Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: john beardsworth on August 22, 2018, 09:18:08 am
-
Lightroom 7.5 is out. See more https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/whats-new.html#lr-classic-cc-7-5
For me the big changes are in the Book module with more newer Blurb book formats like trade and magazine, layflat paper, but for me the best thing is greater flexibility to move and resize photos around a page. You can now move the cells around (without screwing around with cell padding), even overlap them like this quick layout.
-
Sounds great ... unless you print books/albums somewhere other than Blurb, then the Book module is nothing more than a cruel joke.
-
Too bad, you can't please everyone.
-
Sounds great ... unless you print books/albums somewhere other than Blurb, then the Book module is nothing more than a cruel joke.
Or you're a bit clueless about the Export Book to PDF functionality and can't find a way to print the book from that data. ;)
Now, is Blurb the best or even close to the best options for printing books? No, not at all.
-
Depends how you define best.
-
Depends how you define best.
Simple. I have produced a number of books, with color reference images of my own, Bill Atkinson, all the Roman16's (have you?) with Blurb and Apple (Aperture) to name two. Blurb's don't compare. Print the same image on the cover and inside the book; two different press technologies used. They should match closely and they are way off (I can if you insist provide deltaE values) for Blurb, much, much closer for Apple. Blurb's print process isn't as consistent over time. I've printed and measured the same book printed months apart. I have the same trending data from Apple's sources and in fact, plants all over the world.
Have you?
Best: consistent color without color shifting and good gray balance, blues that don't shift magenta, better tonal range. Blurb ain't it man. But for those of us who have printed and measured the differences can state colorimetrically. That's part of our day job. ;)
-
With Aperture discontinued (correct me if wrong), what is the nearest Apple replacement? Apple Photos?
-
With Aperture discontinued (correct me if wrong), what is the nearest Apple replacement? Apple Photos?
Unfortunately all Apple print services will be discontinued next month.
FWIW, print path from Aperture was different than iPhoto (upload Adobe RGB vs. sRGB). Blurb uploads (ugh) sRGB but it is their poor control over Indigo presses that made a bigger difference.
-
Or you're a bit clueless about the Export Book to PDF functionality and can't find a way to print the book from that data. ;)
Now, is Blurb the best or even close to the best options for printing books? No, not at all.
Geez Andrew ... maybe you're a bit clueless about templates that are compatible with other print houses. Heck, we could set complete parameters for page dimensions, margins, bleeds and gutters in Aperture from day 1 ... it's been nearly a decade and the Lr Book module is still locked into whatever Blurb offers.
Sure we can export to PDF ... but what good is that PDF if it does not meet a print provider's requirements without extreme modification? If users have to bend over backwards to modify that PDF to even come close to what a print provider requires why even bother? That's the cruel joke.
Why the Book module had to be locked in to a Blurb only option is ludicrous.
-
Geez Andrew ... maybe you're a bit clueless about templates that are compatible with other print houses.
You're quite certain that NO other print provider could accept them OR that you can edit them if you have the tools?
Sure we can export to PDF ... but what good is that PDF if it does not meet a print provider's requirements without extreme modification?
Ah yes, modification. Possible again if you have the tools. Is it ideal? NO! Should Adobe allow other options? Yes. Does every product that produces books do so? NO.
Maybe making books with LR isn't the correct product for you Butch. As such, if you're suggesting that because of this limitation which I agree shouldn’t be there, you should throw the entire baby (LR) out with the bath water, YOU should do so. For the rest of us, maybe not. :P
-
You're quite certain that NO other print provider could accept them OR that you can edit them if you have the tools? Ah yes, modification. Possible again if you have the tools. Is it ideal? NO! Should Adobe allow other options? Yes. Does every product that produces books do so? NO.
Maybe making books with LR isn't the correct product for you Butch. As such, if you're suggesting that because of this limitation which I agree shouldn’t be there, you should throw the entire baby (LR) out with the bath water, YOU should do so. For the rest of us, maybe not. :P
It's really quite simple Andrew, even if you are willing to embrace workarounds, that does not equate to a solution. Workarounds are just more work, not a solution. I pay software developers for solutions, not the opportunity to engage in additional work. If I must use a second and/or third option to complete the task as well as valuable time to perform same ... I may as well begin with a different option and cut out the middle man.
After all, would you be content if the Develop module only recognized Canon RAW image files and no others? ... or the print module was only compatible with HP printers? ... If exported slide shows could only be viewed in a single proprietary video player? ... or if the Web module could only support Internet Explorer and no other browser?
Adobe created the situation and thus far has refused to offer a true solution for users that would prefer to print their books elsewhere. Even though they initially indicated they would offer a method for users to create custom templates then later reneged on that offer.
