Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Lightroom really DOES suck  (Read 42027 times)

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2015, 02:29:30 pm »

It catalogues files. It's not Windows File Manager, Explorer, or Finder....
Yes, but if you can't see the files to import it's not much use.
I've found similar issues here. If my phone is connected to my system, LR never sees any removable drives.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2015, 02:49:03 pm »

Yes, but if you can't see the files to import it's not much use.
I've found similar issues here. If my phone is connected to my system, LR never sees any removable drives.

He's seemingly complaining about how "If I plug in an external drive with images, it will not see it in its explorer/folders window which it should do automatically " and "shows me something leftover from the prior drive that is not longer there and it can't access". This sounds exactly like the Folders panel would behave with external drives. Reading this quickstart guide would be a good investment - it's free.

On Windows I would always ensure that every external drive has its own drive letter (set via Explorer), so don't let Windows assign the drive letter.
Logged

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2015, 04:41:25 pm »


If Adobe can go back to the core idea of LR and focus on cataloguing, speed, rendering quality and ditch fluffy ideas like MAP, BOOK, SLIDESHOW, WEB (leave those to dedicated programs that do them just A LOT better) I think the program would be a much better user experience.

Ahhh ... unless I am mistaken, the Slideshow and Web modules have been there from the very beginning (Core Idea components in Lr) and the Map and Book modules were later added in response to user requests. There is no justifiable reason that the Library and Develop module suffer because the other modules exist.

For myself, I actually hide the Book, Maps, Slideshow and Web modules. I don't hide them because they add 'bloat' to my workflow and hog resources needlessly, I hide them because they only offer a lack-luster option for their intended use.

The whole impetus of Lr was to offer a mostly complete one-stop-shop for many of the routine tasks that photographers face in taking a RAW capture to a deliverable format for the end user or client. When I worked with Aperture ... and could create books/albums to my own user selectable page size, margins and bleeds, then print them ANYWHERE I wished ... Create impactful and attention grabbing slideshows using multiple transitions, unlimited title pages, multiple music tracks all with timeline interaction and customization .... while directly accessing my RAW files, never having to create derivative files to hand off to another software option ... now THAT is a workflow solution that results in less work for the end user. Tools which offer solutions and results should rarely be considered bloat.

In my estimation, the Lightroom Book, Map, Slideshow and Web modules are not undesirable or unwanted bloat. They simply lack some key capabilities to increase their value to more users. Unfortunately, these modules falls short, they are rendered useless for many users needs. If these tools were more fully developed and capable, I'd wager they would become much more popular and more widely accepted by Lr users.

I make books. Lots of books. I don't print my books with Blurb. (not because I don't like Blurb ... because Blurb doesn't offer the sizes, page and cover materials I offer my customers) ... which renders the module useless for any Lr user who would like to print books elsewhere and require a different template setup.

I sell a lot of multi-media slideshows. But the Lr Slideshow is so limited and hamstrung ... again, it's nearly useless for what I wish to offer. The Web module has suffered in relative obscurity since v1 that it is so far behind the curve to remain a forward-thinking solution, even when utilizing some third party plugins. Heck, it took up until very recently for Adobe to finally see the light and get rid of the Flash templates.

My thoughts have always been ... if they are going to offer these modules ... take on the task fully and make them the best possible solutions they can be ... if Adobe needs inspiration, they only had to look at the Slideshow and Books capability of Aperture 3 ... although it has reached EOL status ... those options blow their Lr counterparts out of the water still today.

I, for one, not only embrace the concept that my software be capable of doing more tomorrow ... I've come to expect it. If done well, it doesn't have to be considered needless bloat.
Logged

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2015, 05:42:37 pm »

For myself, I actually hide the Book, Maps, Slideshow and Web modules. I don't hide them because they add 'bloat' to my workflow and hog resources needlessly, I hide them because they only offer a lack-luster option for their intended use.

I don't use any of the other modules you mentioned, but I'm curious what improvements you think Adobe should offer in the Map functionality to make it "much more popular and more widely accepted by Lr users."  I've always thought of it as a rather well-designed feature.  It's extremely straightforward.  It does one thing and — from my perspective, at least (pun intended) — does it quite well: it shows me exactly where the camera was located when I made a particular geotagged image.  (And I also like that it displays that location in the context of other shots I made in the same general area.)  What else do you think it should be doing?

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2015, 07:37:52 pm »

I'm curious what improvements you think Adobe should offer in the Map functionality to make it "much more popular and more widely accepted by Lr users." 

Sorry ... If you notice I only referenced Maps in passing as a module I hide ... Maps is the one feature in Lr I am totally agnostic about. It's not a function I need or desire and I haven't actually used it except on a cursory level when it was first introduced. In the course of a year, 80% of my images are captured at venues within 60 miles of my office and are locations I have been working for over 40 years ... I don't really need a map to tell me where most of my images were shot. I do understand for other genres how important Maps can be.

By all accounts of the folks who I am familiar with that use the Map module, Adobe seemed to accomplish much of what was desired from the onset ... much like the Print module ... it was pretty damn good right out of the gate.

The bottom line for me, I have never really been disappointed with Lr ... just in the decision making of how certain features were implemented.

Can you make a book using Lr? ... sure ... as long as it fits within the Blurb paradigm. Can you make a slideshow in Lr? Absolutely, as long as you don't want to include much creativity and are satisfied with a one-size-fits-all plain vanilla product.

My disappointment is why Adobe chose to place such limitations on those modules. They have had such a good record of offering not only reasonable solutions ... but solutions that do not inhibit creativity ... How creative is it if we are all producing Blurb books that any consumer can also create? Or how can we impress a client or audience if all we can produce is the same old tired slideshow that lacks proper tools to add some pizzaz to the effort?

By comparison to the rest of the app ... Slideshow, Book feel extremely incomplete and limited.

I'd also like to point out, I have never expected Adobe to offer such improvements without rewarding their effort. I'd be willing to pay a bonus to get what I want. Actually I'm a bit surprised they haven't embraced this 'modular' approach with a bit more vigor. Early on, I had hoped, even suggested that Lr should have been sold as a base product of Library, Develop and Print ... then the other modules would be optional, at an additional fee. Even open up the SDK to third party developers for additional modules and let the marketplace dictate further development. That way we wouldn't have to hear all this jealously about 'bloat' ... Users could buy and use the modules they desire and ignore and avoid additional expense if all they want is the core product. It wouldn't take long to see what features do have value in the market and warrant further development.
Logged

Michael West

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2015, 12:04:50 am »

The staggering increase in performance and speed between the last non CC lightroom  app I had...and the CC version 2015..is truly wonderful.

everythngs a memoryhog these days..but ram is cheap.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2015, 01:20:28 pm »

I don't use any of the other modules you mentioned, but I'm curious what improvements you think Adobe shossuld offer in the Map functionality to make it "much more popular and more widely accepted by Lr users."  I've always thought of it as a rather well-designed feature.  It's extremely straightforward.  It does one thing and — from my perspective, at least (pun intended) — does it quite well: it shows me exactly where the camera was located when I made a particular geotagged image.  (And I also like that it displays that location in the context of other shots I made in the same general area.)  What else do you think it should be doing?

For example, access Google Street View, display sunrise and sunset times and directions, tide times, draw a route map and export it to mobile devices.....  And confirm more than one image's reverse geotagged location fields at a time.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
modular optional features versus monolithic complexity
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2015, 02:09:48 pm »

I politely disagree to the idea that software is "free": adding complexity to a product makes it more... complex.
It all depends on how those "less essential" features are handled.  If they are built into the start-up and highly visible in the default screen layout, they can be annoying.  For example, I am amazed at how much slower MS Word is to start than a rudimentary rich text editor (on Mac OS, I am comparing to TextEdit), and searching through multiple rows of icons atop the screen for the few I use degrades my user experience.  So for most of my humble document creation, I avoid Word in favor of "leaner" tools.  (And it is bad if the bloat always draw extra power and degrades battery life!)

On the other hand, if the extras are in modules that are truly "modular" in implementation, only loaded if and when activated, and if the menus and icons needed to access them are reasonably discrete or better yet optional, then they can be close to invisible to people who do not use them (the extra disk space for extra software features is a tiny impact these days).  User configurable menus and pane layout can help a lot.

Lightroom seems mostly on the good, modular side: I had forgotten that "web", "book", "map" and so on exist!
Logged

Some Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2015, 02:19:35 pm »


On Windows I would always ensure that every external drive has its own drive letter (set via Explorer), so don't let Windows assign the drive letter.

Therein lies the major problem with LR.

If one has no control over what gets plugged into an editing computer that has LR (i.e. People handing me their flash cards, thumb-drives, portables, etc.) then the entire cataloging process of LR is 100% bloatware to me.  LR really does need a way to shut if off in Preferences for those who work with a variety of exterior drives of some sort and from whomever.  Having their residual stuff left behind that it can no longer find is a 100% pain for me.  More so if it tells me the next thing I plug in is already imported (Ugh! It hasn't!!).

Example:  My editing station computer feeds 6 printers now.  I fire the job to the printer that they want (B&W piezo.  Dye.  Pigment. Glossy.  Matte.  Panorama. Etc.).  LR leaves too much cataloging and library stuff left behind (or it nags me on how I want to Save, Export, Catalog, etc.) which I do not need, and they probably don't need it either.  That part needs to be shut off 100% somehow, and some of the underutilized modules as well.  I like it clean and pristine and not filled with other's photos that slow the thing down anyway (Sort of like a new install of Windows that runs super fast, and then in a year it becomes a slow dog as it bloats up the registry - which LR seems to do well on its own too.).

Aside, I see our beloved desktops dying off in the future to phablets, tablets, or whatever (I left laptops out as even they seem to be on the chopping block to these fold-up tablets/phablets and even cellphones/iPads now.), the "internal" storage drives that LR now likes is going to become a major issue if it becomes where any future editing computer needs to have some new external storage device plugged into it.

Has to be a simpler and faster way without all this cataloging, library, collections, and modules, stuff for those who don't ever use it.  Just get into it and get out of it - fast!  I see it as w way to push the newest versions for needed sales and marketing, but is all that necessary if one just wants to edit with some 3rd party LR plugins and print?

SG
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2015, 02:50:31 pm »

The cataloguing is integral to the concept and helps safeguard image collections by recording what should be on each drive, not merely what happens to be there now. It also allows fast cross-drive searches for images, regardless of whether the drives happen to be plugged in. And many, many other features and efficiencies. Don't like cataloguing, don't use Lightroom.

Now, I concede that Lr should do more than rely on drive letters (eg volume name or other OS-available info about the drive), but it takes how many seconds to assign a drive letter?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2015, 02:56:25 pm by john beardsworth »
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2015, 04:17:04 pm »

but it takes how many seconds to assign a drive letter?
The problem here is that you can't assign a drive letter to my phone when it's plugged in to charge. That throws LR's import and makes it freeze.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #31 on: November 01, 2015, 04:22:33 pm »

I've got a phone too, and don't have the problem. I'm sure there must be a solution. Maybe assign the letters of other drives and let Windows set only the phone's drive letter?
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #32 on: November 01, 2015, 04:30:32 pm »

I've got a phone too, and don't have the problem.
Well aren't you the lucky one.
Quote
Maybe assign the letters of other drives and let Windows set only the phone's drive letter?
Windows sees it as some sort of media device rather than a drive that can be assigned a drive letter. Ironically Windows offers to import pictures from the phone itself.

I think it's just another case of Adobe developing primarily for Mac systems, then trying to work round (or ignore) any problems on Windows systems.
Logged

Ann JS

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2015, 05:00:10 pm »

>>>>> everythngs a memoryhog these days..but ram is cheap.>>>

Which is fine for a Tower — but a major problem with the newer small travelling-size MBP Retinas in that you can't install more RAM in them after you have bought one.

I find Bridge to be the better solution on my 8-bit RAM laptop because, even with 200+ files being actively edited simultaneously in ACR, it is still using only 2GB RAM.
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2015, 05:36:41 pm »

Therein lies the major problem with LR.

If one has no control over what gets plugged into an editing computer that has LR (i.e. People handing me their flash cards, thumb-drives, portables, etc.) then the entire cataloging process of LR is 100% bloatware to me.  LR really does need a way to shut if off in Preferences for those who work with a variety of exterior drives of some sort and from whomever.  Having their residual stuff left behind that it can no longer find is a 100% pain for me.  More so if it tells me the next thing I plug in is already imported (Ugh! It hasn't!!).

Example:  My editing station computer feeds 6 printers now.  I fire the job to the printer that they want (B&W piezo.  Dye.  Pigment. Glossy.  Matte.  Panorama. Etc.).  LR leaves too much cataloging and library stuff left behind (or it nags me on how I want to Save, Export, Catalog, etc.) which I do not need, and they probably don't need it either.  That part needs to be shut off 100% somehow, and some of the underutilized modules as well.  I like it clean and pristine and not filled with other's photos that slow the thing down anyway (Sort of like a new install of Windows that runs super fast, and then in a year it becomes a slow dog as it bloats up the registry - which LR seems to do well on its own too.).

Aside, I see our beloved desktops dying off in the future to phablets, tablets, or whatever (I left laptops out as even they seem to be on the chopping block to these fold-up tablets/phablets and even cellphones/iPads now.), the "internal" storage drives that LR now likes is going to become a major issue if it becomes where any future editing computer needs to have some new external storage device plugged into it.

Has to be a simpler and faster way without all this cataloging, library, collections, and modules, stuff for those who don't ever use it.  Just get into it and get out of it - fast!  I see it as w way to push the newest versions for needed sales and marketing, but is all that necessary if one just wants to edit with some 3rd party LR plugins and print?

SG
Surely you jest - there is already a solution for you - its called ACR!
Lightroom's fundamental design is a digital asset management system first and everything else, including raw conversion, second.

If you don't like Lightroom fine but that is your issue not Adobe's or anyone else's.
Adobe are not holding you to ransom and forcing you to use Lightroom - ACR seems much better suited to your needs, not to mention  other third-party providers of raw converters.

Nuff said

Tony Jay
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2015, 05:50:45 pm »

Well aren't you the lucky one.Windows sees it as some sort of media device rather than a drive that can be assigned a drive letter. Ironically Windows offers to import pictures from the phone itself.

I think it's just another case of Adobe developing primarily for Mac systems, then trying to work round (or ignore) any problems on Windows systems.

I use Windows too.
Logged

Denis de Gannes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2015, 06:38:32 pm »

The problem here is that you can't assign a drive letter to my phone when it's plugged in to charge. That throws LR's import and makes it freeze.
If you know your phone causes that problem then why do you think its Lightroom's problem. if you know your phone causes a problem then do not plug it in when you are using Lightroom.
Logged
Equip: iMac (Ret. 5K,27"Mid 2015),macOS 10.15.6

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: modular optional features versus monolithic complexity
« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2015, 01:15:56 am »

On the other hand, if the extras are in modules that are truly "modular" in implementation, only loaded if and when activated, and if the menus and icons needed to access them are reasonably discrete or better yet optional, then they can be close to invisible to people who do not use them (the extra disk space for extra software features is a tiny impact these days).  User configurable menus and pane layout can help a lot.

Lightroom seems mostly on the good, modular side: I had forgotten that "web", "book", "map" and so on exist!
You seem to be focusing only on UI clutter. I agree that it is good that those modules are well hidden.

A company like Adobe have to have people doing QA, documentation, law, and whatnot. Could Adobe release a "Web" module that was undocumented, untested and did not feature a Julieanne Kost video? I think generally no (although big companies do occasionally release "beta" software that remains in beta forever, perhaps to avoid some of the costs/red tape).

-h
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 02:31:45 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3369
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2015, 02:17:29 am »

If you know your phone causes that problem then why do you think its Lightroom's problem.
It's LR's problem because it's import module shouldn't freeze when it comes across a device it doesn't understand properly. Other applications don't have any issue with the phone being connected.

Logged

mac_paolo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 431
Re: Lightroom really DOES suck
« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2015, 03:19:00 am »



Has to be a simpler and faster way without all this cataloging, library, collections, and modules, stuff for those who don't ever use it.  Just get into it and get out of it - fast!  I see it as w way to push the newest versions for needed sales and marketing, but is all that necessary if one just wants to edit with some 3rd party LR plugins and print?

SG

Just create a smart collections that take any shit ingested in the last, say, 48 hrs that hasn't you as the author. Every day, either before opening of at the end of it, you just remove all the shots collected there. End of the story.
All it takes is 2 minutes for the collection setup and 5-10 seconds daily.
It's not that hard. I guess 95% of the issues with Lightroom can be solved by… reading the manual.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10   Go Up