Add your LR 7 feature requests

[ButchM]

Pro video editors can't live without that feature - it defines the mood, feeling and identity of a sequence (watch carefully any modern tv serie to get convinced!).

Is it a situation that Lr lacks the tools for "grading" or more so, a lack of familiarity with a toolset that that is utilized in the video editing realm?

I have observed that when video editors enter the digital imaging realm, the first thing they look for is color wheels ... conversely, when still photographers first enter the video realm, the first thing they look for is color channel curves. These two tools are not universal to both types of editing.

Can you not achieve the same end result of color grading by utilizing color channel curves and/or some minor tweaks with the shadows adjustment in the Camera Calibration tab of the Develop module? Both tools allow for the type of adjustments that result in "grading" ... IMHO.

[Rhossydd]

Can you not achieve the same end result of color grading by utilizing color channel curves

Probably, but it takes a LOT more effort and expertise compared to just having a CT slider for shadow & highlight and a threshold setting.

and/or some minor tweaks with the shadows adjustment in the Camera Calibration tab of the Develop module?

No, that only swings from G - M I think most people would prefer a control that allows control of colour temperature.

Capture One 8.2 added a 'three wheel' colour balance option. I've found it rather a clumsy tool and would prefer a more refined tool built around shifts in colour temperature, rather than the major hue shifts of the '3 wheel grading' style option.

[digitaldog]

One thing I'd really like to see is more powerful way to "grade" a picture than what we have today, more in line with what is available in video processing tools.

We just need LR to support LUTs which I'd think wouldn't be too big a deal engineering wise.
FWIW, super useful and cool tool for creating LUTs:
http://3dlutcreator.com
IF LR supported LUTs from such a product, I'd probably buy it, very powerful and a nice UI.

[Rhossydd]

We just need LR to support LUTs which I'd think wouldn't be too big a deal engineering wise.

I don't think that's much of advantage over the existing system of having camera calibration profiles and presets that can be defined and applied.

[ButchM]

I don't think that's much of advantage over the existing system of having camera calibration profiles and presets that can be defined and applied.

I think I may be confused. Adding your request for 'grading" is not a duplication of effort ... but adding support for 3D LUT would be a duplication of effort?

I'm not saying you are wrong or I disagree on merit ... but I am confused as to how you determine such differences. Care to elaborate?

[digitaldog]

Supporting LUTs, as Photoshop does, would be the way to implement grading (if you want to call it that) into LR.
Check out some of the English video tutorials on creating or editing LUTs from http://3dlutcreator.com, pretty cool.

[Rhossydd]

I think I may be confused. Adding your request for 'grading" is not a duplication of effort ... but adding support for 3D LUT would be a duplication of effort?
I'm not saying you are wrong or I disagree on merit ... but I am confused as to how you determine such differences. Care to elaborate?

Firstly I'm not asking for 'grading' that's Stephane's request.

All I want is an easy way to adjust colour temperature within tonal ranges, eg warming up shadow areas. or cooling highlights.

LUTs are usually used to adjust a set of images or section of video to get a predetermined 'look' across many shots or sequences. That functionality is very close to what presets and calibration profiles can do now. Adding LUT support would only complicate those options even further for little general benefit.

[Stephane Desnault]

I agree they are ways to achieve similar effects in LR... I tend to shy away from the camera calibration module. So far, I often go to the duotone module to approximate the effect I want. Still, WB conditioned on tonality would be the most straightforward way.

Thanks for the tip on LUT creator, I've downloaded the demo.

[ButchM]

Adding LUT support would only complicate those options even further for little general benefit.

Couldn't that philosophy be applied to just about any tool that exists in Lr/ACR now? A tool, any tool, is only as good as the craftsman utilizing it. If we were to avoid all the tools some perceive as "complicated" ... just what tools would we have to work with? One user's must-have-can't-live-without-it solution is another user's total PITA.  Furthermore ... who would get the privilege of making the final decision where that dividing line would fall?

I think the idea of having a 3D LUT capability in Lr/ACR warrants further exploration and study before we users deem it unworthy of inclusion. After using LUTs in FCP X with Color Finale, I think it could offer some interesting possibilities, if it can fit within the constraints of a RAW image workflow.

[Rhossydd]

Couldn't that philosophy be applied to just about any tool that exists in Lr/ACR now?

My point was that using LUTs just gets the same end result as other existing systems in LR, it adds little more.

I think the idea of having a 3D LUT capability in Lr/ACR warrants further exploration and study before we users deem it unworthy of inclusion.

It's not an issue of 'unworthyness', but an issue of priorities.
There have been many good requests here that deserve consideration and would add significant new unique features or opportunities that couldn't be achieved in the existing program. Letting concentrate on those before asking for multiple ways of getting the same result.

[ButchM]

It's not an issue of 'unworthyness', but an issue of priorities.

Yes, priorities are importnant. But who gets to chose which item deserves a higher prioity? You? Me? Is your concern more valid than mine or vice versa? Is there anyone on this forum who is actually entrusted with the final decision on this matter? (Maybe, Eric)

It's possible that 3D LUT may be low hanging fruit and relatively easy to implement. I'm no engineer, but discussing the possibility should not in any way be detrimental to your concerns.

[jjj]

Thanks for the advice on increasing my PS and LR skills--not sure what emoji to use for sarcasm.

Now for the issue at hand.  I use Smart Objects.  I'm not aware that adding a non-ACR function would prevent the use of Smart Objects; but I'm not a programmer.  I know as much about your programming skills as you know about my PS/LR skills.  However, if what you said is true, it would be nice for Adobe, at some point, establish that LR is limited to ACR.

As others have already mentioned, opening raw files into PS working on them there and maintaining raw edibility is where smart objects really shine. Now because PS uses ACR to handle raw files, that is why parity needs to be maintained. No programming ability is needed to understand this and by making your request, it shows that it's not a workflow you use.
I highly recommend trying this workflow as you can work completely parametrically on your raw files in PS, for a large amount of non-LR style work.

[jjj]

One thing I'd really like to see is more powerful way to "grade" a picture than what we have today, more in line with what is available in video processing tools.

Today we basically have Temperature and Tint as global effects, and if we want to grade Shadow and Highlights separately, we can go to "DuoTone", or use the brush to alter part of the image.

Most video tools, Premiere first among them (no pun intended), allow you to grade separately shadows, mid-tones and highlights. Pro video editors can't live without that feature - it defines the mood, feeling and identity of a sequence (watch carefully any modern tv serie to get convinced!).

So, I dream of a drop down next to the two color balance sliders that would read "Entire image/Shadows/Midtones/Highlights", where the boundary between the three tones are the ones defined in the curves module.

I've always found grading in Premiere clunky and horrible. Being able to grade video in LR has been something I've requested for years.
So that would be my No. 1 request, video properly handled by LR dev module. Rather than the faffy and incomplete system of the present.
And being able to hand it off seamlessly to Premiere etc as smart objects like you can with PS. Though that would require ACR in Premiere.

[Jeremy Roussak]

However, there will always be UI and usability differences between ACR & LR. For some things, I really prefer ACR to LR, but for other things, LR beats ACR. It's not at all unusual that I'll choose Show in Finder and open an image in ACR to work on it then back in LR I make sure to read metadata from file so I can get the changes back in LR.

That's very interesting, Jeff. What do you prefer about ACR, and why? Perhaps that's something you could discuss in the new LR video.

Jeremy

[Stephane Desnault]

That's very interesting, Jeff. What do you prefer about ACR, and why? Perhaps that's something you could discuss in the new LR video.
Jeremy

Hi Jeff,

+1 on this! Will you cover LR AND key parts of PS in the new video ? With the "photographer" CC subscription, I assume most of your viewers will have the two packages ?

[john beardsworth]

As others have already mentioned, opening raw files into PS working on them there and maintaining raw edibility is where smart objects really shine. Now because PS uses ACR to handle raw files, that is why parity needs to be maintained.

You tried linked smart objects? The linked smart object in the TIF is linked to a raw file or DNG, which can be in LR, which you can use for further raw adjustments. The SO updates when you open the TIF again, or if the TIF is open in PS you can make an adjustment to the raw/DNG is LR and tab over to PS and watch the SO update. It's slightly clunky to set up, but I think it would interest you. You then wouldn't need to see ACR.

I think you've got to separate conversion parity from having the same UI. For instance, until LR6, LR had no UI for brushing the grad and radial filters, but it could use brush modifications which had been done in ACR/CC. Going forward, I get no value from Adobe putting resources into giving the ACR dialog features that are in LR.  SOs are almost the only time I use it, so I'd be happy if they froze ACR's UI and didn't add before/after and panorama or HDR features. In fact, I wouldn't be at all concerned if they simply abandoned ACR in favour of LR.

[James R]

As others have already mentioned, opening raw files into PS working on them there and maintaining raw edibility is where smart objects really shine. Now because PS uses ACR to handle raw files, that is why parity needs to be maintained. No programming ability is needed to understand this and by making your request, it shows that it's not a workflow you use.
I highly recommend trying this workflow as you can work completely parametrically on your raw files in PS, for a large amount of non-LR style work.

I agree with everything you said and no it is not a workflow I use.  My request was to add more value to LR through adding other feature that are not part of ACR.  I mentioned adding a color tool, similar to Capture One Pro's tool; or maybe a modified layers capability , again similar to C1's.  As I said, I'm looking to reduce round-trip to PS. 

[jjj]

You tried linked smart objects? The linked smart object in the TIF is linked to a raw file or DNG, which can be in LR, which you can use for further raw adjustments. The SO updates when you open the TIF again, or if the TIF is open in PS you can make an adjustment to the raw/DNG is LR and tab over to PS and watch the SO update. It's slightly clunky to set up, but I think it would interest you. You then wouldn't need to see ACR.

A lot of the time I do not see ACR anyway as I usually open SO from LR, work on them in PS and close file. THough when I do have to use it, it's like going back in time to 2004 and not in a good way.
 What I sometimes do is make a virtual copy of the PSD that I then apply a look to, so when I re-edit the PSD, the VC updates with the changes. Applying LR development to a PSD of an already developed raw file can get a different look from simply tweaking a raw file.

Going forward, I get no value from Adobe putting resources into giving the ACR dialog features that are in LR.  SOs are almost the only time I use it, so I'd be happy if they froze ACR's UI and didn't add before/after and panorama or HDR features. In fact, I wouldn't be at all concerned if they simply abandoned ACR in favour of LR.

I tried arguing in favour of modernising ACR antiquated UI some years back when beta testing PS, but there was no chance of that for historical reasons.

[jjj]

That's very interesting, Jeff. What do you prefer about ACR, and why? Perhaps that's something you could discuss in the new LR video.

Having used both extensively, I'm struggling to think of a single positive thing about ACR over LR.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Having used both extensively, I'm struggling to think of a single positive thing about ACR over LR.

That makes Jeff's view more interesting.

Jeremy