Various articles on LR's 7th incarnation (previously Martin Evening article)

[Mark D Segal]

You might be able to acquire a handful of other applications that can achieve basically the same results...but for an easy flow from loading images into LR to labeling and sorting / organizing to processing them for both web view and ready for print...to finally making prints...nothing touches LR / PS combination. I just cannot see myself needing to wander through various applications all with different interfaces to just try accomplish what I can in LR / PS.

Just does not make any sense to me to look elsewhere when an elegant solution sits on my computer already.

This is exactly how I see it too.

[Mark D Segal]

It may be that Adobe is approaching the point where they have pushed LR Classic as far as it can go and still provide the flexibility inherent in the program.  ..............

I very strongly doubt that. Remember what Bill Gates once said about the maximum amount of RAM any one would ever need in a computer? The technical possibilities for continued growth of core editing capability are probably vast - the main constraints to accelerated innovation would be imagination, time and willingness to invest.

[David Mantripp]

You know what REALLY iritates me about Lightroom? The fact that you cannot select an image in a Collection view and delete it from the catalog.  Really, why the **** not?  Would it be so hard to add that functionality?

[Damon Lynch]

You know what REALLY iritates me about Lightroom? The fact that you cannot select an image in a Collection view and delete it from the catalog.  Really, why the **** not?  Would it be so hard to add that functionality?

Probably because the application's designers want to make it super explicit to the user that there is real distinction between a collection of files in the catalog, which is virtual, and the master record, which by comparison is not. The consequences of confusing the two in practice are serious, including accidental loss of the master file in the catalog / publish locations, and even the file system if the user is confused or inattentive.

[john beardsworth]

I half agree with you David, but there is this difference between LR showing the file system and the virtual organisation, Aperture only showing you the one.

Anyway, you know Opt/Alt Cmd/Ctrl Shift Delete? No confirmation dialog, so risky.

[Dave Rosser]

Andrew, if the new Lr Classic can provide ANY performance improvements after 2+ years of stagnation it's worth it for me.  Range masking is a very welcome addition.

Time will tell if Lr Classic is worth the blather.  Its unknown to me if Classic fixes any of the performance issues with using a graphics processor.

My AMD Radeon Pro WX5100 with latest Q3 2017 driver causes Lightroom classic to crash when switching from library module to develop module with graphics acceleration selected.  Works perfectly with GPU acceleration switched off.  As the same card works perfectly with Capture One which makes far more use of GPU acceleration than Lightroom I am convinced the problem lies with Adobe not AMD.
Come to think of it GPU acceleration worked OK with the previous version of Lightroom.

Dave.

[jrsforums]

My AMD Radeon Pro WX5100 with latest Q3 2017 driver causes Lightroom classic to crash when switching from library module to develop module with graphics acceleration selected.  Works perfectly with GPU acceleration switched off.  As the same card works perfectly with Capture One which makes far more use of GPU acceleration than Lightroom I am convinced the problem lies with Adobe not AMD.
Come to think of it GPU acceleration worked OK with the previous version of Lightroom.

Dave.

I just came across this.

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/crash-gpu-directx-enabled.html

I may or may not relate to your problem.

[Dave Rosser]

I just came across this.

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/crash-gpu-directx-enabled.html

I may or may not relate to your problem.

Thanks, I had in fact found that reference and implemented it.  Interesting thing is that if you read it carefully it is not a set of alternatives, having got the GPU in OpenGL mode you are still required to turn off GPU acceleration.

[Hoggy]

Thanks, I had in fact found that reference and implemented it.  Interesting thing is that if you read it carefully it is not a set of alternatives, having got the GPU in OpenGL mode you are still required to turn off GPU acceleration.

I also have an issue with AMD-GPU..  But here it's not a crash.  It just simply refuses to use GPU, ever since 2015.10.1.

I tried the above for sh*ts and giggles, but it still won't allow me to enable GPU.

Here, it's Win10 AMD A8-3500M w/HD6620G integrated graphics.

I seem to recall that they had problems with AMD GPU acceleration when LR6/2015 came out, as well.  I don't understand what it is about AMD, but this is getting tiresome.

[john beardsworth]

A few more articles from Martin http://www.photoshopforphotographers.com/CC_2013/Help_guide/pdfs.html - these are on PS, Bridge etc

[Dave Rosser]

I also have an issue with AMD-GPU..  But here it's not a crash.  It just simply refuses to use GPU, ever since 2015.10.1.

I tried the above for sh*ts and giggles, but it still won't allow me to enable GPU.

Here, it's Win10 AMD A8-3500M w/HD6620G integrated graphics.

I seem to recall that they had problems with AMD GPU acceleration when LR6/2015 came out, as well.  I don't understand what it is about AMD, but this is getting tiresome.

GPU acceleration works ok in Photoshop so perhaps the Lightroom team ought to talk to the Photoshop team and learn how to implement it properly.  This is an Adobe problem not an AMD problem.

[Mark D Segal]

A few more articles from Martin http://www.photoshopforphotographers.com/CC_2013/Help_guide/pdfs.html - these are on PS, Bridge etc

Thanks John; these are really good papers from Martin; worthwhile keeping up to speed with them.

[David Eichler]

Too little too late. And we're told that by subscribing we get regular new features but thus far, the history doesn't back that up. Even John has to admit: Maybe a bit light for a 2-3 year interval?

Seems to me that, all too often, when Adobe makes significant feature upgrades to LR, we often see reduced performance and bugs. Don't mind slower progress on features if that means they get the performance right. As far as I am concerned, at this point, the new version seems to work more smoothly for me and I can now even activate the use of the graphics processor without slowing things down (though I am not entirely sure what functions that is helping with yet). As far as I can tell from early adopters at this point, I am hearing of very few performance issues with the current update.

[hogloff]

Seems to me that, all too often, when Adobe makes significant feature upgrades to LR, we often see reduced performance and bugs. Don't mind slower progress on features if that means they get the performance right. As far as I am concerned, at this point, the new version seems to work more smoothly for me and I can now even activate the use of the graphics processor without slowing things down (though I am not entirely sure what functions that is helping with yet). As far as I can tell from early adopters at this point, I am hearing of very few performance issues with the current update.

And improving performance is a big feature in itself...at times much more difficult and resource draining than adding a new feature.

[rdonson]

A few more articles from Martin http://www.photoshopforphotographers.com/CC_2013/Help_guide/pdfs.html - these are on PS, Bridge etc

Thanks, John!!!  Very useful!!!

[David Eichler]

I note that they still haven't fixed the issue where, when the image is saved back to Lightroom after editing in Photoshop, the the selected Lightroom history state reverts back to the initial state instead of the most recent one. Really, Adobe?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I note that they still haven't fixed the issue where, when the image is saved back to Lightroom after editing in Photoshop, the the selected Lightroom history state reverts back to the initial state instead of the most recent one. Really, Adobe?

That seems right to me. The image saved back from PS is a new file, with all the previous LR changes and PS edits baked in.
Remember: LR is a parametric editor, but PS is not. Going into PS from LR requires that the LR edits be baked in before going to PS.
Since LR is a parametric editor, the file that comes back from PS has the baked in LR edits plus whatever you diid in PS, and is now a new file (typically a tiff.) It starts over in LR with no new edits yet. If you want to change something from before the excursion into PS, you must work on the version from before going into PS.

[Mark D Segal]

That seems right to me. The image saved back from PS is a new file, with all the previous LR changes and PS edits baked in.
Remember: LR is a parametric editor, but PS is not. Going into PS from LR requires that the LR edits be baked in before going to PS.
Since LR is a parametric editor, the file that comes back from PS has the baked in LR edits plus whatever you diid in PS, and is now a new file (typically a tiff.) It starts over in LR with no new edits yet. If you want to change something from before the excursion into PS, you must work on the version from before going into PS.

Largely correct Eric, but I think you can also open it as a smart object in Photoshop and if I understand correctly this will link the edits in both places so you need only work on the one file from either.

[David Eichler]

That seems right to me. The image saved back from PS is a new file, with all the previous LR changes and PS edits baked in.
Remember: LR is a parametric editor, but PS is not. Going into PS from LR requires that the LR edits be baked in before going to PS.
Since LR is a parametric editor, the file that comes back from PS has the baked in LR edits plus whatever you diid in PS, and is now a new file (typically a tiff.) It starts over in LR with no new edits yet. If you want to change something from before the excursion into PS, you must work on the version from before going into PS.

I am talking about editing the original Tiff file,  not creating a new Tiff.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Largely correct Eric, but I think you can also open it as a smart object in Photoshop and if I understand correctly this will link the edits in both places so you need only work on the one file from either.

You're probably right, Mark, but I haven't tried the "smart objects" trick yet, as I don't want my computer to prove that it is smarter than I am!