Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Decision time for Adobe  (Read 15434 times)
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 878


« on: November 22, 2007, 06:15:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Adobe are at a crossroads with LR - they have to decide whether to develop the product to take over COMPLETELY from Photoshop as far as photographers are concerned, and leave PS for graphic designers  and rest of the industry. The alternatisve is to continue developing the product in small increments while leaving it in a tantalising state where photographers will still have to dip into PS for final retouching, sharpening, etc.

My  humble opinion: Adobe should go flat out with Lightroom for photographers, taking the best appropriate tools from Photoshop and incorporating them into LR. If they do that and devote the required resources to producing a solid, reliable photographic tool worthy of the name Adobe, they will have a massive success on their hands. I don't know of any photographer using Lightroom regularly who isn't well disposed to it and who is waiting impatitently for the day when the Lightroom Holy Grail will appear.
Logged

canlogic
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2007, 07:11:26 AM »
ReplyReply

It will never take over completely. LR is a metadata editor in that it never touches the original pixels and so has some limitations on what it can do. Version 2 which hopefully will come soon will include proper capture and output sharpening (aka PK sharpener) and hopefully softproofing. If they can also get noise reduction a bit better then 95% of my trips to CS3 will be gone.
Logged

1dmkIII, some lenses, Epson 7880, iMac, Leica M8, other stuff
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 878


« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2007, 08:03:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Are we saying then that Lightroom will NEVER be a standalone photographer's programme - that, in fact, it's an impossible dream because of LR's basic structure?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 08:04:36 AM by seamus finn » Logged

method
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2007, 08:30:21 AM »
ReplyReply

How do you know they are not?

With v1 you have got a great product, but naturally they had to ship, so decisions were made that restricted some of the features so as to get to market.

A potential v2 now has the opportunity to go further.

BTW: shouldn't you mention this is cross-posted to other forums???

--
Richard Earney
http://inside-lightroom.com
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2007, 08:34:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think Adobe are at a crossroads with LR - they have to decide whether to develop the product to take over COMPLETELY from Photoshop as far as photographers are concerned, and leave PS for graphic designers  and rest of the industry.

I don't know what makes you say this considering LR and PS are completely different tools. So Adobe should make InDesign different because of Illustrator? I should worry about using a Phillips screwdriver instead of a hex wrench? They are totally different tools. LR is a metadata editor, Photoshop is a pixel editor. Big, big difference. Well we see more tools in LR that allow users to do work they could have done in Photoshop, like selective renderings (using metadata)? Yup. Does that mean you'll never use Photoshop to do precise clone work, blend modes, layer work, type work? Nope.

There's a type tool in InDesign, Illustrator, GoLive and Photoshop. Should we consider them even remotely similar due to a few tools?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2007, 08:35:26 AM »
ReplyReply

If Adobe were to incorporate tools from Photoshop into Lightroom in an attempt to make it a "standalone solution for photographers", where would they draw the line?  Who would decide what made the cut?  I think it'd be quite difficult for Adobe to go this route, given the seemingly infinite number of ways in which photographers use Photoshop.

On a similar note, didn't John Nack recently suggest the need for a streamlined UI for Photoshop?  I think this is a great idea.

Lightroom doesn't need to be added to as much as Photoshop needs to be slimmed down.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 08:35:56 AM by tgphoto » Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 878


« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2007, 11:08:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Why is everybody so defensisve?  Personally, I think Lightroom is amazing, but I'm astonished that a simple, honest question should get some people's underwear in a twist. And by the way, I didn't know there was a law about posting a question on another forum (not other forums, only one). As far as I'm concerned, I'll post any question I feel like posting ANYWHERE so long as it doesn't break any civic law. So you can take your condescension and try it on somebody more easily intimidated by your snotty, know-it-all attitudes.
 
Preaching me a childish sermon about the difference between a wrench and screwdriver is just so much drivel. Why do you assume I don't know the difference between Lightroom and Photoshop. Or what makes them tick?  I use both of them constantly - CS3 and LR v.1.3. I've been using LR since day one. I think its potential is incredible. I've read and studied everything I can find on it. I've praised to colleages and wherever I get the opportunity So spare me the lectures and assume I know something - though obviously not as much as you. Personally, I would work in Lightroom exclusively if I could but the minute I have to leave it to do something fundamental in PS, I feel that the whole reason d'etre for LR has somehow been diminished. My dream (and I'm sure many others share it) is to be able to use LR from start to finish. I'm not talking about incorporating the power of Photoshop into Lightroom - just some basic tools which every digital photographer needs readily to hand and which will see the proscess through from beginning to end without the invervention of another application. Let it be plug-ins or whatever, but keep the workflow within Lightroom. Is that too difficult a concept for any of you to handle?

My question remains: do you think it is possible that Lightroom will develop into an application which will be able to handle a professional photographer's needs from start to finish without having to leave it? Forget about Photoshop and the differences between the two and just answer a straight question. Is it possible?  You're supposed to be experts who know everything, so act like experts with a bit of courtesy and common manners and stop being fecking smart asses.

Yours fondly,
Seamus Finn, newspaper editor of forty years standing.
Logged

David White
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2007, 11:30:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You're supposed to be experts who know everything, so act like experts with a bit of courtesy and common manners and stop being fecking smart asses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Possible, yes.  Probable, no.  I think that Andrew stated it very clearly.
Logged

David White
HickersonJasonC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2007, 11:45:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It will never take over completely. LR is a metadata editor in that it never touches the original pixels and so has some limitations on what it can do. Version 2 which hopefully will come soon will include proper capture and output sharpening (aka PK sharpener) and hopefully softproofing. If they can also get noise reduction a bit better then 95% of my trips to CS3 will be gone.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So because LR is  metadata editor, are you saying it would not be possible to add layers adjustments? LR would be almost everything I need were it able to handle dodging and burning similar to the PS 50% grey overlay method (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2478).

In the end, I don't think I would ever get rid of PS. But I would greatly appreciate not have to do the import, export, import, export routine because LR and PS are good at different things.
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2007, 11:54:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote:

"My question remains: do you think it is possible that Lightroom will develop into an application which will be able to handle a professional photographer's needs from start to finish without having to leave it? Forget about Photoshop and the differences between the two and just answer a straight question. Is it possible? You're supposed to be experts who know everything, so act like experts with a bit of courtesy and common manners and stop being fecking smart asses.

Yours fondly,
Seamus Finn, newspaper editor of forty years standing."


Well, here's my 2 cents worth..

First, what defines the art of the possible?  Of course it's possible, there are no laws of physics that would be violated.   I'm not being a "fecking smart ass" just making the observation that that's probably not the right question.

Having said that...

I would expect to see a coming together of functionality under a common user interface.  I think the products will evolve deeper connectivity and configurability as time goes by.  This will end up effectively blurring the distinction between the underlying technical models: pixel vs metadata editing, and let the user configure the interface such that any functionality that's not required is either simply not present, or at least not obtrusive.  Whether that ends up being called "Lightroom" is moot.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2007, 11:54:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My question remains: do you think it is possible that Lightroom will develop into an application which will be able to handle a professional photographer's needs from start to finish without having to leave it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No. Photographer need to edit pixels among other tasks.
Logged

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

Posts: 599


« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2007, 11:54:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Personally I can't see LR taking over from PS, I can see it replacing bridge at some point though.
I suppose it comes down to what you need out of LR, for a lot of photographers just the basic editing, tweeking colours, a bit of cropping, and printing is all they do.
For the more advanced of us, and the serious pro's they need a lot more, although LR has a place in the workflow.  Without a massive increase in LR's tools it's just not going to be an option as a replacement.
Just my 2c worth.  Wayne
Logged
method
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2007, 12:01:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why is everybody so defensisve?  Personally, I think Lightroom is amazing, but I'm astonished that a simple, honest question should get some people's underwear in a twist. And by the way, I didn't know there was a law about posting a question on another forum (not other forums, only one). As far as I'm concerned, I'll post any question I feel like posting ANYWHERE so long as it doesn't break any civic law. So you can take your condescension and try it on somebody more easily intimidated by your snotty, know-it-all attitudes.

Seamus - calm down!

It is fairly standard etiquette to mention in forums and mail lists when you cross-post, that is all.

There was nothing defensive about my explanation, I was simply stating the fact that they had a set of goals for 1 and 1.1 and they were, in the end, time limited.

There will be a new set of goals for 2 and they will take on board all the feedback from the original Labs site, the feedback from the forums and testers. Plus their own ideas.

Naturally those who have more insight into this can't say anything, but you can be pretty sure that there will be features that do some of Photoshop's concepts. I believe Adobe have already mentioned some form of output sharpening.

But the usual cries from users about running Photoshop Plugins (ie: more specific Photoshoppy code) probably won't get anywhere, because it is not that sort of app.

But thinking realistically they aren't going to cannibalize Photoshop sales to Photographers, so it will end up being a compromise.

Quote
You're supposed to be experts who know everything, so act like experts with a bit of courtesy and common manners and stop being fecking smart asses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yeah cheers for that!
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2007, 12:06:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So because LR is  metadata editor, are you saying it would not be possible to add layers adjustments?

I didn't say that. An Adjustment layer is very similar to a metadata instruction.

LR works with raw data primarily, using instructions to build a pixel based file. And, even when you do something like attempt to edit existing rendered images (something that should probably be done from the start in Raw or as a pixel based file in Photoshop), its still using metadata to build NEW pixels from the existing data. Its not a pixel editor. Photoshop is.


Quote
LR would be almost everything I need were it able to handle dodging and burning similar to the PS 50% grey overlay method (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2478).

