Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Decision time for Adobe  (Read 14044 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5256


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 22, 2007, 10:17:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think Adobe are at a crossroads with LR
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Since you seem intent on crossposting this in multiple place, I'll write the same answer here (no reason the waste the time typing).

Naw, they've already passed that crossroad a long time ago when they decided, in the fall of 2005, to actually go ahead and do Lightroom. You need to understand from where this application came, what it went through and how it almost didn't get produced in the first place.

Now that Adobe _HAS_ produced it, Adobe is committed, strongly, to continuing Lightroom without too much regard to the potential impact on it's other products. Photoshop really doesn't have too much competition in its core marketplace, graphics(photographers actually make up a minority % of Photoshop users). Adobe, when it did decide to release an app just for photographers knew that it would compete, to a degree, with Photoshop. But better the competition comes from within than without.

In so much as the dividing line between pixel editing and parametric editing exists, that is, essentially the dividing line between Lightroom and Photoshop. Lightroom may well be all the imaging that some photographers need...and Adobe is ok with that. Better you get it from Adobe than another company. And, also note that Photoshop has moved a bit more into new and expanded markets with medical, engineering and science...which actually, is way cool because those markets were under-represented in the past.

Naw, I really don't think you all need to worry over much that Adobe WON'T keep pushing both Lightroom _AND_ Photoshop to do more, better, faster. That sort of work is really in Adobe's DNA...

And you really do need to understand where Lightroom came from, the mind of the #2 engineer on Photoshop, Mark Hamburg...and in terms of the image processing pipeline, that being done for Lightroom by Thomas Knoll, the guy that coauthored Photoshop. Lightroom also benefits from some of the expats from Image Ready as well as new blood.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing...we all will. But I really wouldn't have a lot of angst that Adobe isn't going to do the right thing...

And, if you really want to comment on where Lightroom is, should or could go, you really do need to understand where it came from. Required reading is: [a href=\"http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/]THE SHADOWLAND/LIGHTROOM DEVELOPMENT STORY[/url]
Logged
Pete JF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2007, 09:19:13 AM »
ReplyReply

If Lightroom had a featherable lasso (something simple) with a quick mask feature  for refining selections, it would be the almost perfect RAW processor/manager. It would be great to be able to make selections and edit non-destructively. As mentioned before in the thread, like Lightzone. Lightzone's to slow and I find ther interface to be kind of clunky.  

What would really kick LR over the top would be if you could snag the control panels and "what not" and float them wherever you wanted to...onto another monitor, well away from the image. So hard to work on an image in a serious way with all that crap surrounding it. It's a design nightmare IMO. Even with the lights dimmed, it's painful.
Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2007, 09:36:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Just two sites, Jeff, here and Adobe Lightroom User to User Forum - at least the topic got some attention and like you, I won't waste time retyping but will simply paste my comment here on your own reply there:

First, I think the original question I posed was worth it just to get that very enlightening comment from Jeff Schewe which gives me great hopes for the future of Lightroom. The commitment by Adobe to developing the product as emphasised by Jeff is exactly what I wanted to hear from an authoratitive and respected figure in the industry who has his finger on the pulse, who knows the needs of photographers and who has a deep and intimate insight into the thinking and aspirations of the Lightroom team.

My dream would be a version of Lightroom that doesn't replace Photoshop, or even challenge its core user base, but which would meet the needs of photographers as a stand-alone application and deliver a quality performance. If in the opinion of some demanding professionals, this version of Lightroom fell short, why, then they can fall back on Photoshop and happily get on with their work. Either way, photographers will still be buying Adobe products so what's to lose?

Read Jeff Schewe again: 'Now that Adobe _HAS_ produced it, Adobe is committed, strongly, to continuing Lightroom without too much regard to the potential impact on its other products. Photoshop really doesn't have too much competition in its core marketplace, graphics(photographers actually make up a minority % of Photoshop users). Adobe, when it did decide to release an app just for photographers knew that it would compete, to a degree, with Photoshop. But better the competition comes from within than without.'

You can't ask for fairer than that. The dream is still alive that Lightroom will eventually become a solid, stand-alone application for photographers. It's up to us to keep the pressure on to see that it happens.

By the way, how does Mr. Gray's comment about my cool head add to the sum of human knowledge?

It seems I damaged some delicate egos here. I've spent forty years in a newspaper editor's chair shooting from the hip - it's hard to break the habit. Sorry. I apologise.  I hope you afficiandos aren't going to take it out on me the next time I have a query. For me, it was worth the risk just to get Jeff Schewe's reassuring comments on the future of Lightroom whose release in years to come will be regarded as a defining moment in the development of digital photography.

In the meantime, remember Rule 5 - enjoy!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 10:28:47 AM by seamus finn » Logged

zlatko-b
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2007, 10:46:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom already is a solid, stand-alone application for photographers.  More than just solid, it's positively brilliant.  I use it to quickly bring hundreds or thousands of image into a proof-quality state.  And I use Photoshop for detailed pixel-based editing of select images.  Each tool serves for a different type of work. One tool for every photographic purpose is a nice dream, but specialized tools are even better.
Logged

dennysb
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2007, 08:35:59 PM »
ReplyReply

One maim problem is that the role of a photographer has changed considerably, perhaps the right word would extended considerably

Today's photographers are doing to photography more that the digital equivalent of dodging and burning. In extreme cases, like in fashion photography, the amount of manipulation is significantly - If not sometimes absurd    , and a pixel editor is needed.

When I do work in Fashion Portraits, I sometime can end-up with 8-10 different layers on a photo, each of them only affecting a particular region or characteristic of the photo. Is this photography? Or should it be consider painting? Definitions, Definitions..

So my answer (opinion) to your question is NO. The "professional" photographer's needs are not clear cut. Photo journalist, Fashion, or landscape photographer will find LR to address 70% of what the universal photographer needs. However when you go outside that boundary, Photoshop and other tools will always be needed.

My 2 cents..  


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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Dennys Bisogno

www.dennysphoto.com
travelenfree
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2007, 04:17:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I just like the "uncongested" format and feel of Lightroom.  I try to shoot the scene perfectly , taking my time, as if I was shooting film.  So I am not involved in manipulating an image very much, if at all.  For me, keeping it simple works best.  So, thank you Lightroom for simplicity.
Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2007, 06:42:37 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems to me there are photographers and then there are the high-end super professionals demi-gods who operate in a rarified atmosphere whose excuisite work demends the strictest and most exacting standards which test even Photoshop to the limit. The latter are in a class of their own who will always need the flexibility and power of PS, with each upgrade providing more and more functionality to meet their perfectionist demands.

Lightroom is not for them - although they may use it as a major part of their workflow. However, when it comes to the finished product, Photoshop is where their critical work will always be done - at least as things stand for the forseeable future. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to conclude that Lightroom will never meet their needs without becoming a bloated Photoshop Mark 11.

On the other hand, the vast, vast majority of photographers do not operate in that climate, and need only a fraction of what Photoshop has to offer to produce outstanding work in its own right.  I'm not talkng about casual amateurs who take the odd snap for the family album or  e-mal friends with pictures of their holidays, having done a few rudimentary adjustments and exposure changes to make the picture reasonably pesentable.

In my long experience working with photographers of all kinds, stretching back to the days of the wet darkroom, I have found that very often, the 'keen amateur' (a phrase I detest) or hobbyist is often better equipped, more intellectually engaged, more knowledgeable, more widely read on the subject, more demanding and more passionate about the craft than many who operate under the banner of the run-of-the-mill 'professional' - a title they carry simply because they make a living from taking pictures. Just because they are 'professionals'  doesn't necessarily mean their work is anything special.  Some of the very best work I have ever seen has been created by so-called  'amateurs', and some of the worst  by those who purport to be professionals and who managed to get away with 'murder' under that designation because there is an assumption that they know what they're doing simply because they are 'professional'.

As a by the way, I am constantly amazed at the number of 'professionals' who are still using ancient versions of Photoshop, who haven't a clue about RAW, who run a mile from the very idea of using it or learning how to process it, and who never heard of Lightroom. Very often, their personal equipment is pretty cheapskate too compared to that provided for them by a studio or whoever pays their wages.

The foregoing is by way of putting my question about the future of Lightroom in context. Some contributors here appeared puzzled as to why it should have been asked at all. The world professional kept coming up.  It seems to me that a stand-alone Lightroom should be attainable to meet the needs of the  bulk of photographers who fall outside the category of the elite whose standard of work is so exacting that Lightroom simply couldn't cope.

The majoity of serious photographers who care about their craft, who want to produce the best they are capable of, whether 'professional' in the broader sense, or hobbyist, do not need alll of Photoshop's heavyweight technology which more often than not just gets in the way. In my opinion, they would welcome a leaner, more focussed (pardon the pun)  dedicated photographic application capable of delivering a standard of excellence which would meet all but their most esoteric processing needs.


If Adobe have the corporate will, I think they can deliver exactly that with Lightroom. Already, many photographers are doing 90% of their work there already at this very early stage in the application's development. It is a truly innovative concept with tremendous potential. The challenge is to close the remaining 10% to make Lightroom 'an independent republic'   I'm hoping - nay, praying! - that Adobe  will do exactly that sooner rather than later. If they don't, they will have made a monumental marketing mistake, will have ignored a huge market  and will be guilty of a woeful misreading of what a vast swathe of the photographic community is waiting for.

PS: I was reprimanded here for not mentioning that I had posted this topic on another site as well, so, be aware that you may see this as well on Adobe Lighthroom User to User Forum.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2007, 06:54:16 AM by seamus finn » Logged

sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 571


« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2007, 07:50:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I strongly suspect Adobe are allready delivering what they want, after all we are now buying two products instead of just one, why would they want to cut their sales down?  Wayne
Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #28 on: November 24, 2007, 08:13:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Because whether you buy Photoshop or Lightroom, you're still buying an Adobe product. It's a very common practice in the car industry here in Europe to produce different cars made from the same manufacturer's parts - for example, the modern Skoda car - a very good vehicle - is put together with VW parts. Lift the bonnet (hood) and your looking at a VW car. Why would VW go up against itself? Because overall, it gets a bigger share of the market using its own parts under different brand names.

The same philosophy could be applied to Adobe - with Photoshop they get one share of the market, with Lightroom, the other. Either way, all their customers are inside the same tent pissing out rather than a huge chunk of them outside the tent pissing in, if you'll pardeon the crude anology.
Logged

sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 571


« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2007, 09:35:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Seamus if Skoda stopped selling cars tomorrow, not all their customers would switch to VW, many would buy Ford, GM etc etc.  Adobe doesn't have the competition the car market has, lets face it theres only really Paint shop pro that comes close to the full version of photoshop.
Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2007, 12:14:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Fair enough - probably the car market was a bad example thinking off the top of the head.

Still, I think mostAdobe customers will stick with the brand - otherwise there would have been mass migration to Paint Shop Pro long ago. As you know, photographers are a notoriously conservative and cautious species - we're very slow to move as witnessed by out initial reluctance to embrace the digital revolution. Many had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it!
Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 549


« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2007, 02:15:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Panit shop pro "was" good, that was until Corel started messing about with it. A very good super budget alternative to PS. I have version 9 and 10, left it there..it went downhill rapidly IMHO.

Dont expect to see layers etc etc on LR. I dont think its part of what adobe are going for. I dont care myself, because I hardly ever use them.

I thought LR was a bit like the capture one 4 PR stuff...ala "we want you to spend less time on your pc, more taking shots". Design concept is def geared towards being able to make quick tweaks to an image.

That works for me. I really dont want this overloaded bloated beast of a program, jack of all master of none. If you need uber PP, PS or alternatives are your thing on that one. It's a speed thing to me..fast workflow.

There are only so many things you can slap onto a program like this. I expect to see just tweaks now, until the next release. I have a sneaky feeling, that lens corrections are being held back for LR 2. Aka distortion control/perspective. Shame..
Logged
Sunesha
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 24, 2007, 03:42:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I just thought about it. Since Lightroom was released I been pleased with "point" updates. This software has moved in a great direction in my opinion. One off few software that I really liked.

If next real version Lightroom is even better.

I think Adobe made great work here. Hopefully I get better softproofing, which is my biggest wish. But sure I think there is alot to do. But think I will be stuck with pixel and local edits with photoshop. But it would blow my mind complety if get some kind mask tools in Lightroom.

The spot cleaning tools are great. It is fast does the work. I have photo maybe over 200 spots taken away which only took me 30 minutes to do.

I think if we get more smart tools like distortion correction other things. Or just let 3rd parties to make plugins to be used inside lightroom it would be great.

At present time I must goto photoshop mainly for printing. Also for those occassions I need to do some burning and dodging. To bring down overexposed sky.

But I think the orginal poster is a bit harsch. It is good step, which has made my time editing photos alot easier. If I wasnt such pixelpeeper I wouldnt have to do all this editing in photoshop. But showing this to more casual point and shooters what this software can do. They have really loved it.

The black and white editing with Lightroom has made it easy for me to do black and white.
Logged

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

Posts: 335


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2007, 01:39:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Naw, they've already passed that crossroad a long time ago when they decided, in the fall of 2005, to actually go ahead and do Lightroom. Now that Adobe _HAS_ produced it, Adobe is committed, strongly, to continuing Lightroom without too much regard to the potential impact on it's other products. Photoshop really doesn't have too much competition in its core marketplace, graphics(photographers actually make up a minority % of Photoshop users). Naw, I really don't think you all need to worry over much that Adobe WON'T keep pushing both Lightroom _AND_ Photoshop to do more, better, faster. That sort of work is really in Adobe's DNA...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff, I'm delighted to hear it.  I also agree with the comments about the difference between Photoshop and Lightroom that were offered by others in this thread, but I'd add one more.

Photoshop is deep, rich, capable of a zillion amazing functions --

Photoshop is also intimidating and very difficult to learn to use, even for an advanced amateur.  (The comment in this thread that what is really needed is a complete overhaul of the UI of Photoshop is absolutely dead-on.  It is Photoshop that needs a complete overhaul, after years of just piling on one feature on top of another, even more than Lightroom needs to enhanced.)

With a few more changes and improvements, Lightroom could become a very effective replacement for Photoshop for many advanced amateurs.  Yes, it means you'll be limited to global adjustments, etc.  But for many of us, for many prints, that will suffice 80% of the time.

Advanced amateurs gravitate to Lightroom because it is more user-friendly than Photoshop.  Easier to learn and faster to use.  (And the absolutely excellent tutorials by Jeff and Michael should be recommended to anyone new to Lightroom.)

Personally, I don't want Lightroom to become a junior version of Photoshop. That would be a disaster, and would move in the direction of making it difficult to use and not very user friendly -- just like Photoshop.

Fix and enhance the functions it already has, and Lightroom will evolve from a great program to an awesome program.  I now use five programs to accomplish the below.  Fix the below, and I will only use Lightroom 80% of the time.  I believe that is consistent with the message from Jeff Schewe.  I'm definitely not in the camp to trash Lightroom.  

Here are my top five choices for improvements, and I am really making these in the hope that Jeff is reading, since he can provide input into the Lightroom developers:

(1)  Output sharpening.  Maybe Photokit Sharpening for Lightroom is right around the corner?  Jeff, you'd make a fortune.  In the case of Photoshop, Photokit is competing with the native abilities of Photoshop.  Lightroom has no ability to do output sharpening, at least not on a serious level.  Everyone who uses Lightroom would buy the product.  Pixelgenius would need a larger server to accommodate all the sales and downloads.

If Pixelgenius doesn't do it, how about all of the other software developers?  There is a serious market for such a product.

(2)  Get rid of the really dumb import limit under which images cannot exceed 10,000 pixels in any dimension. Geez, I'm just an amateur, but I have panos that exceed that. Panos are a hot topic and a growth area for photography. Lightroom has to be able to handle long panos that can often exceed that limitation, such as only three 1Ds files stitched together. Maybe it means that a full preview is not possible. But why not allow imports of completed tiffs, and then show them using thumbnails? Then those files could at least be catalogued and printed from Lightroom. This is a really dumb design decision that basically means that a complete catalogue is not possible within Lightroom. It is the equivalent of the NY Public Library banning books exceeding a given page length. This has to be one of the really dumb, self-inflicted, Achilles heels of Lightroom.

(3)  Soft proofing.

(4)  Lightroom should import WAV files created on Canon Pro bodies, and be able to play them back when the shots are reviewed, rather than throwing them away and failing to import them.  LATER EDIT -- Note below posting from ilyons -- audio files are now imported and can be played, but are buried within the metadata, of version 1.1.  Adobe made this change but apparently didn't tell anyone!  It would be nice if they included icons in the grid view with tags for the audio files though, as explained below.  That's how Photo Mechanic handles audio files, so you can easily spot which of your files include the audio files.

(5)  Better noise reduction.  Another need that could be addressed by Noise Ninja or Noiseware.  Competition is a great thing.  Which one will address this need first, and gain a huge jump on the competition?

I'm sure others have their own list of favorites.  

I only want to see the features it already has enhanced.  Right now, it has output sharpening, but it doesn't work.  It has a library cataloging function, but it bans and burns large books thereby defeating the purpose of a master catalogue.  (Woops, I meant that it censors and refuses to import large panos).  It has a great print dialogue, but it doesn't let you soft proof before printing.  And it has a great import function, but at the present time fails to import all of the files created by the top-of-the-line Canon pro bodies. It has noise reduction, but it is very weak.  

I'm in the camp to get a few modest improvements to make it even better.

(We had a thread that was dedicated to a list of requests for improving Lightroom 1.0  that appears to have died.  I will add the above to a new thread dedicated to a compilation of revisions to version 1.3.  I hope that doesn't constitute "cross-posting" since that I assume that referred to posting the same message in two forums, rather than two threads in the same forum.)
« Last Edit: November 26, 2007, 11:36:23 PM by marty m » Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2007, 06:51:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Marty M,
You may misunderstand me. I am not here to thrash Lightoom but to praise it and advocate its enhancement to a point where it will be the first choice for the majority of photographers such as yourself.

Read my comments again - I do NOT want another bloated, over-featured application replacing Photoshop, but rather a lean, mean Lightroom that will bridge that 10% gap which still makes Photoshop essential for all of us who are serious about our work. Basically, we're singing from the same hymn  sheet. If it can be done, it's Lightroom all the way for me!

Perhaps much will be revealed with the release of the version for which we have to cough up hard cash, V2. That's when we'll discover where Lightroom is going.
Logged

Harold
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2007, 08:03:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Fair enough - probably the car market was a bad example thinking off the top of the head.

Still, I think mostAdobe customers will stick with the brand - otherwise there would have been mass migration to Paint Shop Pro long ago. As you know, photographers are a notoriously conservative and cautious species - we're very slow to move as witnessed by out initial reluctance to embrace the digital revolution. Many had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Harold
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2007, 08:03:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Fair enough - probably the car market was a bad example thinking off the top of the head.

Still, I think mostAdobe customers will stick with the brand - otherwise there would have been mass migration to Paint Shop Pro long ago. As you know, photographers are a notoriously conservative and cautious species - we're very slow to move as witnessed by out initial reluctance to embrace the digital revolution. Many had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Ian Lyons
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127


« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2007, 02:45:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
(4)  Lightroom should import WAV files created on Canon Pro bodies, and be able to play them back when the shots are reviewed, rather than throwing them away and failing to import them.  (Michael stated in a previous thread that he also made this request during beta development.)  They fixed this issue with JPEGS but to my knowledge not with WAV files.  And include the ability to play them back.  I make heavy use of this feature when shooting with the 1Ds.  As long as Lightroom throws away the files, or won't play them back, I am forced to use other programs for my imports and first review of my shots.  That defeats a large part of the rationale for Lightroom, at least for me.  If Lightroom would make this fix, then I would no longer have to use Photo Mechanic.

Lightroom has been been able to import and play Wav files since version 1.1 was released.

See - http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr_11/lr-11-gps.htm
Logged

marty m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 26, 2007, 11:29:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lightroom has been been able to import and play Wav files since version 1.1 was released.

See - http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr_11/lr-11-gps.htm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wow!  You are absolutely correct!  It not only applies to folders imported from CF cards, but also to folders that are imported from the hard drive as libraries or catalogues.  

ilyons, thanks very much for this correction!

Needless to say, they made this change and buried it.  I don't recall seeing this covered in any of the summaries of the new features for version 1.1.  Adobe made this change and didn't tell anyone about it.  

I will now correct my original posting to reflect this change.  I probably will sound ungrateful, but I would also ask that Adobe and Lightroom need to tag the audio files in a more obvious way.  It is safe to say that most of us don't make recordings on every file.  I do it on, at most, 1 of 100 shots.  I usually do it to explain what filter I used, as this is one item not reflected in metadata.

In other programs, like Photo Mechanic, I can see which shots have the audio files, because a little audio icon appears on the shot in the main review or grid window.  That then reminds me or tells me to play those audio files back.  

In the case of Lightroom, you'd have to click through each and every image and carefully watch the metadata for when the wav file pops up.  Rather than seeing the audio icon on the image in the view window.  Not impossible to do in LR, but not as easy as in other programs like Photo Mechanic or the Canon DPP program.

But it is a great step forward that audio files are now downloaded and can be played.  We can all safely use LR to download our CF cards and know that all files are imported -- raw, JPEGs, and WAV files.

Thanks again to ilyons for pointing this out.  

It is at moments like this that I really appreciate this forum and how much I learn from others.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2007, 11:41:15 PM by marty m » Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 689


« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2007, 03:08:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Apart from soft proofing and output sharpening which I believe may be on the way at some point, is it technically possible to introduce some way of localised adjustments similar to Photoshop's lasso tool? Granted, the Targeted Adjustment Tool is already available in Lightroom but I don't think it's refined enough for very localalised work.

Would anybody care to suggest what specifics are possible to be brought into Lightroom rather than concentrating on the technial limitatons imposed by the LR system?
« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 03:13:30 AM by seamus finn » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad