Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: stevebri on April 04, 2016, 11:46:43 pm
-
Just had this in an Adobe email...
'Learn how to share your Lightroom for mobile photo collection by creating personalized, web-based photo stories with Slate or slideshows with music using Premiere Clip.'
Errrrm haven't we been using Lightroom to produce our own web sites and slideshows...?
6/CC adds music to slideshows
Aren't forums chock full of Lightroom requests for development of both the web module and slideshow module...?
Do I need Adobe Premier to add sound to a slideshow....? No
We all remember that great relationship we had back in the day... And with hindsight we know we should have made the split 6 months before we actually did...
Adobe really do make it hard to stay....
Still cannot upgrade to LR 6.5 on my machine, 6.1 is a joke as is CC
Sill happy with LR 5 thank goodness
-
Yeah, who was asking Adobe to develop Lightroom anyway? Why didn't they just sit on their backsides and let Aperture take their market?
Sure, it's fun to rant, but note "web-based photo stories" and Premiere Clip. That's not the same as "using Lightroom to produce our own web sites and slideshows" or using "Premier".
-
Why didn't they just sit on their backsides and let Aperture take their market?
I know you take great pleasure in the demise of Aperture, but be honest John, it wasn't the capabilities of the Lightroom Web and Slideshow modules that surpassed Aperture. Slideshows, along with creating books in Aperture kicked Lightroom's butt ... and still do, by comparison of head-to-head feature sets for those tasks.
-
Adobe seem to have unlimited resources to produce a pipeline of new apps, but never finish any app properly.
1. Slate and Portfolio are web type apps which use photos, but which expect us to re-type our Title and Caption information every time. Flickr allows a user to have the option to use Title and Caption info. So easily done. Just a few lines of code.
2. The Book Module design was flawed from the start and has not been fixed since. Inability to do the basics of freedom to place text or image on a page or template is unbelievable.
3. The Lr mobile app will not allow users edit the main metadata fields.
4. if I use InDesign for books then I have to create massive numbers of intermediate files and re-create them if I change any dimensions to get the sharpening correct.
5. I attempted to use Lr Slideshow for a club presentation and abandoned it immediately because of lack of usability. A pity, because Lr works on Windows and Mac and would have been a good option to standardise for club presentations.
6. Inability in Photoshop (a mature product) for a user to create their own custom panels. This feature has been available in mainstream products for decades (think of Office or Autocad), but Adobe have not got the vision or inclination to grasp how useful and powerful such a feature might be.
Check out this link for the frustration of Lr mobile users in relation to metadata and keywording.
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/keywording_on_the_move?topic-reply-list[settings][page]=1&utm_campaign=new_comment&utm_content=topic_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=notification#topic-reply-list
I could go on......... But what is the point.
-
Inability in Photoshop (a mature product) for a user to create their own custom panels.
Possible, but it shouldn't really need an extra application to handle it.
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/configurator/
-
Adobe seem to have unlimited resources to produce a pipeline of new apps, but never finish any app properly.
Precisely.
I am well aware that some folks consider mentioning such shortcomings as 'whining' ... but it sure would be nice for an interest with the resources available that Adobe can call to action, to see them actually cross the finish line in a reasonable fashion with the products they already sell ... before ... they branch out even further. It seems as though someone setting the action plan is suffering from ADHD.
It's not a matter of what some of us have mentioned is technically (or technologically) impossible. The capabilities exist or have existed elsewhere (for years in some cases) yet Adobe has decided to either ignore or dismiss such solutions as unworthy of their attention.
If we, who utilize these apps as a tool in generating our livelihood, would conduct our businesses in the same manner, how long could we last?
-
Slideshows, along with creating books in Aperture kicked Lightroom's butt ... and still do, by comparison of head-to-head feature sets for those tasks.
And the quality of the printing of books (from Apple). As someone who printed identical images as books from both products, Aperture quality was vastly superior to what LR/Blurb produced.
-
And the quality of the printing of books (from Apple). As someone who printed identical images as books from both products, Aperture quality was vastly superior to what LR/Blurb produced.
I wouldn't know about Apple's book printing Andrew ... I have made hundreds of books/albums in but they were done in other print houses. The freedom to create custom page sizes, margins, gutters and bleeds is quite welcome. It was also nice to have dedicated book export plugins to export directly to top houses like Graphistudio. With Lr, you are stuck with Blurb or end up in export nightmare land trying to cobble together something that may or may not be useable elsewhere.
-
I wouldn't know about Apple's book printing Andrew ...
I do ;D
All one has to do is send the same images to both Apple (through Aperture) and LR to see, Apple's doing a much better job. Just put the same image on the cover and inside a book. Two different press technologies are used. They ideally match closely. Not so much with LR/Blurb. But most people know how obsessive Apple is in terms of quality control.
-
I know you take great pleasure in the demise of Aperture, but be honest John, it wasn't the capabilities of the Lightroom Web and Slideshow modules that surpassed Aperture. Slideshows, along with creating books in Aperture kicked Lightroom's butt ... and still do, by comparison of head-to-head feature sets for those tasks.
To be frank, you should try to stick to the topic, Butch. I didn't actually say a thing about relative merits or about Aperture's eventual disappearance, did I? The point was that just as Adobe couldn't afford to let Aperture take their market, the same applies to the apps which the OP doesn't understand.
-
To be frank, you should try to stick to the topic, Butch. I didn't actually say a thing about relative merits or about Aperture's eventual disappearance, did I? The point was that just as Adobe couldn't afford to let Aperture take their market, the same applies to the apps which the OP doesn't understand.
I don't think I said anything about 'the merits about the apps which the OP doesn't understand' either. The point was, those new apps should not come at the expense of allowing existing apps to languish.
-
Possible, but it shouldn't really need an extra application to handle it.
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/configurator/
I am open to correction, but some time ago I tried to use the configurator referenced above...... to discover that Adobe had withdrawn support and itwould not work with current versions of Adobe product. It really exasperated me at the time, as another example of Adobe (in my view) behaviour as a company who provide lip service about looking after their customers. Maybe there is a new version of this which I may be unaware of.
Also... I suspect this was a tool for a techie and not an end user panel configurator.
-
I am open to correction, but some time ago I tried to use the configurator referenced above...... to discover that Adobe had withdrawn support and itwould not work with current versions of Adobe product.
I have re-examined Adobe Configurator 4. It does mention support for Photoshop CC. I will explore further when i get a chance.
