Lightroom really DOES suck

[ButchM]

Try not to ignore I mentioned the improvements in slideshow.

Can anyone who doesn't use Lightroom actually distinguish the differences between a slideshow created in v5 vs v6?

For me, the 'improvements' are near negligible considering the module has languished since nearly the inception of Lr. It's still quite a plain vanilla option that lacks tools to be even somewhat creative.

I'm not denying that there wasn't at least some effort ... but one must admit, that effort hasn't yielded the end user much additional value to the process. Too bad really, because the Slideshow module could be such an extremely valuable tool if it were not so limited and constrained.

As I have said before ... if Slideshow and the other 'extra' modules would be further developed in a more meaningful fashion  ... i'd be more than willing to pay a little extra to get it. I'm not opposed to an 'in app purchase' for premium additional features or functions I desire. Alhough I tend to resent being taken for granted with such mundane tools that receive so little attention.

[digitaldog]

Can anyone who doesn't use Lightroom actually distinguish the differences between a slideshow created in v5 vs v6?

Well in LR6 we FINALLY got Ken Burns effects so yes, probably. That said, this module is still pretty lame and weak compared to other solutions.

For me, the 'improvements' are near negligible considering the module has languished since nearly the inception of Lr.

If you remove the new features that are part of Develop and thus ACR, you're pretty much spot on! If John would simply examine the history of 'features' between LR4 and LR6, he'd see the entire list got shorter and shorter as the release number raised. Subtract Develop/ACR features, there's not much there.


According to Victoria's FAQ, this is the exhaustive list of new stuff in SlideShow:

Slideshow
• Pan & Zoom – Ken Burns Effect
• You can now add a pan & zoom effect to your slideshows, also known as a Ken Burns effect.
• You can change the amount of movement. • Music Multiple Audio Tracks & Sync Timings
• Audio settings have now moved to their own Music panel.
• You can add up to 10 music tracks to your slideshow.
• You can sync the slide transitions to the music, so it intelligently changes the fade time based on the music beats.
• Aspect Ratio Preview
• Slideshows can now be previewed at your screen aspect ratio as before, or they can be previewed at
your intended output aspect ratio (either 16×9 or 4×3). • Preview Quality
• You can pick the preview quality, depending on quickly you need to start the playback.
• Export is always done at full quality. • Other minor UI changes
• There’s a new Music panel and the Playback panel has been rearranged. • Manual vs. automatic slideshow are now buttons instead of a checkbox. • Slides slider now called Slide Length.
• Fades slider now called Crossfades.
• Repeat now called Repeat Slideshow.


Massive engineering? Lots of love for Slideshow? Not really.

[ButchM]

Well in LR6 we FINALLY got Ken Burns effects so yes, probably.

Well ... there's Pan and Zoom ... and there is one-size-fits-all pan and zoom ... It's like buying a Model T from Henery Ford ... you could have the car in any color as long as it was black ...

And music? ... yes, we finally got multiple songs ... but not multiple audio tracks or the ability to edit the length of the audio inside the slideshow UI ...

Yes, they poured something into a near-empty cup ... but I'm not sure it was anything to savor and cherish over the long haul ...

[jjj]

In Library itself, as a separate menu command. Its underlying function is to reorganise files into folders, which is a real need in Lightroom - but it's not a need that is limited to when people are importing files. Why should people have to reimport files if they want to reorganise those files' physical location?

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.

[jjj]

That said, this module is still pretty lame and weak compared to other solutions.

What good solutions are there. The only ones I've found for OSX are pretty simplistic and amateurish. Used FotoMagico a while back, not exactly a power tool.
ProShow Gold, sadly a Windows only programme seems to be the only software aimed at people who want to do slideshows with any finesse.

[ButchM]

What good solutions are there. The only ones I've found for OSX are pretty simplistic and amateurish. Used FotoMagico a while back, not exactly a power tool.
ProShow Gold, sadly a Windows only programme seems to be the only software aimed at people who want to do slideshows with any finesse.

All one has to do is look at the Slideshow option in Aperture .... pretty free flowing and creative options  ... only limitation is your imagination. Plus, when using that option, users didn't have to export derivative images like like you would for options like FotoMagico or ProShow Gold ... you worked directly with your RAW image files.

These days I  export jpegs and build my shows in FCP X ... though if I could get the job done in Lr, I would be happy to do so.

[jjj]

All one has to do is look at the Slideshow option in Aperture .... pretty free flowing and creative options  ... only limitation is your imagination.

I had a look and struggled to even find any way of editing a slideshow in Aperture. A well hidden option and when I did it made LR slideshow module look really fancy. A bit more playing around simply reminded me why people used other software instead of that once promising programme.

Plus, when using that option, users didn't have to export derivative images like like you would for options like FotoMagico or ProShow Gold ... you worked directly with your RAW image files.

That's the thing that makes programmes like LR so powerful, not having to export images to then be worked on elsewhere. Not to mention you can tweak image settings whilst working on them in say your book/web/slideshow/print.

These days I  export jpegs and build my shows in FCP X ... though if I could get the job done in Lr, I would be happy to do so.

Having to use video software to create slideshows only shows how poorly served that market is. Because such programmes are overkill, not to mention not exactly well designed for such things

[David Mantripp]

There were? I tried them all, didn't find one sadly.
 You seem to be missing one very important detail. Apple are the best company at marketing in the entire world and is why they are the so very dominant and incredibly rich. Adobe are small fry in comparison.
Make a better product and they will come.

Well you know that's a very good point, and one I was aware of when I was writing. Basically I think that Apple marketing is tuned towards aspirational devices. And that requires building up mystique and desire. That approach simply doesn't work with a product like Aperture or Lightroom where, demonstrably, engaging with customers is key. Also Adobe had real, identified people championing the product both inside and outside the company, building up a community feel. Apple, of course, had to wrap it all up in a wall of secrecy.

The approach of the two products was also very different, and few people were comfortable with both. But the basic point was that Adobe understands that there is much, much more to making a succesful software product than sticking it in a box on a shelf (or later, App Store). Apple obviously could not give a damn.

[ButchM]

I had a look and struggled to even find any way of editing a slideshow in Aperture.

No offense, but I don't think you looked very far. All one must do is select the 'Custom' theme and you could change, alter and expand upon almost any parameter available (even create you own custom templates) ... with a true timeline functionality. You can use multiple editable music tracks, video clips and even create voiceover narration audio tracks within the app and control the ducking dynamically.

That's the thing that makes programmes like LR so powerful, not having to export images to then be worked on elsewhere. Not to mention you can tweak image settings whilst working on them in say your book/web/slideshow/print.

I actually moved much of my workflow away from Lightroom to Aperture purely for the opportunity to create books and slideshows. At the time, the Book module in Lr didn't exist. The Lr Slideshow was even more rudimentary than it is now. It was a boon to my workflow not to have to export thousands of images over the course of a year to get the job done.

Having to use video software to create slideshows only shows how poorly served that market is. Because such programmes are overkill, not to mention not exactly well designed for such things

I don't 'have' to use FCP X for slideshows ... I have it to primarily edit video and I prefer to use what tools I have on hand. These days, my offerings are becoming more video oriented with stills thrown in for a little more flare where just a short time ago my approach was exactly the opposite.

What would be great if I could compose a brief slideshow from Lr, import the resulting video as a clip into FCPX ... that would be awesome ... but if I have to do all the heavy lifting in another option to create the pan and zoom, individual image durations, custom titles or text overlays, etc., I may as well do it all in FCP X.

[jjj]

No offense, but I don't think you looked very far. All one must do is select the 'Custom' theme and you could change, alter and expand upon almost any parameter available (even create you own custom templates) ... with a true timeline functionality. You can use multiple editable music tracks, video clips and even create voiceover narration audio tracks within the app and control the ducking dynamically.

No offense but you really do need to read the whole reply and not just first part of it and misinterpret that part too, before responding.
I did find the editing options, it was just in a really stupid place and pretty rubbish once you got there. Aperture feels like a poorly designed programme from the 90s, with annoying modal dialogue boxes that won't even stay on the screen you are using. 

I don't 'have' to use FCP X for slideshows ... I have it to primarily edit video and I prefer to use what tools I have on hand. These days, my offerings are becoming more video oriented with stills thrown in for a little more flare where just a short time ago my approach was exactly the opposite.

Are you having reading problems or something? Why you own FCPX is irrelevant, the fact you have to use any video app to make a slideshow because the options out there [for OSX users] are awful, was the point being made.

[jjj]

Well you know that's a very good point, and one I was aware of when I was writing. Basically I think that Apple marketing is tuned towards aspirational devices. And that requires building up mystique and desire. That approach simply doesn't work with a product like Aperture or Lightroom where, demonstrably, engaging with customers is key. Also Adobe had real, identified people championing the product both inside and outside the company, building up a community feel. Apple, of course, had to wrap it all up in a wall of secrecy.

The approach of the two products was also very different, and few people were comfortable with both. But the basic point was that Adobe understands that there is much, much more to making a succesful software product than sticking it in a box on a shelf (or later, App Store). Apple obviously could not give a damn.

Apple should stick to making hardware, their software is mostly simplistic and not aimed at pro users. LR was ultimately a much better product than Aperture [and also available on Windows] and it was that and not marketing that meant it became the dominant tool for photographers.

[ButchM]

No offense but you really do need to read the whole reply and not just first part of it and misinterpret that part too, before responding.

That, my friend, is a two-way street.

I did find the editing options, it was just in a really stupid place and pretty rubbish once you got there. Aperture feels like a poorly designed programme from the 90s, with annoying modal dialogue boxes that won't even stay on the screen you are using.

Purely a subjective assessment. Neither right or wrong.  Many folks find the Lr UI just as quirky and annoying. This and other forum discussion touch on that topic quite often. ... I had no problem working within the Aperture paradigm and design ... at least the tools were there to be used. Maybe the Lr UI is more appealing to some ... but what good is that appeal if the real tools necessary to achieve a creative results for slideshows are nonexistent? The option is still hamstrung and incomplete.

Are you having reading problems or something? Why you own FCPX is irrelevant, the fact you have to use any video app to make a slideshow because the options out there [for OSX users] are awful, was the point being made.

Nope ... no problems reading, simply elaborating on why I use certain tools. If that offends you ... sorry.

[digitaldog]

Well ... there's Pan and Zoom ... and there is one-size-fits-all pan and zoom ... It's like buying a Model T from Henery Ford ... you could have the car in any color as long as it was black ...

You're so right and I say that after making my first (and now last) slideshow in LR6, the Pan/Zoom has virtually no control as I have in FotoMagico. Kind of a sad joke in terms of it's design.

[ButchM]

You're so right and I say that after making my first (and now last) slideshow in LR6, the Pan/Zoom has virtually no control as I have in FotoMagico. Kind of a sad joke in terms of it's design.

The whole impetus of the Pan and Zoom technique as Ken Burns perfected it ... is to draw attention to the desired focal point of the image at hand ... the scale, angle, motion and duration of the effect is customized to each individual image. A forced, singular option actually is a disservice to the viewer and add little if any value to the process. Especially when the move is applied to each and every image in an identical fashion.

[jjj]

The whole impetus of the Pan and Zoom technique as Ken Burns perfected it ... is to draw attention to the desired focal point of the image at hand ... the scale, angle, motion and duration of the effect is customized to each individual image. A forced, singular option actually is a disservice to the viewer and add little if any value to the process. Especially when the move is applied to each and every image in an identical fashion.

Automated Ken Burns such as in LR is such an abysmal idea, it should not even be an option for blind people.

[jjj]

That, my friend, is a two-way street.

No, as I read all of a post several times before replying.

Purely a subjective assessment. Neither right or wrong.

Yet most software has moved on from those clunky early days of software design onto better tools. For good reason as it wasn't very good.

Nope ... no problems reading,....

The evidence above shows otherwise.

...simply elaborating on why I use certain tools. If that offends you ... sorry.

Why would I be offended at your inability to read an entire post or the words in the correct order?

[digitaldog]

The whole impetus of the Pan and Zoom technique as Ken Burns perfected it ... is to draw attention to the desired focal point of the image at hand ... the scale, angle, motion and duration of the effect is customized to each individual image. A forced, singular option actually is a disservice to the viewer and add little if any value to the process. Especially when the move is applied to each and every image in an identical fashion.

Well said, I fully agree. Unless I'm missing something, the LR feature is nothing to write home about. Why didn't the LR team look at the competition? Too much engineering to do it 'right' when the focus was wasted on LR mobile? Or trying to find all those GPU bugs?

[pluton]

1.  I'm gleaning from this discussion that the panning/scrolling in the "Ken Burns effect" in Lightroom is random?
     That is truly pathetic. 
2.  Ken Burns did not create or perfect the panning/scrolling of still photos for documentary films.  It was done at least as early        as the early 1960's by the David L. Wolper documentary factory that produced hundreds of hours of filler for network television in the USA.  William Freidkin's memoir has a good description of what it was like to work there in the early 1960's.

[digitaldog]

1.  I'm gleaning from this discussion that the panning/scrolling in the "Ken Burns effect" in Lightroom is random?
     That is truly pathetic.

Unlike FotoMagico and I assume other, better tools, the so called "Ken Burns Effect" in LR the amount of panning and zooming is solely and only controlled by a slider, with Low being a gentle Pan/Scroll. IOW, where and how within the image this takes place is not controllable. So yes, while better than a sharp stick in the eye, it's rather pathetic. 

[ButchM]

Too much engineering to do it 'right' when the focus was wasted on LR mobile? Or trying to find all those GPU bugs?

I don't have an issue with Adobe seeking a mobile solution. I do have an issue when there have been years of requests to bring a module up to speed that has been around since v1 and relatively untouched since it's introduction.