Then if that's ALL you further need, you may end up seeing these capabilities and just using LR. But that doesn't mean there are other pressing pixel based edits that LR will not handle nor should it, just as a kitchen knife can be used as a screwdriver but that doesn't diminish using the right tool for the right job.

Quote
In the end, I don't think I would ever get rid of PS. But I would greatly appreciate not have to do the import, export, import, export routine because LR and PS are good at different things.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155000\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Got no argument with that. I do about 85% of my work now in LR. With newer functionality, that may raise to 90%. But I don't ever see it being 100% and the closer it would get, the more bloated, slower and less focused it would become as a great tool.

We all know the usefulness and lack of uses a Swiss Army knife has. I have a garage full of tools that are useful and some are somewhat duplicated by the Swiss Army knife. I don't intend to toss away either. At the end of the day, its about using the right tool for the right job. Even if Adobe could clone all or most of the photo centric functionally of Photoshop onto LR (or vise versa), both would suffer. What make LR so great IS its focus and the fact its not a pixel editor.
Logged

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

Posts: 510


« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2007, 12:59:23 PM »
ReplyReply

In my mind the only thing that LR has over PS/Bridge is the targeted adjustment tool. I really miss that, having ditched LR.

That being said, I think that LR is going in the right direction, mostly.  I'm happy to seen the needs of photographers being addressed. Most of my edits are what you would call parametric now a days, although I still prefer good ol' USM to the clarity slider (though I use both).
Logged
Sunesha
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2007, 03:31:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Lightzone applies some area masking tools. If I could do something similar in Lightroom it would be great.

That and softproofing and use of plugins is what would save me money from photoshop upgrades.

Like the libary part mostly about Lightroom. Also how fast you can do rough adjustments. Just spending 20-30 seconds per photo and get a good starting point.

My biggest wishes:
• softproofing
• Ability to use plugins inside Lightroom even it means you have do it destructible
• Some masking abilities in layers, dodge burn, exposure, HSL would be great

Otherwise I am happy with Lightroom. After used in now since the start I cant imagine how to be without it. Even if Camera RAW existed. I like streamlined workflow and section 1 and down work off doing things.

Cheers,
Daniel
Logged

Daniel Sunebring, Malmoe, Sweden
Homepage: Sunesha.se
Non-native english speaker and dyslexian, so excuse my mistake in grammar and spelling."
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 878


« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2007, 03:52:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't worry - I'm as cool as a breeze here.

Now that we all know where we stand, let me see if I've got this right. Lightroom will never be a full, standalone application for working professionals - at least not in the forseeable future, if ever.  

For the professional, Photoshop will always be required to put the finishing touches to any serious work.

That's all I wanted to know, folks. Thanks for your trouble.

Leaving Adobe's self interest aside for the moment, I'm wondering is it technically possible to produce such a Lightroom product?  I stress the world technically.

Chill!!

Incidentally, on another forum, I was reminded of the following Adobe quote: 'New Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® software is the professional photographer's essential toolbox, providing one easy application for managing, adjusting, and presenting large volumes of digital photographs so you can spend less time in front of the computer and more time behind the lens.'

Interesting, huh. As an avid fan of LR, I hate to point out it is far from that at the moment, and according to you guys, will never reach that stage for the professional.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 04:07:07 PM by seamus finn » Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609


« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2007, 05:54:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I am already using LR for 95% of what I do, and nothing else

Now a few areas that could help out a tad;

Lens distortion/correction
Output sharpening
Would not mind something like a burn to dvd slideshow option, but that is pretty unlikely.
Don't really use web, think that needs some work.
Ability to do selections could have a use, aka colour, or brightness etc..


Don't really need much else being honest.

It's a tough one to balance. They need to keep it powerful enough, but not swamp it with stuff.

And as for the person who said you NEED photoshop to do photography, sorry to disappoint you on that one! Christ, one wonders how we ever managed to take photos with film. (still do..love it!)
Logged
tgphoto
Guest
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2007, 05:56:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You're supposed to be experts who know everything, so act like experts with a bit of courtesy and common manners and stop being fecking smart asses.

Ya, you got a real cool head there guy.  Keep up the attitude and I'm sure the more knowledgeable people who frequent this forum will jump right in to help you.
Logged
meyerweb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2007, 08:01:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would expect to see a coming together of functionality under a common user interface.  I think the products will evolve deeper connectivity and configurability as time goes by.  This will end up effectively blurring the distinction between the underlying technical models: pixel vs metadata editing, and let the user configure the interface such that any functionality that's not required is either simply not present, or at least not obtrusive.  Whether that ends up being called "Lightroom" is moot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Except, of course, that Adobe will continue to be able to sell us 2 products, at least one grossly overpriced, instead of one, so that we can get our job done.

And that's the real reason Adobe will never give us all the tools we need in LR. It would impact sales of their cash cow.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad