Topic: Lightroom 4 vs. PS6 (Read 40368 times)

Schewe · « **Reply #40 on:** March 22, 2012, 05:10:42 pm »

Quote from: Rhossydd on March 22, 2012, 04:43:09 pm

*two user configurable options would be nice, but one is already in the code of ACR so it can't be a huge deal to add that to LR.

People need to realize that "code" that may be in one application can't just be "ported" over to another...the code base for ACR is a plug-in, the code base for Lightroom is an application. Yes, the processing pipeline is the same and the toolset (making adjustments) are the same but the UI and how it's developed are completely different. There are some UI in LR that ACR can't do and some UI in ACR that LR can't do. You can't snap your fingers and move stuff back and forth between them, sorry, wish you could. I would love to have multiple color samplers in LR. I would love to have multiple panels open at once in ACR. But...it's really tough to try to have the same UI and usability in both.

Rhossydd · « **Reply #41 on:** March 22, 2012, 05:21:49 pm »

Quote from: Schewe on March 22, 2012, 05:10:42 pm

it's really tough ...

Er, yes, so what ?
We're not talking some one person shareware outfit here. Adobe are a big fish in the software industry, why shouldn't we ask for, and expect, the best from them ?

john beardsworth · « **Reply #42 on:** March 22, 2012, 05:24:11 pm »

Choosing the colour of the overlay just isn't necessary in LR - there's enough choice already with O and then Shift O. The development hours could be better spent elsewhere.

Rhossydd · « **Reply #43 on:** March 22, 2012, 05:32:12 pm »

Quote from: johnbeardy on March 22, 2012, 05:24:11 pm

Choosing the colour of the overlay just isn't necessary in LR - there's enough choice already with O and then Shift O.

Oh right that's alright then.
Curious that if LR only needs two colours why ACR should need more though ?

Quote

The development hours could be better spent elsewhere.

Couldn't agree more, it would just be good to add it to the "it would be nice to add" list.
For now I'd be happy if they could get LR4 working productively fast.

john beardsworth · « **Reply #44 on:** March 22, 2012, 05:47:28 pm »

It does on most machines. I think a lot of people are surprised at the slowdowns.

stamper · « **Reply #45 on:** March 23, 2012, 04:06:59 am »

Quote

Couldn't agree more, it would just be good to add it to the "it would be nice to add" list.
For now I'd be happy if they could get LR4 working productively fast.

Unquote

I think that Adobe will be wondering what productively fast means? Personally I agree with John. I have read on some forums that some think it is unusable. Comments like that doesn't help in the least and it looks like Adobe are on the receiving end of some pot stirring? A little patience is needed and LR3 is still there to be used if needed.

sniper · « **Reply #46 on:** March 23, 2012, 07:46:38 am »

Quote from: stamper on March 23, 2012, 04:06:59 am

Quote

Couldn't agree more, it would just be good to add it to the "it would be nice to add" list.
For now I'd be happy if they could get LR4 working productively fast.

Unquote

I think that Adobe will be wondering what productively fast means? Personally I agree with John. I have read on some forums that some think it is unusable. Comments like that doesn't help in the least and it looks like Adobe are on the receiving end of some pot stirring? A little patience is needed and LR3 is still there to be used if needed.

Not much comfort to those who paid out good money for the new version. Why should they have to use the old version because the new ones too slow on many computers? Maybe a longer beta test would have given chance to fix the issues before selling it to Joe public. Theres not just a few people having issues, theres a lot, and the tine curve problem should have been caught too IMHO.

john beardsworth · « **Reply #47 on:** March 23, 2012, 10:20:02 am »

It's a very small proportion, bigger than it should be but not material to a decision to upgrade.

Rhossydd · « **Reply #48 on:** March 23, 2012, 02:20:18 pm »

Quote from: johnbeardy on March 23, 2012, 10:20:02 am

It's a very small proportion,

There's no way you can know that.

There have been very few comments on any of the many internet forums I read suggesting performance is good, but hundreds complaining of sluggish response in the develop module.

john beardsworth · « **Reply #49 on:** March 23, 2012, 02:51:49 pm »

It's the old thing about the unhappy few making a disproportionate noise. Clearly there's something which wasn't anticipated, and maybe you've been affected, but don't imagine it's representative of wider experience.

Rhossydd · « **Reply #50 on:** March 23, 2012, 03:03:16 pm »

Do you seriously think there isn't a problem here ? that there's only a few unlucky people people effected ? that all the satisfied buyers are failing to say how good their purchase is ? that Adobe won't offer an update to increase performance ?

But then you're one of Adobe's NDA tied testers aren't you ?

Schewe · « **Reply #51 on:** March 23, 2012, 03:20:53 pm »

Quote from: Rhossydd on March 23, 2012, 03:03:16 pm

Do you seriously think there isn't a problem here ? that there's only a few unlucky people people effected ? that all the satisfied buyers are failing to say how good their purchase is ?

No, I'm sure there are some people who have experienced individual slowdowns for a variety of reasons–and those reasons are being investigated. And yes, obviously, the vast majority of users who are NOT having problems don't got to forums to announce they are not having any problems.

The LR product manager has posted an article about the current issues titled Lightroom 4 Hot Issues. At this point in time, why some people are having severe issues of extended delays when adjusting controls in Develop isn't known. Many/most of the complaints are not really well articulated and only lower the signal to noise ratio...there have been some useful suggestions about how to go about troubleshooting speed issues on the LR Forum. Some report updating the vid card drivers have helped, some report clearing the LR/ACR cache can help, some report importing into a new catalog instead of updating can help. However, the LR engineering team are trying to track down the various issues and address them. That's really all they can do.

Quote

But then you're one of Adobe's NDA tied testers aren't you ?

You're asking a question that can't be answered...he can not really either deny nor confirm. That's the nature of an NDA.

john beardsworth · « **Reply #52 on:** March 23, 2012, 03:36:15 pm »

'Do you seriously think there isn't a problem here ? that there's only a few unlucky people people effected ? that all the satisfied buyers are failing to say how good their purchase is ? that Adobe won't offer an update to increase performance ?"

As I said, "clearly there's something" and "a lot of people are surprised". Sounds like your glass is always half empty though.....

Rhossydd · « **Reply #53 on:** March 23, 2012, 04:14:31 pm »

Quote from: Schewe on March 23, 2012, 03:20:53 pm

You're asking a question that can't be answered...he can not really either deny nor confirm. That's the nature of an NDA.

Er, yes it can if you're not part of the Adobe team.

john beardsworth · « **Reply #54 on:** March 23, 2012, 04:34:04 pm »

Anyway, your insinuation was irrelevant.

Schewe · « **Reply #55 on:** March 23, 2012, 05:34:57 pm »

Quote from: Rhossydd on March 23, 2012, 04:14:31 pm

Er, yes it can if you're not part of the Adobe team.

So, what's your point? Do you have one? What do you want to know? You learned how to change the color overlay in LR and you've had your chance to vent over the differences between ACR and LR. You'v pretty much hogged the thread of late and we're not really getting anywhere. If you want to start a new thread regarding LR4 performance, go right ahead–in the correct sub-forum. But at this stage in the thread, all you are doing is hijacking the thread to complain about "something"...and I'm not really sure what it is.

Robert Katz · « **Reply #56 on:** March 23, 2012, 07:09:06 pm »

I feel compelled to put my 2 cents in:
I am running LR4 on a Dell Studio 1558 machine with Windows 7, Intel Core 2.27 GHz, 8.0 GB RAM, 64 bit
and it is running very smoothly and quickly as did LR3.6. My Photo Library and Catalog are running
on a HP External Drive with 2.0 USB connection.
I have been very happy with the performance.
Robert

Rhossydd · « **Reply #57 on:** March 24, 2012, 01:41:21 am »

Quote from: Schewe on March 23, 2012, 05:34:57 pm

what's your point?

Clarification
John's contradicted me in asserting that there's very little problem with performance with LR4. He simply can't know that, nor can even Adobe.
Many more people read these forums than ever contribute and may not be aware of who is connected to Adobe and therefore unable to spot any 'spin' that Adobe are trying put out.

john beardsworth · « **Reply #58 on:** March 24, 2012, 03:19:51 am »

Are you serious?

stamper · « **Reply #59 on:** March 24, 2012, 05:01:00 am »

Rhossydd you haven't answered the query about your assertion

productively fast

Vague assertions like this isn't helpful to Adobe hence some members are wondering about your motives and possibly about the specifications of your computer. At the risk of being personal, the way in which you and others - including myself - know how to use the product. I am still learning it so I am not qualified to throw out assertions will nilly.

Author Topic: Lightroom 4 vs. PS6 (Read 40368 times)