Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why I won't be using Lightroom  (Read 10428 times)
orangekay
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2007, 09:09:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Both of these tools are in ACR4 which is bundled with CS3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Does ACR4 work with TIFFs and JPEGs?
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2007, 09:40:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Haven't tried - I don't use JPEGS - only raw files.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
orangekay
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2007, 10:37:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Haven't tried - I don't use JPEGS - only raw files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So explain to me how anything you've said is relevant to my post again because I'm really missing something here.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2007, 07:56:12 AM »
ReplyReply

You said whether working with raw or not  - all I meant is that with raw ACR4 and Lightroom have those same adjustments. OK? If you're mainly doing JPEGs Lightroom is most likely the best way to go.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6461


« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2007, 10:21:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Does ACR4 work with TIFFs and JPEGs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Orangekay,
ACR stands for Adobe Camera Raw! So it's not for JPEG or TIFF files.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 10:23:25 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
orangekay
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2007, 05:08:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Orangekay,
ACR stands for Adobe Camera Raw! So it's not for JPEG or TIFF files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It was a rhetorical question. What I really wanted to know was why anyone felt it was necessary to provide that tidbit of non-wisdom when my entire point was that Lightroom allows me to use a common set of tools on all file types. I believe the answer is that reading is very difficult for a lot of people and everybody's in a big hurry to sound like a genius on the internet.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2007, 06:41:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It was a rhetorical question. What I really wanted to know was why anyone felt it was necessary to provide that tidbit of non-wisdom when my entire point was that Lightroom allows me to use a common set of tools on all file types. I believe the answer is that reading is very difficult for a lot of people and everybody's in a big hurry to sound like a genius on the internet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

People can innocently misinterpret what a poster was trying to get at. You don't have a clue who you are talking to and what they know or don't know about this business, so please keep your invective and your insults to yourself. It helps no-one and is not considered tolerable behaviour on this platform, which has and maintains standards of decorum.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Ubtree
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #27 on: February 25, 2007, 04:31:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Does ACR4 work with TIFFs and JPEGs?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote
It was a rhetorical question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Whether or not the question was rhetorical, the actual answer seems to be [a href=\"http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs3/CS3.htm]yes, it does.[/url]

Thank you for asking the question, Henry.  I came across this thread because I had similar views to yours, and was trying to assess how valid they were.

Lightroom is an excellent product, and is sorely needed.  But I do not see Adobe discontinuing Photoshop any time soon, and as long as Photoshop continues to exist I do not see Adobe ever providing all the functionality of Photoshop in another package for which they charge only a third the price.  

As a Canon user, I see Photoshop as Adobe's 1Ds MkII, whilst Lightroom is their 30D  -  a superb piece of kit that more than meets the needs of most users.  But niche users will still need niche products.  And I think that Henry's analysis is probably broadly right.
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6461


« Reply #28 on: February 25, 2007, 05:21:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...the actual answer seems to be yes, it does....
So I stand corrected.

 
Logged

Francois
judyn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2007, 11:36:45 AM »
ReplyReply

To me the main feature of Lightroom is as a catalog.  I wouldn't care if it had adjustments and I probably won't use their presentation tools (slide show, web).  What I badly need is a catalog.  

I bought Elements 5 about a month ago after evaluating both Lightroom Beta and Elements but then after entering a few thousand images into Elements, I decided I really wanted Lightroom because of the increased capabilities with respect to metadata.  Also I felt since Lightroom is a product targeted more at professionals, it will be able to handle the number of images I will eventually put into it.  Although it's not perfect now, this is version 1 and I trust it will get better.  

I have 50 years of photos of my own plus my husband's.  We have family photos, travel photos, miscellaneous photos. I have more than 10 years pictures taken with digital cameras, but we have a zillion slides to scan and are working on that now.  Without a catalog we would still not be able to find anything.
Logged
craigfraser
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2007, 01:37:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Whether or not the question was rhetorical, the actual answer seems to be yes, it does.

Thank you for asking the question, Henry.  I came across this thread because I had similar views to yours, and was trying to assess how valid they were.

Lightroom is an excellent product, and is sorely needed.  But I do not see Adobe discontinuing Photoshop any time soon, and as long as Photoshop continues to exist I do not see Adobe ever providing all the functionality of Photoshop in another package for which they charge only a third the price. 

As a Canon user, I see Photoshop as Adobe's 1Ds MkII, whilst Lightroom is their 30D  -  a superb piece of kit that more than meets the needs of most users.  But niche users will still need niche products.  And I think that Henry's analysis is probably broadly right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102926\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi there, I do see your point regarding lightroom being the 30D in comparison to photoshop being the 1DSmkII, however I use Phase One's Capture One to do all my image processing, it hasn't got the fancy extra's that lightroom holds but in my opinion is the best raw processing software on the market.   Lightroom however, does have the most incredible Web faciltity for proofing images, which looks really slick and the Print functionality is great as well.  The one thing that really bothers me about all the raw camera software packages is that apart from capture one, the way it organises shoots is really slack.  Capture one uses a system called sessions which keeps everything together in captures, processed and holds its own trash bin.  It also shoots tethered without having to use eos capture software like that of lightroom.
Does anyone agree?

Capture One Fan
Logged
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 366


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2007, 06:14:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Whether or not the question was rhetorical, the actual answer seems to be yes, it does.

Thank you for asking the question, Henry.  I came across this thread because I had similar views to yours, and was trying to assess how valid they were.

Lightroom is an excellent product, and is sorely needed.  But I do not see Adobe discontinuing Photoshop any time soon, and as long as Photoshop continues to exist I do not see Adobe ever providing all the functionality of Photoshop in another package for which they charge only a third the price. 

As a Canon user, I see Photoshop as Adobe's 1Ds MkII, whilst Lightroom is their 30D  -  a superb piece of kit that more than meets the needs of most users.  But niche users will still need niche products.  And I think that Henry's analysis is probably broadly right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102926\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't see LR as replacing Photoshop.  It doesn't.  What LR can replace is Bridge + ACR.  It neatly wraps up those two applications, and adds some editing functionality superior to what ACR offers.  And it allows you, for photos that you do not need to round trip to Photoshop, to save tons of disk space, given that going from a compressed RAW format to a PSD format with layers balloons up file size from say 9 MB (1D mark II file) to 48+ MB.  

I see LR really as a replacement for Bridge + ACR, not for Photoshop.
Logged

culturalvisions
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2007, 06:59:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Why aren't people talking about this file size problem? For me it is a real deal breaker. Why would any photographer with a wide format printer be interested in Lightroom? I installed it before I found out it wouldn't process my larger file sizes. Does anybody know if Aperture can handle images bigger that 27inches sq

Quote
I won't be using it because it doesn't support files larger than 10,000 pixels in one dimension. This makes it a poor choice for DAM. Even if you don't scan film, many here stitch panoramas that have long dimensions greater than this. How Adobe lets this limit exist in the final is beyond me. I guess I will stick to iViewMediaPro and Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Jon Meddings
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 136


« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2007, 09:32:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why aren't people talking about this file size problem? For me it is a real deal breaker. Why would any photographer with a wide format printer be interested in Lightroom? I installed it before I found out it wouldn't process my larger file sizes. Does anybody know if Aperture can handle images bigger that 27inches sq
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I couldn't agree more. I now use LR as a DAM for my RAW files (only) and as a RAW decoder. However, as soon as I export an image for some PS work I'm in trouble. In PS I do my local touch up but more importantly sharpen in Photokit. Here I always work on a 360 dpi upressed image at my printing size which gives me great output on an Epson 7800. When I save the image in PS I'm in trouble. I can no longer use LR for printing and now have to have a second collection of images, not in the DAM, and print using Qimage.

This limit on size for LR really makes my workflow clunky and removes much of what I perceived as an advantage for LR. Does anyone know if this is being addressed in the update? I haven't seen it really discussed either.
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921


« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2007, 01:13:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I am a late convert from slide film to digital (and still continue shooting slides, by the way).

For me Lightroom is wonderful. I have very little experience in PhotoShop, and it saves me dealing with that labyrinth of menus and functions, which are - as I heard - due to a long history not always very logically placed.

Lightroom is very intuitive and lets you concentrate on photography.

It is great to select the images you want and to discard the rest.

It also displays images in a much higher quality than other software. (Silkypix' photo browser, which comes with the Pentax cameras, and the photo laboratory, may produce results, but for a photographer these are just awful pieces of software, unintuitive, poor display quality of the images).

In Lightroom, where I can quickly make and compare versions (called "snapshots"), for example, I can focus on the essential and fascinating.

After all, this is version 1 (and an upgrade, free for early adopters, as I read on this forum, is on the way) is truly workable. Those unhappy with LR: haven't you ever worked with really awful software? endless sub menus. Unintuitive. Deflecting your creativity by needing too much attention.

I can understand the frustration about the size limitations, and I hope this will be corrected in future upgrades.

Well, I also wish the keyword functions to be a bit more accessible.

But, to return what pleases me: the design of the software. The working space a software creates on your screen is like a face you look into. It is a very elegant design, and I like the face - it is like an architecturally well built and designed house you like to walk into.

It is, in its intuitiveness, a great prolongation of the joy of photography, making the lightroom work (opposite to the traditional darkroom work) a joy,  not a chore.

And I guess this is the main point.

Speed, picture size limitations, a better working library: this all will come, but the basic structure is sound and good.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 01:18:22 AM by The View » Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 27, 2007, 09:08:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not a professional photographer, but I find Lightroom a most welcome addition to the Adobe workflow. The fact that Lightroom is designed to work with CS3 suggests that CS3 can't do everything Lightroom can, and vice versa. It remains to be seen what these differences will actually be until CS3 is finally released. Until then, only you and your experience with Lightroom will determine its value.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually Bridge CS3 and LR seem to be mutually incompatible. LR cannot see RAW + JPEG pairs, whereas  Bridge not only can, but can rename them simultaneously and won't let you separate them. So to import them into them into LR after naming in Bridge, you have to use a 3rd programme to move them into separate folders. I bought LR a while back, but due to moronic problems like this example, it never gets used. Hopefully 1.1 will address LR's serious flaws.
LR cannot do automatic functions in PS like Bridge can either, so not sure why you think LR integrates well if at all with CS3. There seems to be no overlap with other Adobe Products at all. It's not even possible to buy it with any CS3 packages.
Oh and modifications done in Brigde or LR are not exactly seemlessly recognized by the other. Sometimes not at all.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 09:27:52 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad