Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Selections And Layers  (Read 5451 times)
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« on: July 15, 2006, 12:06:26 PM »
ReplyReply

As a PC user, I haven't had a chance to try out Lightroom yet. But, from all that I've read, it appears Lightroom currently lacks the ability to make selections, and does not support the concept of layers. Have I just overlooked these features, or are they beyond the intended scope of Lightroom?

Thanks,
Mort.
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4857



« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2006, 12:20:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom is not intended as a substitute or replacement for Photoshop. So, you're correct, it does not have Layers or Selections. It is a program for performing non-pixel based editing on raw files.

For this purpose it provides an excellent range of features and controls.

It also will act as a file management program, and will create slide shows, web presentations and act as a super printer driver.

PC users will be able to see all of this for themselves very soon.

Michael
Logged
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2006, 01:04:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lightroom is not intended as a substitute or replacement for Photoshop. So, you're correct, it does not have Layers or Selections. It is a program for performing non-pixel based editing on raw files.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70784\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello Michael. I certainly understand the desire to keep Lightroom lean and mean. Still, it would be nice to avoid a trip to PS for basic edits if possible. I'm hoping that at some point we'll at least get a simple lasso selection tool to allow us to do more selective adjustments, although I can see that it would be difficult to save a selection as an "instruction" in the edit list. Now if only I could get my hands on the PC version. Anxiously awaiting it's imminent release.

Mort
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
PeterLange
Guest
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2006, 04:47:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For this purpose it provides an excellent range of features and controls. ... Lightroom is not intended as a substitute or replacement for Photoshop.
Hmm...

(see ACR feature request #210 - et al.)

Peter

--
Logged
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2006, 09:28:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm encouraged by the following quote from Jeff Schewe on his Beta 3 article on the PhotoshopNews.com site:

Quote
Features such as spot healing and local tone & color control are still on the table. It really all depends on feature triage and what the engineers can get done by the time 1.0 ships.

Local tone and color control sounds a lot like some sort of selection. I hope so at least.

Mort.
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2006, 07:29:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lightroom is not intended as a substitute or replacement for Photoshop. So, you're correct, it does not have Layers or Selections. It is a program for performing non-pixel based editing on raw files.

For this purpose it provides an excellent range of features and controls.

It also will act as a file management program, and will create slide shows, web presentations and act as a super printer driver.

PC users will be able to see all of this for themselves very soon.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70784\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I've been using Lightroom on my PC and other than it being so slow as to be unusable... its just a RAW converter with some very interesting goodies hung on to it.   I like those goodies and the general approach but.....

In my mind the killer app is Lightroom with another mode called "Retouch" with layers, masks, etc.    As it is its just an apology for ACR and Bridge being so kludgy and it keeps us hooked into buying Photoshop.  It does take our mind off of Aperture though.

Despite the lack of performance, I'm learning Lightroom because they're likely to fix the performance and continue to spiff it up.  I'm doing my work elsewhere though due to the peformance problems.  I like what I see so far but its incomplete in what I need.

Who wants to actually be forced to use two apps to do what one should?
Logged

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-family:Geneva'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Regards,
Ron[/span][/span][/span][/span]
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2006, 08:40:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Who wants to actually be forced to use two apps to do what one should?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've always used best of breed.  PS, RSP, Qimage and thrid party plug in's from Photokit, Neat Image, Focus Magic.

Innovation usually comes from the small guys spotting the chinks in the big players' armour.  Eventually the chink gets patched but by then the small fast folks have spotted another.  Obviously Adobe would love us to use only their stuff - but I certainly have no hang up about _not_ adopting a one size fits all solution.

One another note, I'd be surprised if Adobe actually had a well conceived evolutionary plan over more than the next year or so (this isn't intended as a criticism, btw, just speculation).  They consistently say that LR isn't intended to be a replacement for PS - but maybe that's just R1.0.  I'll bet there has been some interesting discussion internally regarding canabalization.  LR (as opposed to PS Elements) is clearly targetted up market and it's hard for me to reconcile the "not a replacement for PS" with language that suggests they are (or should be) amenable to localized adjustments, layers, masks etc. etc. etc.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2006, 08:46:27 PM by Tim Gray » Logged
katemann
Guest
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2006, 09:17:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Having had a few hours to explore LR, Windows version I must say that I am delighted with the interface, the capabilities of the proposed product and the elegance of the proposed workflow.

That said, I must say that it is a pretty truncated program without some sort of serious editing tools. I can see being delighted with the straighforward Library, the great RAW developer, (being a RSPremium owner), and I am looking forward to the completed Print facility.

I think I will always want to make a round-trip out to PSCS2 and back again to print - I don't imagine that LR 1.0 will replace PS for the finer adjustments, or, for that matter, am I willing to dump Photokit Sharpener, and even their Color Pro or whatever the name of the thing is ...

I am looking forward to a fix for Ctrl + E to boot PS. Many of us have it greyed out.

Unless Adobe decides to split PS into a program for photographers and a program for graphic artists, I can't see how they can offer a full-fledged photo-retoucher and LR for any less than a full version of Photoshop.
Logged
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2006, 09:04:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've always used best of breed.  PS, RSP, Qimage and thrid party plug in's from Photokit, Neat Image, Focus Magic.

One another note, I'd be surprised if Adobe actually had a well conceived evolutionary plan over more than the next year or so (this isn't intended as a criticism, btw, just speculation).  They consistently say that LR isn't intended to be a replacement for PS - but maybe that's just R1.0.  I'll bet there has been some interesting discussion internally regarding canabalization.  LR (as opposed to PS Elements) is clearly targetted up market and it's hard for me to reconcile the "not a replacement for PS" with language that suggests they are (or should be) amenable to localized adjustments, layers, masks etc. etc. etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Like you, Tim, I use pretty much the same variety of tools.

As a photographer I only use a small part of what Photoshop has to offer.  Why not take the pieces that are meaningful to digital photographers and put them into LR?  Photoshop can then go back to being the King Kong of apps for graphics professionals and photographers can truly have something tailored for their use.
Logged

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-family:Geneva'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Regards,
Ron[/span][/span][/span][/span]
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2006, 10:51:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Like you, Tim, I use pretty much the same variety of tools.

As a photographer I only use a small part of what Photoshop has to offer.  Why not take the pieces that are meaningful to digital photographers and put them into LR?  Photoshop can then go back to being the King Kong of apps for graphics professionals and photographers can truly have something tailored for their use.

I don't disagree - I just think it's probably not that easy.  Not technically difficult, but tough from a useability and business model perspective.  I suspect that Adobe are wrestling with this exact question.

I think what we'll see eventually is the adoption of a new delivery model - something more modular and web 2.0ish.  You'll get a core application and as you require incremental functionality it will download and cache on your machine.  Microsoft recently acquired Softricity which does exactly this.
Logged
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1420


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 22, 2006, 06:37:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think what we'll see eventually is the adoption of a new delivery model - something more modular and web 2.0ish.  You'll get a core application and as you require incremental functionality it will download and cache on your machine.  Microsoft recently acquired Softricity which does exactly this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You're probably right, Tim.  That's why I'm hoping your other scenario plays out.  Another company, startup or other, finds another way to make money without the burdensome DRM approach that Web 2.0ish might bring.  Maybe some Google like company will see another path and pounce.  

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in any case.
Logged

[span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'][span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-family:Geneva'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Regards,
Ron[/span][/span][/span][/span]
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2006, 07:15:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Another point is that the plugin architecture of Lightroom might make it possible for these enterprising startups to provide the functionality we feel are missing.
Logged

Jan
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad