impact on the 'user experience' or performance at all, you just ignore them.
For one I think the map module is a useful addition to the DAM capabilities of LR and haven't come across any other program that does it as well, but more importantly it's integration makes it easy and useful to use.
Both book and web work well enough for 'quick and simple' applications, but ought to be more fully specified as we've requested since their introduction. By integrating them they should deliver a better result in theory as LR ought to be able to deliver correctly optimised images for the specific sizes at end use. Trying to do this with external applications becomes a complex workflow that could be avoided by using a fully integrated package.
Slideshow ? Looked at it once and never bothered since, but some folk think it's useful. It has no impact on my use of LR by being there.
-
I don't know why some people are so against these modules. They don't have to impact on the 'user experience' or performance at all, you just ignore them.
Exactly. Calling features you don't use "bloat" is just lazy.
-
On the other hand I think Adobe should focus it efforts on quality of raw conversion and performance.
I realise that you have a particular interest in this aspect of LR, but I think for most people LR does just fine on demosaicing. It's really pixel peeping territory that makes almost no difference to the end picture for the vast majority of users.
Yes, we'd all like it to run faster, but a lot of users really won't push it anywhere near the limits anyway.
-
I realise that you have a particular interest in this aspect of LR, but I think for most people LR does just fine on demosaicing. It's really pixel peeping territory that makes almost no difference to the end picture for the vast majority of users.
Yes, we'd all like it to run faster, but a lot of users really won't push it anywhere near the limits anyway.
I agree about the raw conversion. Just because two things are subtly different does not always mean that one is better than the other, although there is a human tendency to try to make such judgements. As for speed, I have no issues with LR - but then again I take a relaxed and contemplative approach to my photography and if I needed to rush thru it I'd be very unhappy.
-
I posted how LR 2015 has been regularly crashing my system. But it's really worse than that. It constantly uses about 13-14% of CPU time just sitting there. I experimented. I opened an LR database and left my computer. Two hours later, it's still cranking through CPU cycles. You try to do ANYTHING and it's lagging by a couple of seconds. What a turd. How could Adobe release something this crapped up?
Nemo
The problem could be with your computer rather than with Lightroom itself. I am using Lightroom CC 2015.2.1 on both my Macbook Pro Laptop and my Windows 10 desktop with absolutely no problems. Check to be sure your video card is compatible with LR and your video driver is up to date. Other device drivers could also be the culprit. Perhaps you have some bad memory. If you want help rather than merely complaining, you could post the LR system info similar to what Erik Kaffer did.
Regards,
Bill
-
Exactly. Calling features you don't use "bloat" is just lazy.
I think that this discussion has been on and off for some time.
I politely disagree to the idea that software is "free": adding complexity to a product makes it more... complex. More complex products needs more maintenance, takes longer time to develop, needs more tests, more documentation, more user support, more disk space, more network bandwidth. Sort of like how adding one more kg to a space probe is "only 1 kg" but once you add the weight of the rocket fuel needed to lift that kg (and itself) into orbit, it will increase by orders of magnitude. So while a given programmer within a large software project might be able to do a cool side-project given some amount of time, including this project in the larger one and targeting a broad customer base will have a snowball effect.
Or (more realistically), adding functions at one spot (e.g. "Web") means that (fixed total) resources will be diverted away from other spots in order to keep shipment on time and on budget. Meaning that other modules will be more buggy or improve less. Some software people claim (only partly in jest) that programmers should be paid per line of code that they _remove_.
Now, obviously, functionality is what makes a customer buy software in the first place. Adding high-quality functions that your target customers wants and are willing to pay for is a good thing. If you have a "product-owner" with vision and stamina, you might even be able to produce a nicely rounded package of features that makes sense to a large group of buyers, doing things that naturally belongs together*), things the users might not even know that they wanted before the product was released. The question then is what functions to focus on. Overall I think that Adobe did some (subjectively) "good" trade-offs compared with e.g. DXO here.
-h
*)Some customers inevitably will want their lawn mover to also produce coffee and scratch their backs. I'd argue that such seemingly random collection of features more often comes from the developers based on "I can do it, so why not", and tends to be bad products. I have a "smart tv" and "smart surround receiver" and "smart Bluray player", introducing complexity and security holes that I hate by heart and disable at first possibility. I would love to be able to buy unsmart tvs with high-end image quality.
-
For the OP, mine (LR6.2.1, Windows 8.1 OS) shows 0% as well.
Could it be that one of your files is screwed up, it doesn't like it, while trying to get it into the library leading to the high usage? DxO Optics Pro 10 on mine crashes and/or freezes whenever it sees a RAW/DNG file it doesn't like (Usually off the Samsung). Sometimes I need to go into Task Manager and shut it down as it doesn't fully crash out of running on the drive and bits and pieces are left behind running. The first few versions crashed it, but the later ones freeze it on the DNG with an eventual crash in a few minutes working with it and reporting to DxO. DxO seems a version behind on getting their plugins to work it LR, but that's their issue.
But I will agree there are parts of LR that really do suck (i.e. Catalog/Collections/Liibray, etc. when used with hot-swappable USB drives.). If I plug in an external drive with images, it will not see it in its explorer/folders window which it should do automatically (Windows 'File Manager' sees it.). Instead, it shows me something leftover from the prior drive that is not longer there and it can't access (Leftover drive bloat from LR's incessant cataloging no doubt.) which is a pointless cache bloating feature .
So I import the new drive and images (What a load of tedious stuff that it should have done automatically when it saw the new drive go in!), and I import the images off the new drive, then I see them in the Library pane, and it tells me they are already imported (??) and yet I cannot open them - just dim gray images. No histogram. No develop. Nothing. New catalog and program exits. Residual hot-swap drive thumbnail stuff remains left behind that it cannot work with. Ugh!
Then I watch an Adobe training expert explain and run it, and then it stumbles and confuses him too. Yet it is getting better with each version? No wonder they apologized on the latest version as it seems it is getting 'overthunked' (sic). :o
SG
-
But I will agree there are parts of LR that really do suck (i.e. Catalog/Collections/Liibray, etc. when used with hot-swappable USB drives.). If I plug in an external drive with images, it will not see it in its explorer/folders window which it should do automatically (Windows 'File Manager' sees it.). Instead, it shows me something leftover from the prior drive that is not longer there and it can't access (Leftover drive bloat from LR's incessant cataloging no doubt.) which is a pointless cache bloating feature .
It catalogues files. It's not Windows File Manager, Explorer, or Finder....
-
Exactly. Calling features you don't use "bloat" is just lazy.
Selfish, too.
Jeremy
-
It catalogues files. It's not Windows File Manager, Explorer, or Finder....
Yes, but if you can't see the files to import it's not much use.
I've found similar issues here. If my phone is connected to my system, LR never sees any removable drives.
-
Yes, but if you can't see the files to import it's not much use.
I've found similar issues here. If my phone is connected to my system, LR never sees any removable drives.
He's seemingly complaining about how "If I plug in an external drive with images, it will not see it in its explorer/folders window which it should do automatically " and "shows me something leftover from the prior drive that is not longer there and it can't access". This sounds exactly like the Folders panel would behave with external drives. Reading this quickstart guide (http://www.lightroomqueen.com/quickstart/) would be a good investment - it's free.
On Windows I would always ensure that every external drive has its own drive letter (set via Explorer), so don't let Windows assign the drive letter.
-
If Adobe can go back to the core idea of LR and focus on cataloguing, speed, rendering quality and ditch fluffy ideas like MAP, BOOK, SLIDESHOW, WEB (leave those to dedicated programs that do them just A LOT better) I think the program would be a much better user experience.
Ahhh ... unless I am mistaken, the Slideshow and Web modules have been there from the very beginning (Core Idea components in Lr) and the Map and Book modules were later added in response to user requests. There is no justifiable reason that the Library and Develop module suffer because the other modules exist.
For myself, I actually hide the Book, Maps, Slideshow and Web modules. I don't hide them because they add 'bloat' to my workflow and hog resources needlessly, I hide them because they only offer a lack-luster option for their intended use.
The whole impetus of Lr was to offer a mostly complete one-stop-shop for many of the routine tasks that photographers face in taking a RAW capture to a deliverable format for the end user or client. When I worked with Aperture ... and could create books/albums to my own user selectable page size, margins and bleeds, then print them ANYWHERE I wished ... Create impactful and attention grabbing slideshows using multiple transitions, unlimited title pages, multiple music tracks all with timeline interaction and customization .... while directly accessing my RAW files, never having to create derivative files to hand off to another software option ... now THAT is a workflow solution that results in less work for the end user. Tools which offer solutions and results should rarely be considered bloat.
In my estimation, the Lightroom Book, Map, Slideshow and Web modules are not undesirable or unwanted bloat. They simply lack some key capabilities to increase their value to more users. Unfortunately, these modules falls short, they are rendered useless for many users needs. If these tools were more fully developed and capable, I'd wager they would become much more popular and more widely accepted by Lr users.
I make books. Lots of books. I don't print my books with Blurb. (not because I don't like Blurb ... because Blurb doesn't offer the sizes, page and cover materials I offer my customers) ... which renders the module useless for any Lr user who would like to print books elsewhere and require a different template setup.
I sell a lot of multi-media slideshows. But the Lr Slideshow is so limited and hamstrung ... again, it's nearly useless for what I wish to offer. The Web module has suffered in relative obscurity since v1 that it is so far behind the curve to remain a forward-thinking solution, even when utilizing some third party plugins. Heck, it took up until very recently for Adobe to finally see the light and get rid of the Flash templates.
My thoughts have always been ... if they are going to offer these modules ... take on the task fully and make them the best possible solutions they can be ... if Adobe needs inspiration, they only had to look at the Slideshow and Books capability of Aperture 3 ... although it has reached EOL status ... those options blow their Lr counterparts out of the water still today.
I, for one, not only embrace the concept that my software be capable of doing more tomorrow ... I've come to expect it. If done well, it doesn't have to be considered needless bloat.
-
For myself, I actually hide the Book, Maps, Slideshow and Web modules. I don't hide them because they add 'bloat' to my workflow and hog resources needlessly, I hide them because they only offer a lack-luster option for their intended use.
I don't use any of the other modules you mentioned, but I'm curious what improvements you think Adobe should offer in the Map functionality to make it "much more popular and more widely accepted by Lr users." I've always thought of it as a rather well-designed feature. It's extremely straightforward. It does one thing and — from my perspective, at least (pun intended) — does it quite well: it shows me exactly where the camera was located when I made a particular geotagged image. (And I also like that it displays that location in the context of other shots I made in the same general area.) What else do you think it should be doing?
-
I'm curious what improvements you think Adobe should offer in the Map functionality to make it "much more popular and more widely accepted by Lr users."
Sorry ... If you notice I only referenced Maps in passing as a module I hide ... Maps is the one feature in Lr I am totally agnostic about. It's not a function I need or desire and I haven't actually used it except on a cursory level when it was first introduced. In the course of a year, 80% of my images are captured at venues within 60 miles of my office and are locations I have been working for over 40 years ... I don't really need a map to tell me where most of my images were shot. I do understand for other genres how important Maps can be.
By all accounts of the folks who I am familiar with that use the Map module, Adobe seemed to accomplish much of what was desired from the onset ... much like the Print module ... it was pretty damn good right out of the gate.
The bottom line for me, I have never really been disappointed with Lr ... just in the decision making of how certain features were implemented.
Can you make a book using Lr? ... sure ... as long as it fits within the Blurb paradigm. Can you make a slideshow in Lr? Absolutely, as long as you don't want to include much creativity and are satisfied with a one-size-fits-all plain vanilla product.
My disappointment is why Adobe chose to place such limitations on those modules. They have had such a good record of offering not only reasonable solutions ... but solutions that do not inhibit creativity ... How creative is it if we are all producing Blurb books that any consumer can also create? Or how can we impress a client or audience if all we can produce is the same old tired slideshow that lacks proper tools to add some pizzaz to the effort?
By comparison to the rest of the app ... Slideshow, Book feel extremely incomplete and limited.
I'd also like to point out, I have never expected Adobe to offer such improvements without rewarding their effort. I'd be willing to pay a bonus to get what I want. Actually I'm a bit surprised they haven't embraced this 'modular' approach with a bit more vigor. Early on, I had hoped, even suggested that Lr should have been sold as a base product of Library, Develop and Print ... then the other modules would be optional, at an additional fee. Even open up the SDK to third party developers for additional modules and let the marketplace dictate further development. That way we wouldn't have to hear all this jealously about 'bloat' ... Users could buy and use the modules they desire and ignore and avoid additional expense if all they want is the core product. It wouldn't take long to see what features do have value in the market and warrant further development.
-
The staggering increase in performance and speed between the last non CC lightroom app I had...and the CC version 2015..is truly wonderful.
everythngs a memoryhog these days..but ram is cheap.
-
I don't use any of the other modules you mentioned, but I'm curious what improvements you think Adobe shossuld offer in the Map functionality to make it "much more popular and more widely accepted by Lr users." I've always thought of it as a rather well-designed feature. It's extremely straightforward. It does one thing and — from my perspective, at least (pun intended) — does it quite well: it shows me exactly where the camera was located when I made a particular geotagged image. (And I also like that it displays that location in the context of other shots I made in the same general area.) What else do you think it should be doing?
For example, access Google Street View, display sunrise and sunset times and directions, tide times, draw a route map and export it to mobile devices..... And confirm more than one image's reverse geotagged location fields at a time.
-
I politely disagree to the idea that software is "free": adding complexity to a product makes it more... complex.
It all depends on how those "less essential" features are handled. If they are built into the start-up and highly visible in the default screen layout, they can be annoying. For example, I am amazed at how much slower MS Word is to start than a rudimentary rich text editor (on Mac OS, I am comparing to TextEdit), and searching through multiple rows of icons atop the screen for the few I use degrades my user experience. So for most of my humble document creation, I avoid Word in favor of "leaner" tools. (And it is bad if the bloat always draw extra power and degrades battery life!)
On the other hand, if the extras are in modules that are truly "modular" in implementation, only loaded if and when activated, and if the menus and icons needed to access them are reasonably discrete or better yet optional, then they can be close to invisible to people who do not use them (the extra disk space for extra software features is a tiny impact these days). User configurable menus and pane layout can help a lot.
Lightroom seems mostly on the good, modular side: I had forgotten that "web", "book", "map" and so on exist!
-
On Windows I would always ensure that every external drive has its own drive letter (set via Explorer), so don't let Windows assign the drive letter.
Therein lies the major problem with LR.
If one has no control over what gets plugged into an editing computer that has LR (i.e. People handing me their flash cards, thumb-drives, portables, etc.) then the entire cataloging process of LR is 100% bloatware to me. LR really does need a way to shut if off in Preferences for those who work with a variety of exterior drives of some sort and from whomever. Having their residual stuff left behind that it can no longer find is a 100% pain for me. More so if it tells me the next thing I plug in is already imported (Ugh! It hasn't!!).
Example: My editing station computer feeds 6 printers now. I fire the job to the printer that they want (B&W piezo. Dye. Pigment. Glossy. Matte. Panorama. Etc.). LR leaves too much cataloging and library stuff left behind (or it nags me on how I want to Save, Export, Catalog, etc.) which I do not need, and they probably don't need it either. That part needs to be shut off 100% somehow, and some of the underutilized modules as well. I like it clean and pristine and not filled with other's photos that slow the thing down anyway (Sort of like a new install of Windows that runs super fast, and then in a year it becomes a slow dog as it bloats up the registry - which LR seems to do well on its own too.).
Aside, I see our beloved desktops dying off in the future to phablets, tablets, or whatever (I left laptops out as even they seem to be on the chopping block to these fold-up tablets/phablets and even cellphones/iPads now.), the "internal" storage drives that LR now likes is going to become a major issue if it becomes where any future editing computer needs to have some new external storage device plugged into it.
Has to be a simpler and faster way without all this cataloging, library, collections, and modules, stuff for those who don't ever use it. Just get into it and get out of it - fast! I see it as w way to push the newest versions for needed sales and marketing, but is all that necessary if one just wants to edit with some 3rd party LR plugins and print?
SG
-
The cataloguing is integral to the concept and helps safeguard image collections by recording what should be on each drive, not merely what happens to be there now. It also allows fast cross-drive searches for images, regardless of whether the drives happen to be plugged in. And many, many other features and efficiencies. Don't like cataloguing, don't use Lightroom.
Now, I concede that Lr should do more than rely on drive letters (eg volume name or other OS-available info about the drive), but it takes how many seconds to assign a drive letter?
-
but it takes how many seconds to assign a drive letter?
The problem here is that you can't assign a drive letter to my phone when it's plugged in to charge. That throws LR's import and makes it freeze.
-
I've got a phone too, and don't have the problem. I'm sure there must be a solution. Maybe assign the letters of other drives and let Windows set only the phone's drive letter?
-
I've got a phone too, and don't have the problem.
Well aren't you the lucky one.
Maybe assign the letters of other drives and let Windows set only the phone's drive letter?
Windows sees it as some sort of media device rather than a drive that can be assigned a drive letter. Ironically Windows offers to import pictures from the phone itself.
I think it's just another case of Adobe developing primarily for Mac systems, then trying to work round (or ignore) any problems on Windows systems.
-
>>>>> everythngs a memoryhog these days..but ram is cheap.>>>
Which is fine for a Tower — but a major problem with the newer small travelling-size MBP Retinas in that you can't install more RAM in them after you have bought one.
I find Bridge to be the better solution on my 8-bit RAM laptop because, even with 200+ files being actively edited simultaneously in ACR, it is still using only 2GB RAM.
-
Therein lies the major problem with LR.
If one has no control over what gets plugged into an editing computer that has LR (i.e. People handing me their flash cards, thumb-drives, portables, etc.) then the entire cataloging process of LR is 100% bloatware to me. LR really does need a way to shut if off in Preferences for those who work with a variety of exterior drives of some sort and from whomever. Having their residual stuff left behind that it can no longer find is a 100% pain for me. More so if it tells me the next thing I plug in is already imported (Ugh! It hasn't!!).
Example: My editing station computer feeds 6 printers now. I fire the job to the printer that they want (B&W piezo. Dye. Pigment. Glossy. Matte. Panorama. Etc.). LR leaves too much cataloging and library stuff left behind (or it nags me on how I want to Save, Export, Catalog, etc.) which I do not need, and they probably don't need it either. That part needs to be shut off 100% somehow, and some of the underutilized modules as well. I like it clean and pristine and not filled with other's photos that slow the thing down anyway (Sort of like a new install of Windows that runs super fast, and then in a year it becomes a slow dog as it bloats up the registry - which LR seems to do well on its own too.).
Aside, I see our beloved desktops dying off in the future to phablets, tablets, or whatever (I left laptops out as even they seem to be on the chopping block to these fold-up tablets/phablets and even cellphones/iPads now.), the "internal" storage drives that LR now likes is going to become a major issue if it becomes where any future editing computer needs to have some new external storage device plugged into it.
Has to be a simpler and faster way without all this cataloging, library, collections, and modules, stuff for those who don't ever use it. Just get into it and get out of it - fast! I see it as w way to push the newest versions for needed sales and marketing, but is all that necessary if one just wants to edit with some 3rd party LR plugins and print?
SG
Surely you jest - there is already a solution for you - its called ACR!
Lightroom's fundamental design is a digital asset management system first and everything else, including raw conversion, second.
If you don't like Lightroom fine but that is your issue not Adobe's or anyone else's.
Adobe are not holding you to ransom and forcing you to use Lightroom - ACR seems much better suited to your needs, not to mention other third-party providers of raw converters.
Nuff said
Tony Jay
-
Well aren't you the lucky one.Windows sees it as some sort of media device rather than a drive that can be assigned a drive letter. Ironically Windows offers to import pictures from the phone itself.
I think it's just another case of Adobe developing primarily for Mac systems, then trying to work round (or ignore) any problems on Windows systems.
I use Windows too.
-
The problem here is that you can't assign a drive letter to my phone when it's plugged in to charge. That throws LR's import and makes it freeze.
If you know your phone causes that problem then why do you think its Lightroom's problem. if you know your phone causes a problem then do not plug it in when you are using Lightroom.
-
On the other hand, if the extras are in modules that are truly "modular" in implementation, only loaded if and when activated, and if the menus and icons needed to access them are reasonably discrete or better yet optional, then they can be close to invisible to people who do not use them (the extra disk space for extra software features is a tiny impact these days). User configurable menus and pane layout can help a lot.
Lightroom seems mostly on the good, modular side: I had forgotten that "web", "book", "map" and so on exist!
You seem to be focusing only on UI clutter. I agree that it is good that those modules are well hidden.
A company like Adobe have to have people doing QA, documentation, law, and whatnot. Could Adobe release a "Web" module that was undocumented, untested and did not feature a Julieanne Kost video? I think generally no (although big companies do occasionally release "beta" software that remains in beta forever, perhaps to avoid some of the costs/red tape).
-h
-
If you know your phone causes that problem then why do you think its Lightroom's problem.
It's LR's problem because it's import module shouldn't freeze when it comes across a device it doesn't understand properly. Other applications don't have any issue with the phone being connected.
-
Has to be a simpler and faster way without all this cataloging, library, collections, and modules, stuff for those who don't ever use it. Just get into it and get out of it - fast! I see it as w way to push the newest versions for needed sales and marketing, but is all that necessary if one just wants to edit with some 3rd party LR plugins and print?
SG
Just create a smart collections that take any shit ingested in the last, say, 48 hrs that hasn't you as the author. Every day, either before opening of at the end of it, you just remove all the shots collected there. End of the story.
All it takes is 2 minutes for the collection setup and 5-10 seconds daily.
It's not that hard. I guess 95% of the issues with Lightroom can be solved by… reading the manual.
Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
-
It's LR's problem because it's import module shouldn't freeze when it comes across a device it doesn't understand properly. Other applications don't have any issue with the phone being connected.
It is possible to stop Lightroom trying to interrogate any and every device that gets connected to your system.
Just go into preferences and deselect the import option "Show import dialog when a memory card is detected".
Tony Jay
-
It is possible to stop Lightroom trying to interrogate any and every device that gets connected to your system.
Just go into preferences and deselect the import option "Show import dialog when a memory card is detected".
That would automatically launch the import dialogue when a memory card is inserted, which isn't the issue. I disabled that option on day 1 with LR anyway.
-
I don't recall Lr ever crashing on me, but the list of things that annoy me about it is quite long. For example...
Very, very slow in loading zoomed-in images sometimes. No pattern to this I can discern
Inability to delete photos in Collection view. I mean c'mon, what is it with that?
Very, very limited Stack feature. More or less useless
No keyword editor
Total UI/UX confusion. For example, why, when I'm in library, and absent-mindedly hit R, does it switch to Develop? I don't like Modal, but make it Modal or not. Not some half-assed middle ground
No Save Workspace
Half-bakec dual screen support. When I double click on a thumbnail in my secondary screen, I want to see a full view (calling it "loupe" doesn't make it so) in that screen. I do NOT want my screen views to swap
Confusing, contradictory keywording tools
Filtering tools that look like they never went past prototype UI stage
No scope control for smart collections
Web module forgets all field entries when you change template. Really, wth???
Etc, etc, etc
The summary is that it looks to me that post v1, the only area that got any attention is Develop. And Develop is very, very good indeed. But then again so is ACR, and Lr should deliver more that a re-skinned ACR. Obviously, I'm also whining that "it's not Aperture". But the fact is Apple's marketing, product management, and vision with Aperture sucked infinitely more than any aspect of Lr.
-
As an update, the Lightroom slows seems to exist only with certain image databases. I keep several different databases of images. For instance, one strictly for my commercial/portfolio work. Another for my fine art/travel. And then, each major shoot has it's own database. This way if something goes bad, it doesn't take everything down.
Anyway, the "slows" were related to the portfolio database, which is smaller, by comparison to the fine art. Anway, Lightroom appears to behaving again. No idea why. I didn't change anything, but it seems OK. Except that it still periodically crashes and takes down my system (a different post). So, maybe it doesn't TOTALLY suck, just partially. I wish there was a way to drag and drop from Lightroom to InDesign.
-
I had some catalogs that would churn like this. I deleted the previews folder for the catalog and this would often resolve the issue.
Also, make sure Fae Detection and Address Lookup are paused.
-
As an update, the Lightroom slows seems to exist only with certain image databases. I keep several different databases of images. For instance, one strictly for my commercial/portfolio work. Another for my fine art/travel. And then, each major shoot has it's own database. This way if something goes bad, it doesn't take everything down.
Optimise those catalogues.
-
Exactly. Calling features you don't use "bloat" is just lazy.
This reply pretty much takes care of the OP's complaint.
-
... but the list of things that annoy me about it is quite long. For example...
My list is quite long as well. So given that:
1. Lightroom has some annoying parts
2. Adobe seems to be quite nonchalant about loosing customers over licensing changes
How hard can it be to build something better than Lightroom? I mean making a program that tries to do what Lightroom appears to be trying (or mine/yours/whoevers vision of what they ought to be trying)? Since many of us are using Lightroom and not competing products, I am guessing "quite hard".
I guess that their raw development pipeline is both good and well presented. That will be hard to outdo. Their print module seems to be one of the better implementations out there. But the rest? Some database and a lot of UI work (make it intuitive, consistent, fast)? How far away is raw therapee these days? What are the basic tasks that needs to be done within a "manage thousands of photos" sw package?
Are we talking 10s of man-years to get something usable? 100s?
-h
-
Hi,
Back in 2004 I have started working on an open source project mostly doing what Lightroom does. I figured it would take me something like 300 years so I was somewhat concerned about my time schedule.
If you have a team with specialists in different areas like demosaic, user interface, colour management etc, that time can be much shorter, but I would still suggest we discuss quite a few man years. I would guess about ten man years, having the right team. There may also be quite a few issues with patents.
There is an open source platform that is a knock off from Lightroom called Darktable.
Best regards
Erik
My list is quite long as well. So given that:
1. Lightroom has some annoying parts
2. Adobe seems to be quite nonchalant about loosing customers over licensing changes
How hard can it be to build something better than Lightroom? I mean making a program that tries to do what Lightroom appears to be trying (or mine/yours/whoevers vision of what they ought to be trying)? Since many of us are using Lightroom and not competing products, I am guessing "quite hard".
I guess that their raw development pipeline is both good and well presented. That will be hard to outdo. Their print module seems to be one of the better implementations out there. But the rest? Some database and a lot of UI work (make it intuitive, consistent, fast)? How far away is raw therapee these days? What are the basic tasks that needs to be done within a "manage thousands of photos" sw package?
Are we talking 10s of man-years to get something usable? 100s?
-h
-
How hard can it be to build something better than Lightroom? I mean making a program that tries to do what Lightroom appears to be trying (or mine/yours/whoevers vision of what they ought to be trying)? Since many of us are using Lightroom and not competing products, I am guessing "quite hard".
Honestly? There have already been better products than Lightroom. However, where Adobe absolutely flattens the opposition is in marketing. The initial Beta program, getting hordes of influential photographers on-board, placing Lr as the choice of top pros, all that was a masterstroke. That whole "Lightroom Adventure" thing, practically inventing an aspirational lifestyle for photographers - which could be theirs if they bought Lightroom. George Jardine and co gave a stunning masterclass. Pity they've never deployed the same level of excellence on product development - apart of course from the core imaging engine. Pretty much exactly the opposite of Apple's approach.
Really, how are you compete with that, with some kind of open source pipe dream ?
-
Poor Apple, eh, outdone by someone else's marketing and propaganda! Hard as it for embittered Aperture enthusiasts to accept, Lightroom is successful because it's by-and-large very good, a well balanced combination of features. Some are better than the rest, some aren't, get over it.
-
Hard as it for embittered Aperture enthusiasts to accept, Lightroom is successful because it's by-and-large very good, a well balanced combination of features.
LR's successful days may be coming to an end if the last release was any indication. The CC subscription change wasn't a big deal for me, but the pitiful Import dialog work done last releases, the lack of progress since around LR4 and the awful direction or lack thereof from the product manager to steer the ship is super troubling for a dog like me who's used LR before it was released and was quite the fan boy for the the product. These days I'm examining exit strategies which I'd have never considered even a year ago.
The last release of LR and how the PM's handled it indeed sucked in a significant way!
The color number bug in LR6 which we saw the day it was released still isn't fixed. GPU is still a joke. Etc, etc...
-
LR's successful days may be coming to an end if the last release was any indication. The CC subscription change wasn't a big deal for me, but the pitiful Import dialog work done last releases, the lack of progress since around LR4 and the awful direction or lack thereof from the product manager to steer the ship is super troubling for a dog like me who's used LR before it was released and was quite the fan boy for the the product. These days I'm examining exit strategies which I'd have never considered even a year ago.
The last release of LR and how the PM's handled it indeed sucked in a significant way!
The color number bug in LR6 which we saw the day it was released still isn't fixed. GPU is still a joke. Etc, etc...
But I doubt it is such an indication, Andrew. Sure, Adobe seemed to underestimate resistance to change and some aspects of Import were handled awkwardly (features like Move that don't belong in Import should have been put where they do belong). I certainly think it is hard for users to distinguish where they may actually be benefitting from the GPU work, but I suspect it's only the start of GPU's role in Lr and most people would agree with Adobe's decision to add it. Progress since Lr4 includes more/better local adjustments, stitching and HDR which have been well-received, improvements to Slideshow (only the shortsighted lack of a timeline), a standardised way of recording people. Mobile is a big move, even if we obviously disagree about it, and we now have a browser interface that's the simplest way of letting others choose which photos they want, allows remote review of tethered shoots, and now offers some multiuser capability. I'm not a fan of the subscription model, but I am glad Adobe retained the standard version and was surprised that they decided to allow people to access their catalogues even after ending their subscriptions. While I expect people will pick out a few details from the above and have a good moan, for now it's just the old "what have the Roman's ever done for us" question, isn't it?
Its successful days may be coming to an end if we believe the desktop has had its day though.
-
Its successful days may be coming to an end if we believe the desktop has had its day though.
Ermmmm?.....
If the desktop has had its day, what on Earth is going to replace it? Things like laptops and tablets are scarcely suitable for photo-processing (although I do know some photographers who muddle through with them and seem to get adequate results). But, seriously?
-
Ermmmm?.....
If the desktop has had its day, what on Earth is going to replace it? Things like laptops and tablets are scarcely suitable for photo-processing (although I do know some photographers who muddle through with them and seem to get adequate results). But, seriously?
I agree, for the moment. Paradigm shifts tend to sneak up on you and they've happened before you notice.
For example, a few decades ago, there was no way that PCs would take over from main frames or even mini computers. Ever. Then they did, but it happened before most people realised. They weren't as powerful as main frames, but they were more convenient and more flexible, and people started muddling through with kit that everyone thought wasn't really powerful enough.
Tablets aren't as powerful as PCs, the displays are much too small for photo work, and they can't multi-task properly (I mean: you can't easily have multiple applications running and you can't have multiple documents/images open in the same application). But they're convenient and they're cheap, and so people start using them.
Perhaps - just perhaps - in a year or two we'll see more and more photographers getting by with (apparently) sub-optimal applications on tablets simply because they're convenient. And before you know it, PCs will go the way of the dinosaurs.
Perhaps! Time will tell.
-
Ermmmm?.....
If the desktop has had its day, what on Earth is going to replace it? Things like laptops and tablets are scarcely suitable for photo-processing (although I do know some photographers who muddle through with them and seem to get adequate results). But, seriously?
In my view, laptops have largely replaced stationary computers anyway aside from some niche applications (video editing? scientific workstations? high-end gaming?). Depending on how you define "photographer", I would assume that most photographers do not use stationary computers anymore either.
Tablets are well on their way to replace laptops for casual use (dads reading mail and paying bills). Apple and Microsoft have introduced "professional" tablets that should have interesting possibilities for image editing.
For me this is only part of a long trend of making our primary compute device smaller, lighter and more ergonomic. What would (perhaps) be harder to predict a few years back is the increased reliance on the network, delagating the local device to a terminal/webbrowser-function.
-h
-
The last release of LR and how the PM's handled it indeed sucked in a significant way!
Yes ... and such has been my main concern about Adobe products going forward. I was never all that concerned about the cost of licensing. Up until recently, I have been more than pleased with how my Adobe apps function. My main concern is about decision making when supported by a protectionist business model of a pseudo monopolistic environment. The mindset that I had predicted a couple of years back ... came to realization about a month ago ... the words posted right on the Lightroom Journal for all the see.
Andrew. Sure, Adobe seemed to underestimate resistance to change and some aspects of Import were handled awkwardly (features like Move that don't belong in Import should have been put where they do belong).
... While I expect people will pick out a few details from the above and have a good moan, for now it's just the old "what have the Roman's ever done for us" question, isn't it?
I don't think it is strictly a matter of 'resistance to change.' Sure, all humans tend to resist change. Especially, unannounced, poorly communicated change that also removes expected functionality that users have come to rely upon. Change, purely for the sake of change is not always change for the better as Hogarty and company have discovered.
And yes ... if Adobe expects to be rewarded monetarily, from here to eternity, for whatever they happen to send down the pipe ... yeah, it is indeed a, "What have you done for me lately," situation. What Adobe chooses to invest their time and resources in does matter. They need to be much more wise and judicious in their decision making ... and as Hogarty has admitted, they need to communicate with their customers why they are doing what they do ... before they do it ...
-
But I doubt it is such an indication, Andrew.
Go ahead, doubt it, we'll see how this all progress. So far, the last year or two for Adobe has been pretty rough.
Sure, Adobe seemed to underestimate resistance to change and some aspects of Import were handled awkwardly (features like Move that don't belong in Import should have been put where they do belong).
First, IMHO, Move absolutely belongs in Import and I'm not the only one who used it regularly. 2nd, you can't put that toothpaste back in the tube John. Adobe provided functionality that users had access to for years, then in an instead, despite what they were told by their beta's, removed it (and more). That's inexcusable, it breaks workflows.
I certainly think it is hard for users to distinguish where they may actually be benefitting from the GPU work, but I suspect it's only the start of GPU's role in Lr and most people would agree with Adobe's decision to add it
User's should have no reason to worry or deal with GPU issues. Adobe again clearly took on an engineering task they probably shouldn’t have and then did it rather poorly! No excuses.
Progress since Lr4 includes more/better local adjustments, stitching and HDR which have been well-received, improvements to Slideshow (only the shortsighted lack of a timeline), a standardised way of recording people. Mobile is a big move, even if we obviously disagree about it, and we now have a browser interface that's the simplest way of letting others choose which photos they want, allows remote review of tethered shoots, and now offers some multiuser capability.
Progress has been glacial! Look at the facts, the features you point out are the doing of Thomas and Eric for ACR, their baby. Take out the improvements to the ACR engine, the so called progress between LR4 and LR6 is pretty pathetic. Maps, face detection (a huge mess), and of course, the biggest waste if engineering from Adobe since day one: LR Mobile. I know you love it, I think it's a sick joke based on it's silly workflow (if I can be so kind to use that term) and the silly hardware we're supposed to be happy using to edit images. It's just a sick joke on serious photographers who embraced LR as a single workflow solution for their needs.
I'm not a fan of the subscription model, but I am glad Adobe retained the standard version and was surprised that they decided to allow people to access their catalogues even after ending their subscriptions.
The Subscription Model is the least of my beef with Adobe. I'm happy to subscribe if they don't screw up the product like they did with that last abysmal update.
-
They need to be much more wise and judicious in their decision making ... and as Hogarty has admitted, they need to communicate with their customers why they are doing what they do ... before they do it ...
The admission is BS in my book, Tom had a group of pre-release testers and others he and I suppose the rest of his team ignored. This backlash shouldn’t have come to a shock to these people. That it apparently did shows a lack of leadership and to some degree, just common sense. As I said earlier, I can't recall in 25 years of using Adobe products (mostly PS and LR but others too), such a ill conceived update as what Tom dumped on us. That we're still waiting for an update, with no further communication from Adobe that I'm aware of, I'm worried.
-
You just have a good moan....
-
Look at the facts, the features you point out are the doing of Thomas and Eric for ACR, their baby. Take out the improvements to the ACR engine, the so called progress between LR4 and LR6 is pretty pathetic.
That's been a question I have pondered for some time. If the functionality of the Develop module is the result of those working on ACR ... what does the 'Lightroom Team' do? I whole heartedly agree, if you look at the recent past, most of the advancements/improvements are in Develop/ACR ... the breadth and depth of new/improved capabilities to the balance of Lr is rather unimpressive.
If you take a look at Terry White's videos for the past couple of his favorite new features for Photoshop CC and Lr updates (also ... a month later and his tech blog makes no mention of Lr v6.2/2015.2 whatsoever! ... the absence of such a posting by him is totally unprecedented) ... the lists of Terry's favorite new features are nearly identical for both apps ... seems if it were not for ACR ... the list gets shorter for what has been offered of late for Ps too. Are Thomas and Eric the only ones pushing the envelope at Adobe these days?
I'm not unappreciative of what the Lr Team has offered and I can appreciate that other users would find Maps and face detection valuable .... but if the bulk of items are in one bag ... it's not unrealistic to question where resources have been allocated and the direction of development. Like I have said before ... there should be a more balanced approach.
-
Adobe is just following Google, Facebook and others in the new mantra for corporate $$$. The mantra is called mobile. We, hobbyists and pros represent a very tiny portion of what's going on in the world with regards to photography. The vast majority of photography these days are photos from smartphones. They don't require the power of PS or the breadth of Lr. These photographers just need a place to store their jpg photos and make tweaks so they can post the photos online. I suspect that Adobe is trying to position itself so that it might catch some of these people if they become truly interested in photography.
Just my $.02
-
You just have a good moan....
Consistent, unnecessarily text from John ignoring the facts and argument :'(
-
Consistent, unnecessarily text from John ignoring the facts and argument :'(
No, I gave enough examples of where there's been good progress. You just chose to be contradictory and ignore where I added a particular spin to each example. For instance, I point out some high end aspects of Mobile, and what do you come back with - the same old rant from last year. Do you really blame me for yawning?
-
It's not that hard. I guess 95% of the issues with Lightroom can be solved by… reading the manual.
Indeed. Some Guy sound like a farmer complaining that his Porsche is useless because it can't plough a field.
-
Honestly? There have already been better products than Lightroom.
There were? I tried them all, didn't find one sadly.
However, where Adobe absolutely flattens the opposition is in marketing. The initial Beta program, getting hordes of influential photographers on-board, placing Lr as the choice of top pros, all that was a masterstroke. That whole "Lightroom Adventure" thing, practically inventing an aspirational lifestyle for photographers - which could be theirs if they bought Lightroom. George Jardine and co gave a stunning masterclass. Pity they've never deployed the same level of excellence on product development - apart of course from the core imaging engine. Pretty much exactly the opposite of Apple's approach.
You seem to be missing one very important detail. Apple are the best company at marketing in the entire world and is why they are the so very dominant and incredibly rich. Adobe are small fry in comparison.
Really, how are you compete with that, with some kind of open source pipe dream ?
Make a better product and they will come.
-
Sure, Adobe seemed to underestimate resistance to change and some aspects of Import were handled awkwardly (features like Move that don't belong in Import should have been put where they do belong).
So where does it belong. I use it all the time to get LR to place my files where they need to be on import.
I'd be stuffed without it.
I do not use LR to copy from card. I prefer to do that manually and check all files are moved across without issue. LR doesn't always import all files from a card which is dangerous and data can be lost that way.
Only then do I import and LR now moves files from import folder to the date folders.
-
No, I gave enough examples of where there's been good progress.
And I pointed out, that progress was a direct result of ACR, not LR. We both know from our experience with Adobe how this works. We both know the role of Thomas and Eric, remove those contributions and you're examples are pretty piss poor 8)
WE don't agree there's been 'good progress', just the opposite.
What was the 'big' feature in LR6 that isn't tied to ACR, face detection? A useful function so pitifully implemented in LR6, you can't reanalyze and update images after the initial FD. Who's idea was this of a good feature?
Here's an interesting analysis of the new features in LR6: http://www.lynda.com/articles/new-photoshop-lightroom-cc-lightroom-6 (http://www.lynda.com/articles/new-photoshop-lightroom-cc-lightroom-6)
As far as I see, only one, ONE feature isn't part of the ACR engine: face detection. Try not to ignore all the facts at once please.
-
So where does it belong. I use it all the time to get LR to place my files where they need to be on import.
I'd be stuffed without it.
I do not use LR to copy from card. I prefer to do that manually and check all files are moved across without issue. LR doesn't always import all files from a card which is dangerous and data can be lost that way.
Only then do I import and LR now moves files from import folder to the date folders.
This is exactly the way I work too, when I've got lots of images to import. That John (and the Adobe gang who provided Move in the first place) can suggest it's OK for it to be removed provides perfect example of the myopic view of the LR users they should be zeroing in on!
-
So where does it belong. I use it all the time to get LR to place my files where they need to be on import.
I'd be stuffed without it.
I do not use LR to copy from card. I prefer to do that manually and check all files are moved across without issue. LR doesn't always import all files from a card which is dangerous and data can be lost that way.
Only then do I import and LR now moves files from import folder to the date folders.
In Library itself, as a separate menu command. Its underlying function is to reorganise files into folders, which is a real need in Lightroom - but it's not a need that is limited to when people are importing files. Why should people have to reimport files if they want to reorganise those files' physical location?
-
Its underlying function is to reorganise files into folders, which is a real need in Lightroom - but it's not a need that is limited to when people are importing files. Why should people have to reimport files if they want to reorganise those files' physical location?
You're way off base John, people use Move during import for all kinds of reasons, that's why it was implemented in the first place**!
Adobe is either wrong or wrong, you pick: They were wrong to provide Move in Import in the first place despite users finding it darn useful. Or they are more wrong removing a feature that's been available for years! You pick which is more wrong to you, those of us that use Move during Import know that the feature was useful and that removing legacy features like this break workflows and piss off customers. If Lightroom's PM had a bloody clues he would have:
Asked his customer base about removing the feature first (he didn't).
Asked his prerelease team about removing the feature (he ignored them).
Provided a preference for the new Import for 'dummies" or the existing Import for the rest of us (he didn't).
Oh and I'd like my Eject Card functionality back too!
I don't know how long you've used Adobe products, my experience dates back to about a month after Photoshop 1.0.9 shipped in 1990. I've been a 'beta' since version 2.5. I suspect I've spoken to more people about these products and been called an Adobe Fan Boy a lot more than you have. How anyone can defend what happened with the last release is beyond me and would be a perfect example of an Adobe Fan Boy. I simply can't accept Adobe wrecking long existing workflows and they deserve to be called out. IF that affects my Adobe Fan Boy monicker, so be it.
What we need is a person who can steer this LR ship. Hamburg could do this and provided proof running the PS program before LR was a concept in his head.
**From Victoria Bampton's superb FAQ:
• Move copies the photos to the folder structure of your choice but it also removes the files from their original location. The Move option is particularly useful if you want Lightroom to reorganize your existing photos while importing, as it doesn’t take up additional hard drive space.
-
And I pointed out, that progress was a direct result of ACR, not LR. We both know from our experience with Adobe how this works. We both know the role of Thomas and Eric, remove those contributions and you're examples are pretty piss poor 8)
WE don't agree there's been 'good progress', just the opposite.
What was the 'big' feature in LR6 that isn't tied to ACR, face detection? A useful function so pitifully implemented in LR6, you can't reanalyze and update images after the initial FD. Who's idea was this of a good feature?
Here's an interesting analysis of the new features in LR6: http://www.lynda.com/articles/new-photoshop-lightroom-cc-lightroom-6 (http://www.lynda.com/articles/new-photoshop-lightroom-cc-lightroom-6)
As far as I see, only one, ONE feature isn't part of the ACR engine: face detection. Try not to ignore all the facts at once please.
Try not to ignore I mentioned the improvements in slideshow. They came in 6, didn't they? Reckon Thomas and Eric rolled up their sleeves to write that code? Ah, they don't count as a new feature, while brush adjustments to grad/radial filters do? Yeah, right. etc....
-
Try not to ignore I mentioned the improvements in slideshow.
Yes, some minor ones, about time really since slide show has seen so little love over the years. Too bad it's still a far cry from FotoMagico 4 which I had to buy since LR's slideshow is still so weak.
So yeah, you got one that has nothing to do with Thomas or Eric's superb input to the ACR engine. So by your account, some tweaks to Slideshow and maybe the half baked Face Detection, please inform us of all the useful updates in LR6 that haven't been affected in Develop by T&E. Two minor 'features' are in your mind justification for calling this LR6 instead of LR5? If so, maybe there's a PM opening at Adobe for you :o
-
**From Victoria Bampton's superb FAQ:
• Move copies the photos to the folder structure of your choice but it also removes the files from their original location. The Move option is particularly useful if you want Lightroom to reorganize your existing photos while importing, as it doesn’t take up additional hard drive space.
And it would be even more useful if it wasn't restricted to when you're importing.... Yes, Adobe were wrong to put it there in the first place, and they should have taken this opportunity to relocate it. Those who find it useful don't seem to remember features that were removed before, but I'm sure they could quickly see how to adapt their workflows.
-
So yeah, you got one that has nothing to do with Thomas or Eric's superb input to the ACR engine.
I said "etc"....
-
And it would be even more useful if it wasn't restricted to when you're importing.... Yes, Adobe were wrong to put it there in the first place, and they should have taken this opportunity to relocate it.
Again no, sorry. Move should remain where it was, a new option elsewhere is fine with me. You don't seem to understand the needs and workflows of others or you'd see how Move inside Import IS useful and IS used and how removing it pissed off, justifiably, the LR customer. What's so difficult about moving outside of Import using drag and drop?
Those who find it useful don't seem to remember features that were removed before, but I'm sure they could quickly see how to adapt their workflows.
By all means, provide a list.
Why should users be forced to adapt their workflows?
-
I said "etc"....
Which like your earlier post (You just have a good moan....) is useless, ambiguous, without merit.
-
You don't seem to understand the needs and workflows of others or you'd see how Move inside Import IS useful and IS used and how removing it pissed off, justifiably, the LR customer.
Fortunately some users do understand:
https://fstoppers.com/lightroom/adobe-faces-harsh-backlash-after-removal-features-and-stability-issues-plague-90776:
1 Ejecting cards: Gone is the feature that ejects a card automatically after Lightroom completes an import. I know that I personally loved this feature, as it saved me from absentmindedly removing a memory card after importing photos without ejecting it first and risking corruption of the files. I have a hard time seeing why a feature that really has no bearing on major functionality in the program and is only an added convenience would be removed. A glance over online forums indicated that I wasn't the only one who felt this way.
2 Moving images: Also gone is the option to change the file location of images upon import. In previous versions, importing photos from the hard drive gave you the option to also move them to a destination of your choice. You might ask why you would be importing images from the hard drive and not the memory card. It turns out that Lightroom is very slow at importing photos from a memory card. It's much faster to copy them to the hard drive, then import them. For many of us who come back from a shoot with thousands of photos (wedding photographers, for example), the time savings are substantial, as I can attest to. With this option gone, one has to manually move the photos, then import them. This may seem like a pittance of effort, but for those of us who have been using Lightroom for years, it can be very easy to completely forget that extra step, very quickly leading to a fragmented catalog. In the worst case scenario, if you're like me and you keep your photos on an external hard drive that is backed up to the cloud, but only parts of your main hard drive are backed up, these photos might be inadvertently skipped in the backup process, leaving them at risk.
-
Which like your earlier post (You just have a good moan....) is useless, ambiguous, without merit.
Other than illustrating boredom with your ranting? I gave one example that disproved your rant, and added "etc".
Me: Those who find it useful don't seem to remember features that were removed before, but I'm sure they could quickly see how to adapt their workflows.
You: By all means, provide a list.
Why, don't you know? Or were they really not that important when people were less hysterical?
-
Why, don't you know? Or were they really not that important when people were less hysterical?
No, that's why I asked YOU to provide a list. Can you?
-
Try not to ignore I mentioned the improvements in slideshow.
Can anyone who doesn't use Lightroom actually distinguish the differences between a slideshow created in v5 vs v6?
For me, the 'improvements' are near negligible considering the module has languished since nearly the inception of Lr. It's still quite a plain vanilla option that lacks tools to be even somewhat creative.
I'm not denying that there wasn't at least some effort ... but one must admit, that effort hasn't yielded the end user much additional value to the process. Too bad really, because the Slideshow module could be such an extremely valuable tool if it were not so limited and constrained.
As I have said before ... if Slideshow and the other 'extra' modules would be further developed in a more meaningful fashion ... i'd be more than willing to pay a little extra to get it. I'm not opposed to an 'in app purchase' for premium additional features or functions I desire. Alhough I tend to resent being taken for granted with such mundane tools that receive so little attention.
-
Can anyone who doesn't use Lightroom actually distinguish the differences between a slideshow created in v5 vs v6?
Well in LR6 we FINALLY got Ken Burns effects so yes, probably. That said, this module is still pretty lame and weak compared to other solutions.
For me, the 'improvements' are near negligible considering the module has languished since nearly the inception of Lr.
If you remove the new features that are part of Develop and thus ACR, you're pretty much spot on! If John would simply examine the history of 'features' between LR4 and LR6, he'd see the entire list got shorter and shorter as the release number raised. Subtract Develop/ACR features, there's not much there.
According to Victoria's FAQ, this is the exhaustive list of new stuff in SlideShow:
Slideshow
• Pan & Zoom – Ken Burns Effect
• You can now add a pan & zoom effect to your slideshows, also known as a Ken Burns effect.
• You can change the amount of movement. • Music Multiple Audio Tracks & Sync Timings
• Audio settings have now moved to their own Music panel.
• You can add up to 10 music tracks to your slideshow.
• You can sync the slide transitions to the music, so it intelligently changes the fade time based on the music beats.
• Aspect Ratio Preview
• Slideshows can now be previewed at your screen aspect ratio as before, or they can be previewed at
your intended output aspect ratio (either 16×9 or 4×3). • Preview Quality
• You can pick the preview quality, depending on quickly you need to start the playback.
• Export is always done at full quality. • Other minor UI changes
• There’s a new Music panel and the Playback panel has been rearranged. • Manual vs. automatic slideshow are now buttons instead of a checkbox. • Slides slider now called Slide Length.
• Fades slider now called Crossfades.
• Repeat now called Repeat Slideshow.
Massive engineering? Lots of love for Slideshow? Not really.
-
Well in LR6 we FINALLY got Ken Burns effects so yes, probably.
Well ... there's Pan and Zoom ... and there is one-size-fits-all pan and zoom ... It's like buying a Model T from Henery Ford ... you could have the car in any color as long as it was black ...
And music? ... yes, we finally got multiple songs ... but not multiple audio tracks or the ability to edit the length of the audio inside the slideshow UI ...
