Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: oceanrhythms on May 24, 2010, 11:35:24 pm
-
What do like/dislike about Lightroom? I am doing research and trying to decide on purchasing Lightroom (when the new version comes out) or Apeture 3. Thanks for your insight!
John
-
Lightroom has a 30 day trial period to find out if it will work for you. The current version is 2.7 and 3.0 will have a trial period as well.
As for my opinion, it works very well for me and gets better with each iteration. Like anything man made, it has its niggles but I look at it as a work in progress.
Rich
-
love it, hardly ever touch photoshop these days...
features missing:
softproofing
batch renaming of files
lack of personal keyboard shortcuts
-
batch renaming of files
Huh? It's been there since day 1.
The original poster should just download both programs and make his own mind up. If he's on PC, note though that Aperture is limited to the Mac.
John
-
I'll point to 10 important distinguishing features:
1. You can see exactly where your files are in LR (even with "referenced" files in Aperture, that's impossible/impractical)
2. LR works on PC or Mac, so you're not forced to buy one brand of computer, can easily change, and have access to a far bigger pool of knowledge and support
3. You can process large numbers of images much more quickly using LR's Auto Sync mode to adjust multiple images with a single mouse stroke (much more efficient than copy and paste or lift and stamp)
4. The Before / After view splits the screen and is excellent for fine tuning your adjustments.
5. The "targeted adjustment tool" allows you to make adjustments by dragging over the image, so you keep your eye on its appearance as you're working
6. Even months later, you can use History steps to restore images' previous appearance
7. You can apply split tones to black and white pictures
8. Camera profiles enable you to mimic cameras' built-in picture styles and apply alternative rendition of the raw data, as well as creating your own
9. Moving work between computers is simple
10. In LR3, the noise reduction is astonishing
John
-
I'll point to 10 important distinguishing features:
1. You can see exactly where your files are in LR (even with "referenced" files in Aperture, that's impossible/impractical)
Agreed, that's a primary philosophical difference between the way the two programs are organised. Lightroom's internal organisation mirrors the organisation on your disk. Aperture's internal organisation is completely independent of your disk. It can be set up to mirror it if that's your preferred way of working, but that's never as transparent as it is with Lightroom. On the other hand, Aperture's independence of the organisation of files on disk permits organisations based on logical structures rather than physical ones, and so is more flexible.
2. LR works on PC or Mac, so you're not forced to buy one brand of computer, can easily change, and have access to a far bigger pool of knowledge and support
3. You can process large numbers of images much more quickly using LR's Auto Sync mode to adjust multiple images with a single mouse stroke (much more efficient than copy and paste or lift and stamp)
Lift and stamp is slower, but not as much slower as you might suggest: select all images, one mouse click to bring up the lift-stamp box, one more to apply it to all selected images. I've just moved from LR3b2 to Ap3 and I find the two operations basically the same. So I wouldn't agree that it is MUCH quicker. Marginally quicker, perhaps.
4. The Before / After view splits the screen and is excellent for fine tuning your adjustments.
Yes, this is certainly easier in Lightroom. Aperture can quickly swap between the master image without adjustments and the version with adjustments (just hit M) but it is not as nice as split screen for detailed comparisons.
5. The "targeted adjustment tool" allows you to make adjustments by dragging over the image, so you keep your eye on its appearance as you're working
6. Even months later, you can use History steps to restore images' previous appearance
7. You can apply split tones to black and white pictures
8. Camera profiles enable you to mimic cameras' built-in picture styles and apply alternative rendition of the raw data, as well as creating your own
These are nice features of Lightroom which are better implemented there than Aperture.
9. Moving work between computers is simple
My experience is that Aperture 3's new library handling actually puts it ahead of Lightroom here.
10. In LR3, the noise reduction is astonishing
Yup, so if you shoot lots of high ISO noise-ridden images, that may well be the killer feature to decide in favour of LR regardless of other shortcomings.
I do mostly base ISO work lit with studio flash so Aperture's much better retouch, skin smoothing and other local adjustment tools plus the generally greater coherence of its user interface for my way of working, swung it the other way for me.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Likes:
I like the way it works with the 'referenced file' ie the file structure in LR is the same as ones folder system on the Hard Drive and changing the file name in the tab makes the same change in the file system.
It is possible to sync with the files in the relevant folders easily - I find this important as I work with a lot of external software.
Batch adjustment selections.
Choice of 2 external software editing suites.
Choice of opening in external software with or without LR edits.
Dislike:
I've never been happy with the conversion of Nikon RAW files in version 2.x. (not tried 3.0) A comparison of Nikon Capture NX2 nearly always creates better results.
Having to swap back and forth between screens to access various information.
-
Huh? It's been there since day 1.
The original poster should just download both programs and make his own mind up. If he's on PC, note though that Aperture is limited to the Mac.
John
So how do you rename your files, once you imported them and culled the bad ones to give them consecutive numbers without exporting?
-
So how do you rename your files, once you imported them and culled the bad ones to give them consecutive numbers without exporting?
Library> Rename (Or F2), gives you basically the filenaming options you have when importing or exporting.
-
Likes:
I like the way it works with the 'referenced file' ie the file structure in LR is the same as ones folder system on the Hard Drive and changing the file name in the tab makes the same change in the file system.
It is possible to sync with the files in the relevant folders easily - I find this important as I work with a lot of external software.
Batch adjustment selections.
Choice of 2 external software editing suites.
Choice of opening in external software with or without LR edits.
Dislike:
I've never been happy with the conversion of Nikon RAW files in version 2.x. (not tried 3.0) A comparison of Nikon Capture NX2 nearly always creates better results.
Having to swap back and forth between screens to access various information.
Steven,
What particular is the difference you observe in the result between LR and NX2?
-
I like LR because it was the best answer to my work flow since the old RSE. I have tried Nikon Capture NX, Capture One, Lightzone, and trail versions of others including one of the early versions of Aperture. The data management ability has been a life saver. Don't know how it stacks up against Aperture's though. I had tried a few trial version before I finally purchased one, because I intially found the interface rather clumsy. I am used to it now.
LR3 Beta makes me think that the next version will be even better---it certainly is as far as image quality and noise reduction.
However, what I don't like is the current lack of softproofing, and the horrid clone toll. In fact, the clone tool is so bad that it is not worth using as far as I am concerned. As of yet, neither of these has been addressed in LR3. The lack of both means I have to use other software quite often. It is irritating enough to me that I would reconsider Aperture if I were purchasing today.
-
However, what I don't like is the current lack of softproofing, and the horrid clone toll. In fact, the clone tool is so bad that it is not worth using as far as I am concerned.
The clone tool is great for removing sensor dust and such from multiple images, its smart enough to alter the source based on the image. I agree, if you need to do sophisticated retouching and cloning, wrong tool, move to a pixel editor (Photoshop).
And yes, soft proofing would be so lovely to have.
-
On the other hand, Aperture's independence of the organisation of files on disk permits organisations based on logical structures rather than physical ones, and so is more flexible.
That's not really true. Lightroom has both disc and virtual organisation - Aperture still only has "independence" or virtual organisation. So with LR you can have a logical structure, but you aren't forced into doing so.
Lift and stamp is slower, but not as much slower as you might suggest: select all images, one mouse click to bring up the lift-stamp box, one more to apply it to all selected images. I've just moved from LR3b2 to Ap3 and I find the two operations basically the same. So I wouldn't agree that it is MUCH quicker. Marginally quicker, perhaps.
Aperture's lift and stamp is no different to Lightroom's Sync. However, I specifically referred to Auto Sync. A single keystroke versus 5, each time.
John
-
A few niggles for me
Auto WB is pretty poor in most cases
Same for auto adjustments for exposure etc. so far off at times it's a bit of a mystery!
Cannot drag and drop images for a quick tweak
CA removal tools are inadequate for complex multi coloured CA
Dislike the new import photos layout in LR 3 beta, old way was simpler and better
-
Wow! Thanks to all for your replies! Very informative!
John
-
I'm primarily an ACR user these days and not a LR user because of these reasons:
LR can't be used in a multi-user environment on the same set of shared/networked files. There can only be one LR station with the images stored locally, making it tough if there are several people in the office that need to work on a set of images. I suppose copying images to each local station is one solution, but not what I'm looking for.
LR is locked into the the palette module motif. The Library/Develop/Web/Print modules are fine, but I would much prefer being able to have floating palettes to be able to customize the workspace, like I can do in PS.
The Curves in LR are only parametric. I have to create different curves in ACR, apply it to an image, then bring that image into LR for me to grab that unique curve and save it as a preset. Too much work.
I feel like LR starts to slow down when a library gets large. Trying to browse 50,000+ images just isn't fun. Even browsing 3000 from a shoot seems to be a bit slow.
-
The Curves in LR are only parametric. I have to create different curves in ACR, apply it to an image, then bring that image into LR for me to grab that unique curve and save it as a preset. Too much work.
Point curves are in the public beta of 3. But for the vast majority of users, parametric curves are all they want.
I feel like LR starts to slow down when a library gets large. Trying to browse 50,000+ images just isn't fun. Even browsing 3000 from a shoot seems to be a bit slow.
You should optimise your catalogue or review what else may be slowing things down. My test catalogue is 75k but runs fine, and I'm pretty impatient. A client has 250000.
John
-
Cannot drag and drop images for a quick tweak
Barry,
Here is what I've done to satisfy my Drag and Drop needs. Set up an Auto Import folder on your desktop or other convenient place. Setup Auto Import to it import to an Auto Import folder in your image library. Now drag and drop any images to the desktop Auto Import folder and LR will suck them right in. Do your quick edits and Export. Then you can either delete them from your catalog/disk or move them to a permanent folder in your library from within LR.
I use a default Import folder (_download) for all imports, I got tired of trying sort through images in the import dialog. My import settings never change as far as destination goes, in fact all I ever have to add is keywords which I seldom do on import. Breaking up the images into folders from inside LR is very easy. LR3 import is better in this regard, but this works so well for me I doubt I'll change.
- Morey
-
Are any of you getting random crashes? It's been getting worse for me, the more I work with raw files and local adjustments. It klunks out pretty often.
I optimized the db recently and I think that helped remove some slugishness. But out of memory and crashes are freqent on xp box 4gb ram. I haven't been using beta 3 much yet. I have little hope, as my suspicious is the interpreted Lua language is probably at the core of this instability poor response times while editing. I think a native c++ app will always outrun this app. But throwing more hardware at crappy software is always the easiest solution...I like what it does, but hate how it does it. Thinking of throwing in the towel and going with something else, message to adobe... rewrite it as a native app please.
-
Often this sort of thing is because of bugs in graphics drivers. nVidia 3D settings?
-
Are any of you getting random crashes? It's been getting worse for me, the more I work with raw files and local adjustments. It klunks out pretty often.
I optimized the db recently and I think that helped remove some slugishness. But out of memory and crashes are freqent on xp box 4gb ram. I haven't been using beta 3 much yet. I have little hope, as my suspicious is the interpreted Lua language is probably at the core of this instability poor response times while editing. I think a native c++ app will always outrun this app. But throwing more hardware at crappy software is always the easiest solution...I like what it does, but hate how it does it. Thinking of throwing in the towel and going with something else, message to adobe... rewrite it as a native app please.
Similar problems with LR3B2---mostly hangs, but occasional crashes. Beta 1 worked fine, but Beta 2 has actually become slower than Nikon Capture NX, if such a thing is possible. Local adjustments are very problematic, especially if I do several. Hopefully, it's just a beta thing....
-
Similar problems with LR3B2---mostly hangs, but occasional crashes. Beta 1 worked fine, but Beta 2 has actually become slower than Nikon Capture NX, if such a thing is possible. Local adjustments are very problematic, especially if I do several. Hopefully, it's just a beta thing....
As I said before, this sort of thing is often driver related. Make sure your drivers are up to date and review any nVidia 3d settings
-
I am using an Matrox card... No other apps have any issues. If LR could run as smooth as PS. It would be great. It's been a while since I checked for updated drivers... though. Lucky me, my stuff is ancient and they have new bios and drivers. Thanks for the reminder John.
-
Hi,
Are you using 32 or 64 bits XP? On 32-bit XP LR may be severely limited by available memory. Check help->system info, if you have 720 MByte memort visible to LR you are in a bad shape.
On my Macs LR is quite stable.
Best regards
Erik
Are any of you getting random crashes? It's been getting worse for me, the more I work with raw files and local adjustments. It klunks out pretty often.
I optimized the db recently and I think that helped remove some slugishness. But out of memory and crashes are freqent on xp box 4gb ram. I haven't been using beta 3 much yet. I have little hope, as my suspicious is the interpreted Lua language is probably at the core of this instability poor response times while editing. I think a native c++ app will always outrun this app. But throwing more hardware at crappy software is always the easiest solution...I like what it does, but hate how it does it. Thinking of throwing in the towel and going with something else, message to adobe... rewrite it as a native app please.
-
it's 32 bit. I am not really thrilled about having to wipe the thing to install something newer like win7. But if the main app i use behaves like this, it makes sense to take the short term pain.
Hi,
Are you using 32 or 64 bits XP? On 32-bit XP LR may be severely limited by available memory. Check help->system info, if you have 720 MByte memort visible to LR you are in a bad shape.
On my Macs LR is quite stable.
Best regards
Erik
-
I run 32 bit XP and it's perfectly stable. However, going to 64 bit would have advantages in any case - ie more RAM.
-
Does Lightroom 3 auto-update its database? One thing I found to be a pain in the ass in LR is that it doesn't scan cataloged directories for new files. You have to baby-sit it, continually updating manually whenever you add pictures to your collection. Am I missing something?
Also, Lightroom's failure to show all image formats forces you to keep multiple apps open simply to browse your image collection. I was pretty annoyed to find that LR 2 didn't show PNGs, for example. What's the point of a photo-management system that gives you an incomplete view of your images? Adobe already has readers for any file format you're likely to encounter. Lightroom should read all photo-capable bitmap formats. What are you supposed to do, bounce back and forth between Lightroom and Bridge to manage your files?
-
Does Lightroom 3 auto-update its database?
There is an auto-import feature, but it watches only 1 folder and no subfolders.
Practically, I don't rely on the Lightroom import function either, but I don't find the need to do a right-click/sync on a high enough folder a great annoyance (I usually update the "month" folder as I use a YYYY/MM/YYYMMDD structure).
Of course, YMMV depending on your workflow.
Lightroom should read all photo-capable bitmap formats.
I think Lightroom already does, as PNG is much more made for graphics than for photos (and TIFF/deflate does perform the same compression btw, if you really need this kind of things - TIFF/LZW is also very close).
-
Does Lightroom 3 auto-update its database? One thing I found to be a pain in the ass in LR is that it doesn't scan cataloged directories for new files. You have to baby-sit it, continually updating manually whenever you add pictures to your collection. Am I missing something?
I think you might better off importing all your photographs in Lightroom and then build your collections within the app. In the end Lightroom is a raw converter/picture editor as well as a database, so why do one function outside?
-
i bit the bullet and ugraded from XP to Windows 7-64. Laplink Upgrade Assistant works remarkably well, although i highly recommend making a clone of your operating system disk - if you've got data and applications on the same logical drive (which i hope you don't), then partition with Partition Magic or some such first (note that Partition Magic doesn't work with Windows 7 although there are other applications that do) so that you can clone your system disk separately from your data.
if you're not planning to get a new computer with Windows 7 in the near future, i think it's worth the trouble to up-grade if only for the ability to use more memory
-
I think you might better off importing all your photographs in Lightroom and then build your collections within the app. In the end Lightroom is a raw converter/picture editor as well as a database, so why do one function outside?
Well for once, the LR3 import function drives me nuts, it is so contra-intuitive, that i have decided not to upgrade to LR3 and learn its quircks, but rather spend my precious spare time on finding an alternative cataloging solution raw convertor combi. In other words, unless Adobe improves the import functionality(bring it back to LR2 is ok for me), it is exit lightroom.
-
Well for once, the LR3 import function drives me nuts, it is so contra-intuitive, that i have decided not to upgrade to LR3 and learn its quircks, but rather spend my precious spare time on finding an alternative cataloging solution raw convertor combi. In other words, unless Adobe improves the import functionality(bring it back to LR2 is ok for me), it is exit lightroom.
I have to agree that the new import is initially very confusing to use. I find it particularily annoying that the LR2 capability to rename import by date folders has been discontinued. Also, I find the vignette effect on unselected thumbs mondo annoying.
However, the best you can do is learn to use the new tools, despite any warts. On the plus side, I do like being able to preselect in loupe view.
Rory
-
I find it particularily annoying that the LR2 capability to rename import by date folders has been discontinued.
in the "to" (right) panel, Destination tab at the bottom, choose Organize > "By date" and then choose your date format just below.
It's not showed at the same place, but I'd say it just works the same as LR2.
-
With LR2 - when you select a filter then move to a different folder and come back it remembered the filter.
With LR3 it seems to always revert the Filters Off
Anyone know how to fix this?
It's driving me nuts because I like to keep my rejected images until I've finished working with the image set; only deleting them when I archive the set. This allows me to hunt for an alternative if I find the 'keeper' has a fatal flaw I missed during my initial pass.
Hence with LR3 when I go back to a folder I see all the rejected images - which are pure noise. LR2 would have remembered my "All Photos (Not Rejected)" filter I usually work with.
-
With LR2 - when you select a filter then move to a different folder and come back it remembered the filter.
With LR3 it seems to always revert the Filters Off
Anyone know how to fix this?
It's driving me nuts because I like to keep my rejected images until I've finished working with the image set; only deleting them when I archive the set. This allows me to hunt for an alternative if I find the 'keeper' has a fatal flaw I missed during my initial pass.
Hence with LR3 when I go back to a folder I see all the rejected images - which are pure noise. LR2 would have remembered my "All Photos (Not Rejected)" filter I usually work with.
This was by design - lots of people disliked the way it was before, because you could revisit a folder months later and not notice that some of your images were missing. It's also inconsistent with lots of other software, both DAM and generally (eg Finder doesn't remember the Spotlight filters after you close the folder).
You're not alone in preferring the LR2 behaviour, though I suspect a far larger number are quietly happy to see the pictures they expect to find in a folder. But over a few LR sessions, I think that remembering filter status does make sense and I wouldn't be surprised to see Adobe making the LR2/3 behaviours optional.
Also, notice the Lock feature.
John
-
John,
Thanks for the feedback - I understand what you mean; I have been caught out too.
I'd have no problem with filters being cleared between Lightroom sessions; that would be excellent.
It's when I just flick to a different folder to check something (e.g. a two day shoot) and then flick back that irritates me.
I presume you mean locking the second view to a single image?
I've been happily using LR2 with a single screen - maybe it's time to get my head around making better use of a second screen. I tried multi-screens with LR2 and it didn't float my boat.
Cheers - Duncan
-
By locking, Duncan, I mean in the filter panel (at the top of the grid) there's a little lock symbol. Let's say you only want to see flagged pictures in folder A, then flagged images in folder B etc. Set the filter once, and then switch on the lock. It's a nice little feature that could have been made more obvious.
John
-
WOW - that's just what I was after!
Actually it's even better than LR2 as when I'm flipping between folders the filter cannot change.
I think I owe you a pint
Interestingly - I wasn't sure what you meant so I searched LR3 help for 'lock'
I never caught a sniff of this - just the multiple view stuff.
Just shows how blimmin useful forums are!
I usually work with the top filter bar collapsed as the presets I've defined are available at the bottom and do everything I need.
When I got LR3 I had a quick look in the top filter and nothing obvious had changed, so have been keeping it collapsed - DOH
Many thanks - Duncan