Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Decision time for Adobe  (Read 14605 times)
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2007, 03:38:03 AM »
ReplyReply

This is an interesting discussion. I would like to point out two issues that have been raised.

1. Is it technically feasible to do this or that? I believe anything is feasible, anything can be implemented without moving away from the underlying 'metadata editor' paradigm AS LONG AS Adobe marketing decides to do it.

2. 'Metadata editor' vs 'pixel editor' difference. Too many people are using this too many times to try and explain why LR does or does not do this or that as compared to PS. The fact is the two underlying paradigms are just different means to an end, and while they do impose workflow related differences and demand different sw writing approaches (making some things easier to do under the one or the other paradigm), there is nothing (image editing related) that can be done in one and cannot be done in the other, in principle, just because of different underlying paradigm.

After all both so called 'pixel editors' and 'metadata editors' actually end up affecting pixels, so in that sense a 'metadata editor' IS a pixel editor (i.e. it is not a vector editor). The 'metadata editor' just affects pixels indirectly.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 03:52:52 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 784


« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2007, 05:30:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Now were talking!

Let's concentrate on what IS technically and commercially viable with Lightroom rather than what is not. We don't need a pie-in-the-sky wish list. What this discussion needs, it seems to me, is a realistic what's do-able list.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8602



WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 27, 2007, 08:24:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
After all both so called 'pixel editors' and 'metadata editors' actually end up affecting pixels, so in that sense a 'metadata editor' IS a pixel editor (i.e. it is not a vector editor). The 'metadata editor' just affects pixels indirectly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156347\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think its vitally important for users to understand the difference between parametric editing (metadata editing) and direct pixel manipulation. It has some wonderful advantages and some obvious limitations compared to direct pixel manipulation. Yes, at the end of the day, what LR provides are rendered pixels but using a vastly different mechanism than Photoshop.

One could use Excel instead of Word to write a letter. Both just manipulate, as far as the computer knows, 1's and zeros.
Logged

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

Posts: 784


« Reply #43 on: November 27, 2007, 08:56:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Fully understood and accepted, Andrew.  In your opinion, does Lightroom's structure impose specific limitations on its development into a standalone product capable of meeting the general  needs of the vast majority of photographers as outlined above? Or will Lightroom and Photoshop be forever joined at the hip, with LR. never being FULLY independent of PS? That's the core of my original question, and judging by the number of hits on this topic, there seems to be a very wide interest in the debate here.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8602



WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 27, 2007, 09:10:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Fully understood and accepted, Andrew.  In your opinion, does Lightroom's structure impose specific limitations on its development into a standalone product capable of meeting the general  needs of the vast majority of photographers as outlined above? Or will Lightroom and Photoshop be forever joined at the hip, with LR. never being FULLY independent of PS? That's the core of my original question, and judging by the number of hits on this topic, there seems to be a very wide interest in the debate here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't answer that with any authority. I've been working with Photoshop since 1.0.7. At the time, I couldn't possibility imagine what we have today (layers let alone Smart Objects as an example).

I think that as LR evolves, I'll be using Photoshop less and less. But it also depends on specific tasks. I don't scan film any longer so I don't need the precise cloning tools to remove dust that would be absolutely impossible to do today in LR using its clone tool. And yet, having 1000 images all with the same dust spot in the same position, and being able to remove it in all images with one clone application is amazing. So, different tool sets for different tasks.

Once LR has output sharpening and soft proofing, Photoshop will be used far less by me. Right now, its a must. Some selective dodge and burning, perspective crop, even less trips to PS.

The time may come where I'll do 100% of my work in LR on maybe 85% of my images. But I suspect there will be cases where I'll do 50% or more work in Photoshop on maybe 5% of images. It will all be mixed up.
Logged

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

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2007, 09:27:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In your opinion, does Lightroom's structure impose specific limitations on its development into a standalone product capable of meeting the general  needs of the vast majority of photographers as outlined above?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lightroom is designed for working with multiple images efficiently, Photoshop is designed for working intensely with single images. Pretty sure those design principles will continue down those relatively divergent paths. There are no artificial "specific limitations" to either applications other than what they are being designed to accomplish and the tasks they are required for.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8602



WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2007, 09:33:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lightroom is designed for working with multiple images efficiently, Photoshop is designed for working intensely with single images.

Perfect! That's really what we need to examine. I've also said that Photoshop is, from day one, a one-image-at-a-time process. Even with stuff that's supposed to make it look like it handles multiple images (batch, droplets), its not an effective tool as we have with LR.

If the task requires you to work, as Jeff says intensely on a single image, the tool is most likely going to be Photoshop. But removing even a single dust spot on 100 images? No fun there, go directly to Lightroom.
Logged

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

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2007, 09:52:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...

I think that as LR evolves, I'll be using Photoshop less and less....

The time may come where I'll do 100% of my work in LR on maybe 85% of my images. But I suspect there will be cases where I'll do 50% or more work in Photoshop on maybe 5% of images. It will all be mixed up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

An interesting observation.  It will be interesting to see how this evolves.  I consider myself an advanced intermediate in PS (and LR).  But that took about 8 years of fairly serious effort to figure out (and practice) as much as I have.  If I was using LR for 50 or 60 or 70% of my processing requirements, I suspect that I'd have less of a grasp of what the art of the possible is in PS.  I wonder if there is a slippery slope where more and more people using LR for more and more, which means PS less and less - will lead to a decrease in the critical mass of PS skill and expertise available in the community as a whole (?), meaning an incentive to (even further) "do more and more in LR and less and less in PS".  

I suspect one answer to this dilemma is, as proposed by John Nack, a complete re-engineering of PS to increase intuitive use and reduce redundancy.  It strikes me that this would be an opportunity to think about a convergence.  With all respect - the distinction between pixels and metadata doesn't pursuade me - there's no reason why a single program (or at least a transparent user experience) couldn't embrace both methodologies as appropriate.  As far as I can tell, the smart object metaphor in PS is a sophisticated example of metadata editing (as is ACR).  As far as LR goes, all those metadata edits don't amount to anything until they've been applied to the pixels of the image to facilitate output of some sort.  I think the distinction between the database vs cache model is probably more difficult to harmonize than editing pixels vs metadata.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2007, 10:14:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With all respect - the distinction between pixels and metadata doesn't pursuade me - there's no reason why a single program (or at least a transparent user experience) couldn't embrace both methodologies as appropriate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156430\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I think the distinction is FAR more than you realize...you may not see it from the outside, but from inside the app, on the fly parametric edits are extremely different from loading the entire image in ram and tracking the changes to each and every RGB pixel. You mention Smart Objects, but those are not real Photoshop edits...it's a hybrid between parametric and pixel edits but other than Smart Filters there's not a lot left that Photoshop can do about radically extending the SO metaphor. You also forget the size debt you pay–a HUGE debt–for maintaining that SO.

While Photoshop may be in for a UI revamp and updates, you must realize that it's already 4 millions lines of code and counting...any changes in the Photoshop working environment will be evolutionary not revolutionary...after 17 years (PS shipped Feb 1990) you're not gonna turn that battleship on a dime and move it into an entirely different direction–nor would the extended user base want it. Again photographer use of Photoshop is a minority of all users so photography ain't the driving force behind Photoshop (in spite of the word Photo in the name).

Lightroom is an app designed only for photographers and it doesn't need to worry about multiple masters.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3203



WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2007, 10:18:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For many photographers, pro or amateur, LR will be all they ever need, PS was overkill for the majority of people. But for those who do any photography that involves say compositing or specific selections, LR will naturally fall short and PS will be the better tool.
Only now with LR1.3 am I starting to use LR for serious work, it was too flawed and buggy before for my needs. It's brilliant in places and very clumsy in others, but with each update it get a lot better. I'm still having to do some silly workarounds, but not so many that prevents me using it since the last update.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 27, 2007, 10:37:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You also forget the size debt you pay–a HUGE debt–for maintaining that SO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I guess 640 K should be enough for anyone

Andrew made the point about the un-imaginable changes that have occurred to PS over it's history...  and the rate of change is exponential.  As an arbitrary metric, I'd suggest that we'll see as much change in this space in the next 5 years as we saw in the previous ten.  Some of the common sense restrictions and limitations today won't deserve a second thought 2 or 3 product release cycles from today.

You raise a valid point about the majority of PS users not being photographers.  I was just wondering if the logical progression would be to even fewer photographers even owing the product in the future, assuming the product trajectory you are suggesting?      

Having said all that, I'm still the guy that expects an aggressive Software as a Service model from Adobe hitting the advanced consumer market within the next 5 years.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3203



WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 27, 2007, 10:47:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lightroom is an app designed only for photographers....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And that will hobble it I think - Even photographers need a DAM app that can recognise files other than just images. As Ian mentioned above, LR has some recognition of WAV files, but as it's hidden away, no-one seemed to know! Which seems to be a very LR trait. Lots of very clever things in LR, but it can be hard to find them at times.
Back to other file types. I used LR to import images off my compact for the first time the other day, instead of Bridge and nearly deleted the movie files created by the compact, when the import/copy was finished!

Slideshows are also becoming more common with photojournalists, so being able to handle soundfiles in the library would be a good way to deal with the job. In fact a wave/loop editing module would be a fantastic addition to LR. And for those who will stamp their feet and say that's not for photographers, simply ignore or do not install the module. LR would be an even better tool if it was a proper DAM app and didn't care if a file was video, sound, stills or artwork.
A Soundslides module or a DVD module or a [basic] video editing module would make LR into a very powerful programme indeed. Not so focussed on just photography, but if you just enable/install the modules you need/want, then you can be as streamlined or powerful as you want.
The reason why PS is so good now, is that people other than Photgraphers guided its development. And photographers really benefitted from these other ideas. Even the non photographic text pallette is very handy for producing copyright marks or logos on your web images. The drawing tools can produce frames for prints, layer comps can make for one single PS file rather than several variations and so on.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
AjantaKVS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #52 on: November 28, 2007, 11:05:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Again photographer use of Photoshop is a minority of all users so photography ain't the driving force behind Photoshop (in spite of the word Photo in the name).

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This being the case, then what made Adobe to bundle ACR in to PS, when it is not needed by majority of PS users ? (say 95% of total users,who are not photographers).
 They could have introduced LR as the new and innovative work flow solution for photographers once for all , with out the ACR and Bridge in PS as alternative workflow solution. Just my thought and nothing else, May be I am totally wrong as I am new here
and if so kindly pardon me for putting such a trivial question to a great and experienced person like Jeff

AjantaKVS
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3203



WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 28, 2007, 11:53:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This being the case, then what made Adobe to bundle ACR in to PS, when it is not needed by majority of PS users ? (say 95% of total users,who are not photographers).[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ACR is simply part of PS like web slicing tools are part of PS. Everyone uses a different subset of tools. You simply ignore the ones you don't use.
Taking any tool out will simply upset a lot of people.
Besides even 5% of all PS users is a pretty large no.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 28, 2007, 12:01:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This being the case, then what made Adobe to bundle ACR in to PS, when it is not needed by majority of PS users ? (say 95% of total users,who are not photographers).
 They could have introduced LR as the new and innovative work flow solution for photographers once for all , with out the ACR and Bridge in PS as alternative workflow solution. Just my thought and nothing else, May be I am totally wrong as I am new here
and if so kindly pardon me for putting such a trivial question to a great and experienced person like Jeff

AjantaKVS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ajanta:  Jeff is merely stating what everyone knows - I regularly send raw files of real estate exteriors to a design person that works with several mortgage companies - she uses photoshop, along with acr - does that make her a photgrapher?  On the other hand, I as a photgrapher rarely have had the need to do separations to send to press, but i have done so - does that make me a "design professional" or graphic artist???

Photoshop has always been a "broad brush" because it's user base comes from many disciplines.  Criticizing Adobe for including the same raw convertor in LR and in PS/Bridge is ludicrous.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 28, 2007, 12:18:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This being the case, then what made Adobe to bundle ACR in to PS, when it is not needed by majority of PS users ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Originally, Camera Raw was available (for Photoshop 7.01) as a stand alone purchase for $99.95. And, they sold a lot (don't know the exact quantity, but it was well worth their efforts) but it was deemed that Camera Raw, included with Photoshop (because it was a Photoshop plug-in and required Photoshop to run) made more sense and thus CR 2.0 was included (bundled) into Photoshop CS in the fall of 2003. Which, ironically was just about the time that Mark Hamburg STARTED working on Lightroom (originally called Shadowland).

Camera Raw has gone through 4 major revs since Feb 2003 (when it was first released as a 1.0 stand alone purchase). But it wasn't until the early spring of 2005 that Thomas Knoll (Camera Raw originator) and Mark Hamburg (Lightroom originator) decided to unify the pipeline of Camera Raw & Lightroom and make all the rendering equal.

Now both Thomas and Mark are collaborating on the future of both Camera Raw and Lightroom, which is a way-cool thing! And yet, Photoshop is "stealing" some things from CR/LR...the Back and White adjustment layer is a direct descendent of Lightroom as is Bridge 2 and Element 6.0's dark UI. Also note that even Capture One's 4.0 beta seems to be "stealing" Lightroom's dark UI look.

But, as for photographers representing a minority (I never said an unimportant minority, just that other users rank higher), that's a fact. There are a LOT of people who use Photoshop professionally that AREN'T photographers, even if they have to deal with photos in their work. They USE the photos, not create them and that's a big difference in how they use it.
Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 784


« Reply #56 on: November 28, 2007, 01:10:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Exactly,  Jeff Schewe. My proposition is that perhaps Lightroom could be deveoped in its own right with sufficient power to cater for the needs of those who CREATE photographs. Let PS deal with those who USE them. I think the distinction you have highlighted here is critical to this entire debate.  I fully understand your repeated assertion that both LR and PS will continue to be developed in tandem for various compelling reasons, and that some photographers will always fall back on PS no matter what. But whereas PS can stand on its own two feet for photography, LR cannot - at least not yet.

Without putting you on the spot or inviting you to reveal any Adobe secrets, may I ask you a genuine and sincere question: do you personally foresee the day when LR will be able to handle what the vast mjority of photographers need. Not esoteric, specialist tools -  just  everyday tasks that can be applied more judiciously and selectively to an image from import to print without having to leave LR at any stage?
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 28, 2007, 01:17:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Without putting you on the spot or inviting you to reveal any Adobe secrets, may I ask you a genuine and sincere question: do you personally foresee the day when LR will be able to handle what the vast mjority of photographers need.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156710\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It already does...for many.
Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 784


« Reply #58 on: November 28, 2007, 01:22:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps but with all due respect, there is a very large cohort of users who need somewhat more than is available at present
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #59 on: November 28, 2007, 01:39:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps but with all due respect, there is a very large cohort of users who need somewhat more than is available at present
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156717\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uh huh...it's ONLY AT VERSION 1.0 FOR GODSAKE!!!!!

It shipped LESS THAN 1 YEAR AGO!!!!!

Photoshop, by contrast shipped Feb, 1990. It's 17, going on 18. Not even old enough to vote, let alone drink! Photoshop's now at version 10.01 (with two major .5 updates that actually make it version 12).

And Photoshop _STILL_ doesn't have everything photographers need/want.

You might want to quit holding your breath there bud...it's gonna take a while ya know?

Which is why I come back to this idea of spending your time wisely, telling Adobe what you need/want and quit worrying about what Adobe is gonna do with Lightroom & Photoshop. They're in good hands, believe me...
« Last Edit: November 28, 2007, 01:40:46 PM by Schewe » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad