Lightroom really DOES suck

[nemophoto]

I have to agree with several comments Andrew made earlier:
*GPU acceleration is a joke. For me it simply slows down virtually any process I do in LR, whether panning an image or moving a slider
*Lightroom Mobile is convoluted and not practical for any large job.

One area I will give kudos is demosaicizing some of the cameras. I spent a number of hours working with four other converters and LR doing several different difficult images - a heavily side lit photo (of my kids, since I always exert better control over my commercial shots) and a contrasty fall scenic. I was especially interested in how the different programs handled the scenic, since it was from my Canon 5Ds. I used: Capture One, DxO, Canon DPP, and Photo Ninja. I hated Capture One. DxO was slightly better. DPP was the hardest to get what I wanted. Photo Ninja had the best, by far, conversion of the scene. But hands down, Lightroom, after much massaging to almost match Photo Ninja, had by far the most detail massaged from the 5Ds. At first I thought Photo Ninja was the winner (certainly looked that way when viewed at 25 and 50%). But pixel peeping at 100 and 200%, Lightroom showed much better detail, especially in the shadows and darker midtones. If I have a chance later, I might upload some screen shots. However, not likely to be soon since I'm headed off on a shoot on Saturday.

So Lightroom does do some things better than the competition. Too bad it's a turd in some other areas, such as crashing my computer. (Not too bad today. Only took it down once today.)

[john beardsworth]

Don't really see what you are getting at. No need for a move tool in Library, you just drag folders directly to where you want them. Job done.
Move being absent from import means much more work, as images get moved into dated folders on ingest which is where they stay. Job done with even less effort.

Yes, Move in Import means you get your dated folders on ingest, but it's only available on ingest and we're ignoring other reasons for people wanting to automatically move photos into dated folders. Library's manual drag and drop is OK for a few files, but isn't something you would want as a routine - imagine splitting a folder with a few days' photos. Or consider someone changing their folder system from some legacy structure into a Lightroom-style date based structure. A lot of users want to do this after working with Lightroom for a while, but now they are forced to remove those files from Lightroom and use Import + Move. That means they lose any non-xmp work on them. Putting a Move feature in Library would meet their needs, as well as those importing new photos.

A further group is people who want to reorganise photos by subject, rating, colour etc. It's not hard to add to Move other splitting criteria like By Title, By Rating and so on. Even if Adobe don't take this opportunity, a generic tool is always better than one that's limited to a single workflow.

[john beardsworth]

So Lightroom does do some things better than the competition. Too bad it's a turd in some other areas, such as crashing my computer. (Not too bad today. Only took it down once today.)

Again, go back to the previous AMD drivers or use the beta of their next version.

[chez]

Man, if I had such pentup dislike for something...I would move onto something else. Lots of examples of other products being better...why not just give up on LR and just use those other products.

[digitaldog]

Man, if I had such pentup dislike for something...I would move onto something else. Lots of examples of other products being better...why not just give up on LR and just use those other products.

Well for one, I've invested years of work into this product (even prior to it's release). I like the product A LOT when Adobe doesn't screw up my workflow by removing features I depend on. First time (for me) with LR**, I can't recall this being an issue (for me) with PS in 25 years of use. And no, the 'feature' removed and replaced, View>Print Size really didn't work and required the user to make gyrations to figure out their true display resolution to enter, so it doesn't count.


When you have many, many presets, DNG camera and lens profiles etc, years of proprietary raw metadata edits, moving on is a last resort. IT IS POSSIBLE but I'd rather see an improvement in the product manager (or better, a new one) and see Adobe go back to doing what they traditionally provided to this customer over the past 25 years: a very satisfied experience. The last year? Not so much.


** Still waiting on John's list of LR features removed over the years....

[jjj]

Man, if I had such pentup dislike for something...I would move onto something else. Lots of examples of other products being better...why not just give up on LR and just use those other products.

Go on name one that can do what LR does then. And do it better too.

[Rhossydd]

I can't recall this being an issue (for me) with PS in 25 years of use.

You mean you never used 'print with no colour management' ? bet yer did ;-)

That stopped me at PS CS4 and I'm not missing anything from the later versions here.

LR6 still has lots of potential to improve. My credit card's ready, but it's getting harder to see it being needed on the basis of recent events.

[jjj]

Yes, Move in Import means you get your dated folders on ingest, but it's only available on ingest and we're ignoring other reasons for people wanting to automatically move photos into dated folders. Library's manual drag and drop is OK for a few files, but isn't something you would want as a routine - imagine splitting a folder with a few days' photos.

Why would have to do that? You do that on import.

Or consider someone changing their folder system from some legacy structure into a Lightroom-style date based structure. A lot of users want to do this after working with Lightroom for a while, but now they are forced to remove those files from Lightroom and use Import + Move. That means they lose any non-xmp work on them. Putting a Move feature in Library would meet their needs, as well as those importing new photos.

To use your own arguments about how LR is designed/laid out, you put the tool where is is best for guiding good working practice.
Import into dated folders and don't move stuff around once it's in LR other than to maybe separate out a varied day's shooting into separate folders for different subjects maybe. Easily done by creating a new folder which LR then automatically can move your photos into - so move functionality is there as it happens. Just not explicitly called that.

A further group is people who want to reorganise photos by subject, rating, colour etc. It's not hard to add to Move other splitting criteria like By Title, By Rating and so on. Even if Adobe don't take this opportunity, a generic tool is always better than one that's limited to a single workflow.

That's what collections are for, no need to move anything. Doing so is against how LR is meant to work effectively.

[jjj]

Exactly. Calling features you don't use "bloat" is just lazy.

Selfish, too.
Jeremy

Complaining about 'bloat' is a pet hate of mine too. I could add several other unflattering adjectives. 

[john beardsworth]

Still waiting on John's list of LR features removed over the years....

What's more important is that you can't remember them. People soon adapt and forget.

[jjj]

What's more important is that you can't remember them. People soon adapt and forget.

Poor argument John.
I can't recall all the features in Opera that make it so much nicer than any other browser to use. Doesn' make the other browsers any better to use when I 'adapt to them', they still feel clumsy.

[digitaldog]

What's more important is that you can't remember them.

Appears, neither can you! If such feature(s) removal exist at all.
Are you willing and able to do as you said? Supply the list?

Those who find it useful don't seem to remember features that were removed before, but I'm sure they could quickly see how to adapt their workflows.

Again, what features that were removed before?

[digitaldog]

Poor argument John.

You're being too kind to John by using the word argument  

[digitaldog]

You mean you never used 'print with no colour management' ? bet yer did ;-)

Very rarely and that print path isn't the job of Photoshop, it's the job of the product that builds color targets that need to be printed without color management. And the products I use to build said targets print directly from their app without color management.


What I would do occasionally is gang up multiple color images converted to differing output profiles options on one page, then print without color management.
There's an Adobe app for that  , cost nothing. So no, the removal of a feature that's not appropriate isn't a big deal.

[chez]

Well for one, I've invested years of work into this product (even prior to it's release). I like the product A LOT when Adobe doesn't screw up my workflow by removing features I depend on. First time (for me) with LR**, I can't recall this being an issue (for me) with PS in 25 years of use. And no, the 'feature' removed and replaced, View>Print Size really didn't work and required the user to make gyrations to figure out their true display resolution to enter, so it doesn't count.


When you have many, many presets, DNG camera and lens profiles etc, years of proprietary raw metadata edits, moving on is a last resort. IT IS POSSIBLE but I'd rather see an improvement in the product manager (or better, a new one) and see Adobe go back to doing what they traditionally provided to this customer over the past 25 years: a very satisfied experience. The last year? Not so much.


** Still waiting on John's list of LR features removed over the years....

My post was directed more at others which say product so...and...so is better at this and product so...and...so is better at that. Just drop LR and move to product so...and...so.

[chez]

Go on name one that can do what LR does then. And do it better too.

I can't...that is why I happy using LR.

[Rhossydd]

it's the job of the product that builds color targets that need to be printed without color management.

Nice theory, but never an option in any programs I've run on Windows.

There's an Adobe app for that  , cost nothing.

and that doesn't work properly.

[john beardsworth]

You're being too kind to John by using the word argument  

Quite right, it's a statement of fact. The things that have been imported (Jeremy remembered one in a previous thread) just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.

[digitaldog]

Quite right, it's a statement of fact. The things that have been imported (Jeremy remembered one in a previous thread) just aren't important any more - they're gone. Who gives a fxck that my memory happens to be better than yours, in this case? What is important is that removals have happened before, they were bloody annoying at the time, but people adapt and move on.

IF you can't back up your claim (Those who find it useful don't seem to remember features that were removed before, but I'm sure they could quickly see how to adapt their workflows.) your credibility as a LR Expert** should be justifiably in question. And just what did Jeremy remember that belongs on the list you can't create? I can't find it in these three pages.


So again, IF you can, for those of us that don't seem to remember features removed from LR, do inform IF you can. IF you can't, well we will understand and take that into consideration next time you post about this product.


**http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/lightroom/
As one of the leading experts on Adobe Lightroom and on DAM systems such as iView and Extensis Portfolio, I work with leading photographers to help them establish robust and efficient workflows.

[digitaldog]

Nice theory, but never an option in any programs I've run on Windows.and that doesn't work properly.

Ah, sure. All I can tell you is since ACPU has been out, I've built literally hundreds of profiles FROM customers, Mac and Windows using this product to print targets and IF they setup the properly configured targets, I can measure them in a device that is VERY picky about scaling; an i1 iSis XL. And IF you owned a product designed for this task (i1Profiler on Windows), you'd be able to do this as well.