"Please Fix Lightroom"

[Mark D Segal]

In fact, the Process 2012 tonal compression makes it very hard to do meaningful photometric work on the resulting images. One would need to do that in linear gamma space anyway, and with special scene referred camera profiles if recording in color.

Cheers,
Bart

Well, I'm steering clear of the semantic business about what is or is not scientific, except to say that all kinds of tools can be used for scientific purposes up to the limits of their capabilities relative to the scientific task at hand; but I do appreciate the point about linearity. LR can accommodate custom-made camera profiles, so that isn't an issue. But the point about the absence of linear gamma is. While I understand what they did in PV2012 and why they did it, personally I preferred "starting from scratch" dialing in the contrast I wanted for each photo. Their new starting point is probably closer to where I'd want to end-up a good part of the time; nonetheless, I would have liked a General Preset that is truly linear because it helps with certain kinds of work, for example correctly rendering camera captures of negative film for which I now revert to Perfect Color for the linear rendition of the raw file, then to SilverFast Negafix for the reversal, then back to LR for further editing. This is just one example of, doubtless, numerous others where gamma = 1.0 could be helpful.

[Mark D Segal]

If we want to talk about "fix", how about glacial speed when starting up, and when creating Standard Previews?  Maybe it is just a problem for LR6 (nonCC) users to encourage them to switch, but I have found it takes a veeeeery long time to launch the program. I have a 2015 MacBook Pro with 16gb of RAM, no other programs running, all components on the MBP, about 1k images in library.

It is a heck of  lot slower to launch than it used to be, and the Import progress bar showing Standard Preview creation gets stuck at about 5% and takes forever to  create Previews (standard) for even a dozen iPhone photos; I try clicking on some of the images in the filmstrip to "wake it up", which "seems" to help a bit, but it can take several minutes to create Standard Previews for even the dozen images. It's enough to drive me to seriously considering alternatives.  Demos of other image processing applications run speedily.

You have a bespoke hardware or system problem. This is uncharacteristic behaviour even for the latest release.

[Mark D Segal]

Yes, I agree.  But there are 2 parts to this.  First is learning what features are available and how to use them.  But the other is how well executed is the Human Interface design for the software.  Did the designers respect established conventions?  When not, is there a valid reason and was it well documented?  Is the interface intuitive and does it guide you to correct operation while staying out of the way?

It would be very helpful to newbies to the software for longtime Lr users to explain WHY a particular feature had to be executed a particular way as opposed to following the more intuitive or established mechanism rather than just blindly defending how the software was executed.  Don't get me wrong, one must use the software as it exists, but it would be nice to push for fixes where it would make the software easier to use, even when it breaks the conventions of how Lr did it in the past.

I would hazard a view that LR is probably one of the better designed applications in these respects. Try using X-Rite's i1Profiler for which there isn't even a manual and see what kind of learning curve you need to confront for managing that program. Don't get me wrong, it makes great profiles, but the GUI is worse than a dog's breakfast (because at least the dog gets nourished) and the context Help is as close to useless as it can get. And how intuitive is Photoshop? Or Acrobat Pro? I could go on but you get the point - it's all relative and on a scale of 1-10 LR is pretty decent.

Recall again the history - this application was and still is developed by people a number of whom happen to be first-rate photographers with leading-edge mathematical minds, and it has probably had more input from the photographic community during and since the initial design phase than any other such application on the market. So it really isn't objectively correct to view this product as something developed in a non-photographic context or insulated from the real world of photography. It was intended to be a photographer's application, so if it has failed in that, it has failed, but personally I don't think so.

Yes, one can always argue with the placement of this or that on the interface, but we're talking refinements, not train-wrecks. E.G. (1) the right side of the Develop Module - the intention is that one progresses logically in terms of editing granularity from the top down. It was configured that way on purpose. I could argue that I would like to see the Transform functions move right up ahead of tonal functions, because transforms can affect what the photo includes, which then affects the histogram and the tonal adjustments one would make. But this is a quibble, because quite nicely, we can process in any order and it doesn't matter. unlike in Photoshop where it does. It just alters whether we scroll a bit more or a bit less. E.G. (2) In the Print Module, I wouldn't mind seeing a complete integration of Page Set-Up with Printer Settings, because ALL those settings need to be correct and consistent for it to print properly and I often find myself forgetting to deal with Page Setup until mysterious error messages pop up when I click Print, and then "Oh ya - I forgot....", but again, a quibble rather than a smash. For most of us, there are more troublesome things in real life to deal with.

Now, if we want to talk about making changes to the layout or the workflow, this is one area that quickly becomes difficult. Recall that hundreds of thousands of users become accustomed to "how the program works" and "where things are". We develop almost a "vested interest" in the status quo. You start tinkering with that - even if it is a change for the better in some objective sense - and the moaning and groaning could be colossal as well as costly. Recall the debacle with the Import dialog. Not to say that every change would be as drastic or silly as that one was, but you get the point. Application designers are inherently conservative because they know this, and it is often a balancing act between objective improvement and annoying the user base. Lot's to think about when we put ourselves in the shoes of the developers rather than the users - the perspective objectively changes from gazing at ourselves to gazing at the universe, so every change needs to be carefully considered from a number of angles before it is allowed to happen. Personally, I think on the whole LR has evolved considerably and very positively from the time it was launched to the tool set we now have, with all of its considerable and integrated functionality.

[digitaldog]

Since I believe Andrew Rodney mentioned something about LR's Snapshot getting deleted when something happens to LR's Catalog...

I did? News to me.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Since I believe Andrew Rodney mentioned something about LR's Snapshot getting deleted when something happens to LR's Catalog...

I did? News to me.

If I recall it was concerning whether Snapshot is saved to xmp sidecar [That's how I have xmp setup in LR] when I hit Command S (Save) or if Snapshot is only saved in LR's Catalog. Snapshots and History States are recorded in the Catalog so if I was to toss the Catalog and create a new one I'ld lose all the Snapshots and HS to all my images.

Or something to that effect. It's hard to remember LR's functionality with its Catalog system and saving edits to xmp sidecar.

[hjulenissen]

It strikes me that a lot of these discussions about LR originate with people who have more or less jumped into using the software without taking the time to actually read the "manual" - in this case the many printed books and video guides that are out there.  This strikes me as somewhat like a Cessna pilot who tries to fly a Boeing Dreamliner cold and complains how it's not like what he's familiar with.

The goal of software should be to enable the target audience to get their job done with minimum effort. Minimum effort in training, minimum effort in execution, maximum quality. Some seem to think that having to read books and watch Julieanne Kost videos in order to use a piece of software somehow makes makes it more "noble". I think that is silly. It may be unavoidable or hard to avoid, but we do image processing as a means to an end, not to get bragging rights (like lugging 20kg of photo equipment to some freezing mountain top).

This is a very challenging goal, as on the one hand, you want to offer advanced features that allows advanced users to get advanced chores done efficiently. At the same time, you want the threshold for getting the basic stuff (both for inexperienced users, but also for efficiency in experienced users) to be as low as possible. And avoid clutter.

Basically, this means (in my view) to put the "core functionality" (stuff that 99% of the users do 99% of the time that they launch an application) in a spot where it is really visible, really easy and really fast. The more exotic stuff should be slightly less visible. At the same time, you want UI-things to "make sense". By using established OS conventions and sorting stuff that "belongs together", people will be able to find things that they have never used. That is (in itself) a great thing, but it runs counter to the idea of a "list of functions sorted by popularity".

So user interaction is complex, (I would guess) based on handicraft more than science, and you can't make everyone happy.
 You should still strive to make your users happy, and I think that Lightroom has some potential for improvement.

1. A big gripe that I have with Adobe is that they tend to follow "Adobe conventions" instead of OS conventions. This may not be a problem for hard-core Adobe users, but for the rest of us it creates an additional obstacle to be efficient with their tools. It reminds me of websites that wants to be "different", and ends up causing endless confusion. For UI, "boring" is much better than "novel". To justify using a novel approach to UI, there has to be significant gains to compensate for the drawbacks.

2. Also, with Lightroom they seem to favor long dropdown lists of e.g. pair of parameters rather than just exposing the two parameters directly in certain modules. I think that is incredibly annoying.

3. Being fundamentally a "database" based on homogenous and well-described elements, I would hope for a program like this to offer search functionality second to none. Basically any (meta-data) characteristic I can imagine should be easily filtered on without having to spend 20 minutes on Julieanne (though she is a great tutor). I don't think that LR is quite there.

-h

[digitaldog]

Or something to that effect.

Well whatever it is, neither of us are familiar with the details! 

[ButchM]

Some seem to think that having to read books and watch Julieanne Kost videos in order to use a piece of software somehow makes makes it more "noble". I think that is silly. It may be unavoidable or hard to avoid, but we do image processing as a means to an end, not to get bragging rights (like lugging 20kg of photo equipment to some freezing mountain top).

Is there another software solution ... for any serious task ... on an equal level to Lightroom that does not require at least some level of study to achieve a comfortable level of competence in it's use as a "means to an end" ... noble or otherwise?

Pointing new users to legitimate, well-received options to smooth out the learning process is not silly or expressing faux nobility ... it's just common sense to steer others seeking knowledge to long-stablished trustworthy sources.

[Schewe]

If I recall it was concerning whether Snapshot is saved to xmp sidecar [That's how I have xmp setup in LR] when I hit Command S (Save) or if Snapshot is only saved in LR's Catalog. Snapshots and History States are recorded in the Catalog so if I was to toss the Catalog and create a new one I'ld lose all the Snapshots and HS to all my images.

Wow...
Well, Image setting (including snapshots) and IPTC/EXIF metadata are stored in the .xmp file. History, virtual copies and I think flags are only stored in the catalog. So, if something went south with your catalog but you had saved the xmp metadata you wouldn't loose settings, snapshots or metadata like keywording but you would loose VC's and image adjustment history.

[john beardsworth]

And if something went wrong with your catalogue, your first call would be backups of it.

If you like VCs and like xmp, look up a plugin called Snapshotter which converts VCs to snapshots.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Well, Image setting (including snapshots) and IPTC/EXIF metadata are stored in the .xmp file. History, virtual copies and I think flags are only stored in the catalog. So, if something went south with your catalog but you had saved the xmp metadata you wouldn't loose settings, snapshots or metadata like keywording but you would loose VC's and image adjustment history.

Thanks, Jeff. Now if I can just remember that about Snapshot 3 months from now. Don't need VC's.

I'm just getting the hang of Snapshots in ACR. I'm sure they're saved to xmp as well.

[digitaldog]

...but you would loose VC's and image adjustment history.

So in a DNG with an updated preview, you'd still have that last 'edit', preview, but not the editing history, correct? And you've got snapshots.

[hjulenissen]

Is there another software solution ... for any serious task ... on an equal level to Lightroom that does not require at least some level of study to achieve a comfortable level of competence in it's use as a "means to an end" ... noble or otherwise?

Comparing the complexity and "seriousity" and UI of photography software to word processing software on a photography oriented forum is bound to fail.

Generally, expensive "expert" software that is sold to a small user base of highly trained users tends to (in my view) have poorly designed user interfaces/user experience (but sensible engineering behind the scenes). When a mass-market actor become interested in that segment, UI is one area where they can differentiate, and in the case of MS Word vs Wordperfect, UI won.

One might suggest that the iPhone was a worse phone than Nokias offerings at the time in most respects except user interface and design. Apple won.

I am a Lightroom user, have been since the initial beta program. Obviously, (at least) up until now I have thought that staying with LR is better than switching. This does not mean that I think that LR is flawless or non-annoying.

If there ever is some sort of "app" that just magically does what I currently spend hours doing manually, at the click of a button, I'll jump. I don't see how such an app would ever become reality, but that is how emotionally attached I am to spending hours of my spare time in front of a computer.

Pointing new users to legitimate, well-received options to smooth out the learning process is not silly or expressing faux nobility ... it's just common sense to steer others seeking knowledge to long-stablished trustworthy sources.

I am not sure how to relate this to what I actually wrote?

The idea that things _should_ be a little difficult, that having to lug 20kg of gear to a photo location makes you more of a photographer (or a man), that the path is as important as the end result is a common one. It is found (at least) in litterature, in music and in photography. And (in the case that I am describing at least), I claim that it is silly.

Now, _you_ might not be one of those guys. You might not look down at people who just want good-looking images without investing heavily in comprehending a user-interface. Good for you.

-h

[Mark D Segal]

Generally, expensive "expert" software that is sold to a small user base of highly trained users tends to (in my view) have poorly designed user interfaces/user experience (but sensible engineering behind the scenes). ...............

-h

Indeed, a very good example of this has to be X-Rite's rather buggy i1Profiler with the annoying absence of even a basic user manual, offering only telegraphic context help that provides varying experiences alternating between usefulness and frustration. This too is a product that can produce fully satisfactory results and offers many useful features, along with unnecessarily large amounts of time and work learning how to use it properly and working around the glitches - wasteful effort that could have been averted if this company had any ethical sense of responsibility to its clientele. 

No comparison whatsoever with Lightroom which has a comparatively intuitive GUI, very few bugs which Adobe fixes when they confirm them, and a plethora of educational material from numerous authors given the huge size of the user base.

One really needs to put things in perspective to see how good we have it in the one product, compared with how poor it can be in others.

[digitaldog]

Apparently there are new bugs and therefore new fixes needed for LR CC 2015.5: newer CMYK profiles do not show up any longer but older one's that did load in the past still do. What a mess. Print to JPEG to CMYK is still broken like the last version. On Mac, I only get a document exported that's fully black. So that wasn't fixed from the last version.

[ButchM]

Now, _you_ might not be one of those guys. You might not look down at people who just want good-looking images without investing heavily in comprehending a user-interface. Good for you.

-h

No, I don't look down on anybody ... I also don't try to pigeon hole others into classifications.

if you are suffering self-esteem issues that some may consider you less of a photographer (or a man) because you take offense when others advise users to seek further education on their tools ... that's a whole other issue and this discussion thread couldn't possibly solve that problem for you.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Now, _you_ might not be one of those guys. You might not look down at people who just want good-looking images without investing heavily in comprehending a user-interface. Good for you.

-h

No, I don't look down on anybody ... I also don't try to pigeon hole others into classifications.

if you are suffering self-esteem issues that some may consider you less of a photographer (or a man) because you take offense when others advise users to seek further education on their tools ... that's a whole other issue and this discussion thread couldn't possibly solve that problem for you.

I'm not surprised those that have posted as long time contributors to this forum who clearly show they already have a pretty good grasp on how to get what they want out of their software editing tools would do take offense to not so well thought out backhanded advise stating the need for further education as the only way to provide help.

Just because someone makes a statement about software annoyances doesn't necessarily mean they're asking for help, anyway, just empathy and maybe an alternate workaround to avoid the annoyances. Show some effort for cryin' out loud!

Read a book?! Are you kidding me?! Is that all you educated guys can come up with on issues that would take days to hunt for solutions within an 800 page future paper weight/door stop? Come on!

[digitaldog]

Read a book?! Are you kidding me?! Is that all you educated guys can come up with on issues that would take days to hunt for solutions within an 800 page future paper weight/door stop? Come on!

Read a PDF (and search the content), watch a video, go to a seminar? Not sure how many people here were born with an understanding of a single software product on this planet. Most of us had to work and learn somehow.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Read a PDF (and search the content), watch a video, go to a seminar? Not sure how many people here were born with an understanding of a single software product on this planet. Most of us had to work and learn somehow.

Thanks for providing a perfect example of a backhanded unhelpful comment, Andrew.

Did all that reading and writing provide a solution to some of the annoyances discussed that you can share? I'm not holding my breath on you sharing that since I know your book and others don't provide those solutions, so what's the point of your comment anyway?

[digitaldog]

Thanks for providing a perfect example of a backhanded unhelpful comment, Andrew.

I guess you prefer RTFM Tim?


Not sure how you ever learned anything about anything if you're opposed to book learning, PDF learning, video learning or being taught by a human. Perhaps you gained  your 'impressive' ideas on imaging and photography though osmosis? The rest of us leaned the old fashion way: we earned it. And while learning how anything works doesn’t automatically make us prefer all the interactions necessary to use the product, we do in fact end up using the products! Easier to bitch about then (and for some, far more enjoyable) then to learn to use them, that's for sure.