Lightroom really DOES suck

[Tony Jay]

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.

It is possible to stop Lightroom trying to interrogate any and every device that gets connected to your system.
Just go into preferences and deselect the import option "Show import dialog when a memory card is detected".

Tony Jay

[Rhossydd]

It is possible to stop Lightroom trying to interrogate any and every device that gets connected to your system.
Just go into preferences and deselect the import option "Show import dialog when a memory card is detected".

That would automatically launch the import dialogue when a memory card is inserted, which isn't the issue. I disabled that option on day 1 with LR anyway.

[David Mantripp]

I don't recall Lr ever crashing on me, but the list of things that annoy me about it is quite long.  For example...

Very, very slow in loading zoomed-in images sometimes. No pattern to this I can discern
Inability to delete photos in Collection view. I mean c'mon, what is it with that?
Very, very limited Stack feature. More or less useless
No keyword editor
Total UI/UX confusion. For example, why, when I'm in library, and absent-mindedly hit R, does it switch to Develop? I don't like Modal, but make it Modal or not. Not some half-assed middle ground
No Save Workspace
Half-bakec dual screen support. When I double click on a thumbnail in my secondary screen, I want to see a full view (calling it "loupe" doesn't make it so) in that screen. I do NOT want my screen views to swap
Confusing, contradictory keywording tools
Filtering tools that look like they never went past prototype UI stage
No scope control for smart collections
Web module forgets all field entries when you change template. Really, wth???
Etc, etc, etc

The summary is that it looks to me that post v1, the only area that got any attention is Develop. And Develop is very, very good indeed. But then again so is ACR, and Lr should deliver more that a re-skinned ACR. Obviously, I'm also whining that "it's not Aperture".  But the fact is Apple's marketing, product management, and vision with Aperture sucked infinitely more than any aspect of Lr.

[nemophoto]

As an update, the Lightroom slows seems to exist only with certain image databases. I keep several different databases of images. For instance, one strictly for my commercial/portfolio work. Another for my fine art/travel. And then, each major shoot has it's own database. This way if something goes bad, it doesn't take everything down.

Anyway, the "slows" were related to the portfolio database, which is smaller, by comparison to the fine art. Anway, Lightroom appears to behaving again. No idea why. I didn't change anything, but it seems OK. Except that it still periodically crashes and takes down my system (a different post). So, maybe it doesn't TOTALLY suck, just partially. I wish there was a way to drag and drop from Lightroom to InDesign.

[MBehrens]

I had some catalogs that would churn like this. I deleted the previews folder for the catalog and this would often resolve the issue.

Also, make sure Fae Detection and Address Lookup are paused.

[john beardsworth]

As an update, the Lightroom slows seems to exist only with certain image databases. I keep several different databases of images. For instance, one strictly for my commercial/portfolio work. Another for my fine art/travel. And then, each major shoot has it's own database. This way if something goes bad, it doesn't take everything down.

Optimise those catalogues.

[pluton]

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

This reply pretty much takes care of the OP's complaint.

[hjulenissen]

... but the list of things that annoy me about it is quite long.  For example...

My list is quite long as well. So given that:
1. Lightroom has some annoying parts
2. Adobe seems to be quite nonchalant about loosing customers over licensing changes

How hard can it be to build something better than Lightroom? I mean making a program that tries to do what Lightroom appears to be trying (or mine/yours/whoevers vision of what they ought to be trying)? Since many of us are using Lightroom and not competing products, I am guessing "quite hard".

I guess that their raw development pipeline is both good and well presented. That will be hard to outdo. Their print module seems to be one of the better implementations out there. But the rest? Some database and a lot of UI work (make it intuitive, consistent, fast)? How far away is raw therapee these days? What are the basic tasks that needs to be done within a "manage thousands of photos" sw package?

Are we talking 10s of man-years to get something usable? 100s?

-h

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Back in 2004 I have started working on an open source project mostly doing what Lightroom does. I figured it would take me something like 300 years so I was somewhat concerned about my time schedule.

If you have a team with specialists in different areas like demosaic, user interface, colour management etc, that time can be much shorter, but I would still suggest we discuss quite a few man years. I would guess about ten man years, having the right team. There may also be quite a few issues with patents.

There is an open source platform that is a knock off from Lightroom called Darktable.

Best regards
Erik

My list is quite long as well. So given that:
1. Lightroom has some annoying parts
2. Adobe seems to be quite nonchalant about loosing customers over licensing changes

How hard can it be to build something better than Lightroom? I mean making a program that tries to do what Lightroom appears to be trying (or mine/yours/whoevers vision of what they ought to be trying)? Since many of us are using Lightroom and not competing products, I am guessing "quite hard".

I guess that their raw development pipeline is both good and well presented. That will be hard to outdo. Their print module seems to be one of the better implementations out there. But the rest? Some database and a lot of UI work (make it intuitive, consistent, fast)? How far away is raw therapee these days? What are the basic tasks that needs to be done within a "manage thousands of photos" sw package?

Are we talking 10s of man-years to get something usable? 100s?

-h

[David Mantripp]

How hard can it be to build something better than Lightroom? I mean making a program that tries to do what Lightroom appears to be trying (or mine/yours/whoevers vision of what they ought to be trying)? Since many of us are using Lightroom and not competing products, I am guessing "quite hard".

Honestly? There have already been better products than Lightroom.  However, where Adobe absolutely flattens the opposition is in marketing.  The initial Beta program, getting hordes of influential photographers on-board, placing Lr as the choice of top pros, all that was a masterstroke.  That whole "Lightroom Adventure" thing, practically inventing an aspirational lifestyle for photographers - which could be theirs if they bought Lightroom.  George Jardine and co gave a stunning masterclass. Pity they've never deployed the same level of excellence on product development - apart of course from the core imaging engine.  Pretty much exactly the opposite of Apple's approach.

Really, how are you compete with that, with some kind of open source pipe dream ?

[john beardsworth]

Poor Apple, eh, outdone by someone else's marketing and propaganda! Hard as it for embittered Aperture enthusiasts to accept, Lightroom is successful because it's by-and-large very good, a well balanced combination of features. Some are better than the rest, some aren't, get over it.

[digitaldog]

Hard as it for embittered Aperture enthusiasts to accept, Lightroom is successful because it's by-and-large very good, a well balanced combination of features.

LR's successful days may be coming to an end if the last release was any indication. The CC subscription change wasn't a big deal for me, but the pitiful Import dialog work done last releases, the lack of progress since around LR4 and the awful direction or lack thereof from the product manager to steer the ship is super troubling for a dog like me who's used LR before it was released and was quite the fan boy for the the product. These days I'm examining exit strategies which I'd have never considered even a year ago.
The last release of LR and how the PM's handled it indeed sucked in a significant way!
The color number bug in LR6 which we saw the day it was released still isn't fixed. GPU is still a joke. Etc, etc...

[john beardsworth]

LR's successful days may be coming to an end if the last release was any indication. The CC subscription change wasn't a big deal for me, but the pitiful Import dialog work done last releases, the lack of progress since around LR4 and the awful direction or lack thereof from the product manager to steer the ship is super troubling for a dog like me who's used LR before it was released and was quite the fan boy for the the product. These days I'm examining exit strategies which I'd have never considered even a year ago.
The last release of LR and how the PM's handled it indeed sucked in a significant way!
The color number bug in LR6 which we saw the day it was released still isn't fixed. GPU is still a joke. Etc, etc...

But I doubt it is such an indication, Andrew. Sure, Adobe seemed to underestimate resistance to change and some aspects of Import were handled awkwardly (features like Move that don't belong in Import should have been put where they do belong). I certainly think it is hard for users to distinguish where they may actually be benefitting from the GPU work, but I suspect it's only the start of GPU's role in Lr and most people would agree with Adobe's decision to add it. Progress since Lr4 includes more/better local adjustments, stitching and HDR which have been well-received, improvements to Slideshow (only the shortsighted lack of a timeline), a standardised way of recording people. Mobile is a big move, even if we obviously disagree about it, and we now have a browser interface that's the simplest way of letting others choose which photos they want, allows remote review of tethered shoots, and now offers some multiuser capability. I'm not a fan of the subscription model, but I am glad Adobe retained the standard version and was surprised that they decided to allow people to access their catalogues even after ending their subscriptions. While I expect people will pick out a few details from the above and have a good moan, for now it's just the old "what have the Roman's ever done for us" question, isn't it?

Its successful days may be coming to an end if we believe the desktop has had its day though.

[Jimbo57]

Its successful days may be coming to an end if we believe the desktop has had its day though.

Ermmmm?.....

If the desktop has had its day, what on Earth is going to replace it? Things like laptops and tablets are scarcely suitable for photo-processing (although I do know some photographers who muddle through with them and seem to get adequate results). But, seriously?

[Simon Garrett]

Ermmmm?.....

If the desktop has had its day, what on Earth is going to replace it? Things like laptops and tablets are scarcely suitable for photo-processing (although I do know some photographers who muddle through with them and seem to get adequate results). But, seriously?

I agree, for the moment.  Paradigm shifts tend to sneak up on you and they've happened before you notice. 

For example, a few decades ago, there was no way that PCs would take over from main frames or even mini computers.  Ever.  Then they did, but it happened before most people realised.  They weren't as powerful as main frames, but they were more convenient and more flexible, and people started muddling through with kit that everyone thought wasn't really powerful enough. 

Tablets aren't as powerful as PCs, the displays are much too small for photo work, and they can't multi-task properly (I mean: you can't easily have multiple applications running and you can't have multiple documents/images open in the same application).  But they're convenient and they're cheap, and so people start using them. 

Perhaps - just perhaps - in a year or two we'll see more and more photographers getting by with (apparently) sub-optimal applications on tablets simply because they're convenient.  And before you know it, PCs will go the way of the dinosaurs. 

Perhaps!  Time will tell.

[hjulenissen]

Ermmmm?.....

If the desktop has had its day, what on Earth is going to replace it? Things like laptops and tablets are scarcely suitable for photo-processing (although I do know some photographers who muddle through with them and seem to get adequate results). But, seriously?

In my view, laptops have largely replaced stationary computers anyway aside from some niche applications (video editing? scientific workstations? high-end gaming?). Depending on how you define "photographer", I would assume that most photographers do not use stationary computers anymore either.

Tablets are well on their way to replace laptops for casual use (dads reading mail and paying bills). Apple and Microsoft have introduced "professional" tablets that should have interesting possibilities for image editing.

For me this is only part of a long trend of making our primary compute device smaller, lighter and more ergonomic. What would (perhaps) be harder to predict a few years back is the increased reliance on the network, delagating the local device to a terminal/webbrowser-function.

-h

[ButchM]

The last release of LR and how the PM's handled it indeed sucked in a significant way!

Yes ... and such has been my main concern about Adobe products going forward. I was never all that concerned about the cost of licensing. Up until recently, I have been more than pleased with how my Adobe apps function. My main concern is about decision making when supported by a protectionist business model of a pseudo monopolistic environment. The mindset that I had predicted a couple of years back ... came to realization about a month ago ... the words posted right on the Lightroom Journal for all the see.

Andrew. Sure, Adobe seemed to underestimate resistance to change and some aspects of Import were handled awkwardly (features like Move that don't belong in Import should have been put where they do belong).

...  While I expect people will pick out a few details from the above and have a good moan, for now it's just the old "what have the Roman's ever done for us" question, isn't it?

I don't think it is strictly a matter of 'resistance to change.' Sure, all humans tend to resist change. Especially, unannounced, poorly communicated change that also removes expected functionality that users have come to rely upon. Change, purely for the sake of change is not always change for the better as Hogarty and company have discovered.

And yes ... if Adobe expects to be rewarded monetarily, from here to eternity, for whatever they happen to send down the pipe ... yeah, it is indeed a, "What have you done for me lately," situation. What Adobe chooses to invest their time and resources in does matter. They need to be much more wise and judicious in their decision making ... and as Hogarty has admitted, they need to communicate with their customers why they are doing what they do ... before they do it ...

[digitaldog]

But I doubt it is such an indication, Andrew.

Go ahead, doubt it, we'll see how this all progress. So far, the last year or two for Adobe has been pretty rough.

Sure, Adobe seemed to underestimate resistance to change and some aspects of Import were handled awkwardly (features like Move that don't belong in Import should have been put where they do belong).

First, IMHO, Move absolutely belongs in Import and I'm not the only one who used it regularly. 2nd, you can't put that toothpaste back in the tube John. Adobe provided functionality that users had access to for years, then in an instead, despite what they were told by their beta's, removed it (and more). That's inexcusable, it breaks workflows.
 

I certainly think it is hard for users to distinguish where they may actually be benefitting from the GPU work, but I suspect it's only the start of GPU's role in Lr and most people would agree with Adobe's decision to add it

User's should have no reason to worry or deal with GPU issues. Adobe again clearly took on an engineering task they probably shouldn’t have and then did it rather poorly! No excuses.

Progress since Lr4 includes more/better local adjustments, stitching and HDR which have been well-received, improvements to Slideshow (only the shortsighted lack of a timeline), a standardised way of recording people. Mobile is a big move, even if we obviously disagree about it, and we now have a browser interface that's the simplest way of letting others choose which photos they want, allows remote review of tethered shoots, and now offers some multiuser capability.

Progress has been glacial! Look at the facts, the features you point out are the doing of Thomas and Eric for ACR, their baby. Take out the improvements to the ACR engine, the so called progress between LR4 and LR6 is pretty pathetic. Maps, face detection (a huge mess), and of course, the biggest waste if engineering from Adobe since day one: LR Mobile. I know you love it, I think it's a sick joke based on it's silly workflow (if I can be so kind to use that term) and the silly hardware we're supposed to be happy using to edit images. It's just a sick joke on serious photographers who embraced LR as a single workflow solution for their needs.
 

I'm not a fan of the subscription model, but I am glad Adobe retained the standard version and was surprised that they decided to allow people to access their catalogues even after ending their subscriptions.

The Subscription Model is the least of my beef with Adobe. I'm happy to subscribe if they don't screw up the product like they did with that last abysmal update.

[digitaldog]

They need to be much more wise and judicious in their decision making ... and as Hogarty has admitted, they need to communicate with their customers why they are doing what they do ... before they do it ...

The admission is BS in my book, Tom had a group of pre-release testers and others he and I suppose the rest of his team ignored. This backlash shouldn’t have come to a shock to these people. That it apparently did shows a lack of leadership and to some degree, just common sense. As I said earlier, I can't recall in 25 years of using Adobe products (mostly PS and LR but others too), such a ill conceived update as what Tom dumped on us. That we're still waiting for an update, with no further communication from Adobe that I'm aware of, I'm worried.

[john beardsworth]

You just have a good moan....