The Future of Lightroom

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

That might be useful to see what you're attempting that is skewing your perception of the UI.
Having used LR since the first beta I can't recall ever having bumped into a 'you can't do that' error message.Given the need to explain the underlying concepts and functionality of every option available in the program, 205 pages seems pretty concise. My car has a 570 page manual and needs a second 120 page manual just for the radio unit.

I agree completely.

By the way, the LR 6 pdf is 261 pages (thank goodness!)

I have used LR since the first commercial version, and it took me a while to get the hang of it, but I fully understood that it was suggesting a different workflow from PS. About the only thing about Photoshop that I wish LR had was the ability to move panels to a second screen and show them selectively. It's so easy to pop over to PS from inside LR on the very rare occasions that I need something that is only possible or easier in PS, that I am very happy  with LR 6. (I haven't downloaded the disastrous "updates.")

Eric M.

[jjj]

I know 3 people that use iPhones for their photos. I went to Prague with one and she used her phone to document the trip. She made a photo boom out of the images...using guess what...LR to crop and adjust the images.

Sure, the majority of phone shooters don't do anything but post onto the net...but with billions of people using phones for photography...I would think that market is much bigger than the professional photographer market...even if only say 5% of the phone shooters would process their images.

I reckon the person you mention above is an extreme outlier. Anyone who eschews the complexity of a camera in favour of a phone with almost zero control over the image capture process, is unlikely to use software which is all about fine control.
Did you ask why she used LR, did she buy LR herself or did it belong to a partner? As fundamentally that's the only reason why my girlfriend uses LR, it's on my laptop that she also uses.

[jjj]

I have used LR since the first commercial version, and it took me a while to get the hang of it, but I fully understood that it was suggesting a different workflow from PS. About the only thing about Photoshop that I wish LR had was the ability to move panels to a second screen and show them selectively.

Being able to put develop panel on second screen is something many of us have asked for, but apparently the underling architecture means that is not possible.

You can however selectively show panels already. That's what the drop down arrow on each is for or you can hide them completely see screenshot below. Not sure why you would do that though, as they are all necessary at some point. You can also enable solo mode which means only the panel you click on is open - also shown in screenshot.

[Rory]

Being able to put develop panel on second screen is something many of us have asked for, but apparently the underling architecture means that is not possible.

I believe it is possible.  As I understand it, the UI is based on Lua to help separate the UI from the programming - a basic design principle in modern software design.  Lua is very popular in game design for this reason and is why Mark Hamburg chose to use it.

[jjj]

I seem to recall that people involved with LR, justified why customisation that people constantly ask for in LR couldn't be done because of the underlying set architecture.

[Rory]

I seem to recall that people involved with LR, justified why customisation that people constantly ask for in LR couldn't be done because of the underlying set architecture.

Phil Clevenger is the man behind lightroom's user interface, and he was pretty firm about having an interface that remained consistent.  As you recall, this was quite hotly debated during the early days.  I still feel that the 2nd screen implementation that was finally developed is pretty lame. 

One of the strengths of lightroom was/is the insistence by Adobe that a concrete use case must be presented for any new feature.  This is valuable because each feature is designed to carry out a specific task, like the split toning controls.  This makes it easy to figure out how to make the changes you want to the image as opposed to photoshop.

However, this approach also has its weaknesses.  By being so rigid in the design/implementation of lightroom, many creative opportunities have been lost in my opinion.  An example is the dehaze control, designed to remove haze in landscapes.  It is also an alternative contrast tool to clarity and turns out to have many uses as a localized tool, although I'm not sure that was why Adobe chose to add it in the first place.  If Adobe had made an all inclusive design that would allow localized editing with any develop control I wonder what other creative capabilities we might have.

It is the same way with the UI setup.  The Adobe resistance to change the UI is based on a philosophical belief rather than technical reasons.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

You can however selectively show panels already. That's what the drop down arrow on each is for or you can hide them completely see screenshot below. Not sure why you would do that though, as they are all necessary at some point. You can also enable solo mode which means only the panel you click on is open - also shown in screenshot.

That's exactly what I do now, and I do waste (or spend) a considerable amount of time turning various panels on and off.

I find the current second screen implementation very lame indeed.

But that annoyance still isn't any where near enough of a bother to send me back to PS as my main image processor. Even with PS's better two-screen layout, the only way I'll go back to PS as a mainstay is if they really do screw up LR (which recently has seemed more likely than it has for years).