-
I don't think I said anything about 'the merits about the apps which the OP doesn't understand' either. The point was, those new apps should not come at the expense of allowing existing apps to languish.
No, you didn't, because you quickly disappeared down the same old Aperture v Lightroom rabbit hole and tried to personalize things. Can Adobe really afford to fail to offer those apps once others have demonstrated there is demand in that area?
-
... Adobe has decided to either ignore or dismiss such solutions as unworthy of their attention.... If we... would conduct our businesses in the same manner, how long could we last?
Very long. And prosperous.
-
I am open to correction, but some time ago I tried to use the configurator referenced above...... to discover that Adobe had withdrawn support and itwould not work with current versions of Adobe product. It really exasperated me at the time, as another example of Adobe (in my view) behaviour as a company who provide lip service about looking after their customers. Maybe there is a new version of this which I may be unaware of.
Also... I suspect this was a tool for a techie and not an end user panel configurator.
CC is the last version of PS to support panels that you can make with Configurator (Flash-based panels). The standard for panels is now HTML and the resources for learning how to integrate the HTML, Javascript and JSX into a coherent, operating unit is scattered across the internet. If you are actually interested in learning how to create panels (and extensions) in HTML for Photoshop and the other CC applications, you are in luck. Davide Barranca has just released his e-book that goes into great, and much needed depth on the process and ties together the several facets of authoring extensions and panels for CC applications, with an emphasis on Photoshop panels.
http://htmlpanelsbook.com
kirk
-
Can Adobe really afford to fail to offer those apps once others have demonstrated there is demand in that area?
You miss the whole point ... what good is it if I can make a decent slideshow on my iPad and NOT on my desktop using Lightroom? Can Adobe really afford to fail in that respect?
I know mobile is the wave of the future ... but wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have move images from our desktop to a tablet just to accomplish such a simple task?
-
Clearly they can fail to do whatever you choose to define as a decent slideshow - and yes, I was surprised and disappointed a timeline didn't get added. 4k export seems the other significant gap. But such details aren't needed for decent slideshows as most people define them, and CC apps don't really come at the cost of features in Lightroom....
-
And yet another thread of Adobe bashing. Must be a slow photo day or people just tired of kicking their dog. SIGH. :(
-
And yet another thread of Adobe bashing. Must be a slow photo day or people just tired of kicking their dog. SIGH. :(
I'm not bashing Adobe (here), simply pointing out that the print vendor(s) Apple uses produces better color reproductions than Blurb. Of course, one could ask, did Adobe pick the best vendor for book printing or, could they have provided a better mechanism for getting images out of LR in a print ready fashion? I think they could have. The ONLY reason I still have Aperture installed is to export images (in Adobe RGB (1998) not sRGB like LR) out of LR to import into Aperture for book printing.
-
And yet another thread of Adobe bashing. Must be a slow photo day or people just tired of kicking their dog. SIGH. :(
Yet you felt compelled to not only read the thread ... but also post in a thread that you indicate is of little consequence to you.
So it must really be a slow photo day for you as well. SIGH. :(
-
Yet you felt compelled to not only read the thread ... but also post in a thread that you indicate is of little consequence to you.
So it must really be a slow photo day for you as well. SIGH. :(
Butch, I know you would wake up from your nap to continue the bashing. What's a day for Butch without whining about Adobe...
Not really slow...doing some printing of images processed in that worthless LR / PS system. Lots of time while prints are churning out....how about you...just cruising the LR boards ready to pounce?
-
To kirkt.
CC is the last version of PS to support panels that you can make with Configurator (Flash-based panels)
Version 4 of Configurator appears to be very useful and easy to use. No need to code or command skills with Java, Html and is CC compatible. Adobe appear to have made the transition from Flash to Html with this release. I will report back when I have the opportunity to try it out for real. I am hopeful this will work and if so, grateful to Adobe for this feature. I can see the potential for this to massively improve my personal productivity. I am not interested in developing panels for sale, but can appreciate others may be.
My big gripes with Lightroom remain...
1. Unusable, constrained and poorly implemented Book module.
2. Slideshow not good enough (personally not worried about this as I use Powerpoint, Keynote and Proshow Gold and Proshow Producer) but a lost opportunity for Adobe.
3. Edit metadata in Lr mobile.
I wish Adobe had a better awareness of workflow and the value of metadata, but I can survive these gaps as I have plenty of non Adobe solutions to use.
I do wish Adobe would create a direct pipeline between Lightroom and InDesign, so I would not have to create and manage intermediate files and create books within InDesign in a more efficient manner, if Adobe are determined to keep the book module so crippled.
-
Configurator is very straightforward to use and pairs nicely with Actions, allowing you to have a large collection of related actions easily accessible in a panel, instead of the Actions "Button Mode" interface. A tabbed panels is particularly nice for a compact Action repository.
kirk
To kirkt.
Version 4 of Configurator appears to be very useful and easy to use. ...
-
Butch, I know you would wake up from your nap to continue the bashing. What's a day for Butch without whining about Adobe...
Not really slow...doing some printing of images processed in that worthless LR / PS system. Lots of time while prints are churning out....how about you...just cruising the LR boards ready to pounce?
I also used Lightroom yesterday to process 400-500 images for proofing and further culling then exporting several dozen images for immediate use and archive use, to create online and print reports on a municipal press conference, college baseball, high school softball as well as the local school board monthly public meeting.
For two of those assignments I was also tasked with creating slideshows for the online packages that also included select video clips and interviews. I was forced to use other means to get the job done which took much longer to complete than would be necessary if Adobe could ever finish what they started. It's too bad that Lightroom can't offer a more robust solution to such jobs. I'm sure if the Slideshow module offered more, it would be a much more popular asset for many Lightroom users. Then we wouldn't have to resort to options from other developers and spend time 'mastering' those other options as well as the additional expense ... as I recall, all of which you are opposed to.
I'm not bashing Adobe, I have as much vested interest in Adobe software as you do. I have well over 300,000 of my images in several Lr catalogs ... I just have higher expectations and more confidence in their ability to further enhance Lightroom to bring it up to speed to be a more viable tool. Why should that bother you? How are you inconvenienced if Adobe made some improvements in this respect? Would't you benefit as well?
-
I was forced to use other means to get the job done
To get around this problem, I have created a script for Powerpoint.
I have a custom button configured in Powerpoint. When I click the button, a Powerpoint script asks me to select a folder of images. My script then loads a prepared Powerpoint template, with a professional cover and final slide and inserts an image per slide in between. I have preprepared titles, footers, logos, etc on each of these automatically generated slides. In a few seconds I have a professional presentation, with the full power of Powerpoint, which I can then run on a Mac or Windows machine. I also have the ability to edit this slide anyway I want, manage transitions, music, other slides, etc.
Unfortunately, Office 2016 does not support VB scripts so my script will not (currently) work with Powerpoint 2016 for Mac. However Powerpoint 2016 on Mac will run the slideshow I have created (say on an earlier Mac version or all Windows versions).
Something similar could be done for Keynote. I stick to Powerpoint, because I have less hassle dealing with font conflicts between Microsoft and Apple software.
-
Configurator is very straightforward to use and pairs nicely with Actions, allowing you to have a large collection of related actions easily accessible in a panel, instead of the Actions "Button Mode" interface.
Exactly. I was using "Button Mode" as an amateur version of a proper Panel.
I am trying to get "Configurator" to work right now, and having all the usual start up issues associated with Adobe installation folders, admin rights, inability to add my new panel via Window / Extensions etc. Very frustrating. I assume I will eventually get my first test panel working when I bang my head off the wall often enough. Another example of poor software deployment by Adobe ..... but I hope I get it to work eventually, when the effort will be repaid plus some.
-
To get around this problem, I have created a script for Powerpoint.
I have a custom button configured in Powerpoint. When I click the button, a Powerpoint script asks me to select a folder of images. My script then loads a prepared Powerpoint template, with a professional cover and final slide and inserts an image per slide in between. I have preprepared titles, footers, logos, etc on each of these automatically generated slides. In a few seconds I have a professional presentation, with the full power of Powerpoint, which I can then run on a Mac or Windows machine. I also have the ability to edit this slide anyway I want, manage transitions, music, other slides, etc.
Unfortunately, Office 2016 does not support VB scripts so my script will not (currently) work with Powerpoint 2016 for Mac. However Powerpoint 2016 on Mac will run the slideshow I have created (say on an earlier Mac version or all Windows versions).
Something similar could be done for Keynote. I stick to Powerpoint, because I have less hassle dealing with font conflicts between Microsoft and Apple software.
Thanks for the idea ... but your method really doesn't save any effort for me as I am a Mac user and do not use any Microsoft software ... not that I have issues with MS per se, I just have never had the need to buy Office apps when I could get the iWorks apps either at a much lower cost or free. I do use Keynote (the Apple version of Powerpoint) to create some motion title graphics and/or motion pie/bar charts to incorporate with video. Though folks do tell me they love my 'Powerpoint' presentations ... I never have the heart to tell them I've never used Powerpoint :)
I have a workflow for slideshows that incorporates publishing jpegs from Lr where the exported folder can be viewed directly in Final Cut Pro X to just drag-n-drop the images to the timeline. This works fine but it creates many extra steps (even if they were controlled by scripting) that are totally unnecessary. Especially if you wish to change the processing the image, you have to switch back to Lr, re-publish the result, replace the image in the FCP X timeline. If we were working in Lr Slideshow module, there would be fewer steps, fewer hoops to jump through.
While I absolutely love FCP X for advanced video production ... it's kind of overkill for what should be possible in Lr to put together a decent slideshow.
I'm basing that assertion upon how easy it was to put together a kick @$$ slideshow in Aperture 3 working directly with RAW image files. I would like to see similar capabilities in Lr ... Which I had fully expected to see at least some movement in that direction long before now.
In the end, workarounds are just more work. I would really prefer that Adobe could see their way to offering a more acceptable solution within Lightroom.
-
Chez,
Why not bash Adobe... They are cr@p...! Would you treat your clients like they treat us...?
I am hardly on here these days yet felt compelled to write the post as this is large and important forum, it has a errrrr 'healthy' mix of pro and am photographers and is probably the forum Adobe should consider most.
Slack day in the office or not, we pay Adobes wages and their shareholders their dividends, if your utility company, or your bank, or you camera or computer maker treated us like this, we'd be up in arms....
Come on Adobe.... Pull your weight
-
... Would you treat your clients like they treat us...?
You should try it...it works. Obviously.
-
Why not bash Adobe... They are cr@p...! Would you treat your clients like they treat us...?
I am clearly not one of us, because how Adobe treats me is to sell me good software at a fair price, and I am genuinely puzzled by the emotional tone of what I would call the "jilted sweetheart" response manifested by the OP and a number of others on this and other similar threads. In the old days, everything was roses, but the former love object has been seduced away by unworthy rivals for her/his attention. Translating, is it simply that "professional" and "enthusiast" photographers aren't as important to the company as they used to be? That seems plausible, given what is happening to photography, but I am not inclined to treat it as a reason for either surprise or indignation. Adobe's first responsibility is to survive and prosper as a company and as Slobodan has pointed out, it seems to be doing OK at that. But does that mean it is treating long term customers inappropriately? I don't see it. I haven't been around Adobe software that long, compared to many here, maybe 20 years, but over that time, I have happily benefited from massive improvements in the software and relative reductions in the price, and when I have had problems there has been, overall, had no more than the average level of difficulty in getting help from the company to solve them. They certainly haven't been perfect and they certainly haven't been cr@p. But then, I don't recall ever being in love with them.
-
Chez,
Why not bash Adobe... They are cr@p...! Would you treat your clients like they treat us...?
I am hardly on here these days yet felt compelled to write the post as this is large and important forum, it has a errrrr 'healthy' mix of pro and am photographers and is probably the forum Adobe should consider most.
Slack day in the office or not, we pay Adobes wages and their shareholders their dividends, if your utility company, or your bank, or you camera or computer maker treated us like this, we'd be up in arms....
Come on Adobe.... Pull your weight
If I thought a product was crap I'd be long gone. Sounds like you are still hanging onto Adobe products...why...aren't they crap?
Personally I have not found...in fact had very little reason to look at alternatives, another product which allows me to be as efficient and effective in producing prints as LR / PS. That's the bottom line.
Tell me...if Adobe is crap, who is smelling like roses?
-
Some users sound like my teenage daughter's friend, yelling at her mom, after being presented with a brand new, white Mercedes: "I hate you, you know I can't stand white." ;)
-
Some users sound like my teenage daughter's friend, yelling at her mom, after being presented with a brand new, white Mercedes: "I hate you, you know I can't stand white." ;)
If only it was something as trivial as a product color that was the issue. I'll bet a Mercedes, of any body color, is more fully featured throughout than many Adobe apps seem to be. Mercedes does not have a history of half measures or cutting corners. They seem to invoke a higher level of attention to detail. For example, they would never install a radio that could only tune into one station.