Yes, they poured something into a near-empty cup ... but I'm not sure it was anything to savor and cherish over the long haul ...
-
In Library itself, as a separate menu command. Its underlying function is to reorganise files into folders, which is a real need in Lightroom - but it's not a need that is limited to when people are importing files. Why should people have to reimport files if they want to reorganise those files' physical location?
Don't really see what you are getting at. No need for a move tool in Library, you just drag folders directly to where you want them. Job done.
Move being absent from import means much more work, as images get moved into dated folders on ingest which is where they stay. Job done with even less effort.
-
That said, this module is still pretty lame and weak compared to other solutions.
What good solutions are there. The only ones I've found for OSX are pretty simplistic and amateurish. Used FotoMagico a while back, not exactly a power tool.
ProShow Gold, sadly a Windows only programme seems to be the only software aimed at people who want to do slideshows with any finesse.
-
What good solutions are there. The only ones I've found for OSX are pretty simplistic and amateurish. Used FotoMagico a while back, not exactly a power tool.
ProShow Gold, sadly a Windows only programme seems to be the only software aimed at people who want to do slideshows with any finesse.
All one has to do is look at the Slideshow option in Aperture .... pretty free flowing and creative options ... only limitation is your imagination. Plus, when using that option, users didn't have to export derivative images like like you would for options like FotoMagico or ProShow Gold ... you worked directly with your RAW image files.
These days I export jpegs and build my shows in FCP X ... though if I could get the job done in Lr, I would be happy to do so.
-
All one has to do is look at the Slideshow option in Aperture .... pretty free flowing and creative options ... only limitation is your imagination.
I had a look and struggled to even find any way of editing a slideshow in Aperture. A well hidden option and when I did it made LR slideshow module look really fancy. A bit more playing around simply reminded me why people used other software instead of that once promising programme.
Plus, when using that option, users didn't have to export derivative images like like you would for options like FotoMagico or ProShow Gold ... you worked directly with your RAW image files.
That's the thing that makes programmes like LR so powerful, not having to export images to then be worked on elsewhere. Not to mention you can tweak image settings whilst working on them in say your book/web/slideshow/print.
These days I export jpegs and build my shows in FCP X ... though if I could get the job done in Lr, I would be happy to do so.
Having to use video software to create slideshows only shows how poorly served that market is. Because such programmes are overkill, not to mention not exactly well designed for such things
-
There were? I tried them all, didn't find one sadly.
You seem to be missing one very important detail. Apple are the best company at marketing in the entire world and is why they are the so very dominant and incredibly rich. Adobe are small fry in comparison.
Make a better product and they will come.
Well you know that's a very good point, and one I was aware of when I was writing. Basically I think that Apple marketing is tuned towards aspirational devices. And that requires building up mystique and desire. That approach simply doesn't work with a product like Aperture or Lightroom where, demonstrably, engaging with customers is key. Also Adobe had real, identified people championing the product both inside and outside the company, building up a community feel. Apple, of course, had to wrap it all up in a wall of secrecy.
The approach of the two products was also very different, and few people were comfortable with both. But the basic point was that Adobe understands that there is much, much more to making a succesful software product than sticking it in a box on a shelf (or later, App Store). Apple obviously could not give a damn.
-
I had a look and struggled to even find any way of editing a slideshow in Aperture.
No offense, but I don't think you looked very far. All one must do is select the 'Custom' theme and you could change, alter and expand upon almost any parameter available (even create you own custom templates) ... with a true timeline functionality. You can use multiple editable music tracks, video clips and even create voiceover narration audio tracks within the app and control the ducking dynamically.
That's the thing that makes programmes like LR so powerful, not having to export images to then be worked on elsewhere. Not to mention you can tweak image settings whilst working on them in say your book/web/slideshow/print.
I actually moved much of my workflow away from Lightroom to Aperture purely for the opportunity to create books and slideshows. At the time, the Book module in Lr didn't exist. The Lr Slideshow was even more rudimentary than it is now. It was a boon to my workflow not to have to export thousands of images over the course of a year to get the job done.
Having to use video software to create slideshows only shows how poorly served that market is. Because such programmes are overkill, not to mention not exactly well designed for such things
I don't 'have' to use FCP X for slideshows ... I have it to primarily edit video and I prefer to use what tools I have on hand. These days, my offerings are becoming more video oriented with stills thrown in for a little more flare where just a short time ago my approach was exactly the opposite.
What would be great if I could compose a brief slideshow from Lr, import the resulting video as a clip into FCPX ... that would be awesome ... but if I have to do all the heavy lifting in another option to create the pan and zoom, individual image durations, custom titles or text overlays, etc., I may as well do it all in FCP X.
-
No offense, but I don't think you looked very far. All one must do is select the 'Custom' theme and you could change, alter and expand upon almost any parameter available (even create you own custom templates) ... with a true timeline functionality. You can use multiple editable music tracks, video clips and even create voiceover narration audio tracks within the app and control the ducking dynamically.
No offense but you really do need to read the whole reply and not just first part of it and misinterpret that part too, before responding.
I did find the editing options, it was just in a really stupid place and pretty rubbish once you got there. Aperture feels like a poorly designed programme from the 90s, with annoying modal dialogue boxes that won't even stay on the screen you are using.
I don't 'have' to use FCP X for slideshows ... I have it to primarily edit video and I prefer to use what tools I have on hand. These days, my offerings are becoming more video oriented with stills thrown in for a little more flare where just a short time ago my approach was exactly the opposite.
Are you having reading problems or something? Why you own FCPX is irrelevant, the fact you have to use any video app to make a slideshow because the options out there [for OSX users] are awful, was the point being made.
-
Well you know that's a very good point, and one I was aware of when I was writing. Basically I think that Apple marketing is tuned towards aspirational devices. And that requires building up mystique and desire. That approach simply doesn't work with a product like Aperture or Lightroom where, demonstrably, engaging with customers is key. Also Adobe had real, identified people championing the product both inside and outside the company, building up a community feel. Apple, of course, had to wrap it all up in a wall of secrecy.
The approach of the two products was also very different, and few people were comfortable with both. But the basic point was that Adobe understands that there is much, much more to making a succesful software product than sticking it in a box on a shelf (or later, App Store). Apple obviously could not give a damn.
Apple should stick to making hardware, their software is mostly simplistic and not aimed at pro users. LR was ultimately a much better product than Aperture [and also available on Windows] and it was that and not marketing that meant it became the dominant tool for photographers.
-
No offense but you really do need to read the whole reply and not just first part of it and misinterpret that part too, before responding.
That, my friend, is a two-way street.
I did find the editing options, it was just in a really stupid place and pretty rubbish once you got there. Aperture feels like a poorly designed programme from the 90s, with annoying modal dialogue boxes that won't even stay on the screen you are using.
Purely a subjective assessment. Neither right or wrong. Many folks find the Lr UI just as quirky and annoying. This and other forum discussion touch on that topic quite often. ... I had no problem working within the Aperture paradigm and design ... at least the tools were there to be used. Maybe the Lr UI is more appealing to some ... but what good is that appeal if the real tools necessary to achieve a creative results for slideshows are nonexistent? The option is still hamstrung and incomplete.
Are you having reading problems or something? Why you own FCPX is irrelevant, the fact you have to use any video app to make a slideshow because the options out there [for OSX users] are awful, was the point being made.
Nope ... no problems reading, simply elaborating on why I use certain tools. If that offends you ... sorry.
-
Well ... there's Pan and Zoom ... and there is one-size-fits-all pan and zoom ... It's like buying a Model T from Henery Ford ... you could have the car in any color as long as it was black ...
You're so right and I say that after making my first (and now last) slideshow in LR6, the Pan/Zoom has virtually no control as I have in FotoMagico. Kind of a sad joke in terms of it's design.
-
You're so right and I say that after making my first (and now last) slideshow in LR6, the Pan/Zoom has virtually no control as I have in FotoMagico. Kind of a sad joke in terms of it's design.
The whole impetus of the Pan and Zoom technique as Ken Burns perfected it ... is to draw attention to the desired focal point of the image at hand ... the scale, angle, motion and duration of the effect is customized to each individual image. A forced, singular option actually is a disservice to the viewer and add little if any value to the process. Especially when the move is applied to each and every image in an identical fashion.
-
The whole impetus of the Pan and Zoom technique as Ken Burns perfected it ... is to draw attention to the desired focal point of the image at hand ... the scale, angle, motion and duration of the effect is customized to each individual image. A forced, singular option actually is a disservice to the viewer and add little if any value to the process. Especially when the move is applied to each and every image in an identical fashion.
Automated Ken Burns such as in LR is such an abysmal idea, it should not even be an option for blind people.
-
That, my friend, is a two-way street.
No, as I read all of a post several times before replying.
Purely a subjective assessment. Neither right or wrong.
Yet most software has moved on from those clunky early days of software design onto better tools. For good reason as it wasn't very good.
Nope ... no problems reading,....
The evidence above shows otherwise.
...simply elaborating on why I use certain tools. If that offends you ... sorry.
Why would I be offended at your inability to read an entire post or the words in the correct order?
-
The whole impetus of the Pan and Zoom technique as Ken Burns perfected it ... is to draw attention to the desired focal point of the image at hand ... the scale, angle, motion and duration of the effect is customized to each individual image. A forced, singular option actually is a disservice to the viewer and add little if any value to the process. Especially when the move is applied to each and every image in an identical fashion.
Well said, I fully agree. Unless I'm missing something, the LR feature is nothing to write home about. Why didn't the LR team look at the competition? Too much engineering to do it 'right' when the focus was wasted on LR mobile? Or trying to find all those GPU bugs?
-
1. I'm gleaning from this discussion that the panning/scrolling in the "Ken Burns effect" in Lightroom is random?
That is truly pathetic.
2. Ken Burns did not create or perfect the panning/scrolling of still photos for documentary films. It was done at least as early as the early 1960's by the David L. Wolper documentary factory that produced hundreds of hours of filler for network television in the USA. William Freidkin's memoir has a good description of what it was like to work there in the early 1960's.
-
1. I'm gleaning from this discussion that the panning/scrolling in the "Ken Burns effect" in Lightroom is random?
That is truly pathetic.
Unlike FotoMagico and I assume other, better tools, the so called "Ken Burns Effect" in LR the amount of panning and zooming is solely and only controlled by a slider, with Low being a gentle Pan/Scroll. IOW, where and how within the image this takes place is not controllable. So yes, while better than a sharp stick in the eye, it's rather pathetic.
-
Too much engineering to do it 'right' when the focus was wasted on LR mobile? Or trying to find all those GPU bugs?
I don't have an issue with Adobe seeking a mobile solution. I do have an issue when there have been years of requests to bring a module up to speed that has been around since v1 and relatively untouched since it's introduction.
-
I have to agree with several comments Andrew made earlier:
*GPU acceleration is a joke. For me it simply slows down virtually any process I do in LR, whether panning an image or moving a slider
*Lightroom Mobile is convoluted and not practical for any large job.
One area I will give kudos is demosaicizing some of the cameras. I spent a number of hours working with four other converters and LR doing several different difficult images - a heavily side lit photo (of my kids, since I always exert better control over my commercial shots) and a contrasty fall scenic. I was especially interested in how the different programs handled the scenic, since it was from my Canon 5Ds. I used: Capture One, DxO, Canon DPP, and Photo Ninja. I hated Capture One. DxO was slightly better. DPP was the hardest to get what I wanted. Photo Ninja had the best, by far, conversion of the scene. But hands down, Lightroom, after much massaging to almost match Photo Ninja, had by far the most detail massaged from the 5Ds. At first I thought Photo Ninja was the winner (certainly looked that way when viewed at 25 and 50%). But pixel peeping at 100 and 200%, Lightroom showed much better detail, especially in the shadows and darker midtones. If I have a chance later, I might upload some screen shots. However, not likely to be soon since I'm headed off on a shoot on Saturday.
So Lightroom does do some things better than the competition. Too bad it's a turd in some other areas, such as crashing my computer. (Not too bad today. Only took it down once today.)
-
Don't really see what you are getting at. No need for a move tool in Library, you just drag folders directly to where you want them. Job done.
Move being absent from import means much more work, as images get moved into dated folders on ingest which is where they stay. Job done with even less effort.
Yes, Move in Import means you get your dated folders on ingest, but it's only available on ingest and we're ignoring other reasons for people wanting to automatically move photos into dated folders. Library's manual drag and drop is OK for a few files, but isn't something you would want as a routine - imagine splitting a folder with a few days' photos. Or consider someone changing their folder system from some legacy structure into a Lightroom-style date based structure. A lot of users want to do this after working with Lightroom for a while, but now they are forced to remove those files from Lightroom and use Import + Move. That means they lose any non-xmp work on them. Putting a Move feature in Library would meet their needs, as well as those importing new photos.
A further group is people who want to reorganise photos by subject, rating, colour etc. It's not hard to add to Move other splitting criteria like By Title, By Rating and so on. Even if Adobe don't take this opportunity, a generic tool is always better than one that's limited to a single workflow.
-
So Lightroom does do some things better than the competition. Too bad it's a turd in some other areas, such as crashing my computer. (Not too bad today. Only took it down once today.)
Again, go back to the previous AMD drivers or use the beta of their next version.
-
Man, if I had such pentup dislike for something...I would move onto something else. Lots of examples of other products being better...why not just give up on LR and just use those other products.
-
Man, if I had such pentup dislike for something...I would move onto something else. Lots of examples of other products being better...why not just give up on LR and just use those other products.
Well for one, I've invested years of work into this product (even prior to it's release). I like the product A LOT when Adobe doesn't screw up my workflow by removing features I depend on. First time (for me) with LR**, I can't recall this being an issue (for me) with PS in 25 years of use. And no, the 'feature' removed and replaced, View>Print Size really didn't work and required the user to make gyrations to figure out their true display resolution to enter, so it doesn't count.
When you have many, many presets, DNG camera and lens profiles etc, years of proprietary raw metadata edits, moving on is a last resort. IT IS POSSIBLE but I'd rather see an improvement in the product manager (or better, a new one) and see Adobe go back to doing what they traditionally provided to this customer over the past 25 years: a very satisfied experience. The last year? Not so much.
** Still waiting on John's list of LR features removed over the years....
-
Man, if I had such pentup dislike for something...I would move onto something else. Lots of examples of other products being better...why not just give up on LR and just use those other products.
Go on name one that can do what LR does then. And do it better too.
-
I can't recall this being an issue (for me) with PS in 25 years of use.
You mean you never used 'print with no colour management' ? bet yer did ;-)
That stopped me at PS CS4 and I'm not missing anything from the later versions here.
LR6 still has lots of potential to improve. My credit card's ready, but it's getting harder to see it being needed on the basis of recent events.
-
Yes, Move in Import means you get your dated folders on ingest, but it's only available on ingest and we're ignoring other reasons for people wanting to automatically move photos into dated folders. Library's manual drag and drop is OK for a few files, but isn't something you would want as a routine - imagine splitting a folder with a few days' photos.
Why would have to do that? You do that on import.
Or consider someone changing their folder system from some legacy structure into a Lightroom-style date based structure. A lot of users want to do this after working with Lightroom for a while, but now they are forced to remove those files from Lightroom and use Import + Move. That means they lose any non-xmp work on them. Putting a Move feature in Library would meet their needs, as well as those importing new photos.
To use your own arguments about how LR is designed/laid out, you put the tool where is is best for guiding good working practice.
Import into dated folders and don't move stuff around once it's in LR other than to maybe separate out a varied day's shooting into separate folders for different subjects maybe. Easily done by creating a new folder which LR then automatically can move your photos into - so move functionality is there as it happens. Just not explicitly called that.
A further group is people who want to reorganise photos by subject, rating, colour etc. It's not hard to add to Move other splitting criteria like By Title, By Rating and so on. Even if Adobe don't take this opportunity, a generic tool is always better than one that's limited to a single workflow.
That's what collections are for, no need to move anything. Doing so is against how LR is meant to work effectively.
-
Exactly. Calling features you don't use "bloat" is just lazy.
Selfish, too.
Jeremy
Complaining about 'bloat' is a pet hate of mine too. I could add several other unflattering adjectives. ;)
-
Still waiting on John's list of LR features removed over the years....
What's more important is that you can't remember them. People soon adapt and forget.
-
What's more important is that you can't remember them. People soon adapt and forget.
Poor argument John.
I can't recall all the features in Opera that make it so much nicer than any other browser to use. Doesn' make the other browsers any better to use when I 'adapt to them', they still feel clumsy.
-
What's more important is that you can't remember them.
Appears, neither can you! If such feature(s) removal exist at all.
Are you willing and able to do as you said? Supply the list?
Those who find it useful don't seem to remember features that were removed before, but I'm sure they could quickly see how to adapt their workflows.
Again, what features that were removed before?
-
Poor argument John.
You're being too kind to John by using the word argument ;D
-
You mean you never used 'print with no colour management' ? bet yer did ;-)
Very rarely and that print path isn't the job of Photoshop, it's the job of the product that builds color targets that need to be printed without color management. And the products I use to build said targets print directly from their app without color management.
What I would do occasionally is gang up multiple color images converted to differing output profiles options on one page, then print without color management.
There's an Adobe app for that ;D , cost nothing. So no, the removal of a feature that's not appropriate isn't a big deal.
-
Well for one, I've invested years of work into this product (even prior to it's release). I like the product A LOT when Adobe doesn't screw up my workflow by removing features I depend on. First time (for me) with LR**, I can't recall this being an issue (for me) with PS in 25 years of use. And no, the 'feature' removed and replaced, View>Print Size really didn't work and required the user to make gyrations to figure out their true display resolution to enter, so it doesn't count.
When you have many, many presets, DNG camera and lens profiles etc, years of proprietary raw metadata edits, moving on is a last resort. IT IS POSSIBLE but I'd rather see an improvement in the product manager (or better, a new one) and see Adobe go back to doing what they traditionally provided to this customer over the past 25 years: a very satisfied experience. The last year? Not so much.
** Still waiting on John's list of LR features removed over the years....
My post was directed more at others which say product so...and...so is better at this and product so...and...so is better at that. Just drop LR and move to product so...and...so.
-
Go on name one that can do what LR does then. And do it better too.
I can't...that is why I happy using LR.
-
it's the job of the product that builds color targets that need to be printed without color management.
Nice theory, but never an option in any programs I've run on Windows.
There's an Adobe app for that ;D , cost nothing.
and that doesn't work properly.
-
You're being too kind to John by using the word argument ;D
Quite right, it's a statement of fact. The things that have been imported (Jeremy remembered one in a previous thread) just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.
-
Quite right, it's a statement of fact. The things that have been imported (Jeremy remembered one in a previous thread) just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.
IF you can't back up your claim (Those who find it useful don't seem to remember features that were removed before, but I'm sure they could quickly see how to adapt their workflows.) your credibility as a LR Expert** should be justifiably in question. And just what did Jeremy remember that belongs on the list you can't create? I can't find it in these three pages.
So again, IF you can, for those of us that don't seem to remember features removed from LR, do inform IF you can. IF you can't, well we will understand and take that into consideration next time you post about this product.
**http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/lightroom/
As one of the leading experts on Adobe Lightroom and on DAM systems such as iView and Extensis Portfolio, I work with leading photographers to help them establish robust and efficient workflows.
-
Nice theory, but never an option in any programs I've run on Windows.and that doesn't work properly.
Ah, sure. All I can tell you is since ACPU has been out, I've built literally hundreds of profiles FROM customers, Mac and Windows using this product to print targets and IF they setup the properly configured targets, I can measure them in a device that is VERY picky about scaling; an i1 iSis XL. And IF you owned a product designed for this task (i1Profiler on Windows), you'd be able to do this as well.
-
And just what did Jeremy remember that belongs on the list you can't create? I can't find it in these three pages.
That 's because you can't read. I said "previous thread".
And again, the things that have been removed (that was a typo and a clue) just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.
-
FROM customers, ...... IF they setup the properly configured targets, I can measure them in a device that is VERY picky about scaling;
So in other words you have to rescale the targets for Windows customers because if they use ACPU it will resize the target.
Those of us that still use PMP for some tasks can't print from it anyway.
This is really off topic now, but you're being very obtuse about the fact that features have gone from PS in the past that users found useful. Just go back and read the complaints about the NCM option's removal decision here at the time of CS5's release.
-
That 's because you can't read. I said "previous thread".
What friggin Previous Thread John? There are a few thousands in these parts. Seems more evidence you can't support your claims.
And again, the things that have been removed (that was a typo and a clue) just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.
What 'things' John? As the LR expert, you should have no issues providing a list. Since I asked for this list, (post #76), you've posted half a dozen times without specifying a single item that was removed. Telling! It appears you're unable as the LR export to back your claim, that's cool. You should probably ping a real LR expert like Schewe or Victoria Bampton, maybe they can help you assemble that list. Until then, it may be factual that features in LR have disappeared since version 1, but it appears you're not able to supply anything factual for us to accept. That puts your credibility in a bind IMHO.
-
So in other words you have to rescale the targets for Windows customers because if they use ACPU it will resize the target.
Nope, not at all. I have no idea what customers are on Windows or Mac unless they tell me, they ALL get the same targets and print them using ACPU.
Those of us that still use PMP for some tasks can't print from it anyway.
Why not?
This is really off topic now, but you're being very obtuse about the fact that features have gone from PS in the past that users found useful. Just go back and read the complaints about the NCM option's removal decision here at the time of CS5's release.
Features (printing without color management) were moved, not removed; the functionality exists in a free product that does work (at least for my customers). Printing without color management is useful to what customers outside those printing targets, a task that any decent profile creating product provides directly.
-
What friggin Previous Thread John? There are a few thousands in these parts. Seems more evidence you can't support your claims. What 'things' John? As the LR expert, you should have no issues providing a list. Since I asked for this list, (post #76), you've posted half a dozen times without specifying a single item that was removed. Telling! It appears you're unable as the LR export to back your claim, that's cool. You should probably ping a real LR expert like Schewe or Victoria Bampton, maybe they can help you assemble that list. Until then, it may be factual that features in LR have disappeared since version 1, but it appears you're not able to supply anything factual for us to accept. That puts your credibility in a bind IMHO.
You're getting dangerously close to going unpleasantly ad hominem, Andrew..... I'm perfectly happy to spit back.
So again, the things that have been removed just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.
Did you understand this time?
-
Nope, not at all. I have no idea what customers are on Windows or Mac unless they tell me, they ALL get the same targets and print them using ACPU.
So how does that work then ? ACPU resizes the charts on Windows by about 6%.
If you recall, I did a lot of research on this at the time and spent a lot of time understanding how the XML data references for charts were structured and worked, then rewriting them to allow the charts printed by ACPU to allow them to be automatically read. Wade back through the CM forum and you'll see all the results and solutions I posted at the time.
Why not?
Because it doesn't have a print option.
Features (printing without color management) were moved, not removed;
OK, so where were was the print with no colour management "moved" to in to PS CS5 ? and if you know the answer to that why didn't you point it out at the time ?
-
So again, the things that have been removed just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case?
If you want any credibility as as "expert" saying "I know and you don't" doesn't work.
-
What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.
I'm not an expert at all but long time user of Lightroom (since beta 1) and my conclusion from Andrew and your ping-pong match is that there were either none (I can't remember any and if I were even mildly annoyed by them I would remember) or if there were some they were either useless (to me) or replaced with better/different functionality.
But, I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone would produce a list and stop this mad contest which is highly amusing but not very useful if you want to learn something ;)
-
If you want any credibility as as "expert" saying "I know and you don't" doesn't work.
So? That isn't what I am saying, is it? Quite the contrary, "Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on."
-
You're getting dangerously close to going unpleasantly ad hominem, Andrew..... I'm perfectly happy to spit back.
Please do John as you're totally unable to simply answer questions asked of you to back up your claims. You (and I) could save precious time if you'd simply answer the question asked of you repeatedly. That you can't appears to me, perhaps others (I hope) that your text about items being removed is bogus. I believe it is very possible this could and did occur but since you can't back up your claim, perhaps it didn't until this egregious dot release where useful and expected functionality (Move, Eject Card) were clearly removed. The root of this "argument'.
So again, the things that have been removed just aren't important any more - they're gone.
Nice of you to speak for everyone! Truth is, I might actually agree with you IF you could pull up even 1 feature that was removed. You either can't or will not.
Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case?
I do! Can you assist or are you unable, I'll ask a real LR expert.
What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.
Adapt from what point? You can't tell me, you can only state your opinion which isn't apparently fact based (fine, I know now to ignore you’re text on this product).
Did you understand this time?
What I understand is, you made a statement you'd like me and others to accept as fact. But you can't provide an ounce of proof despite me asking now a good half a dozen times. What I understand is, you've been called out, you've been requested to share your expertise on features removed in LR and you can't or will not. I don't know why you have to make it so difficult unless your original statement is groundless. Which is it John?
-
But, I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone would produce a list and stop this mad contest which is highly amusing but not very useful if you want to learn something ;)
As would I, really I would. It would add to my LR education. I can't find any kind of list on the web of items removed. So we have two possibilities: John is correct or John is full of poop. I haven't made any decision about which is which but the longer John wiggles out of providing the answer asked of him, as a LR expert, my suspicion is, he's making this stuff up.
-
I'm not an expert at all but long time user of Lightroom (since beta 1) and my conclusion from Andrew and your ping-pong match is that there were either none (I can't remember any and if I were even mildly annoyed them I would remember) or if there were some they were either useless (to me) or replaced with better/different functionality.
But, I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone would produce a list and stop this mad contest which is highly amusing but not very useful if you want to learn something ;)
It'll be even more amusing when the Digital Dog has to admit I'm right, if I ever let him off the hook. The more he whines on, the less likely that is! But seriously, the point really isn't whether I remember one that he has forgotten, it's that Adobe have removed features before and that people do adapt.
You may think that there were none, but Jeremy did recall one.
-
As would I, really I would. It would add to my LR education. I can't find any kind of list on the web of items removed. So we have two possibilities: John is corrected or John is full of poop. I haven't made any decision about which is which but the longer John wiggles out of providing the answer asked of him, as a LR expert, my suspicion is, he's making this stuff up.
Again, I'll remind you I'm perfectly happy to throw your shit back at you....
So, who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on. Got it this time?
-
So how does that work then ? ACPU resizes the charts on Windows by about 6%.
Yes, on Windows there is a bug (OT but Adobe once fixed it, but I don't believe ever released it; I have a copy ;D )
So the big issue with scaling occurs with auto Spectrophotometer's like my iSis. If the patches are off, it barfs. MY target takes into account this possibility such that even if scaling occurs, I can measure MY targets without issue. If you're using a handheld device, that scaling will not have any affect unless of course you end up printing patches outside the margins! My targets don't do that.
So again OT but yes, there's a bug in ACPU on Windows that can occur. But no, it doesn't provide any issues for me with my auto Spectrophotometer and my targets. I have literally hundreds of saved CGATS files from customers all over the world, Mac and Windows and IF the user follows my instructions, I can and I do measure their targets printed from ACPU. All the time.
For folks building their own profiles, this is totally moot, the product creating the targets should print them without color management. For a dog like me, who has to deal with customers all over, with differing operating systems and copies of Photoshop, it should be a major PITA using ACPU but the facts are, outside of user error, my targets measure just fine.
-
It'll be even more amusing when the Digital Dog has to admit I'm right, if I ever let him off the hook. The more he whines on, the less likely that is! But seriously, the point really isn't whether I remember one that he has forgotten, it's that Adobe have removed features before and that people do adapt.
You may think that there were none, but Jeremy did recall one.
You're probably right that items were removed but I don't think these removals were "bloody annoying". Because if they were I'm sure I (and a lot more people) would remember.
On a scale of annoyance where we put the change in the import module at 100 the items you refer to are (my guess) probably below 5, if not lower.
And I do hope you let us all off the hook (incl. Andrew). This is a public forum where people come to learn and not just to watch amusing but senseless ego-clashing.
-
Again, I'll remind you I'm perfectly happy to throw your shit back at you....
So, who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on. Got it this time?
You can throw all you want John, but the poop is all on your shoulders with your inability to back up your so called expertise regarding LR features (removed or otherwise). Let's move on, it's clear you can't provide any facts to back up your statement. There's no reason for me to embarrass you further. Now IF indeed features were removed, we have something to further discuss. But at this point in time, you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole here. First law on holes - when you're in one, stop digging!
-
It'll be even more amusing when the Digital Dog has to admit I'm right, if I ever let him off the hook.
IF and WHEN you provide some facts of features removed, I'll be happy to say you're right. You'll note too that I never said you were wrong and that no features have ever been removed (useful to point out when you say I can't read). I said I want a list, even if that contains one item. Days after asking you to refresh my memory, you still haven't. So what should I make of your behavior John? I'm asking a self described LR expert a simple question of which so called expert has spent considerable time ignoring, diverting from answering. I don't know why you have to make this so difficult; simple question (again) since version 1, what features have been removed from LR?
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
-Søren Kierkegaard
-
You're probably right that items were removed but I don't think these removals were "bloody annoying". Because if they were I'm sure I (and a lot more people) would remember.
On a scale of annoyance where we put the change in the import module at 100 the items you refer to are (my guess) probably below 5, if not lower.
Well, I find one of them bloody annoying enough to remember it, while the one Jeremy recalled was controversial at the time. But generally, people have forgotten and adapted.
Individually, the previous removals were about the same level as each of the recent ones. I think the big difference here was that the recent change bundled half a dozen removals together, all in the same area and all in the same dot release. Add to the mix the unexpectedly-wide problems running on a new OSX release, and other fears and prejudices, and you got the cut and paste anguish so exemplified in this thread.
-
Well, I find one of them bloody annoying enough to remember it, while the one Jeremy recalled was controversial at the time.
Those would be????????
I guess I'll have to find out which Jeremy you're referring to and ask him, he must be the actual LR expert here.
-
First law on holes - when you're in one, stop digging!
I hope you take your own advice to heart. Are you now deejjaaa / alterego in disguise?
As I keep telling you, it is not the specific removals that are important. I couldn't care less if you remain ignorant. Do you not understand that? My point, which I'll happily keep reiterating, is that what is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.
-
Actually I can't now recall off hand which feature it was I mentioned being removed.
Maybe it was the calendar filter that got binned in V2, a shame as it could have been very useful.
I vaguely seem to recall that PSE many years back had a browser thang with a very useful calendar search tool.
-
Individually, the previous removals were about the same level as each of the recent ones. I think the big difference here was that the recent change bundled half a dozen removals together, all in the same area and all in the same dot release.
It was removing long standing parts of people's workflow and not replacing them with anything that was the issue.
-
My post was directed more at others which say product so...and...so is better at this and product so...and...so is better at that. Just drop LR and move to product so...and...so.
And ... if you would have actually read those comments in detail ... you would have also seen that some of us do use other options that do certain tasks better. Too bad you find it upsetting when others point out that Adobe's version of such tools included in Lr don't measure up.
-
if scaling occurs,
...... there's a bug in ACPU on Windows that can occur.
I've never read of any cases where scaling in ACPU doesn't happen on Windows.
-
That isn't what I am saying, is it?
That's exactly what you're saying.
You've said features have been removed from LR in the past, but have failed to give a single example of one.
-
It was removing long standing parts of people's workflow and not replacing them with anything that was the issue.
But it also played into some existing fears of dumbed down apps, the subscription model, removing stuff from something you've bought, the way Apple recently shafted people, and Andrew's bitterness of course. Remove those half-dozen features over time and there wouldn't have been much more fuss than over the previous removals. You were quite close to remembering the one you mentioned before, but please don't lose sleep over them!
-
they were bloody annoying at the time
Let me reiterate my point as well, for me on an annoyance scale from 1 to 100 these were probably below 5, maybe mildly annoying but probably less. That's why I can't remember them, because if they were any higher I would.
-
That's exactly what you're saying.
You've said features have been removed from LR in the past, but have failed to give a single example of one.
Nope, I keep empasizing that the specific features simply aren't important (FWIW Jeremy knew of one) but what actually matters is that people forgot them, pretty thoroughly it appears, and adapted. I don't agree with all the ways Import changed in 6.2, but it would have been the same here - except for so many coming at once and all those other externals (misjudging the OSX release, Apple's dumbing down, fears and prejudices).
-
Let me reiterate my point as well, for me on an annoyance scale from 1 to 100 these were probably below 5, maybe mildly annoying but probably less. That's why I can't remember them, because if they were any higher I would.
No, really, each was similar. But bundle 6 together and the impact is 5 to the power 6!
-
I hope you take your own advice to heart. Are you now deejjaaa / alterego in disguise?
The question doesn't deserve a reply!
As I keep telling you, it is not the specific removals that are important.
They are not important to you! They might not be important to me IF I knew what they were. I keep asking, you're unable to answer. IF I knew WTF you were referring to with respect to removed features, we might come to a full and violent agreement. But since you can't answer a simple question, you're statements about features removed appear to be science fiction. Can we have some actual science, an actual answer from you? Doesn't appear so. Back in your hole John.
I couldn't care less if you remain ignorant.
I am ignorant, hence the reason I've asked you nearly a dozen times to educate me but you're incapable of doing so.
Do you not understand that?
I fully understand you made a statement that you can't explain or backup.
Do your clients who presumably pay you for your expertise have to jump through so many hoops to get a simple answer to an LR question from someone who states he's an LR expert?
My point, which I'll happily keep reiterating, is that what is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.
WHAT SPECIFICALLY was removed? I'll be the judge as will others what's important.
-
I've never read of any cases where scaling in ACPU doesn't happen on Windows.
And I've never had the scaling affect me with a device that's darn picky about size!
-
No, really, each was similar. But bundle 6 together and the impact is 5 to the power 6!
Nice try, but no cigar ;)
-
And I've never had the scaling affect me with a device that's darn picky about size!
But if you've created a target design that can be measured without the scaling issue causing problems, that would explain it. As you've alluded to in reply #133 " MY target takes into account this possibility such that even if scaling occurs, I can measure MY targets without issue."
That's a very clever trick, but it doesn't change the fact that NCM was removed from PS from CS5 onwards, not moved as you've suggested, and that the only public version of ACPU resizes charts on Windows systems.
-
Like many others (apparently) I have been hoping John Beardsworth would provide us the list of features he says were removed from LR prior to version 6. I have used every version of LR since #1 and I , too, cannot remember a single feature that was removed, and certainly none that were "bloody annoying."
I do hope he will relent and give us that list rather than continue repeating his unsupported assertion over and over.
He has now earned a place on my very selective "ignore" list. If he ever provides the list, I hope someone will let me knoe about it.
-
He has now earned a place on my very selective "ignore" list. If he ever provides the list, I hope someone will let me knoe about it.
I'll quote him if it ever happens so you can see it Eric.
However I'm also not a real fan of the "ignore" function. It's too crude for my liking. Sometimes it's very amusing to see people behave like an a$$ and if it's really worth ignoring my scroll wheel is pretty quick as well and much more selective 8)
-
Like many others (apparently) I have been hoping John Beardsworth would provide us the list of features he says were removed from LR prior to version 6. I have used every version of LR since #1 and I , too, can
Same here ... it's quite possible that some functions and or capabilities were indeed removed the past ... but as indicated by our loss of recall as a group ... those specific facets must have indeed been unimportant to most users.
Conversely, as much as some would like to downplay the event and analyze the reactions was the result of outside influences and not the direct result of poor decision making by Adobe management ... the backlash over 6.2 would indicate that the recent exclusion of certain features or capabilities didn't fall within the same criteria of being unimportant falling under the radar of the average user. It would seem the two situations are not relatable in many respects.
-
Same here ... it's quite possible that some functions and or capabilities were indeed removed the past ... but as indicated by our loss of recall as a group ... those specific facets must have indeed been unimportant to most users.
Conversely, as much as some would like to downplay the event and analyze the reactions was the result of outside influences and not the direct result of poor decision making by Adobe management ... the backlash over 6.2 would indicate that the recent exclusion of certain features or capabilities didn't fall within the same criteria of being unimportant falling under the radar of the average user. It would seem the two situations are not relatable in many respects.
Well, 6 or so features going at once and in one area probably has a different magnitude, and I think you'd be wrong to rule out the toxic combination of outside influences, whatever your view of Adobe's decision making.
-
Well, 6 or so features going at once and in one area probably has a different magnitude, and I think you'd be wrong to rule out the toxic combination of outside influences, whatever your view of Adobe's decision making.
I disagree to an extent ... if you take the time to peruse the comments made on the The Lightroom Journal blog and at the feedback.photoshop.com site, many of the folks complaining really were not aware of many of the multiple items that were removed. They were mostly focused on the one or two items that they utilized most often.
For example, I noticed how certain folks noticed the absence of the Eject after Import function seemed totally unaware that the Move function was also absent ... and many of those users who took the time to make their thought known were Windows users ... so I doubt resentment for Apple had very little to factor into the process.
-
No, really, each was similar. But bundle 6 together and the impact is 5 to the power 6!
Nope. Not the case
Nothing that changed before screwed up my or other folks workflow in quite so serious a manner. I think only one of the items that went AWOL recently affected me and boy did it mess things up.
What was actually different was that those who were individually affected by various elisions, all shouted foul at the same time which gave us more leverage so Adobe had to pay attention.
-
I disagree to an extent ... if you take the time to peruse the comments made on the The Lightroom Journal blog and at the feedback.photoshop.com site, many of the folks complaining really were not aware of many of the multiple items that were removed. They were mostly focused on the one or two items that they utilized most often.
Hm, so a few years down the track and they would forget those features ever existed?
-
Hm, so a few years down the track and they would forget those features ever existed?
Sure they may even forget to further upgrade Lightroom and/or renew their CC subscription ...
-
But if you've created a target design that can be measured without the scaling issue causing problems, that would explain it. As you've alluded to in reply #133 " MY target takes into account this possibility such that even if scaling occurs, I can measure MY targets without issue."
I can only speak to my targets I've created and the lack of ACPU scaling being a problem. It's not difficult either, give yourself plenty of room (margins) for the patches, absolutely do not use the minimum allowed in the product that builds the targets (i1P and Copra for me). And again, for the vast majority of other users, not working with a picky Spectrophotometer like the iSis, they should have no issues with a scaling of 6%; it is tiny. So no tricks, just being conservative when specifying the page and target layout.
This doesn't dismiss the bug in the Windows product! But it also illustrates it's rare and can be avoided. Perhaps that's why Adobe never identified the scaling prior to release?
-
Sure they may even forget to further upgrade Lightroom and/or renew their CC subscription ...
Some perhaps, others can adapt. Simply reversing the changes means they retain a UI that, according to their research, loses other customers.
-
He has now earned a place on my very selective "ignore" list. If he ever provides the list, I hope someone will let me knoe about it.
While think John has egg on his face with respect to his inability to answer a simple question, he's far, FAR from being on my Ignore List, he's provided useful data in the past. That's why his current 'behavior' is so disappointing. He could have just pointed out ONE item that was removed and this would all be over with. I'm going to cut him some slack, maybe he's having a bad week. IMHO, he's a far cry from the two individuals I simply must ignore. But if he wants to get on more Ignore Lists, he just has to continue to avoid answering a simple question any LR expert should be able to answer after the first request.
Not sure there's anymore to be said about this unproven concept of missing LR features.
-
it also illustrates it's rare and can be avoided.
No it's NOT rare, it happens EVERY time, it CAN'T be avoided.
You may have found a way for it not to be a problem in your specific case, but that doesn't mean the utility hasn't got a fundamental flaw that has never been fixed.
I note you still haven't told us where you think Adobe 'moved' the option to print without colour management within Photoshop CS5.
-
Some perhaps, others can adapt. Simply reversing the changes means they retain a UI that, according to their research, loses other customers.
Terribly flawed research it would appear from how it was explained.
Firstly, Adobe missed the point that the it is the concept and not the method of import is what newbies usually struggle with most when they first encounter LR.
Secondly you do not judge a tool aimed at experienced photographers with difficulty those with zero knowledge have when they first encounter it.
Thirdly, a new paradigm in working which once understood and that makes one's life much easier overall should not be rejected because there may be a brief learning curve to start with.
Fourthly - no matter how well designed a complex process is, it will require some effort on the part of the user. An effort that may be be beyond some folk, regardless of design. Organising a large collection of images will always require a reasonable effort on the part of the user.
And so on....
-
No it's NOT rare, it happens EVERY time, it CAN'T be avoided.
You may have found a way for it not to be a problem in your specific case, but that doesn't mean the utility hasn't got a fundamental flaw that has never been fixed.
Bugs, flaws or problems that Andrew has not personally encountered do not exist it would seem.
-
Bugs, flaws or problems that Andrew has not personally encountered do not exist it would seem.
True, they don't exist for me but could for others. That's true I believe for most software, unless we are to believe that companies often and regularly release known bugs on purpose. I have no idea if that's the case with ACPU or not. But I can say, one can avoid the bug causing problems if one is careful. And I stated that the bug isn't acceptable. However, if I can do something to avoid the bug producing the inability to measure the target, I can live with that. The facts are, so do my customers using ACPU.
-
I note you still haven't told us where you think Adobe 'moved' the option to print without colour management within Photoshop CS5.
Sorry, I don't quite understand your question.
Did I suggest Adobe moved something within CS5 to allow for printing without color management? What gave you that idea?
-
While think John has egg on his face with respect to his inability to answer a simple question, he's far, FAR from being on my Ignore List, he's provided useful data in the past. That's why his current 'behavior' is so disappointing. He could have just pointed out ONE item that was removed and this would all be over with. I'm going to cut him some slack, maybe he's having a bad week. IMHO, he's a far cry from the two individuals I simply must ignore. But if he wants to get on more Ignore Lists, he just has to continue to avoid answering a simple question any LR expert should be able to answer after the first request.
Not sure there's anymore to be said about this unproven concept of missing LR features.
No egg on my face, Andrew. A few people suspect I am right, as do you, and I told you exactly why I didn't feel it necessary to give detail. Quit the personal crap - I am not "having a bad week". Your unpleasant bullying tactics are pretty obvious though.
-
No egg on my face, Andrew.
You're so deep in the hole of your own digging, you can't see (or feel) those eggs John. Seriously, is anyone in this series of posts taking up your side or are they asking, as I have, just what features were removed? It's a very simple question you simply can't answer because I believe, you made this up or you really do believe it's true but have no facts for that belief system.That's kind of sad.As I've said repeatedly, you may be correct but your inability to list one single item removed since LR1 provides some evidence you're just wrong. If you're right, it's very easy for you to prove it.
A few people suspect I am right, as do you, and I told you exactly why I didn't feel it necessary to give detail.
I'm sure you suspect a lot things John, it's facts I'm waiting on. Of those folks you suspect believe you're right, who are they and why will they not answer the question you cannot? No John, I think you've exhausted any hope for those of us wanting to know what features were removed from LR. I (we?) will be hard pressed to accept what you write about LR in the future as a so called LR expert. You simply can't answer a very straight and simple question! You want to take that personally, fine.
Quit the personal crap - I am not "having a bad week". Your unpleasant bullying tactics are pretty obvious though.
Then come up with a better excuse for your rather odd behavior in this thread please. I was trying to cut you some slack. I'm coming to the conclusion your ideas about LR's removed features is best ignored. But heck, if you want to keep digging a hole and putting your reputation as an expert who should be able to answer a simple question, or backup a statement you wish us to believe is factual, so be it.
You can of course tell us you were wrong or can't come up with any features removed and we'd be done, or you can tell us one stinking feature that really was removed. But I'm beating a dead horse, you can't or you would have by now. Please note, I'm not the only person here asking you to educate us on this removal of features so we can be less ignorant (ignorant being your language directed at those of us asking you to answer a simple question).
-
Some perhaps, others can adapt. Simply reversing the changes means they retain a UI that, according to their research, loses other customers.
Haven't we been over this enough already? Did you miss all the initial unprecedented volume of negative reaction to this recent fiasco? There is more than enough proof available for you to peruse that definitively demonstrates Adobe's 'research' was extremely flawed and did not truly reflect the reality of the situation ... which, all of the above was exacerbated by the ham-fisted approach to implementation.
The issue is not whether the previous Import dialog UI lost Adobe potential customers. I don't think very many current or traditional users would have complained over an updated UI and a truly better Import dialog experience ... However, must those so-called 'improvements' come at a cost of the loss of multiple functionality.
I also think few reasonably intelligent users familiar with RAW processing software the like of Lightroom would also have difficulty in accepting that the new UI and Import dialog that 6.2 offered was indeed going to court many new customers to adopt the application. I, at least still fail to see how much easier the process would be over the past UI that served Lr users for nearly a decade. The UI of 6.2 was indeed different ... but was it better, more intuitive? Not so much.
-
Did I suggest Adobe moved something within CS5 to allow for printing without color management? What gave you that idea?
You said;
Features (printing without color management) were moved, not removed;
-
A few people suspect I am right
Only on one count of two. You're probably right some options were removed, but the were not "bloody annoying". They were minor, uneventful or immediately replaced with better functionality. So I think producing the list would undermine your theory that the changes in the import dialog are a storm in a teacup and would have gone mainly unnoticed when implemented at a slower pace and without a buggy release. So I guess that's why we will never see the list.
-
You said;
Yes, move from Photoshop to ACPU (at no cost to the customer).
-
Only on one count of two. You're probably right some options were removed, but the were not "bloody annoying". They were minor, uneventful or immediately replaced with better functionality. So I think producing the list would undermine your theory that the changes in the import dialog are a storm in a teacup and would have gone mainly unnoticed when implemented at a slower pace and without a buggy release. So I guess that's why we will never see the list.
Minor or major, be nice to see a list of what was removed after John emphatically stated features were removed. IF we knew what he was referring to, we could discuss our personal options as to their effectiveness but we can't. No such list, not even a single item has been specified. If John stated the "atom" Panel flourish was removed, we'd have one item that fits his description and we could say "I can't operate LR without it" or "It was ugly and looked like a buttcrack". But we can't because John is completely unable to list anything that was removed but can tell us how Move was always in the wrong place and that if we miss it, too bad. Move and Eject are features plenty of users have complained about missing so we have something to debate and it's pretty clear that Adobe did remove two features in a stinkin dot release despite warnings not to do so. With those facts, at least those of us bitching about Adobe have a leg to stand on. Telling us features were removed and no one cares without telling us what features were removed is sneaky and suspicious but John wants to dig that hole.
-
You're so deep in the hole of your own digging, you can't see (or feel) those eggs John. Seriously, is anyone in this series of posts taking up your side or are they asking, as I have, just what features were removed? It's a very simple question you simply can't answer because I believe, you made this up or you really do believe it's true but have no facts for that belief system.That's kind of sad.As I've said repeatedly, you may be correct but your inability to list one single item removed since LR1 provides some evidence you're just wrong. If you're right, it's very easy for you to prove it. I'm sure you suspect a lot things John, it's facts I'm waiting on. Of those folks you suspect believe you're right, who are they and why will they not answer the question you cannot? No John, I think you've exhausted any hope for those of us wanting to know what features were removed from LR. I (we?) will be hard pressed to accept what you write about LR in the future as a so called LR expert. You simply can't answer a very straight and simple question! You want to take that personally, fine. Then come up with a better excuse for your rather odd behavior in this thread please. I was trying to cut you some slack. I'm coming to the conclusion your ideas about LR's removed features is best ignored. But heck, if you want to keep digging a hole and putting your reputation as an expert who should be able to answer a simple question, or backup a statement you wish us to believe is factual, so be it.
You can of course tell us you were wrong or can't come up with any features removed and we'd be done, or you can tell us one stinking feature that really was removed. But I'm beating a dead horse, you can't or you would have by now. Please note, I'm not the only person here asking you to educate us on this removal of features so we can be less ignorant (ignorant being your language directed at those of us asking you to answer a simple question).
Andrew, you can go on asking with as much masturbatory enthusiasm as you wish.... I just hope it's just egg white that's covering your face.
-
because John is completely unable to list anything that was removed ...
Change the record, Andrew. I know you have accepted that you are ignorant, but even someone of such limited expertise should be able to read that I am unwilling, not unable, and I am increasingly so thanks to your bullying behaviour.
-
Andrew, you can go on asking with as much masturbatory enthusiasm as you wish.... I just hope it's just egg white that's covering your face.
John's hole now a foot deeper. I'm done asking as it's super clear you have nothing to add to back up your ridiculous claims. I thought you might have a valid point, it's clear now you don't.
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it".
-Joseph Joubert
It's clear now we can't debate the question because you refuse to provide a lick of evidence that LR features have been removed. It is clear to me, perhaps others I hope, that in the future, your contributions informing other's about LR may be highly suspect. That's by your own doing and hole digging. I have noting else to add about this missing feature nonsense you've posted until you decide to prove yourself.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own made up facts!
-
I know you have accepted that you are ignorant, but even someone of such limited expertise should be able to read that I am unwilling, not unable, and I am increasingly so thanks to your bullying behaviour.
The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument.
That you cannot or will not prove your points clearly illustrates you're POV on missing features is absolutely absurd.
-
I have a few hours free this afternoon - what shall I do with the time?
1) Go out and take some photos or work on processing older photos.
2) Sit at my computer and whine about Lightroom (or whine about the whiners).
Hmmm ... decisions, decisions!
-
I have a few hours free this afternoon - what shall I do with the time?
Good point. I'm driving down to Albuquerque for the annual Bacon Festival (http://www.southwestbaconfest.com), maybe that will make John happy; I'll get my dose of carcinogenic meat! ;D
-
The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument.
That you cannot or will not prove your points clearly illustrates you're POV on missing features is absolutely absurd.
How are the personality classes going, Andrew? It's not good for you, they say, will make you go blind.....
I repeat my point again. The removed features were forgotten and people adapted. I don't have to tell you what they were, and your bullying behaviour makes it even less likely that I will be willing to tell you. Give it up.
-
Good point. I'm driving down to Albuquerque for the annual Bacon Festival (http://www.southwestbaconfest.com), maybe that will make John happy; I'll get my dose of carcinogenic meat! ;D
Why that personal comment, Andrew. What is your problem?
Make sure you don't do to the pork what our Prime Minster did. Ha ha. Albuquerque, where men are men and pigs are scared?
-
While think John has egg on his face with respect to his inability to answer a simple question, he's far, FAR from being on my Ignore List, he's provided useful data in the past.
Boy was I wrong!
-
I would have been perfectly happy to have stated my point - that people have forgotten removed features - and for you to say you don't believe me, and we could have left it at that.
But no, you use bullying tactics to get details which I repeatedly, politely refuse to give..... You throw crap at me, I will be equally insulting to you. Enjoy the porker.
-
Ok folks, enough with the personal insults.
Time to go out and play.
Michael