[jjj]

Phil Clevenger is the man behind lightroom's user interface, and he was pretty firm about having an interface that remained consistent.  As you recall, this was quite hotly debated during the early days.  I still feel that the 2nd screen implementation that was finally developed is pretty lame. 

Yup sure is, buggy too. Bottom panel thing keeps popping up regardless of setting.
Fixed layout is a very engineer's point of view, one that is oblivious to how many creative people work and the variety of ways people need to work.

One of the strengths of lightroom was/is the insistence by Adobe that a concrete use case must be presented for any new feature.  This is valuable because each feature is designed to carry out a specific task, like the split toning controls.  This makes it easy to figure out how to make the changes you want to the image as opposed to photoshop.

There's been concrete cases for things that Adobe won't move on out of sheer stubbornness or unwillingness to admit they were wrong. The limited image files that LR will recognize, including ones PS creates is retarded. As is the half baked and really clunky recognition of video files. LR could be a very good grading/cataloguing tool for video, but....
Basically as a DAM, LR has an enormous flaw. It doesn't recognize all digital files. Now if you are managing assets for your photography work, you need to manage all your assets and not just some of them. The fact LR cannot edit them is irrelevant as LR cannot edit PSD files for example but allows you to open them into PS for such things.

However, this approach also has its weaknesses.  By being so rigid in the design/implementation of lightroom, many creative opportunities have been lost in my opinion.

Yup....

It is the same way with the UI setup.  The Adobe resistance to change the UI is based on a philosophical belief rather than technical reasons.

..and yup again. Not sure stubbornness is a philosophical stance though.

[jjj]

That's exactly what I do now, and I do waste (or spend) a considerable amount of time turning various panels on and off.

Do which option of the three I suggested?
I'm not constantly reopening and closing panels any more than I do in PS, less mousing if anything which in my mind is a very good thing.

[ButchM]

For crying out loud if it's so ease of use and simply designed then why is LR4's User Guide pdf 205 pages long. We're just making pictures!

Unfortunately for those folks who appreciate what Lr is capable of and took the time to learn to use the application, is why so many users are upset that Adobe attempted to simplify and make things less intimidating to new users.

Inherently, there is nothing wrong with the desire to streamline and simplify tasks that software like Lr can accomplish ... though that should not necessarily equate with a reduction of functionality.

I'm all for making any tools I employ easier to use ... b although I don't really think Lr, in it's current form factor is all that difficult to use. I've tried to discover alternatives that my answer my needs better and the only reasonable alternative that came close was Aperture which is no longer a viable option for the future.

When comparing User Guide PDF publications as a measure of difficulty for just 'making pictures' ... 205 pages may seem like a lot ... but Capture 1 weighs in at 180+ pages ... and refresh my memory ... does C1 offer dedicated  facial recognition, maps, books or web modules ... I think the DX Optics Pro User Guide is only 85-90 pages but has far fewer options than Lr and the aforementioned Aperture 3 guide is a whopping 900+ pages.

I fail to see how Lr suffers from the weight of the page count of the user guide.

Don't get me wrong, I have and have had issues with where I disagree with the design and function choices Adobe has made for Lr ... but too difficult and intimidating for new users? I don't agree. One only needs to look at the throngs of long time users that made Lr so popular ... Many of whom thought $299 was a fair price for the full version perpetual license long before Adobe slashed it by half several years ago.

Too bad there wasn't this insightful input back in the formative stages where those involved apparently got it all wrong ... instead of an 11th hour revision.

[ButchM]

They don't give a rat's azz about being able to cull images while importing.

That same group of potential users also expect their photo 'filters' to come in at a price of $1.99 or less ... they aren't in it to pay a monthly stipend to Adobe so they can grow their following on Instagram.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Could somebody here show how decimal percentages (i.e. 56.8%) readouts of each node in LR's point curve tool helps improve an image? The actual curve box interface is so small even on my HDTV resolution display I'm sure it's much smaller on 4K or Retina displays that it's difficult precisely placing and adjusting those nodes in order to make any headway on improving the image.

Please provide a screenshot of an actual image where this level of precision using the curve tool noticeably improves image quality including whether knowing the percentage number helps.

[jjj]

Could somebody here show how decimal percentages (i.e. 56.8%) readouts of each node in LR's point curve tool helps improve an image? The actual curve box interface is so small even on my HDTV resolution display I'm sure it's much smaller on 4K or Retina displays that it's difficult precisely placing and adjusting those nodes in order to make any headway on improving the image.

Please provide a screenshot of an actual image where this level of precision using the curve tool noticeably improves image quality including whether knowing the percentage number helps.

Is LR showing this info even an issue?
As for the detail, never needed it myself. But I'm sure some people when colour matching precisely for example could find it useful.

If you are bothered by LR's panels being too small, use this tool and you can make them as wide as you want. Makes LR much easier to use I find.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Is LR showing this info even an issue?
As for the detail, never needed it myself. But I'm sure some people when colour matching precisely for example could find it useful.

If you are bothered by LR's panels being too small, use this tool and you can make them as wide as you want. Makes LR much easier to use I find.

Clearly you're not the person to answer my question so just move on, Jeremy. I'm not interested in hacks to LR. It's slow enough as it is, I don't need to add another level of complexity to the underpinnings of LR's codec. And I quote from your linked page of such a tool...

Not Intended for Human Consumption

Before going further, I need to be very clear about one point: Adobe did not design these internationalization hooks to be exposed to the user. Yes, the door is not locked and so we can enter and rummage around, but it's at our own risk. We might find ourselves shocked at how messy the back closet is, and we might hurt ourselves by tripping over something, but in entering uninvited, we take full responsibility for any mishaps.

To the best of my knowledge, the worst that can happen in changing some of these parameters on our own is that Lightroom refuses to work until we undo the change, but for all I know, it may be possible to accidentally delete every file on your computer. I don't know. Consider yourself warned.

[jjj]

Clearly you're not the person to answer my question so just move on, Jeremy.

Clearly not interested in facts or help more like..
You don't seem to like any of the answers or help you get given by others. All you do is whinge that a programme most people find easy to use is appallingly designed and difficult to use and that Adobe must redesign it or die.

Taking a tongue in cheek warning about an LR tweak at face value, shows you really do need to lighten up.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Clearly not interested in facts or help more like..
You don't seem to like any of the answers or help you get given by others. All you do is whinge that a programme most people find easy to use is appallingly designed and difficult to use and that Adobe must redesign it or die.

Taking a tongue in cheek warning about an LR tweak at face value, shows you really do need to lighten up.

You keep putting words into my mouth. I never said LR's interface is appallingly designed. I said there's a lot unnecessary clutter of options within it's interface for an app that just processes, organizes and archives photos.

What the heck is whinge? Is that a misspelling?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

What the heck is whinge? Is that a misspelling?

Bing tells me:
whinge
[(h)winj]
VERB

    complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way:
    "stop whingeing and get on with it!"

NOUN

    an act of complaining.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Thanks, Eric.

Alternate points of view and observations on imaging software are often seen by Jeremy as complaining. Nothing one can do about his arrogance to others input. It's all about what he thinks is the correct way to view and offer opinions.

[Ann JS]

Sure, the majority of phone shooters don't do anything but post onto the net...but with billions of people using phones for photography...I would think that market is much bigger than the professional photographer market...even if only say 5% of the phone shooters would process their images.

Of your "5%", I would wager that 4.999% will only ever do any editing or cropping with an app. in the iPhone itself!
They are never going to cough-up $10 a month for Lightroom!

Your Prague friend: does she actually have her own copy of Lr or was she borrowing someone else's?

[chez]

Of your "5%", I would wager that 4.999% will only ever do any editing or cropping with an app. in the iPhone itself!
They are never going to cough-up $10 a month for Lightroom!

Your Prague friend: does she actually have her own copy of Lr or was she borrowing someone else's?

She has her own...and is actually an accomplished PS user in her day job. My daughter uses a mirrorless P&S camera and uses Lightroom all the time. My wife who takes snaps...now mostly with her new IPad uses my Lightroom to organize her photos.

One of the obstacles many newcomers to LR is it's complexity. Maybe this is what Adobe was trying to address since everyone needs to go through the import function to get their images into LR. Maybe LR light is the answer or LR heavy with Pro's in mind...but there are billions of photos being taken daily that are just crying for a way to organize and manage them. I see this future application seamlessly integrated into the phones, allowing automated download from the phone to cloud storage and to have it automatically be available on the computer or tablet or whatnot to be sorted and organized...and right out of LR...be able to upload to whatever social media they want. This automated, seamless integration is where things will be heading.