It's great you take pleasure in making light of other users concerns.
While Ps and Lr may be both popular and considerably good applications ... they and the company who offers them are far, far from being perfect.
It should never be accepted that if a company is profitable ... that everything they do or offer should be universally accepted without question.
-
Ah, you misunderstood my metaphor: it is not about Mercedes, or its color, or its radio... it is about spoiled brats.
Concerns are one thing, bitching, whining and moaning completely different.
-
If Adobe is not perfect...what's the alternative? Personally I don't think I ever used a perfect product in my life...in fact I know it. However it's a long distance from a product that is very capable and allows me to be productive to one that is perfect...if such a thing even exists. Adobe products might not be perfect...and being perfect is different for everyone, but they are sure very productive products and that fits fine with me.
-
Ah, you misunderstood my metaphor: it is not about Mercedes, or its color, or its radio... it is about spoiled brats.
Concerns are one thing, bitching, whining and moaning completely different.
Yes ... and whining is a two-way street it seems.
-
Yes ... and whining is a two-way street it seems.
Well why don't we just put a red light in both directions and stop all this consistent whining. It's getting a bit tiring.
-
If Adobe is not perfect...what's the alternative?
Why must everything be a zero sum game with you? Why is your view a constant all or nothing attitude?
Why is it you seem to think that EVERY user of Adobe products must march in lockstep with your opinion or hit the bricks?
Are other users not allowed to have views that don't align exactly with your own?
-
It's getting a bit tiring.
Any fatigue or discomfort you are experiencing is purely self inflicted.
-
Why must everything be a zero sum game with you? Why is your view a constant all or nothing attitude?
Why is it you seem to think that EVERY user of Adobe products must march in lockstep with your opinion or hit the bricks?
Are other users not allowed to have views that don't align exactly with your own?
Butch...the thing you don't seem to get is you stated your views umpteen times over and over. We get it...you are not happy with progress on some modules in LR. You said it...now it's time to move on.
Repeating your unhappiness over and over and stamping your feet, holding your breath on this forum won't change anything.
-
Any fatigue or discomfort you are experiencing is purely self inflicted.
Butch, I'm going to leave it at that. As someone said in another forum...you always need to get the last word in. Well that door is open, have at her.
-
Butch...the thing you don't seem to get is you stated your views umpteen times over and over. We get it...you are not happy with progress on some modules in LR. You said it...now it's time to move on.
Repeating your unhappiness over and over and stamping your feet, holding your breath on this forum won't change anything.
Yes I have repeated my views ... and you have not?
There may be foot stomping and fit throwing ... those threats have not come from me. It is someone else who expresses himself in that manner but the name escapes me ;D
-
Solution:
-
Solution:
Seems your 'solution' is about as effective in enhancing a workflow as some offerings from Adobe. Maybe humorous but mostly inconsequential.
-
Seems your 'solution' is about as effective in enhancing a workflow as some offerings from Adobe. Maybe humorous but mostly inconsequential.
At least Slobodan used an Adobe.png ;D
-
In the end, workarounds are just more work. I would really prefer that Adobe could see their way to offering a more acceptable solution within Lightroom.
There are massive workflow benefits to be had if Adobe would only polish / finish what they have. My main point is that Adobe does a great job opening the foundations and building the structure of the house, but they leave so many rooms unfinished before they move to the next house.
Getting back to some specifics.....
I use Windows for my main workstation and Mac for travel. I am most familiar with Powerpoint, but occasionally use Keynote. I would prefer to use Slideshow within Lr.
It is possible to drag and drop images from a folder to Keynote so that they each appear on individual slides. I found the following description on the internet. I just tried it out and it worked for me on my MacAir.
http://keynoteuser.com/2009/03/02/batching-photos-into-slides-in-keynote/
-
I would prefer to use Slideshow within Lr.
And what specifically prevents you doing so? After they recently added multiple sound tracks and pan/zoom, for the vast bulk of users the only obvious omission is a timeline or some other way to vary individual slides' duration. Maybe 4K output should be there, maybe export to Premiere Pro too (same method as Clip?), but beyond those we're probably getting into individual wants - and you can never please everyone.
-
There are massive workflow benefits to be had if Adobe would only polish / finish what they have. My main point is that Adobe does a great job opening the foundations and building the structure of the house, but they leave so many rooms unfinished before they move to the next house.
Exactly. They seem content to stop short of offering a more refined result. Which is perplexing because they don't seem to place similar limitations elsewhere.
-
And what specifically prevents you doing so? After they recently added multiple sound tracks and pan/zoom, for the vast bulk of users the only obvious omission is a timeline or some other way to vary individual slides' duration.
The pan/zoom is a joke! Got FotoMagico? That's the way to allow users to control pan/zoom. And since the LR team did such a half baked job on that functionality, I now have to decide if upgrading to FotoMagico 5 is worthwhile since the current version is head and shoulders more useful than LR 6 or 'hope' the LR team talks time off coding for iPads and their silly LR Mobile 'product' to see how decent slideshow software actually works.
-
And what specifically prevents you doing so? After they recently added multiple sound tracks and pan/zoom, for the vast bulk of users the only obvious omission is a timeline or some other way to vary individual slides' duration. Maybe 4K output should be there, maybe export to Premiere Pro too (same method as Clip?), but beyond those we're probably getting into individual wants - and you can never please everyone.
Well, that timeline oversight is a huge barrier. Without it ... how does 4k capability even factor in? A plain vanilla slideshow is even more so at higher resolution. Plus, if you consider, prior to 2006 very few photographers knew they wanted Lightroom either. Let alone what feature sets they could foresee in future development. Maybe a lot of users aren't aware of what they want in the Slideshow module because they consider it an exercise in futility. Maybe if it were more robust, it would become much more popular if it were no longer treated as a cursory attempt at a solution.
You fully understand what was possible in Aperture as far as slideshows are concerned. It was not an exorbitant or luxurious coding process to offer such features, yet the only limitation was on the individual user's imagination. I can't possibly see how similar functionality could be considered unnecessary individual wants. Though, we did discover that Adobe's interpretation of user metrics was considerably off the mark with the v6.2 fiasco ... it could be understandable that they really don't have an accurate grasp on what users really do desire.
Indeed Adobe added multiple music tracks ... but no method to craft them into a coherent flow to match the mood of the specific images for a particular show. No method to customize the duration or segments of the music the user would prefer to use. It's either all or nothing. That's not creative in the least.
Likewise they added pan and zoom ... but no method to customize what is the focal point content of the image at hand, if it isn't dead-center, oh, well ... it is a one-size-fits-all solution to match the you-can-use-any-transition-you-desire-as-long-as-it-is-disolve.
I'm sure it would be nice to have the ability to export to Premier Pro ... but I would guess the number of Lightroom users that also have PPCC installed is a much smaller group and could fall into that niche individual wants group - and as you say ... they can't please everyone.
-
I now have to decide if upgrading to FotoMagico 5 is worthwhile since the current version is head and shoulders more useful than LR 6 or 'hope' the LR team talks time off coding for iPads and their silly LR Mobile 'product' to see how decent slideshow software actually works.
Even comparing Clip to other options for tablet created slideshows is still very limiting and restrictive. I bought a kick @$$ app for the iPad over 4 years ago for $1.99 that offers many more options.
I don't begrudge Adobe venturing forth in mobile ... but it would be nice if they could keep up with some kid wearing pajamas coding in his parent's basement.
-
You fully understand what was possible in Aperture as far as slideshows are concerned.....
And that's why I suggested timeline is the one thing that's missing. It amazed / disappointed me when it wasn't added.
Likewise they added pad and zoom ... but no method to customize what is the focal point content of the image at hand, if it isn't dead-center, oh, well ... it is a one-size-fits-all solution to match the you-can-use-any-transition-you-desire-as-long-as-it-is-disolve.
In fact, you can drag each image to centre it how you want. This works best with the Zoom to Fill Frame option enabled.
I'm not so worried about extra transitions. Don't encourage more mosaic or wipe effects, please!
I'm sure it would be nice to have the ability to export to Premier Pro ... but I would guess the number of Lightroom users that also have PPCC installed is a much smaller group and could fall into that niche individual wants group - and as you say ... they can't please everyone.
I agree, it's a niche, but rather than add individual wants I feel Lightroom should be offering routes to high end tools - eg slideshow to PP, Book and Print to ID - like it does to Photoshop. In the case of Slideshow, there is already a contorted route to PremierePro via the LrMobile iOS app, then to the Premiere Clip app which does have a very fiddly timeline, and finally by sharing the project to Premiere Pro. What this actually does is store the project in your CC cloud drive as an xml file which lists filenames, durations etc, a set of JPEGs, and any sound files. You just open this in PP. Generating these project files can just-about be done by a plugin.
-
Here are some of my thoughts specific to Lr Slideshow.
Cons.
1. Regularly hangs when I try preview or play. I have tried with several different folders of images and made sure I do not have large files. (Maybe my installation, but nothing else hangs my pc). No error messages. No other Lr module hangs.
2. Cannot use left mouse click to move to next previous button. When I left click it reverts back to the grid of slides / images. I often do not want viewers to see the sequence of slides, especially the next few slides.
3. Right mouse click has no options. Should allow me the option to go to previous / first / last /pause. With this feature I would not need to use the keyboard.
4. Allow space bar to advance to next slide (biggest key >>> most frequent action)
5. No slide notes (nice to have).
6. Cannot export to run as independent slideshow (nice to have). I may not always be able to use my laptop for a presentation and not practical to install Lightroom and my catelog on the presentation laptop.
7. Export (image, text, video as editable objects) to InDesign, Powerpoint, Keynote and other Adobe / Non Adobe apps. This would be a powerful extension.
However, it looks to me that the Slideshow module has been well engineered and has a lot of potential. Here are some of the things which I regard as positives.
Pros
1. The Text Overlay feature is superb. I do like that I can place metadata where I want relative to the slide or image, with the fonts that I select. Who ever developed this feature deserves major kudos. This feature should be added to the Print module (and dare I say it ...the Book Module)
2. Use of collections and templates is useful and well done.
3. Great that I do not have to create intermediate files.
4. Works on Mac & Pc.
5. Export to Pdf (useful for handouts or a backup manual slideshow). Export to video may be useful to some, but not to me.
What is so frustrating is the fact that Adobe get so close to good, but just do not finish the job.
-
In fact, you can drag each image to centre it how you want. This works best with the Zoom to Fill Frame option enabled.
Good to know, but still not as freely creative as setting start and end points that have become the norm in almost every other app that offers the feature.
I'm not so worried about extra transitions. Don't encourage more mosaic or wipe effects, please!
I agree that too many transitions are not the best answer ... but it would be nice to have more than one and also be able to control the duration of the transition.
I agree, it's a niche, but rather than add individual wants I feel Lightroom should be offering routes to high end tools - eg slideshow to PP, Book and Print to ID - like it does to Photoshop.
Yes, if they had added that sort of functionality years ago, when they should have, I'd wager there would be far more full package subscribers than there are today. I very likely would have been among that group if they had.
In the case of Slideshow, there is already a contorted route to PremierePro via the LrMobile iOS app, then to the Premiere Clip app which does have a very fiddly timeline, and finally by sharing the project to Premiere Pro. What this actually does is store the project in your CC cloud drive as an xml file which lists filenames, durations etc, a set of JPEGs, and any sound files. You just open this in PP. Generating these project files can just-about be done by a plugin.
That's amazingly efficient, huh?
I simply publish jpegs to my local drive and import into FCP X directly from that folder ... I must be doing something wrong ... ;)
-
3. Great that I do not have to create intermediate files.
Which was once the prime factor of consideration in Lr development to answer workflow needs.
What is so frustrating is the fact that Adobe get so close to good, but just do not finish the job.
Yes, it's like spending years training to run a world class marathon ... then on race day, you pull up and leave the course voluntarily at mile 26 because something else caught your attention.
-
That's amazingly efficient, huh?
I simply publish jpegs to my local drive and import into FCP X directly from that folder ... I must be doing something wrong ... ;)
One can import JPEGs into PP in the same way, but this other method would convert other aspects of the Lr slideshow.
-
Squirrel!
:)
-
One can import JPEGs into PP in the same way, but this other method would convert other aspects of the Lr slideshow.
My point was ... if I am going to end up in FCP X or PP ... why bother with converting aspects of the lesser capable feature set of the Lr Slideshow module? To me it's a redundancy that increases my workload ... not adding efficiency to my workflow.
It would be of much more value to me if I would not have to invoke any other outside solution at all.
-
The pan/zoom is a joke! Got FotoMagico? That's the way to allow users to control pan/zoom. And since the LR team did such a half baked job on that functionality, I now have to decide if upgrading to FotoMagico 5 is worthwhile since the current version is head and shoulders more useful than LR 6 or 'hope' the LR team talks time off coding for iPads and their silly LR Mobile 'product' to see how decent slideshow software actually works.
Your hope is for Adobe to spend more time on slideshow modules...my hope is they sound more resources on the mobile integration. Slideshows I can do with many 3rd party solutions...mobile integration not so much.
The future of this product or in fact the entire industry is not slideshows...but possibly mobile as everything has headed that way.
I'd be just as happy if they killed of their book and slideshow modules as I can do both of these without the need of LR.
-
Your hope is for Adobe to spend more time on slideshow modules...my hope is they sound more resources on the mobile integration.
Better yet, both!
Slideshows I can do with many 3rd party solutions...mobile integration not so much.
The LR slideshow module is weak enough that I'm forced to do that. Why should I have to?
The future of this product or in fact the entire industry is not slideshows...but possibly mobile as everything has headed that way.
Oh, so your take is, speaking for the entire industry as well, one shouldn't produce a quality slideshow intended for mobile devices? Odd.
I'd be just as happy if they killed of their book and slideshow modules as I can do both of these without the need of LR.
Which would upset a boatload of customers who DO use them. What's the point of removing modules other's use?
-
Which would upset a boatload of customers who DO use them. What's the point of removing modules other's use?
Indeed ... some folks think that if improvements made in areas they don't find popular must come at the expense of areas they do appreciate.
Product development does not have to be a zero sum game.
-
Slideshows I can do with many 3rd party solutions...mobile integration not so much.
I can say the same for solutions that have existed for mobile. There are MANY third party options that I can use to 'integrate' my photos to my mobile devices ... and a few of them I have been using for years with great performance and I didn't have to bounce my images off a distant Adobe server just to get them on my tablet or phone. Not to mention the price was a once-only, extremely inconsequential expenditure.
-
I didn't have to bounce my images off a distant Adobe server just to get them on my tablet or phone.
Exactly my point Butch...Adobe still has a ways to go with their mobile platform so they should be spending more resources in it. Thanks for reinforcing it.
From a business perspective, where do you feel Adobe will get more revenue...from adding a few features to their slideshow module or coming out with a truly mobile integrated platform? I'll give you a hint...when has the last time the investment community ever mentioned slideshow? ::)
-
Exactly my point Butch...Adobe still has a ways to go with their mobile platform so they should be spending more resources in it. Thanks for reinforcing it.
If total rank amateurs have been kicking Adobe's butt and taking their lunch money, by comparison i the mobile market ... for years ... why is it taking a $4B ,multi-national developer so long to get up to speed?
I'll give you a hint...when has the last time the investment community ever mentioned slideshow? ::)
When was the last time anyone in the investment community mentioned ANY feature in ANY Adobe app ... they don't care about feature development ... they only care about dividends.
-
What I find frustrating with LR are the "features" that are half-baked. I like the "leave the marathon at mile 25" analogy that was offered earlier; it makes perfect sense.
LR has a slideshow. However, it is very feature poor. I know others have said to use PremierPro or other programs, but I don't own those other programs. Considering that I don't have a constant need for slideshows, it's foolish to get a subscription for YAAP (Yet Another Adobe Program). I'd be wasting my money much of the time.
Actually, I didn't tell the truth; I have been using a cheap Corel program. However, it's still a hassle to export images from LR, then import them into Corel. If the LR version offered even a part of what I can do elsewhere...and I think we can agree that LR does not offer much...then I'd use it instead because it would be far more convenient.
Books? Pretty much the same. I own a license to InDesign CS6, and use it regularly. Although it's still a kludge to export/import, the creative freedom is far better than what is offered by LR's book module. Indeed, it probably is more versatile than what my needs require. And if I didn't own the license, I would be hard pressed to justify the subscription cost of InDesign CC.
Those two modules seem to me to be like getting a wonderfully wrapped package for Christmas, only to find that the box is empty. I'd rather that they hadn't offered them in the first place; at least I wouldn't have been disappointed in how poorly they function.
Oh, and as far as "mobile" goes? I don't use it; I don't want it; but I won't begrudge the addition of those things to LR because I know others do want that functionality. I would hope that others would honor my desires to have a fully functioning book and slideshow module.
At least I didn't mention the web module. :D
Tom
-
.. why is it taking a $4B ,multi-national developer so long to get up to speed?
Probably because they've done enough research to know that many of us aren't at all interested in using LR on mobile devices.
-
Lightroom needs a champion within the Adobe organisation. If such a role exists that person needs to shout louder (a lot louder) and find a way to get feedback from experienced real world users.
If no such role exists then Adobe needs to fill that slot urgently.
Lightroom is a gateway product which should lead new Adobe customers into the world of more specialized products such as Photoshop, CS / CC Suite, etc.. Investing in Lightroom will lead to other downstream revenues.
-
"Still cannot upgrade to LR 6.5 on my machine, 6.1 is a joke as is CC
Sill happy with LR 5 thank goodness"
I find the above really strange. I have been using LR on a Sony Vaio laptop from 2009. I am now on Windows 7. I have regularly upgraded my LR version (that came free with the laptop) through time, am now on 6.5. No problem.
-
To Rhossydd (And anyone else interested in Custom Photoshop Panels).
I tried Configurator4 for Photoshop. No problem getting the Workbench to create and save a custom panel, but could not Export for use in Photoshop CC.
I raised a support ticket with Adobe to discover .....
Configurator4 is supported for Photoshop CC but ..... here is an official Adobe support response ......." Yes, It is with CC version but not with CC 2014 and CC 2015".
So ... great....wasted another 2 days. Adobe should have had the professionalism to post the info on the Configurator4 product page that it would NOT work for CC 2014 andCC 2015. I asked the support engineer if there were plans to support this feature in the future. His reply "As of now I ma not sure if there are any plans in future. "
Posting just fyi so people do not waste as much time as I have on this tool.
-
Probably because they've done enough research to know that many of us aren't at all interested in using LR on mobile devices.
Actually if you read through their investor reports you'll see that many new Adobe customers joined because of their mobile applications, and a lot of future Adobe focus will be in this direction.
So maybe your statement should read:
Probably because they've done enough research to know that many users are interested in using LR on mobile devices and they are focussing their future efforts in this direction. And their research shows the majority of us users have no interest in LR slideshow and boom modules so Adobe has not focussed in those directions.
-
Posting just fyi so people do not waste as much time as I have on this tool.
Appreciated. Better info than from Adobe, even if disappointing (and very odd).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Actually if you read through their investor reports you'll see that many new Adobe customers joined because of their mobile applications, and a lot of future Adobe focus will be in this direction.
So you are saying that investors were not spoon-fed that future outlook by Adobe, but they conducted their own market research on a market segment (Adobe offer many more products and services than just for photographers) of all potential Adobe product users?
Cheers,
Bart
-
So you are saying that investors were not spoon-fed that future outlook by Adobe, but they conducted their own market research on a market segment (Adobe offer many more products and services than just for photographers) of all potential Adobe product users?
Cheers,
Bart
Bart...new technology and what it can do is always lead by the corporations and not by the general public. Who in the public asked for the iPhone with all it's abilities. Who in the public asked for the iPad? Who in the public asked for digital cameras...or in fact digital image processing.
The public is always spoon fed new technology.
-
To Rhossydd (And anyone else interested in Custom Photoshop Panels).
I tried Configurator4 for Photoshop. No problem getting the Workbench to create and save a custom panel, but could not Export for use in Photoshop CC.
I raised a support ticket with Adobe to discover .....
Configurator4 is supported for Photoshop CC but ..... here is an official Adobe support response ......." Yes, It is with CC version but not with CC 2014 and CC 2015".
So ... great....wasted another 2 days. Adobe should have had the professionalism to post the info on the Configurator4 product page that it would NOT work for CC 2014 andCC 2015. I asked the support engineer if there were plans to support this feature in the future. His reply "As of now I ma not sure if there are any plans in future. "
Posting just fyi so people do not waste as much time as I have on this tool.
FYI - I mentioned that earlier in this thread and you even quoted it in a reply to me - CC is the last version of Photoshop that will work with Flash panels (Configurator)! The Configurator 4 page has not been updated since 2013. I am guessing that Adobe is moving away from Flash because, among other things like the rest of the internet moving to HTML5 and whatever, Flash is full of holes to exploit, for example this post from yesterday:
https://blogs.adobe.com/psirt/?p=1334
Security Updates Available for Adobe Flash Player (APSB16-10)
A Security Bulletin (APSB16-10) has been published regarding security updates for Adobe Flash Player. These updates address critical vulnerabilities, and Adobe recommends users update their product installations to the latest versions using the instructions referenced in the security bulletin.
Adobe is aware of reports that CVE-2016-1019 is being actively exploited on systems running Windows 10 and earlier with Flash Player version 20.0.0.306 and earlier. Please refer to APSA16-01 for additional details.
This posting is provided “AS IS” with no warranties and confers no rights.
etc.
Again, if you are interested in developing panels and extensions for your Creative Cloud apps, take a look at Davide Barranca's new book - it will save you many many hours of searching for scattered, incomplete information.
best of luck,
kirk
-
Actually if you read through their investor reports you'll see that many new Adobe customers joined because of their mobile applications, and a lot of future Adobe focus will be in this direction.
So maybe your statement should read:
Probably because they've done enough research to know that many users are interested in using LR on mobile devices and they are focussing their future efforts in this direction. And their research shows the majority of us users have no interest in LR slideshow and boom modules so Adobe has not focussed in those directions.
Only one major flaw in your theory ... there has been recent positive proof that Adobe can't rely upon their 'research' as it has been established that their user metrics (or their interpretation of same) have been severely flawed.
Don't you recall at the introduction of Lr v6.2/2015.2, when Sharad Mangalick stated on the Lightroom Journal Blog: (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html)
I think it’s important to provide some context to why we made changes to Import. Over the years we’ve done extensive studies of customers interested in Lightroom. The studies have been comprised of people passionate about photography and who use their cameras as a creative outlet. In short, their motivations share the same motivations as people who already love Lightroom.
Then the following unprecedented uproar (https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/new-update-6-2) that ensued proving they got it wrong ... in a VERY major way and had to backtrack and offer up this apology from the same blog by Tom Hogarty: (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/lightroom-6-2-release-update-and-apology.html):
Lightroom was created in 2006 via a 14 month public beta in a dialog with the photography community. In making these changes without a broader dialog I’ve failed the original core values of the product and the team.
The team will continue to work hard to earn your trust back in subsequent releases and I look forward to reigniting the type of dialog we started in 2006.
In that context ... don't be surprised if more than a few users of Adobe products have a lack of trust in their user research data.
-
To kirkt
Again, if you are interested in developing panels and extensions for your Creative Cloud apps,
Thank you for the book reference. Unfortunately, I am not keen right now to get into coding a solution, but will note for future possible use. Also, I misunderstood the reference to Configurator4 and CC, assuming it would work with all versions of Photoshop CC.
I have used :
a. Javascript plus ListView to automate the integration of images, titles, captions, locations, date capture from Lightroom to InDesign for high quality, professional standard, automated titled A3 and A2 prints.
b. Visual Basic / Listview / Lightroom to automate integration to Microsoft Word for Mailmerge (images, titles, captions, locations, outputting to a PDF......my quick automated electronic book solution)
c. Visual Basic / Listview / Lightroom to automate production of Powerpoint slideshows using titles, captions, images on multiple platforms and mail to people.
Individually, all these mini projects have been super useful to streamline my workflow but they come at a cost of time. Plus, the effort of maintaining these solutions is a concern.
Inability to be able to create a custom panel, without the need to write code, is a basic tool needed to streamline the Photoshop legacy interface and dependency on remembering millions of keybord short cut combinations. I know this is a Lightroom forum, but I am just using this as an example of a major Photoshop gap and failing by Adobe on so many levels.
I wish to give a plug to John Beardsworth and his super Listview plug-in, which allows me integrate my images and metadata from Lightroom to other solutions when Adobe fail to look after basic workflow needs.
-
To Rhossydd
I raised a support ticket with Adobe to discover .....
Configurator4 is supported for Photoshop CC but ..... here is an official Adobe support response ......." Yes, It is with CC version but not with CC 2014 and CC 2015".
Why the surprise ? that's exactly what it says on the web site I linked to.
-
Why the surprise ? that's exactly what it says on the web site I linked to.
As I admitted above ....
Also, I misunderstood the reference to Configurator4 and CC, assuming it would work with all versions of Photoshop CC.
-
Actually if you read through their investor reports you'll see that many new Adobe customers joined because of their mobile applications, and a lot of future Adobe focus will be in this direction.
So maybe your statement should read:
Probably because they've done enough research to know that many users are interested in using LR on mobile devices and they are focussing their future efforts in this direction. And their research shows the majority of us users have no interest in LR slideshow and boom modules so Adobe has not focussed in those directions.
"that many users are interested in using LR on mobile devices" -- personally I'd be very interested in using it, only my view is that the most interesting Use Case is to be able to use Library functionality on the mobile device, as in Photosmith (or Pixelsync). NOT to process iPad-sourced photos in LR, which seems to be Adobe's thinking. In other words, Adobe positions Lr Mobile as a competitor for high-cool factor apps such as Snapped or Instagram. Good luck with that. Current industry thinking seems to be that photography as understood by most of the denizens of this site is for greybeards only and is not a growth market or likely to produce attractive quantities of $$$$$.
"And their research shows the majority of us users have no interest in LR slideshow and boom modules" -- Well, that's quite possibly because they're absolute crap, not because we don't want the features. Personally, I'm another who has been forced into the InDesign route. I was, however, quite satisfied with Aperture's book module (and its Lightbox, and its modeless workflow, and its DAM, etc etc. But yeah, noise reduction at ISO stupid was a bit weak, especially if you missed the RFT NR slider)
It does seem that having succeeded with the marketing steamroller mode of market domination, Adobe now sees zero reason to do more than minimal tinkering with Lr.
-
It does seem that having succeeded with the marketing steamroller mode of market domination, Adobe now sees zero reason to do more than minimal tinkering with Lr.
My milage varies. Adobe has kept me interested with new features in Lightroom for a number of years. Recently, I have enjoyed finding out how to use the dehaze filter, and the Panorama and HDR functions have partly replaced the specialist software which I also use. These might be minimal tinkering in your perspective but I see valuable enhancements. Adobe certainly doesn't seem interested in making all of the LR modules equally indispensable for professionals, and that may be where you are coming from. But perhaps there is no good business case for that. Also "marketing steamroller mode of market domination" seems to me to somewhat overstate Adobe's market position. They might wish for that, but what I see is a company trying not to lose too much ground in a perhaps declining but still significant market (Photography) while making a bid to be a player in a new and rapidly growing one (smartphone and other device photography in the world of social media).
-
My milage varies. Adobe has kept me interested with new features in Lightroom for a number of years. Recently, I have enjoyed finding out how to use the dehaze filter, and the Panorama and HDR functions have partly replaced the specialist software which I also use. These might be minimal tinkering in your perspective but I see valuable enhancements. Adobe certainly doesn't seem interested in making all of the LR modules equally indispensable for professionals, and that may be where you are coming from. But perhaps there is no good business case for that. Also "marketing steamroller mode of market domination" seems to me to somewhat overstate Adobe's market position. They might wish for that, but what I see is a company trying not to lose too much ground in a perhaps declining but still significant market (Photography) while making a bid to be a player in a new and rapidly growing one (smartphone and other device photography in the world of social media).
Yes, mileage does vary.
Let's review the updates for Lightroom since the release of v6.0/CC 2015.0.
2015.1.1/6.1.1 was relatively uneventful though some users were still seeking solutions to some compatibility issues for certain graphics cards.
2015.2/6.2 was a total fiasco in 'simplifying and streamlining' the import process that arbitrarily removed several key functions that had become very popular and useful for a great number of users that resulted in an unprecedented outcry and eventual apology and re-instatement of the former dialog which didn't seem to create additional issues for 2015.3/6.3.
2015.4/6.4 had a very interesting issue where the installer was arbitrarily removing files at the user root directory on some Mac OS X systems creating permission issues and also introduced another bug in that Export presets that utilized Photoshop Droplets would no longer function. Though these issues were to be addressed in the next update.
2015.5/6.5 Lo and behold, the Droplet issue was resolved ... as long as you only wished to export a single image using a Ps Droplet ... if you wished to export a batch of images to a Droplet ... something that was possible dating all the way back to Lr v2 (maybe earlier) ... it was now a no go.
All these problems causing additional end user time in assessing, troubleshooting and most likely rolling back to a functioning version of Lr that does not break long established workflows.
So yes, the Dehaze was a nice addition ... until of course you wished to continue using relied upon features to import images so you could apply the effect ...or want to install a updated version with RAW camera support for a new camera you would like to see how Dehaze would benefit it's images, but you can't because it breaks your workflow in a major way ... or if you wish to export an image to prepare it for client end use utilizing a Ps Droplet.
We seem to pay monthly subscription fee so we can receive updates and new features 'when they are ready' only to discover that Adobe refuses to perform due diligence in testing and assessing that work before they release an update, relegating it's license holders to pay-to-play beta tester status.
My interest in Adobe software is to complete my daily tasks in order to serve my clients in the best possible fashion ... but lately ... it's a trouble shooting nightmare trying to discern why Adobe seems insistent upon making that job more difficult.
Additionally, the smartphone and social media photography market may be growing ... but how is Adobe going to monetize that market with a mobile version of a RAW image workflow app? When you consider there are many, many ... many ... more low or no cost very capable solutions that have a very strong foundation in the market. I'm not saying it's bad for Adobe to pursue some aspect of that market ... but is shouldn't come at a cost to existing customers and well established applications.
-
So yes, the Dehaze was a nice addition ...
Indeed, very useful. Let's give some credit where credit is due; Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan who primarily work on the ACR engine and ACR itself. The LR team gets the fruits of their labor. When we see such new functionality (and more is coming...), it's produced first in ACR due to Thomas and Eric's focus on that raw rendering engine. A lack of focus in other areas, many of the issues you pointed out, fall upon the LR team.
-
Indeed, very useful. Let's give some credit where credit is due.
I agree. I think I stated that very clearly, Dehaze is a welcome addition. But you can't glorify the wins and ignore the losses. My point was, how are my clients to benefit from Dehaze ... if other issues in Lr are preventing me from getting all that goodness to my clients ... where's the benefit?
I just wish the entire Lightroom application could reflect the same level of attention to detail as Thomas and Eric apply to ACR. We all would be much better off it it did. If it were not for the work in ACR ... there really wouldn't be a whole lot to talk about where Lightroom is concerned.
-
I just wish the entire Lightroom application could reflect the same level of attention to detail as Thomas and Eric apply to ACR.
As would I. It used to more or less. But IMHO, it hasn't for two or three versions at least. IF the team had a driving force like Thomas and Eric, maybe this would be different. The product feels like it's lacking a direction to me. So much like a well made film, you can have the best DP or film editor in the world, but if the script or direction is lacking, it's not going to be a very good film.