I haven't discarded the baby in the bath water or Lightroom, though, if a reasonably capable alternative should ever present itself ... after over 26 years of supporting Adobe software in a significant monetary manner (over 15 seats licensed at present) ... I'd eagerly embrace that alternative. I'd be equally as loyal to Adobe as they have been to my concerns.
-
It's really quite simple Andrew, even if you are willing to embrace workarounds, that does not equate to a solution.
It does make it a solution but one you may not be willing to go through. And that's fine. It also doesn't mean the entire product isn't useful. Perhaps not for you. I don't use Maps. But that doesn't mean I don't use other modules and find the product useful in a daily workflow.
I pay software developers for solutions, not the opportunity to engage in additional work.
So you pay for software where 100% of everything it does provides a perfect solution for you? If so, you need something else for printing books. Or maybe you shouldn't use any of LR. That's fine.
After all, would you be content if the Develop module only recognized Canon RAW image files and no others? .
IF all I used was Canon yes. If not, no.
-
Andrew, instead of talking in “riddles”, if you have a solution, share it with us. Little “tidbits” make for lots of arm waving and making us mortals feel small, but do nothing to aid us to a better method.
-
Andrew, instead of talking in “riddles”, if you have a solution, share it with us. Little “tidbits” make for lots of arm waving and making us mortals feel small, but do nothing to aid us to a better method.
No riddles to those who read the text. You don't like the book module, don't use it. You want to send output to other providers, export the images and do so, or edit the PDF as I already discussed. Or don't.
Please tell me what tool other than LR that allows book creation has built in templates for every book provider/printer? If such a product exists, it's probably what Butch should be working with. You do realize that LR can export images and there are tools, like InDesign to name just one, that allows you to create any template for any such book desired and some providers even supply empty templates for this goal. LR isn't InDesign. InDesign isn't Lightroom. News flash. :o
-
It does make it a solution but one you may not be willing to go through. And that's fine. It also doesn't mean the entire product isn't useful. Perhaps not for you. I don't use Maps. But that doesn't mean I don't use other modules and find the product useful in a daily workflow. So you pay for software where 100% of everything it does provides a perfect solution for you? If so, you need something else for printing books. Or maybe you shouldn't use any of LR. That's fine. IF all I used was Canon yes. If not, no.
Once again you are needlessly misconstruing the entire discussion.
I never once said the entire product wasn't useful. What I have been sharing is my disappointment that the Book module is not what was expected, or as initially promised by Adobe. I too, find Lightroom useful ... to the tune of about 100,000 images pass through our workstations on average each week. I don't know where you got the idea that I don't find Lightroom useful ... I quite clearly stated my concerns about the Book module specifically. I expected a better effort from Adobe.
Please do go on and drag out the discussion into areas that have absolutely nothing to do with my original statement.
And yes ... we have been relegated to using ID for book creation, but it is an additional expense and extra steps that are needless for photo/wedding albums. ID is extreme overkill for such tomes as they are mostly all images and very little text. Where ID shines in with text.
The simplicity of using Aperture for this task in the past was so much smoother, easier ... and cost effective ... there is no reason we shouldn't be able to do the same tasks in the Blurb Book module ... and use the vendors of our choice.
-
Once again you are needlessly misconstruing the entire discussion.
You can of course opt out or use the ignore list. And that's fine. ;)
The simplicity of using Aperture for this task in the past was so much smoother, easier ... and cost effective ... there is no reason we shouldn't be able to do the same tasks in the Blurb Book module ... and use the vendors of our choice.
The same limitations you complain about in LR existed in Aperture. There was only one print provider. The good news at the time was, this provider produced much better output. And without getting into NDA difficulties, I pat myself on the back for that to some degree. ;)
-
The same limitations you complain about in LR existed in Aperture. There was only one print provider.
A totally false statement on two counts.
1. In Aperture you could create a book using full custom user selected parameters for page dimensions, orientations, margins, bleeds and gutter widths. The resulting book could be exported as PDF and submitted to the vendor of choice without ANY further preparation or modifications.
2. There were about 5 of the top wedding album vendors in the world offered an Aperture plugin/extension that included their most popular templates where users could design in Aperture and submit and order the books right within the app ... just like the canned consumer photo books.
-
A totally false statement on two counts.
1. In Aperture you could create a book using full custom user selected parameters for page dimensions, orientations, margins, bleeds and gutter widths. The resulting book could be exported as PDF and submitted to the vendor of choice without ANY further preparation or modifications.
2. There were about 5 of the top wedding album vendors in the world offered an Aperture plugin/extension that included their most popular templates where users could design in Aperture and submit and order the books right within the app ... just like the canned consumer photo books.
1. I set corrected. But we both know that's no longer at all possible.
Aperture is long dead. You can't upload anything even if you can still run it. And soon it will not run at all. It's sad but I only used it for making books even while using LR for everything else; not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water due to LR's limitations with Blurb.
IF you want to stop using LR because of the book options, despite the fact you can export PDF and edit or images and use another product, that again is OK with me. Should Adobe provide more flexibility? Yes, I've stated that more than once. Will they? Maybe. Is it a deal breaker? Not for me. If it is for you, again that's just fine.
What I have been sharing is my disappointment that the Book module is not what was expected, or as initially promised by Adobe.
What promise?
-
What promise?
Kevin Tieskoetter (designer of the Book module) stated in an interview over six years ago that there would be a method published for creating custom page sizes and templates that never came to be because he was countermanded later by his supervisors.
-
Kevin Tieskoetter (designer of the Book module) stated in an interview over six years ago that there would be a method published for creating custom page sizes and templates that never came to be because he was countermanded later by his supervisors.
This?
Q: There’s a lot of concern about the built in template sizes being restrictive. Will people be able to make their own templates and sizes?
A: Yes! All of the templates we ship with Lightroom are made using Illustrator, and I’ll be documenting the process for creating those. We’ve also successfully made templates using InDesign and the freeware tool called Scribus, so if you need templates in different sizes, you’ll have a range of options.
Here's a much bigger promise not kept:
Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?
A (Tom Hogarty). Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely.
-
Actually the article I saw at the time Tieskoetter stated:
"Yes! All of the templates we ship with Lightroom are made using Illustrator, and I'll be documenting the process for creating those. We've also successfully made templates using InDesign and the freeware tool called Scribus, so if you need templates in different sizes, you'll have a range of options."
Unfortunately, that documentation was never shared with end users and Julie Kmoch later offered:
"Sorry, but we've decided that the approach we were originally pursuing to create custom page layouts was not something we were comfortable releasing to the public. The scripts we've built have worked well enough for our internal use but needed a lot of work before they were usable without a lot of guidance. We think it's more prudent for us to focus on enhancing the book module itself."
In other words they changed their mind so they could focus on making the Book module better for Blurb ... and it only took another 6 years to be at a point where Adobe can now boast about "greater flexibility to move and resize photos around a page"
Job well done!
-
Another LuLa passive-aggressive nonsensical thread. It's harder and harder to find useful info.
-
Another LuLa passive-aggressive nonsensical thread.
Maybe you should spend some time in the DPR forums. :D
-
I have been a serious critic of the Book module since its inception. The two main issues were the chain link to Blurb and (unbelievably) the inability to place an image or text where I liked on the page (combined with a crippled template system). I stopped using the module completely.
I specifically remember the broken promises made regarding improving template features. I use InDesign when I need to create books, but Indesign complicates the workflow, requiring intermediate files, which creates a mess if I want to later adjust the size of the images on the page. For quick pdfs I have created scripts to create documents within InDesign and/or Mailmerge using Microsoft Word... but all are a lot of hassle to operate and maintain.
I am really surprised and pleased to see this sudden re-awaking of subtle but important usability improvements in the last 2 Lr releases.
Hopefully it is a sign of more attention to the long list of user requests and a focus on real world usability.
-
I use InDesign when I need to create books, but Indesign complicates the workflow, requiring intermediate files, which creates a mess if I want to later adjust the size of the images on the page.
The script at https://dlapaev.wixsite.com/home/resampleprojectimagesen makes life simpler and allows you to optimally sharpen all the final sized images for print using a PS action in the Image processor script in PS.
It will be interesting to see how Affinity Publisher develops. Right now in beta it's looking pretty strong, but a few voices asking for specific features to work with images could influence it into becoming a very useful tool for photo book production.
-
Who does the better table top books? And why?
-
... and compare pricing.....
-
Simple. I have produced a number of books, with color reference images of my own, Bill Atkinson, all the Roman16's (have you?) with Blurb and Apple (Aperture) to name two. Blurb's don't compare. Print the same image on the cover and inside the book; two different press technologies used. They should match closely and they are way off (I can if you insist provide deltaE values) for Blurb, much, much closer for Apple. Blurb's print process isn't as consistent over time. I've printed and measured the same book printed months apart. I have the same trending data from Apple's sources and in fact, plants all over the world.
Have you?
Best: consistent color without color shifting and good gray balance, blues that don't shift magenta, better tonal range. Blurb ain't it man. But for those of us who have printed and measured the differences can state colorimetrically. That's part of our day job. ;)
How recently have you used Blurb? In the past, I have experienced the discrepancy between cover and interior that you mention. However, about 6 months ago I had several copies of a book done by Blurb and the look of the same photos on the cover and inside were very close. This is for the image wrap cover, and it seems that Blurb has change the cover finish for this to matte. I know this is only a small sample, but it still indicates the possibility of more consistency.
-
How recently have you used Blurb? In the past, I have experienced the discrepancy between cover and interior that you mention.
About a year.