Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is LR a compromise?  (Read 8259 times)
tgphoto
Guest
« on: August 31, 2006, 09:52:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been using/testing LR for Mac since beta 1 came out, and I get the overwhelming feeling that LR is niether a new way to work with RAW files nor a new way to organize them.  It seems like LR could go in either of two directions; 1) a a standalone dam/cataloguing tool, or 2) as a versatile RAW file processor.

In its current state, however, it seems to be more of a compromise between the two types of programs rather than a clear winner in either arena.  While I applaud Adobe for taking on the task of addressing the changing needs of digital photographers, I question whether or not they have ever heard of "one size does not fit all".

I agree with the other photographers on this forum who have declared the Bridge/ACR/Photoshop solution to be better suited to their needs. Adobe needs to seriously examine at how those users who have adapted to and prefer this multiple application workflow are using it.

For me, the benefits include:

1) Ability to use existing file system to locate and manage assets. No need to re-import anything.
2) ACR's upsizing, cropping, and correction tools are more robust than LR.
3) Photoshop is still indispensible for sharpening workflow, color correction,  & printing to inkjets.

At this stage in the game, I fail to see where LR can excel as either a RAW processor, Image Editor, or Digital Asset Management tool without Adobe ultimately duplicating its efforts.  There seem to be an awful lot of photographers who are fail to grasp just how LR is different/better than their current setup.

I'm hoping Beta 4 will help address some of these issues.
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2006, 01:39:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I tend to agree.

Tim Gray Photography  
Logged
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2006, 02:05:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Tim,

We should join forces...just think of the chaos!

client: So, which one of you is Tim Gray

me: I am

you: no, I am

client:  I'm sooo confused!

Hehe
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7473



WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2006, 03:26:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Gosh! I agree with Tim Gray and also with Tim Gray. And my name is not Tim Gray (I think).    

I downloaded the Win Beta a while ago, but from all the "so what?" comments I've been reading, I haven't found the motivation yet to actually try it. And, being a licensed RSP user, I will presumably get a fre copy of the (first) commercial version.

-Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
David White
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2006, 04:42:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Gosh! I agree with Tim Gray and also with Tim Gray. And my name is not Tim Gray (I think).   

I downloaded the Win Beta a while ago, but from all the "so what?" comments I've been reading, I haven't found the motivation yet to actually try it. And, being a licensed RSP user, I will presumably get a fre copy of the (first) commercial version.

-Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75104\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm a bit puzzled by its place in the lineup also.  I'm pretty happy with the ACR/Bridge flow but would like to have the increased RAW processing controls that LR has.  I'm not completely willing to dump my folder-based filing system for a database at this time.  If I use Lightroom It's going to be an extra step to import them into Lightroom after downloading into new folders in my existing structure.

I'd really like to see selections made available in LR or ACR to get finer control over some of the RAW tweaks before going into PS.
Logged

David White
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2006, 05:42:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've been using/testing LR for Mac since beta 1 came out, and I get the overwhelming feeling that LR is niether a new way to work with RAW files nor a new way to organize them.  It seems like LR could go in either of two directions; 1) a a standalone dam/cataloguing tool, or 2) as a versatile RAW file processor.

What part of Public Prevew don't you understand? It ain't done yet...as in -IT AIN'T DONE YET-...get it? You the potential USER gets to add their piece towards the development of what YOU want...and, assuming you've ever actually posted on the Lightroom Beta Forums, your voice will be heard (and maybe something you want actually written in the app).

There's a whole lot of deciding about Lightroom before the app is finished...I suggest you actually get involved (assuming you want a voice) and help design something you want. Standing on the sidelines yelping ain't gonna help Lightroom although I suppose it may make you feel better :~)

Save your "what is Lightroom" comments for when Lightroom "is" cause it still isn't (done that is).
« Last Edit: August 31, 2006, 05:43:10 PM by Schewe » Logged
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2006, 06:04:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

You should have stayed an extra week in Antarctica, because you seriously need to CHILL OUT MAN.

I never said I thought LR was a finished product.  The items I point out are things many photographers have been clamoring for, and I geniuinely hope that the next Beta of LR improves in those areas (I would be surprised it it doesn't).

If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside I'll just copy and paste my post from LL forum into the Adobe Lightroom forum.  There, all better, see?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2006, 07:06:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, if you hope to have ANY impact on the dev of Lightroom, the LR Beta Forums -IS- where you should be posting...otherwise, it's really just irrelevant chit chat.

Oh, and I am chilled. . .quite nicely, thank you. And, I suggest -YOU- wait for Beta 4. Some pretty nice stuff showing up courtesy of pixmantec.

:~)

Just understand that the Mac beta 3 was basically "done" in the end of April so that Win dev could catch up...I suspect Beta 4 will change your prespective a bit...they've done a lot since April on features and functionality.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2006, 07:21:26 PM »
ReplyReply

LR is far from perfect but I'm digging it more and more as I use it. It is a work in progress no question and I suspect many will feel differently about it once the beta has ended and it's "up to speed". Anyone who's ever done serious beta testing will know that speed isn't something you see until the product is almost done. And I agree with Jeff that beta 4 will change your perspective. Be patient. You didn't pay for the product and it's evolving. I'm not suggesting it's even close to perfect but as each beta becomes available, I personally find I prefer LR to the Bridge/ACR combo. But no matter what, version 1 is just that, a 1.0 product and not everyone will dig it.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 538



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2006, 07:48:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, I wish Beta 4 would be out before I leave for safari in Africa, as I could take advantage of speed improvements with the thumbnail/preview generation process. I am really liking what I am seeing from a product direction point of view, and I guess I feel lucky that it fits into a workflow that works for me. I consider myself lucky that we are enjoying a public beta process where we can float our ideas, wants and desires to the development team at Adobe. This is a good thing.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1254


« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2006, 07:56:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I have used both Lightroom and Photoshop/Bridge. My impression is that there's no "line up" here -- that is, they're different products for different purposes. A straight photographer might go with Lightroom, while a photo-illustrator might find that he needs Photoshop/Bridge. Lightroom is not at the same advanced stage of development as Photoshop, but it could be brought to that stage; just because the RAW converter needs work doesn't mean that the work won't be done.

I do, though, feel like Adobe is not really treating Lightroom like a front-line product. It's almost like Adobe saw Aperture coming, thought, "Uh-oh, somebody's trying to edge in on the franchise," and put together Lightroom as an answer -- then, when Aperture didn't turn out to be that big of a threat, some of the initial enthusiasm seemed to go out of Lightroom development.

I think Lightroom RAW could get to a very high stage of development, but it may never get as good as converters made for specific cameras. My problem is, I use several different cameras and I would like to have one workflow; I don't want to struggle through Nikon software one day and Leica software the next, and then something different for whatever point 'n shoot I'm using, and something different again for film scans. I'm willing to accept some (small) conversion compromises to do get the unified work flow.

JC
Logged
Julian Love
Guest
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2006, 12:31:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I tend to agree that it is not really one thing or the other. I'm mainly a stock shooter, so typically have to process a few hundred images at a time and have robust cataloging and keywoding. Currently, LR Beta 3 doesn't really offer me anything I can't already do at least as well in RSP or iView. The printing functionality does look nice, but I don't print very often.

FWIW: I use RSP for initial ranking and raw conversion, and iView for final ranking, cataloging, keywording and web page generation. I can call PS from within iView for dust removal or more rarely some advanced editing.

Julian
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2006, 12:58:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I do, though, feel like Adobe is not really treating Lightroom like a front-line product. It's almost like Adobe saw Aperture coming, thought, "Uh-oh, somebody's trying to edge in on the franchise," and put together Lightroom as an answer -- then, when Aperture didn't turn out to be that big of a threat, some of the initial enthusiasm seemed to go out of Lightroom development.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Considering how complex software development is (particularly with an app of this size) and how long it takes, there's no chance in Hell that could be the case. If you read the [a href=\"http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/]Shadowland/Lightroom Development Story[/url], you can see that Adobe had been working on LR far longer than they even knew about Apples efforts.

I would agree though that the decision to release the public "Beta" of LR was inspired by the release of Aperture.

And, I really don't see any way you could come to the conclusion that they are not enthused about making Aperture. It does not make a lick of sense considering their involvement in the photo community, blogs, workshops, etc. When was the last time they did all that for Photoshop?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2006, 02:35:57 PM by 61Dynamic » Logged
James DeMoss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2006, 06:06:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Lightrooom and any software is always going to be a compromise. Different user, different equipment, different time schedule all have unique demands on a product that tries to satisfy the masses. I have seen complaints about every piece of software ever written and I realize that Lightroom will have to “grow up” and evolve as time and technology dictate. I hope that most that participate in the beta process will came to take Lightrrom for what it is now and get excited about it’s potential. I for one, think Adobe is going to get this one right, big time

__

James
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 687


WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2006, 06:23:47 AM »
ReplyReply

For a beta, I think that the WinXP version is pretty darn good and exciting.

For all of the negative commenters here, I suggest that they have not tried the Print module of LR. It is truely awesome especially when compared to PS CS2.

As a serious amateur and casual user of PS, I think that LR has the potential to replace PS as my primary imaging tool. If Adobe adds sensor "dust busting" capabilities to LR and some sort of cloning tool and Photokit-type sharpening tools, I would probably not have to use PS at all except for heavy creative pixel pushing.

For photographers who want to "focus" on taking photos and not sitting at their computers, LR is a very compelling product.

My 2 cents.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
« Last Edit: September 02, 2006, 06:24:18 AM by budjames » Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2006, 07:31:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Schewe says..
Quote
Some pretty nice stuff showing up courtesy of pixmantec.

Cool!

Any update on getting those nice fellas over at Pixel Genius onto the band wagon as well and giving us PhotoKit Sharpen for LR?

I've paid for the Adobe plug-in but its such a good sharpening tool I would pay for it again in LR, just to avoid the round trip through PS when processing files.
Logged

macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2006, 10:49:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Noise ninja too!
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2006, 09:42:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've been using/testing LR for Mac since beta 1 came out, and I get the overwhelming feeling that LR is niether a new way to work with RAW files nor a new way to organize them.  It seems like LR could go in either of two directions; 1) a a standalone dam/cataloguing tool, or 2) as a versatile RAW file processor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75049\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff has been very clear a few weeks ago on this very forum that LR would not support other RAW converters besides the one supplied (whether it is ACR based, RSP based or a mix).

LR is therefore definitely not a DAM, it is a RAW converter with advanced file mgt ability. The whole concept appears to be based on the idea that people will accept to work mostly with the LR RAW converter to benefit from the file Mgt abilities of the application.

If you don't mind managing your files for a RAW converter, and then managing them some other way for your other RAW converters, it is probably a good solution. I personnally prefer to manage all my files in one application, and then decide what RAW converter I want to use to convert any of these files, but that is just me I guess.

The real question is "why did Adobe decide not to let LR users select what RAW converter they want to use for files managed by LR"... the answer appears to be part of the question, isn't it? :-)

The Jeff team once called Nikon "arrogant" for claiming that they could provide with Nikon Capture an application that would satisfy most photographer's needs without using Photoshop... and now Adobe is trying to do the same thing themselves...  Which makes me feel like Nikon was right.

So what is happening here appears crystal clear to me, instead of letting Nikon, RSP, silkpix... threaten PS, Adobe decided to come up with its own application to fill that niche. The folks at Adove being very talented, I believe that they will probably come up with something brilliant, and the first version of LR is indeed remarkable, except that it is still an application trying to keep you captive, instead of one opening up the playing field.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2006, 12:15:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The real question is "why did Adobe decide not to let LR users select what RAW converter they want to use for files managed by LR"... the answer appears to be part of the question, isn't it? :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75370\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh, I don't know...because it is the raw processor used by some 67% of the respondents of the OpenRaw survey and the most widely used processor on a regular basis (48%)? What, you want Adobe to quite using it's own Camera Raw pipline in an app they are designing? Actually pretty silly idea considering Camera Raw is the raw processing pipline of Lightroom and everything is built around Camera Raw...why would Adobe spend resources creating an interchangable pipline when they are no standards for such a pipline?

Quote
So what is happening here appears crystal clear to me, instead of letting Nikon, RSP, silkpix... threaten PS, Adobe decided to come up with its own application to fill that niche.

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it...particularly if you are predisposed to dislike Adobe as you seem to be. Another way of looking at it that Adobe is throwing its hat in the ring of metadata based image editors that have suddenly appeared (after years of hard work) and are engineering an application that can process not only raw files but tiffs, psds and jpgs as well. All based upon Camera Raw...and now with RSP engineering and features (to be seen in Beta 4).
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2006, 02:23:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Of course it is.  You don't buy one of these and then throw out your tool box...

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad