Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR 2 Beta Available  (Read 20825 times)
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2008, 09:00:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I downloaded the beta today and played with it for about an hour. Only after reading Andrew Rodney's 2 page review did I find out about the 64-bit switch in the "info" tab.

So now, in addition to the new features, I'm excited about the 64 bit capability. It finally looks like Adobe LR and, hopefully PS soon, will let me see what my Mac Pro 8-core with 12GB RAM in internal RAID 0 drives can really do.

I agree with Michael that soft proofing is an important feature. And I'll add that the release version should include the full capability of PK Sharpener. I use it in PS CS3 and it is awesome.

Cheers.

Bud James
North Wales.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 09:02:43 PM by budjames » Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2008, 05:27:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nothing from the outside "seems hard". There's far more to all this than just setting up a before and after. There's more than this than "copy and pasting" some code from Photoshop. And no, you're not going to see soft proofing in Version 2 so let's all get over it and think about how it could be done in such a way that we all say "wow" like the other functionality that was unique in terms of design seen from the LR team in the past.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To elaborate on Andrew's point, it turns out there are complex technical (and cross platform) reasons why soft proofing is currently difficult to add to LR, even though it's been in PS for a long time. (Similarly, there are technical reasons why LR is getting 16-bit printing before PS.)

This is a really unsatisfying and frustrating (even stupid-sounding) reason to give to users, and I understand that. Photographers just want the darn thing in there (who cares about the little tech issues ...).    

The message I want to convey here is that the LR team is pretty aware of the requests for soft proofing. But it won't be in V2.
Logged

larsrc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 06, 2008, 11:21:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To elaborate on Andrew's point, it turns out there are complex technical (and cross platform) reasons why soft proofing is currently difficult to add to LR, even though it's been in PS for a long time. (Similarly, there are technical reasons why LR is getting 16-bit printing before PS.)

This is a really unsatisfying and frustrating (even stupid-sounding) reason to give to users, and I understand that. Photographers just want the darn thing in there (who cares about the little tech issues ...).   

The message I want to convey here is that the LR team is pretty aware of the requests for soft proofing. But it won't be in V2.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187127\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As a programmer, I understand the problem. The internal representation might just not ber amenable to soft-proofing, which could mean that adding soft-proofing would require rewriting virtually every piece of code that actually deals with the pixels. The thing about great programs is that they make complex things seem simple.

Of course, as a photographer, I want soft-proofing in there, now! Only the multi-image external editing is really interesting for me.

-Lars
Logged

NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #43 on: April 06, 2008, 01:15:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So now, in addition to the new features, I'm excited about the 64 bit capability. It finally looks like Adobe LR and, hopefully PS soon, will let me see what my Mac Pro 8-core with 12GB RAM in internal RAID 0 drives can really do.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Little chance for PS going 64 bit on Mac in the foreseeable future, I'm afraid.
Logged

Nikos
stiksandstones
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 06, 2008, 01:48:12 PM »
ReplyReply

still no tethering??

I want this badly and can only imagine its very easy to implement.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5418


WWW
« Reply #45 on: April 06, 2008, 02:34:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I want this badly and can only imagine its very easy to implement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187462\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You would be wrong...it's _VERY_ difficult to implement because there is not cross-platform standards for direct camera control. Even the camera makers have problems connecting to their cameras reliably and since Camera Raw/Lightroom supports over 180 cameras to date, support for tethered shooting with all cameras would be a massive effort.

However, setting up a "Watched Folder" in LR and using the camera maker's tethered software works quite well.
Logged
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


WWW
« Reply #46 on: April 06, 2008, 10:31:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You would be wrong...it's _VERY_ difficult to implement because there is not cross-platform standards for direct camera control. Even the camera makers have problems connecting to their cameras reliably and since Camera Raw/Lightroom supports over 180 cameras to date, support for tethered shooting with all cameras would be a massive effort.

However, setting up a "Watched Folder" in LR and using the camera maker's tethered software works quite well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187479\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Apple implemented it based on a standard tethering protocol which works for all Canon and Nikon cameras *except* the 1D* Mark III cameras.

And people are bitching endlessly about that.

It's sorta a no-win situation.  Support 92% of what's out there and the 8% will scream like you just stuck an eggplant up their mom's privates  
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5418


WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2008, 10:36:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Apple implemented it based on a standard tethering protocol which works for all Canon and Nikon cameras *except* the 1D* Mark III cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


And Apple only had to deal with _ONE_ platform...image the shyte hitting the fan if that were to happen. Phase One only supports a small subset of cameras tethered and they are a camera company with a long history of tethered shooting for their own cameras.

Nope, it ain't easy in the least and considering the Watched Folder does allow for most of the functionality users need, it's simply not a subject that will get enough traction to pull resources away from other needed functions...
Logged
huwmorgan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2008, 12:14:10 PM »
ReplyReply

While there are lots of good features in 2.0, I'm disappointed that Aperture has seemingly taken the lead in providing plug-ins. There are a few features that I'd be willing to wait for before bothering to download (and presumably pay for) 2.0. These would be: soft proofing (I'm 1 million and 2), plug-ins from third parties and the ability to network a workgroup of computers. Until Adobe addresses these three issues, Lightroom will be of limited value to many pros.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8619



WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 07, 2008, 12:17:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
While there are lots of good features in 2.0, I'm disappointed that Aperture has seemingly taken the lead in providing plug-ins.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187671\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You realize what's actually going on here? The plug-in's are NOT accessing the Raw pipeline. Aperture renders a TIFF, the filters operate as they would had you done all this with a trip into Photoshop. Its all done behind the scene but the important part is, this is not non destructive, metadata editing.
Logged

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

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #50 on: April 07, 2008, 01:47:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You realize what's actually going on here? The plug-in's are NOT accessing the Raw pipeline. Aperture renders a TIFF, the filters operate as they would had you done all this with a trip into Photoshop. Its all done behind the scene but the important part is, this is not non destructive, metadata editing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is true. Additionally the LR 2.0 provided brush corrections do form part of the non-destructive editing chain while Aperture dodge and burn filter doesn't. Regarding access to raw data, I have read that Apple have stated that the filters will be able to access raw data, so that part is left to the filter authors.

However the way you have phrased your statement seems to imply that all operations applied within a 'metadata' editor (and in a non-destructive edit chain) necessarily operate on raw (rather than RGB data). This I don't believe to be true (some operations may and some may not) although there's no clear documentation of the distinction on the part of the authors.

What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that the facts that an editor happens to be a raw converter and a metadata type of image editor should not be confused with each other.  

I'm making this assertion in a general way not specific to LR. Since these forums seem to be frequented by quite a few LR insiders I would welcome some enlightening comments about this.



PS. We had a similar discussion in the Aperture thread which unfortunately deteriorated in an exchange of personal attacks and that was partly my fault. I hope this one doesn't.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 02:04:02 PM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #51 on: April 07, 2008, 01:59:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd really hate to see LR turned into another version of Photoshop with eight million different gadgets that make it harder and harder to use. One of the best things about Lightroom is that it's straight-forward and intuitive. If you want Photoshop, use Photoshop. And it's not a matter of "Why not get everything, and then you can just use a subset and everybody else can use their own subset." Then you essentially have Photoshop again, and it no longer IS intuitive -- that means that the functions get buried in pop-up menus among all kinds of stuff that you'll never use, and if you don't use it frequently you've got to go find it...it freaks me out that people buy 8-core Macs so they can save two nanoseconds in processing, but use software that has a basic function that takes five minutes to look up off-line in a manual, when you can find the manual...

I would like a LR where all the functions are out front, and if you need to do heavy-duty compositing, send it off to Photoshop. Lightroom was not intended to be a cheap Photoshop: it was intended to be a photographer's tool in which, it was assumed, most of the work would be done in the camera. Photographers are not computer geeks; they don't sit around eight hours a day memorizing keyboard shortcuts.  

As for soft-proofing, I would prefer that Adobe come up with a separate hand-off program called "Adobe Soft-Proof" which would have some extensive soft-proofing capabilities, that could be independently upgraded over the years, as printers and printing technologies evolve, that wouldn't involve tearing the ass off Lightroom every four years. I don't see why it couldn't be virtually seamless -- put it right under "Edit in Photoshop": View in Soft-Proof.

JC
Logged
kiklop
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #52 on: April 07, 2008, 02:47:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know; maybe i missed the whole point about what lightroom should be but even the V2 isn't near the "one product for entire workflow" solution.

I was perfectly aware that v1 was just that; first version of the software that has in many ways served to collect user feedbacks, analising market needs etc. etc.  But v2 as far i can see it isn't near what i hoped for to be.

Soft proofing, most of you here do share my opinion .. so i will not repeat it. If it was a Microsoft product  i wouldn't be surprised but common Adobe .. what's your target user base here? Technical reasons? If that's the case then i'm even more concerned about the whole LR thing.

Sharpening.
 Ok .. they have done something, and maybe it is the best they could do at the moment but for me personally, calling the output sharpening "lightroom's photokit sharpener" doesn't make sense; we don't have any option to apply it locally (this is why we have layers in PS) and we don't have any preview before printing. So, we are closer to what we have in LR 1 than what we have in PS IMHO.
(having it as a "correction tool brush" would be sufficient IMHO).

Dual monitor support;
 better anything than nothing i guess but it isn't really so well implemented yet (to be fair i do believe this will be improved in the final version). Not to mention that i DO expect adobe to provide a workable solution for using monitor profiles; on windows at least this isn't the case since only one profile is applied on both monitors (yes, i'm aware of the mess Microsoft has created but they at least managed to sort this out with the color control applet, something adobe is ignoring.

Stacking
One of my favorite option in both Bridge and Lightroom but so limited in implementation. Why can't Adobe provide a simple basic autostack option based on file name? With the problematic (if not buggy) way adobe is treating "capture time" auto stacking option is very unreliable, at least for me. And .. having images in stacks and then applying keywords to only top stack image is at least questionable approach; even bridge has it implemented properly.

Now, Lightroom is maybe the only software i ever really wanted to be good. Many of us need something like Lightroom was promised to be but no matter how much i do like it, every time i use it, it brings various kind of frustrations and despite some nice additions this beta has provided i'm afraid that as soon it will be released i will wait for the next version to be released.

p.s.
plug-in interface was IMHO one of the main reasons why Photoshop has become so popular; i wish lightroom has provided similar architecture since waiting for adobe to get most things people want may take ages. And i'm not talking about export-plug-ins, web galleries or things like that; i'm talking about real plug-ins that do provide a true real time previews in develop module. Without real time previews we can use photoshop actions just as we can now use export modules ... isn't really all that different

Just IMHO of course
Logged

Mladen Sever
dyxum.com
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5418


WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 07, 2008, 03:35:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sharpening.
 Ok .. they have done something, and maybe it is the best they could do at the moment but for me personally, calling the output sharpening "lightroom's photokit sharpener" doesn't make sense; we don't have any option to apply it locally (this is why we have layers in PS) and we don't have any preview before printing. So, we are closer to what we have in LR 1 than what we have in PS IMHO.
(having it as a "correction tool brush" would be sufficient IMHO).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wrong...while PhotoKit Sharpener's Output Sharpening was layer based and thus allowed on to vary the opacity, I've never run across anybody who made a practice of allying layer masks to paint output sharpening in. The simply fact is that sharpening for output can not be done using a display feedback. A display is simply too low resolution to give you any meaningful feedback. You may be confusing output sharpening with "creative sharpening" which was designed to be applied locally. And since LR 2 is still beta, don't be surprised to see additional things added to the local corrections adjustments (things like sharpening and smoothing would not surprise me at all).

Combined with the capture sharpening in Develop and output sharpening in Print, 2/3's of the Sharpening Workflow designed by Bruce Fraser are now in Lightroom. All that's left is local creative sharpening...and that may still come.
Logged
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


WWW
« Reply #54 on: April 07, 2008, 04:33:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You realize what's actually going on here? The plug-in's are NOT accessing the Raw pipeline. Aperture renders a TIFF, the filters operate as they would had you done all this with a trip into Photoshop. Its all done behind the scene but the important part is, this is not non destructive, metadata editing.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, this is what the sample plug-in that ships with Aperture does.  That doesn't necessarily mean that's the way ALL plug-ins will work... until we see the SDK we won't know for sure.  I don't know how Nik and Noise Ninja are working, for example.  Rob Galbraith notes the plug-ins can have access to the RAW data:

[a href=\"http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9308-9356]http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-9308-9356[/url]

But I don't know either way, not having seen the SDK yet.
Logged

Photo Op
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #55 on: April 07, 2008, 04:41:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As for soft-proofing, I would prefer that Adobe come up with a separate hand-off program called "Adobe Soft-Proof" which would have some extensive soft-proofing capabilities, that could be independently upgraded over the years, as printers and printing technologies evolve, that wouldn't involve tearing the ass off Lightroom every four years. I don't see why it couldn't be virtually seamless -- put it right under "Edit in Photoshop": View in Soft-Proof.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John-KIS! That's the smartest comment I've read on this Forum in months (especially in light of the 1.4 print fiasco). Don't want to hijack this thread, but I'd sure like some of the gurus to comment on this idea.

--Dave
Logged

David
kiklop
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #56 on: April 07, 2008, 04:44:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, I'm certainly not prepared to go in any discussion in this regard especially because i imagine how much we all owe you when LR is concerned. Still ..
Quote
Wrong...while PhotoKit Sharpener's Output Sharpening was layer based and thus allowed on to vary the opacity, I've never run across anybody who made a practice of allying layer masks to paint output sharpening in.
I'm not sure if i should be ashamed to be one ?  
I used to do that even on my final sharpening step for printing. Of course it is a image-to-image situations but i  change the opacity of the final sharpening layer depending on the image area. If i'm alone in doing that then my apologies for thinking this is a requirement to have.  
Quote
The simply fact is that sharpening for output can not be done using a display feedback. A display is simply too low resolution to give you any meaningful feedback. 
I'm aware of this and that's why i tried to "find an appropriate workaround" and develop module seems the only place suitable to do it (or a "mighty power new feature" to provide a small box in the print module or a new small loupe thing for checking details taking in mind all limitation monitor display have when "judging" final print files).
(no i'm not confusing this with "creative" sharpening)
Quote
And since LR 2 is still beta, don't be surprised to see additional things added to the local corrections adjustments (things like sharpening and smoothing would not surprise me at all).
That's what i hoped to hear
Quote
Combined with the capture sharpening in Develop and output sharpening in Print, 2/3's of the Sharpening Workflow designed by Bruce Fraser are now in Lightroom. All that's left is local creative sharpening...and that may still come.
If you say so ...
Still some kind of layers or stacks or regions (as found in lightzone for example) in the develop module would be even better but then again i can't expect to have Lightroom acting as PS (but i'm sure it will be very close at some point few years from now )
It is all about workflow and i would really like to be able to process most of my shots "from capture to print"  within lightroom; it is just that personally i don't think we are close to that point but as you said, hopefully the final version may surprise me

Happy shooting !
Logged

Mladen Sever
dyxum.com
Roberto Chaves
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 07, 2008, 04:55:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You would be wrong...it's _VERY_ difficult to implement because there is not cross-platform standards for direct camera control. Even the camera makers have problems connecting to their cameras reliably and since Camera Raw/Lightroom supports over 180 cameras to date, support for tethered shooting with all cameras would be a massive effort.

However, setting up a "Watched Folder" in LR and using the camera maker's tethered software works quite well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187479\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It would be nice if this could be support via plugins. Any news if there will be a more advanced plugin support with LR 2.0?
This way maybe Canon and Nikon etc could add tethered support to Lightroom, or  possible some 3rd party could make a business of this.

Maybe even softproofing could be added by a third party this way (even though it might not have full access to all the internal pixel data, one could atleast get some basic soft proofing done).

Another thing that would be nice is having a plugin for lens correction based on profiles (PTLens or DXO optics)..
Logged

Best regards,
 Roberto Chaves
 www.tabi.se
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5418


WWW
« Reply #58 on: April 07, 2008, 05:26:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This way maybe Canon and Nikon etc could add tethered support to Lightroom, or  possible some 3rd party could make a business of this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're kidding, right? Nikon or Canon make a plug-in or module to work with Lightroom? The phrase "cold day in hell" comes to mind.

Look, camera communications is a VERY DIFFICULT thing to engineer. Phase One has a long history of camera com because, well, all their cameras used to be tethered and HAVE to be controlled by the software and even Phase only added tethered support for a small subset of pro DSLRs...

Setting up a Watched Folder and the sort order to be most recent at the top and control the camera with the camera software to set F stop and shutter speed and ISO works perfectly well. As soon as the image is saved to disk it's auto-imported into Lightroom. Click on the image and hit the D key and you're in Develop.

The one thing I'll note however, the whole tethered approach works a lot better/faster under Windows than Mac. Some of this may be because of Apple's USB 2.0 pipeline but it's also the fault of the camera makers.

On a recent Lightroom shoot with Martin Evening, he had to boot via Bootcamp into Windows and use Remote Capture from Canon under Windows because the Mac version sucks, is real slow and prone to losing connections...and that's Canon's own software on the Mac sucking. Imagine the problems Lightroom would have asking Canon for help tethering to their cameras when Canon can't get their own stuff to work well on Mac.

I also wouldn't hold your breath for Phase One to pony up and make a tethered plug-in for Lightroom...

Asking for tethered support is fine...but you really must understand what you are asking for. It ain't easy and would certainly take away from other LR features for what is arguably a small subset of users.

Tethered works now, about as well as one can expect using the camera makers' software.
Logged
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


WWW
« Reply #59 on: April 08, 2008, 06:31:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...

Tethered works now, about as well as one can expect using the camera makers' software.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that's the point  

The camera makers' software sucks (hell, Canon's DPP 3.2 doesn't even *run* on Leopard... so I don't think you CAN capture with the camera manufacturer's software), so it would be nice to have an alternative.  This is something that Aperture 2.0 *does* do, again with the caveat that it doesn't work for their latest and greatest cameras.

Just when you thought there was a way out of the quagmire... right back into it I guess.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad