Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: List of flaws and needed revisions to version 1.0  (Read 17201 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5421


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 03, 2007, 03:27:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can you comment on the SDK timeframe?  Thanks...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No...
Logged
flash
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #41 on: May 04, 2007, 04:24:29 AM »
ReplyReply

1. In develop module using windows, using the mouse wheel to adjust settings is way too aggressive in almost all field. Adjustments should be smal and even (eg: white balance in 100 kelvin or exposure in 1/10 stops)

2. Fix the bugs then add features/make changes. Especially the out of memory error.

Gordon
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 09, 2007, 06:27:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No...
That's a shame.

It's one of the things I'm itching in my fingers for, because I had some ideas about plugins that I might want to make myself.

Fortunately(?), though, I haven't had anywhere near the time needed for that, so the delay hasn't really hurt me.
Logged

Jan
jdyke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123



WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2007, 07:52:48 AM »
ReplyReply

My 'suspicions' would be that we will see the first update on V1.0 in the next few months (pleassse....Mr Adobe   ).    This may be to add new Camera capability rather than any major improvements but I am hopeful we may see one or two updates and fixes.

Shame the SDK has been delayed as Jeff Schewe has mentioned I would love to see a Photokit Sharpener plugin (Jeff Schewe & co at PixelGenius) as the Sharpening is very lame indeed.  I am sure Jeff would too    


Also a Noise Reduction plugin would be a handy.  

Either that or Adobe make some significant headway in both areas as these really are the only thing which means a round trip to Photoshop for me (ok - High Pass/local Contrast as well but I can live without this bit).

Fingers Crossed......  

Jon
Logged
mattSee
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #44 on: May 13, 2007, 02:41:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This thread is intended to be a compilation of the flaws in Lightroom.  What needs to be fixed in the next version?  What is not working properly?  What causes crashes?  What features should be added?  What did Adobe fail to include that is in equivalent software?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I like Lightroom and will continue using it.

Things I hope are "fixed".

1.  Collections are very effective way to combine directories that have similar
     images.  Collections can overlap and can be equivalent to a project.  
     So a workflow based on collections should be fully supported by LR.
     i.e. All functionality including for example stacking (for similar images)
     available when working on collections.   So stacks need to span directories.  

2.  Computer slows down too much when importing.  Importing needs to run as
     a background job or at a lower priority.

3.  Autoimporting is pretty strange.  I would like to instead define a directory(s)
     with the option to include subdirectories that lightrooom monitors for any new
     files.  Then I could use the BreezeBrowserDownloader to simply add files
     directly to the monitored directory.  Seems to be a double move otherwise.

4.  As I understand not all of the information in the RAW files is being used
     since some of it is proprietary.  Sometimes DPP seems to create better
     looking images even though there is not as much control.  But I could
     be wrong here.  Perhaps Adobe could do a deal with Canon?

5.  JPEG output would be very desirable.
 
6.  As a DAM tool it would be good if LR handled more file types.

7.  Must be made faster, esp faster previews.

8.  CA correction does not work well for me.  Other plugin software in PS is
     much much more effective.

9.  Sharpening and Noise control needs to be extensible using plugins.

10. In grid mode I would like to see ISO, Speed, F-stop.

11. The clone/heal tool is a little jumpy and difficult to use.

12. More global edit tools in LR would be great.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5421


WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 13, 2007, 02:57:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
4.  As I understand not all of the information in the RAW files is being used
     since some of it is proprietary.  Sometimes DPP seems to create better
     looking images even though there is not as much control.  But I could
     be wrong here.  Perhaps Adobe could do a deal with Canon?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ain't gonna happen in your lifetime unless photographers demand that Canon and Nikon stop using undocumented and proprietary file formats...this is simply not something Adobe can do anything about...Adobe HAS developed a standard raw file format that some cameras use...but Canon and Nikon claim (incorretly) that THIER formats are "better" for their cameras...horsecrap...
Logged
CaptnWil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #46 on: May 14, 2007, 02:13:00 PM »
ReplyReply

The backup on import from a CF Card needs to be fixed so that it does a real backup.

Here is how it works now:

1.It creates a sub-folder under the one you specify.  Its name includes the date imported.

2.  It copies the files from the CF card with their CF card names to the created sub-folder.

3.  You have lost any connection with the files you renamed and the backed up files.

4.  In case of a hard disk failure, the only way to use these files is to import them again.  Then you have lost all the editing you have done in the pase.

5.  It is useless.

LR needs to back up files on import to the exact folders selected with the exact file names as defined in the import dialog.  How else could it be useful?

Wil
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8625



WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 14, 2007, 02:59:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
5.  It is useless.

Wil
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117514\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its not useless, its not what you want. It is useful. Many of us used it on the recent Amazon tour with Michael (Michael included).

You're on location. You have a laptop and you've shot 8 gigs of images. You want to back up the images from the card to two locations. That's it. We used two external drives for safety and to free up space on the laptops.

Once I import all the files into LR and build useful stuff in the database, that's easy enough to backup or clone. But for ingestion of images, the feature does just what I want it to do.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
CaptnWil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #48 on: May 14, 2007, 04:30:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Well we disagree.  I want the backup to have the same file name as the import.  Why would I care about the file name on the CF card?  Once the file is on more than one hard disk, I don't care about the original file name.  Why do you care about it?

DownloaderPro allows me to download CF cards to any folder and TWO backup locations with the same file names.  That gives me the raw files in three locations --three different hard disks.  They all can be used with the same database I make edits with with the initial download if the original download gets corrupt or I lose the hard disk.  With different file names, I lose all the editing I have done if I must go back to the CF card file names.

If I'm missing something, please tell me.

Wil

Quote
Its not useless, its not what you want. It is useful. Many of us used it on the recent Amazon tour with Michael (Michael included).

You're on location. You have a laptop and you've shot 8 gigs of images. You want to back up the images from the card to two locations. That's it. We used two external drives for safety and to free up space on the laptops.

Once I import all the files into LR and build useful stuff in the database, that's easy enough to backup or clone. But for ingestion of images, the feature does just what I want it to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5421


WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 14, 2007, 05:37:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If I'm missing something, please tell me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, you sure are pretty fixated on renaming on import-which if shooting raw (unless you convert to DNG) could arguably be considered a bad thing...see, a lot of people seem to be hooked on the "old style" of file organization...until you get the poijnt where you have an edit and final images, I greatly prefer NOT to rename on import, only on export...
Logged
CaptnWil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #50 on: May 14, 2007, 06:21:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Please educate me as to how you use a backup in LP that has diffenent file names from the imported file names when you lose a disk, but have preserved the database because you backed it up with your edits.

I am always open to education, but I can't see the logic in the current process.

Wil

Quote
Well, you sure are pretty fixated on renaming on import-which if shooting raw (unless you convert to DNG) could arguably be considered a bad thing...see, a lot of people seem to be hooked on the "old style" of file organization...until you get the poijnt where you have an edit and final images, I greatly prefer NOT to rename on import, only on export...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5421


WWW
« Reply #51 on: May 14, 2007, 10:32:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please educate me as to how you use a backup in LP that has diffenent file names from the imported file names when you lose a disk, but have preserved the database because you backed it up with your edits.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I simply don't rename imported files...so the images imported from a card and backed up to a secondary location have the same file names. Since I'm doing my image organization inside of Lightroom, I simply don't care what the file names are-just that they are not duplicated nor at risk of being overwritten. I use Collections and extensive use of metadata for file organization...not image renaming.

If I want to rename for a client, I rename when exporting the image file.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 11:34:55 PM by Schewe » Logged
zlatko-b
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 14, 2007, 10:59:17 PM »
ReplyReply

The one feature I would really, really like to see added is keyboard shortcuts for all of the quick develop adjustments:  exposure, recovery, fill, blacks, brightness, contrast, vibrance, auto tone and reset. For example, press ctrl and + to increase exposure.  It's much easier to have a few memorized keyboard shortcuts than to mouse over to little arrows or sliders on the screen.  I need to adjust many thousands of images each year and I would much rather do it with keyboard shortcuts than with mouse movements.  

My workaround for this has been the XKeys, which I've programmed so that single keystrokes on its keyboard execute certain mouse movements and clicks in Lightroom's Library module.  Programming the XKeys for Lightroom and Photoshop was a bitch.  If Lightroom only had these keyboard shortcuts I could breeze through nearly all of the adjustments I need to make even without the XKeys.  I could also reduce two-key combinations on the regular keyboard to single keystrokes on the XKeys, or possibly to single keystrokes on the regular keyboard's function keys.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 11:09:53 PM by zlatko-b » Logged

CaptnWil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #53 on: May 15, 2007, 08:07:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, I simply don't rename imported files...so the images imported from a card and backed up to a secondary location have the same file names. Since I'm doing my image organization inside of Lightroom, I simply don't care what the file names are-just that they are not duplicated nor at risk of being overwritten. I use Collections and extensive use of metadata for file organization...not image renaming.

With that work flow, LR works almost as expected and serves your purpose, but it still creates sub-directories that you didn't command.  I suspect that you will have a larger problem than expected if, or when, you need the backups.  I suspect you will have to manually find at least one image for each day you imported any files --that could be hundreds of days.

But yours isn't the only workflow, and LR purports to allow for a workflow that renames files on import.  This is where I argue that the backup on import is flawed and dangerous.

At least, LR should warn that the imported files and backup files will have different names and a different folder structure.  LR really should be changed to allow the user to backup anyway he desires with any file names he desires.  Can you think of any other application that changes file names without warning the user?

It really is great to have such a forum where we can debate in a meaningful way.

Wil
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #54 on: May 15, 2007, 05:39:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can you think of any other application that changes file names without warning the user?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117668\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Probably something from Microsoft.  
Logged
CaptnWil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #55 on: May 15, 2007, 06:39:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Probably something from Microsoft. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I guess you had to ssy that, but now you must include LightRoom.

Wil
Logged
marty m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335


WWW
« Reply #56 on: July 06, 2007, 01:36:51 AM »
ReplyReply

My impression is that version 1.1 addressed only a few of the items listed in this thread, so we should try to keep this active.  Hopefully Schewe and others are passing along the suggestions.  One can only hope.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5421


WWW
« Reply #57 on: July 06, 2007, 02:27:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My impression is that version 1.1 addressed only a few of the items listed in this thread[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126791\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Then I would suggest re-reading the thread...lots of stuff already mentioned is already in 1.1. Some stuff like Soft Proofing and Local Color/Tone corrections are BIG things that likely won't eppear in a dot release...and yes, the Lightroom engineers have plenty of things they want to do...
Logged
Ed in Tucson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #58 on: September 27, 2007, 09:16:36 PM »
ReplyReply

After making the slide show, I assigned it an url; the automation goes away. A person has to scroll through the show instead of selected slide duration.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad