Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR 2 Beta Available  (Read 21302 times)
larsrc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 10, 2008, 10:25:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187731\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I might have missed something in soft proofing (only now getting it into my workflow), but wouldn't you want to have access to most of the color tweaking settings of LR while soft proofing in order to get the best out of the image and printer combination?

-Lars
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3496



WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 12, 2008, 05:07:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've used PS since PS3 and it's become so much easier to use due to the additional features. Much, much easier. Drop shadows, now a couple of clicks rather than a complex series of actions. Not only that, they're live and editable. Soooo much better.    Adjustment layers - woo-hoo, another fantastic tool. Customisable interface/keyboard shortcuts, context senitive tool bar all made the PS user's life easier. The only thing I can think of that made PS worse was actually the removal of a feature, the palette well. Which made for a more cluttered/clumsy interface.
Lots of thing in LR are anything but intuitive. Batch renaming was one that needed some head scratching; as did simple renaming, which works differently from every other piece of software I've ever used. There were quite a few others too, but I think some have been eliminated through version changes and others I've become used to so forgotten how daft they were to discover.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 05:14:57 AM by jjj » Logged

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

Posts: 606


« Reply #62 on: April 12, 2008, 11:37:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Am I the only one to find the selective edits, ala saturation, brightness etc..slow and choppy? I mean ok for a bit, then chug chug ...

Faster to do it with another program being honest..
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #63 on: April 12, 2008, 12:34:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've used PS since PS3 and it's become so much easier to use due to the additional features. Much, much easier. Drop shadows, now a couple of clicks rather than a complex series of actions. Not only that, they're live and editable. Soooo much better.    Adjustment layers - woo-hoo, another fantastic tool. <snip>
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The key phrase in your post is "I've used PS since PS3," which means that you've used it a lot. PS is a brilliant program if you're a photo-compositor, but the fact of the matter is, there are entire books on the use of layers...or the use of camera raw...Martin Evening's CS2 book is 675 pages long. *That's* what I don't want, and it's not necessary for a straight photo-processing program. As I said in my post, if you want to do photo-compositing, go to Photoshop, but there's little point in making Lightroom into Photoshop; we already *have* a Photoshop. It's called *Photoshop*.

And I think this an important point, because in the rush to compete, the *easiest* way to show apparent progress is to kludge on a few new features. It's like putting another two megapixels into a P&S and advertising a "better camera." If you do that every time, in a few iterations you've got a monster.

I thought -- and I thought Adobe's concept was -- that Lightroom would combine the features you need to make a really good professional-level "straight" photo, and to print it at exhibit quality, and to provide a DAM. One solid program for straight photographers, that will take you from capture to print, and provide for data management.

To get there, there's still a lot of work to do, but it's not the glamorous, "We've added a lot of features" stuff. It's making the DAM better, it's making the current controls more sensitive, it's providing (one way or another - I suggest a hand-off program) for soft-proofing. Schewe and another guy have been going back and forth about tethered shooting, and Jeff's suggestion that a watched-file be used seems straight-forward enough. Perhaps there would be a way to make this solution more apparent; perhaps even with a "Helpful hint" for tethered shooters. But we don't need a tethered shooting module that has 180 cameras and climbing, and takes up another 2 gigs of memory and climbing...

Straight photographers don't need two clicks to drop shadows, because the shadows are already in the photo. The key to Lightroom, IMHO, is to keep it relatively simple. *It's not Photoshop.*

JC
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #64 on: April 12, 2008, 04:06:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Performance will be improved in the final version. Optimizations for local corrections aren't in the public beta. (The idea is to get the basic functionality in there to see if it meets the users' editing needs. Performance is usually the last thing to get put in.)
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3496



WWW
« Reply #65 on: April 13, 2008, 10:34:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The key phrase in your post is "I've used PS since PS3," which means that you've used it a lot.
And I mentioned that, only to illustrate how much easier it has become, by adding new features and making it less complex to use. Especially for a beginner to PS.

Quote
PS is a brilliant program if you're a photo-compositor, but the fact of the matter is, there are entire books on the use of layers...or the use of camera raw...Martin Evening's CS2 book is 675 pages long. *That's* what I don't want, and it's not necessary for a straight photo-processing program. As I said in my post, if you want to do photo-compositing, go to Photoshop, but there's little point in making Lightroom into Photoshop; we already *have* a Photoshop. It's called *Photoshop*.
To repeat myself -  I was not talking about LR Vs PS, I was illustrating a point that adding new features does not necessarily makes a programme more difficult. LR has had numerous features added since the first version I tried and is waaaay better aas a result. Still a fair way to go though.
Besides if you think of PS as a compositing programme, you're missing most of what PS can do.  Oh BTW, Martin Evening's book on LR is 352 pages and with supplements for .1 upgrades too.  And that's for simply for version one, not Version 10!

Quote
And I think this an important point, because in the rush to compete, the *easiest* way to show apparent progress is to kludge on a few new features. It's like putting another two megapixels into a P&S and advertising a "better camera." If you do that every time, in a few iterations you've got a monster.
Bad analogy as more MP is a quality attribute and does not affect usuability of camera, which is what most feature requests are.


Quote
I thought -- and I thought Adobe's concept was -- that Lightroom would combine the features you need to make a really good professional-level "straight" photo, and to print it at exhibit quality, and to provide a DAM. One solid program for straight photographers, that will take you from capture to print, and provide for data management.
And to do that it needs a whole lot more features! So    

Quote
To get there, there's still a lot of work to do, but it's not the glamorous, "We've added a lot of features" stuff. It's making the DAM better, it's making the current controls more sensitive, it's providing (one way or another - I suggest a hand-off program) for soft-proofing. Schewe and another guy have been going back and forth about tethered shooting, and Jeff's suggestion that a watched-file be used seems straight-forward enough. Perhaps there would be a way to make this solution more apparent; perhaps even with a "Helpful hint" for tethered shooters. But we don't need a tethered shooting module that has 180 cameras and climbing, and takes up another 2 gigs of memory and climbing...
Also I have very little time for those who moan about other people's new ideas for features, that they don't need. Don't be so damn selfish. If you don't want it, ignore it. Others may think the feature you have no need for is brilliant. Tethered shooting is not a pressing need for me, but I appreciate it is very useful for others, so let people request it.
I read a review of a product recently and it was slagged off for having a pointless feature. That feature was the specific reason I chose that product above all others in market place.  People should be more open minded and less self centred.
Apart from anything else, the improvements you want are also new features.

Quote
Straight photographers don't need two clicks to drop shadows, because the shadows are already in the photo. The key to Lightroom, IMHO, is to keep it relatively simple. *It's not Photoshop.*[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To repeat myself again, creating DropShadoes in PS used to be a laborious process, now it's easy. This does not follow that  I want LR to have Drop Shadows, it was simply an example of more features making life easier.
Not sure why you are raging about LR becoming PS. If you read my post properly, you'd notice I didn't suggest such a thing.
Amongst other things,  drop shadows are very useful for say framing an image, they are not just to add shadows to the contents of image
« Last Edit: April 13, 2008, 10:37:09 AM by jjj » Logged

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

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #66 on: April 13, 2008, 02:52:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
[inserted quote : external soft-proofing suggestion]
wouldn't you want to have access to most of the color tweaking settings of LR while soft proofing in order to get the best out of the image and printer combination?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ditto... At least some global or color-based saturation and tonal controls.

To elaborate a bit, I'd prefer have one tool dealing with most of the workflow. It sounds much more like a logical and wise UI to me than relying on multiple softwares, which could only add more complexity.
Keep it simple, but not TOO simple.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2008, 03:09:24 PM by NikoJorj » Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Roberto Chaves
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50



WWW
« Reply #67 on: April 14, 2008, 02:42:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why so?  Aren't Canon and Nikon in the business of selling cameras and not making money on their software?
Well indirectly they make money on the software on those few people who only use their raw converters, but my feeling (no facts, just my general impression from every forum and photographer I've spoken too) is that most photographers use some third party RAW converter instead of what is supplied with Canon and Nikon.

Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to make a bundle deal with Adobe (as Mamiya has done) and cut their costs in development of their own RAW converter?
This way they could focus on supporting Adobe with any SDKs/utility libraries and get the things more stable and better...


Quote
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...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't see why this should be difficult to do by the camera maker, when they control the firmware in the camera that communicates with their own software on the computer.
If they have problems with this then it's because of bad programmers/engineers, not because it's a difficult task.

That it is difficult to do for a third party, when Nikon or Canon don't supply them with the information, is another thing. Then you might have to reverse engineer and try to guess what the quirks and possible bugs that need a workaround are present in each and every cameras firmware.

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I know and I use this when I shoot tethered.

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably the fault of the camera makers as they probably allocate more resources for windows development than Mac.

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My suggestion, clarified above, was that Canon would make the plugin for LR, meaning it would be 'their own stuff'.
However if Canon's Mac programmers are not good, then it would still work bad.
On the other hand if Canons engineers could focus on this part instead of developing their own RAW converter then things might work better

Quote
I also wouldn't hold your breath for Phase One to pony up and make a tethered plug-in for Lightroom...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course not, unless it would be an interesting business for them (which I doubt).


Quote
Asking for tethered support is fine...but you really must understand what you are asking for.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187741\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe my original question was about plugin support in LR, so that other companies can add features to LR.
One of the suggestions for plugins I gave was tethered and another (which I find more important) would be to have lens correction.
DXO optics already considers they have a simple form of "plugin" for LR, having a propper plugin interface would most probably be very interesting for them and all of LR's users.

To repeat one of my questions.
"Any news if there will be a more advanced plugin support with LR 2.0?"
Logged

Best regards,
 Roberto Chaves
 www.tabi.se
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9166



WWW
« Reply #68 on: April 14, 2008, 02:56:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why so?  Aren't Canon and Nikon in the business of selling cameras and not making money on their software?

You'd think so but they don't act that way.

Quote
...my feeling (no facts, just my general impression from every forum and photographer I've spoken too) is that most photographers use some third party RAW converter instead of what is supplied with Canon and Nikon.

As a photographer, I can say, most of us are cheap <g>. So I suspect the reason we use 3rd party software is because the manufacturers products suck so bad. And yet, ask them to do something reasonable, like allow DNG support in their software, or ask them not to encrypt white balance data and they act like they do sell a software product.

Quote
Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to make a bundle deal with Adobe (as Mamiya has done) and cut their costs in development of their own RAW converter?

Or like the scanner manufactures who bundled Photoshop.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad